The Debating Hall

[cottage]

In the Debating Hall today: theism v atheism.

The Chairman declares the meeting open:

‘Ladies and gentlemen may I introduce the group on my left, those making the case for theism.’

<audience politely claps>

‘And on my right may I introduce the group that are here to argue for atheism.’

<audience politely claps>

‘First of we’ll ask those on my left to present their argument for….’ (an assistant interrupts and whispers to the Chairman)

Chairman: ‘Oh…er…and apparently in the centre we also have another group that doesn’t know what can be known but knows that they cannot know it for sure’.

Assistant passes the Chairman a note received from the group in the centre.

Chairman: <reads the note aloud>: ‘It should be made clear that as agnostics we don’t believe anything is known or knowable beyond the material world.’

Chairman’s announcement: ‘Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience, but before we continue with the debate might I ask those of you on my right to shuffle up a bit so that our friends in the centre can join you?’

 

[Knowledge]

As for classical debate - it most likely will summarize itself in the end where one party is wrong and the other is correct.

 

[Valjean]

eschewing belief for lack of evidence is different from a positive assertion that a thing is unknowable.
Gentlemen on the right, please keep your seats.

 

[Willamena]

More properly, they should simply be excused from the debate unless they are going to take a seat on the left or right. Their grievance is outside the topic.

Edit: Speaking of which, the topic of the debate should properly be theism. The ones on the left take a side "for," and the ones on the right take a side "against"; technically, they cannot argue "for atheism" as there is nothing to argue.

 

[cottage]

Most people, I think, will have seen the ‘Debating Hall’ for what it was: a tongue-in-cheek piece of nonsense; but, if not, then I hope the underlying premise wasn’t overlooked, which is that claims to knowledge made by theists cannot be verified thus there is no material difference twixt the agnostic and the atheist (other than the atheist usually being the more militant advocate). One can also tease out a possible distinction where an agnostic deviates from the principle in order to allow that certain knowledge might at some point be possible, ie that the supposed truths of theism or whatever might yet obtain, an unfortunate position that presupposes the existence of the thing that cannot be known to exist, which brings it closer to, but is not to be identified with, theistic or mystical belief-as-faith.

 

[Willamena]

Most people, I think, will have seen the &#8216;Debating Hall&#8217; for what it was: a tongue-in-cheek piece of nonsense; but, if not, then I hope the underlying premise wasn&#8217;t overlooked, which is that claims to knowledge made by theists cannot be verified thus there is no material difference twixt the agnostic and the atheist (other than the atheist usually being the more militant advocate).

Does the atheist make a claim to knowledge? Or rather to "god/s"?

One can also tease out a possible distinction where an agnostic deviates from the principle in order to allow that certain knowledge might at some point be possible, ie that the supposed truths of theism or whatever might yet obtain, an unfortunate position that presupposes the existence of the thing that cannot be known to exist, which brings it closer to, but is not to be identified with, theistic or mystical belief-as-faith.

Do you refer to "we don&#8217;t believe anything is known or knowable beyond the material world" as if it allows for knowledge beyond the material world? I don't read it that way: it allows for knowledge only of the material world.

 

[cottage]

Does the atheist make a claim to knowledge? Or rather to "god/s"?


Do you refer to "we don’t believe anything is known or knowable beyond the material world" as if it allows for knowledge beyond the material world? I don't read it that way: it allows for knowledge only of the material world.

To clarify: We only know stuff in the material world to be probable, and from a position of probability we cannot make claims to certainty about other worlds. Thus gods, or transcendent beings, find themselves confined within the bounds of the same uncertain world of form and matter. But that is not to be understood as a law-like pronouncement to the effect that only material things can exist, for we can conceive almost anything by compounding ideas and images from experience, but every exploration into the unknown returns us to where we started out because nothing in experience can be demonstrated.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Do you know what bothers me most about this whole setup? It's rigged. It's not fair, and I'm very upset about it. Who voted to have this debate take place on the Death Star? There's a conspiracy here, I just know it.

 

[cottage]

Do you know what bothers me most about this whole setup? It's rigged. It's not fair, and I'm very upset about it. Who voted to have this debate take place on the Death Star? There's a conspiracy here, I just know it.

Yep! You know it, and I know it, but there is no way we can prove it.:run: