To atheists: How about this - Agnostic atheism shouldn’t be a thing *in a rational debate forum*.

Would the people here who prefer the lacking belief definition be willing to yield on the definition, and make this concession in the interests of having more productive debates? If not, why not?

Very simply because I do not want to make that claim. There are people coming at me saying that there are an odd number of gum balls in the jar.

I am saying "I don't think you can rationally believe it"

And you are saying "well you should concede and claim that there is an even amount to have a productive conversation.

Debates run better when you are talking about one proposition at a time. One person arguing for a god and one arguing there are no gods is two separate propositions compared to the original concept.

So, I'm sorry that you feel the way that you do, but I will not fundamentally change my position to help people debate me better.

/r/DebateReligion Thread