Atheists cannot be Agnostic at the same time.

Since Pro did not specify the structure of this debate, I will present my arguments against the resolution before proceeding to rebut Pro's arguments. The resolution is straightforward: "Atheists cannot be Agnostic at the same time. " However, I contend that atheists can not only be agnostic, but must be agnostic. I believe that the two terms are not mutually exclusive. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Possibility for Atheists to be Agnostic: Let's begin by defining the two terms. According to Atheism . org, "Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. " [1] According to the Meriam - Webster Online Dictionary, An agnostic is "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not. " [2] Now, comparing these two terms, it becomes clear that there is overlap. This is good news for my position. The phrases "lack of belief" (atheist) and "a person who does not have a definite belief" are very similar. The only difference is the degree of disbelief. Both groups doubt a supreme deity's existence. But does this mean that one cannot be the other, and vice versa? Of course not! Here's what Austin Cline, an expert in atheism and agnosticism, says: "Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure " in other words, they may be an agnostic as well. " [3] Because there is overlap, there exists the possibility for an atheist to be an agnostic, and vice versa. Moreover, some might oscillate between the two positions depending on how they feel on the issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. The Necessity for Atheists to be Agnostic: No atheist can definitively say that God does not exist. Such a statement would be absolute which, as any honest atheist will admit, is unprovable. After all, it is logically impossible to verify a negative! However unlikely, God's existence is still granted to be a possibility by leading atheists: 1. Brian Greene has stated that God might exist. [4] 2. Richard Dawkins has stated that he is a "de facto atheist" - meaning that he is slightly agnostic. [5] 3. Sam Harris has stated that he doesn't know everything, that spirituality is possible. [6] Based on these three forefront atheists, it is certain that agnosticism is not only possible for atheists, but also a necessity in order to be intellectually honest and factually accurate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Refutation of Pro's arguments: Pro delivered three complex arguments to support his/her case. Let me now dismantle them one by one. 1. "Agnosticism is not the position of 'I don't know. ' That's just . . . ignorance. Agnosticism is the position [that] 'it is not possible to know. '" Well, according to Professor Richard Dawkins' Scale of Religiosity, that claim is decidedly incorrect. There is a spectrum of belief from the theist, to the agnostic, and to the atheist. By definition, agnosticism means - literally - "no knowledge". It is absurd to remove a word from its actual meaning for the sake of convenience. Agnosticism is ignorance. Pro is trying to re-invent an established word. Moreover, professional atheists disagree with Pro Thus, given that Pro offered no sources in defense of his argument, I claim superior credibility with mine. 2. "If one disclaims knowledge . . . then they have made the first portion of their position of null effect. No? " First of all, huh? I am utterly confused. I could not follow this incoherent argument. Secondly, no. Saying "I don't believe in God" does not nullify the statement "I don't know if God exists" because they logically follow as a syllogism. They are by no means contradictory. In fact, as previously established, they are complementary. Ex. of syllogism: Major premise: God's existence requires knowledge in order to believe. Minor premise: I don't know if God exists. Conclusion: Therefore, I do not believe in God. See? The logic flows perfectly! No problem. 3. "If the absence of evidence is your reason . . . You believe its possible to know if God exists. Therefore, [agnostics] are by definition not agnostic, by any true sense of the word. " Hmmm. .. This is an original argument. But I think I have a convincing counterargument. The agnostic and atheist alike doubt that any evidence exists in support of God. Until evidence is presented, it is impossible to know if God exists. This goes against your claim that an "absence of evidence" view means that one has to belief that it is possible to know God. The truth is exactly the opposite. Until evidence is presented, it is impossible to know if God exists. Thus, agnostics remain agnostics according to the true definition of the word. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for reading! I look forward to Round 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCES: [1] . http://atheists.org... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]. http://atheism.about.com... [4] [5] [6]