Agnostic Viewpoint

Thank you starting the debate. As an Atheist, I'll be arguing from the standpoint of Atheism. Now, since this resolution is simply "Agnostic Viewpoint" with no other clauses, we must assume that my opponent is simply affirming the superiority of the Agnosticism to other systems of beliefs (or non-beliefs). So, since I am arguing from the standpoint of Atheism, my burden in this debate should be to prove why Agnosticism does not hold superiority over Atheism. Since this can be a touchier subject, I'll ask that no one get offended if I wind up saying something against what you believe. I apologize in advance. First, I'll refute one of the ideas in your case. You claim that all "explanations", including scientific viewpoints, are based off of assumption. (I'd like to take this time to point out that I do not have to prove any scientific theory here. I am only attmepting to refute his point by showing how it is not all based off of assumption. But even if this attack doesn't flow though, you'll still have reasons to vote CON as I'm still arguing from the viewpoint of Atheism, which doesn't necessarily accept science.) While I admit that some science makes use of assumption, you're not being fair to say that it's all based off of that. Take the Big Bang Theory. Believe in it or not, it came from simple deduction. We've noticed that the Universe is constantly expanding. We now from empircal research that in order to be in motion, an object must be acted upon. We can also deduce taht since the Universe is expanding, it must have been less expansive at one point. This leads us to the Big Bang Theory, where the Universe is more compact and a force (in this case, an explosion), set it in motion to start expanding. This is scientific theory based off of empirical research and deduction. Look at another theoyr, such as the Theory of Gravity. We notice that objects tend to attract one another. It is a weak force, but it is there. We also notice that larger objects, such as planets, seem to exert a greater force on any given object. So we get Gravity. Another scientific viewpoint based off of empirical observation, not assumption. Now, moving on to the main premise of my case. Atheism is not inferior to Agnosticism as you, by rule of thumb, always default to the negative. You claim yourself that all of these explanations are based on basically faith. No afctual proof. If you accept that, then I argue Russell's Teapot; the burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic. If you are agnostic about religious beliefs, then you should also be agnostic about pink unicorns, dragons, and any other mythical creature. No one can prove their existence, but you can't disprove their existence, either. You see, Agnosticism is the belief that something might be, and it might not be. That there is no proof either way. But just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean you should believe that it might be. You should only believe that something might be when you see some proof for it. Thus, Atheism is not inferior to Agnosticism, as it automatically takes on the negative and only believes that things might be when proof is given. The thing to always remember is that the burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic. It is not an assumption to default to the negative when no proof for a postive exists. I have fulfilled my burden as the CON debater, and I await my opponent's rebuttal.