Argument 1:
I would like to begin by saying that some, like Pro, take the position that atheism is not the most logical approach to the existence of Gods while agnosticism is. This view is
contradictory. The terms "Atheism" and "agnosticism" are not
mutually exclusive. Both ideologies have opinions on the concepts of deities. Atheism, by definition, lacks belief in Gods, while agnosticism is the position that belief in said Gods cannot be proven. Therefore, someone can be
both agnostic and atheist at the same time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Contrary to the pro's claim. Atheism is not only a very logical position to take, but it is so logical that it can fit within the framework of other equally valid positions such as agnosticism, which Pro themselves acknowledge as a logical position to take.
Argument 2:
Pro claims that being logical leads to being factual and thus agnosticism is "100" percent factual. However, this claim is nothing more than a logical fallacy on Pro's part. Logic and fact are not always in agreement of each other. It may be true that logical reasoning can at times lead to factual conclusions. Nevertheless, there are also times where logical arguments can be based on false premises. Additionally, Agnosticism itself is an ideology that centers on the uncertainty of its principles and lack of factual information. Thus, to claim that agnostics are factual in their beliefs with no margin for error goes against the very idea of being agnostic.
Argument 3:
One of the major themes of Pro's argument seems to be that they think atheism takes the position that we (atheists) know for fact Gods are not real and thus require proof of it. However, this understanding of atheism is wrong. The atheistic position on God is to simply not believe one is real.
The only reason theists and people like Pro take issue with this framework is because their understanding of the world is: "Believe something is true, then justify it with logic, then it must be true." However, atheists operate in a completely different framework. Our framework is, "Be skeptical of everything, wait until something can be proven, and if it is proven, then believe it."
So, it is not that atheists take the position of knowledge and thus have the burden of proof. It that we doubt everything at first before we give something a chance whereas others presume things to be true before seeing the evidence. Thus, they carry the burden of proof, and they can't prove their Gods at this current time. Atheists are in fact completely justified in their stance as it is the same framework that the American justice system takes when it comes to fighting crime.
Does the law assume you are guilty before your day in court? No, in fact it requires that you be proven to have committed a crime. Most of us would not disagree with the framework that a person's guilt must be proven and never assumed. Therefore. if you subscribe to the logic that the existence of guilt must be securitized and validated before you believe it, you cannot say atheists are illogical for saying the same thing about God.
rebuttal's:
So because this agnostic is operating solely from facts, what one does know and can know , it leaves the agnostic in a neutral position or the "I don't know" position. Not swayed to believe there is no existence of any god. Not swayed to believe there is an existence of any god.
One cannot operate on "Facts" if their position is also that they do not know anything. Pro has to decide if he's saying that agnostics operate on fact because their beliefs IE that God is unknown, and unknowable is true. In which case, they are proving atheism is indeed a logical position to take since it doesn't go against the line of thinking. Or if he's saying that agnostics are instead operating on the premise of ignorance, which would mean they aren't operating on facts and atheism would again be just as valid since atheism operates on a position of ignorance as well.
The agnostic is not swayed either way. When asking the agnostics, do they believe in any god? They say they don't know.
Ask them do they lack a belief in any god?
They say, "I don't know" because they're in a neutral position.
This argument is only true if you are talking to self-identifying agnostics ONLY. However, since their agnostic theists and atheists in the world, it is false to say that agnosticism is a totally neutral position.
Now I've heard it argued that the "I don't know" position is irrational. Perhaps the opposing side will elaborate on this portion being in the negative. The way facts work and evidence, when there is no evidence for something, you know not of that something being true. In this case, to opt not to believe is influenced by something other than facts presented. It is not the default position.
While I agree that taking the position, "I do not know" is not an irrational position in of itself, that's a point Pro was better off not mentioning. Neither atheists nor agnostics claim to know if God is real or not. It is in fact theists who take the position of knowledge and would indeed find the idea of claiming to not know if God is real to be irrational.
Conclusion:
Pro's argument against atheism is extremely weak and contradictory. They are arguing that both agnosticism and atheism are two different ideologies when that is not entirely true. Furthermore, they try to argue that agnostics are a superior in ideology to atheists because they are somehow factual despite pro also admitting that agnostics, like atheists, take the position of not knowing any Gods to be real. Atheism is a very logical position to take and is not in conflict with agnosticism.
