agnostic beats atheist

The Pro side first asserts that "belief=love. " However, simple examples such as the Crusades and the Inquisition can easily show that is not always the case. The Pro side then says that "atheism is disbelief. " However, this is objectively incorrect. Atheism is not disbelief ""it is a lack of belief. The two have a very important distinction, which is explained nicely here: lackofbelief. com "The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist. For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take: I believe Santa is coming to town I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so. " This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now. " This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear: I KNOW that Santa is coming to town I don't know that Santa is coming to town I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief. This often leads theists, which frequently are making a positive claim to knowledge about the existence of gods, to ask a question in which an atheist replies coloquially, "There are no gods. " Understandably, from the perspective of the theist, the atheist has just made a claim to knowledge which can then be followed by a theist's request for proof. However, because the atheist's true meaning was in the context of belief and not knowledge, a misunderstanding is created. When the atheist states that the burden of proof is on the theist and the atheist doesn't have anything to prove, the conversation declines. Because of the atheist's miscommunication, the theist now feels justified in their belief that the atheist is simply making claims to knowledge on faith, just like he/she is. On the other hand, the atheist gets increasingly frustrated that the theist does not understand where the burden of proof lies and feels justified in their belief that the theist is simply avoiding the question because they have no proof. " The Pro then states that "non belief/lack of belief" = agnostic. However, as I have stated in my previous argument, agnostic means that one claims they cannot know whether a supernatural being exists " therefore, it is not a "lack of belief". The pro then asserts that "the disbelief position is the no position as i said, there is no, maybe no god is not real position" which still does not show why "agnosticism beats atheism. " Thus, the pro side has failed to show why his claim has veracity the burden is on him, and thus the Con side wins.