Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[otseng]

I'll go ahead and say because of this the agnostic would be more reasonable than an atheist, in the same way atheists think they are more reasonable than Christians. The reason for this is not because of agnostics being all-knowing or arrogant, but rather it's because the PRINCIPLE that agnostics live by. Again, the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas would mean that we use REASON more than the atheists that only applies it to matters of religion.

For debate:
Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[benchwarmer]

How is "I don't know" the least useful position to hold in life? I think rather the opposite is true in many respects. i.e. if I don't know something, perhaps I will strive to actually find out about it and understand it. If on the other hand I simply think I know, I have no reason to find flaw or continue searching.

I want to be sure I understand you. Are you saying that you consider agnosticism (I dont know, I lack belief, etc.) to be a transitional position that one holds for the short term while searching for truth, but not a valid position to settle for or defend long term?

For matters where I lack knowledge, yes. For example, the first time someone told me that letting go of an object above the floor will result in it landing on the floor I was by definition agnostic about that. I could believe whatever I like, but didn't have actual knowledge about what will happen. After performing 'the experiment' of dropping things, I acquired knowledge and was no longer agnostic on letting go of objects over the floor.

Now, I later learned that this phenomenon is due to a force called gravity and this force is not always present in such a strong way i.e. in space, on the moon, etc. At the point of learning of this, I have again become agnostic about dropping things in some situations. I have never been in space or on the moon so I don't have first hand knowledge. I do have plenty of evidence to watch and as a pilot who has done reduced G maneuvers I now have some indirect knowledge about how it would look. However, I'm technically agnostic about dropping objects on the moon and open to updates of knowledge in that area.

I happen to believe that continually searching is a far better position than thinking I have arrived at the right answer and rest in what could very well be a bad position.

If your goal is to avoid arriving at the right answer, then you can never genuinely search for a better position.

? Say what? I never stated my goal was to avoid arriving at the right answer. My point is that continually searching and being open to new knowledge is a better position than resting on what MAY be wrong. I think you missed the word 'could' in what you quoted.

In other words, I'm not dogmatic and closed off to updating my world view if better knowledge is arrived at by engaging in life long learning. For example, at one point I was introduced to helium balloons. All my previous knowledge said that if I let go of this, it will hit the ground. As I watched the balloon head for the sky instead I have discovered something new and must integrate it into my knowledge and try to understand why.

My overall point is that it is far better to have a world view that accepts updates of knowledge that bring one closer to understanding all aspects of our reality rather than remain in dogmatic positions of belief and ignore anything that may lead to destroying those beliefs.

[Bust Nak]

Regarding the claim that atheists apply reason and logic to religion, doesn't reason dictate that there are some things that we (at least at this stage) cannot know? If that is the case, then clearly the far more reasonable position when it comes to God and religion (and more humble position as well) is that one simply does not know. I.e. agnosticism.

Yes, which is why agnostic atheism is the norm amongst atheists.

It seems to me that atheism is the simply the other side of the coin. The flip side to the Fundamentalist when it comes to certainty regarding God and religion. The atheist is dogmatic in his or her denial.

Assuming you meant to qualify atheism here with "gnostic," then sure.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to otseng]

I suppose that depends on how were determine what makes something reasonable. The fewer meaningful things I say, the more I will be able to attack others positions without opining myself up to the same attacks. However, a life where I say and do as little as possible may not be the best kind of life to live.

So I dont know, or I lack belief in that, or You cant prove it, or however you want to phrase it is always going to be the most defensible position to hold in debate and the least useful position to hold in life.

That's more of a negative take on agnosticism. This is why I tell people don't get hung up on agnosticism simply being a label that says, "I don't know". There's also a method or principle to it. The principle not only leads to the shunning all beliefs but the positive aspect of it is that it leads to views that are backed by logic and science. So even an agnostic should have positive claims to defend which are the ones that he or she accepts as logical and/or verifiable.

I should also mention how this principle has benefitted me in debates. Imagine if all politicians placed logic and evidence before political ideologies. Politics would run more effectively, but we don't find that. We also tend not to find that among the Christian vs. atheist debates. A lot of times you just find people trying to prop up their side rather than seeking after truth. I'm not effected by any of these biases. As such I'm less prone to have any extreme views. I'm more likely to spot assumptions. I'm more likely to see alternative conclusions. I'm more likely to see the truth that both sides may have. I may even be able to reconcile both views, as I've done in the polarized sides of the covid-19 debate. Some then might be tempted to say that AGNOSTICS are the best thinkers and reasoners (debaters, as well), but I'd rather say that we follow the best principle that is suited for debate. Again, atheists are NOT as reasonable since they are hindered by their pre-existing ideologies and beliefs.

[Bust Nak]

There's also a method or principle to it. The principle not only leads to the shunning all beliefs but the positive aspect of it is that it leads to views that are backed by logic and science. So even an agnostic should have positive claims to defend which are the ones that he or she accepts as logical and/or verifiable...

I'd rather say that we follow the best principle that is suited for debate.

That's just the rationalism. Agnostics don't own that.

atheists are NOT as reasonable since they are hindered by their pre-existing ideologies and beliefs.

The same goes for agnostics.

[AgnosticBoy]

atheists are NOT as reasonable since they are hindered by their pre-existing ideologies and beliefs.

The same goes for agnostics.

Not true. The reason I say atheists have beliefs is because they only lack belief in one area. Those like you (liberals) choose to hold beliefs on matters not involving religion. These beliefs hinder reason or they're not justified by it. Agnostics shun beliefs on all matters.

[Bust Nak]

Not true. The reason I say atheists have beliefs is because they only lack belief in one area. Those like you (liberals) choose to hold beliefs on matters not involving religion.

Again, that applies to agnostics also. Agnostics have beliefs because they only shun belief in one area. Those like you (independents) hold beliefs on matters not involving religion, such as the belief that the economy should be balanced with limiting the spread of Covid-19. These beliefs hinder reason or they're not justified by it. Insisting that agnostics shun beliefs on all matters is a non starter.

A minor point, I don't choose to hold any beliefs. I hold them because I am convinced, no choice involved.

[William]

[Replying to post 36 by Bust Nak]

Agnostics have beliefs because they only shun belief in one area.

William: What beliefs does agnosticism form and what is the one belief shunned?

[William]

There's also a method or principle to it. The principle not only leads to the shunning all beliefs but the positive aspect of it is that it leads to views that are backed by logic and science. So even an agnostic should have positive claims to defend which are the ones that he or she accepts as logical and/or verifiable...

I'd rather say that we follow the best principle that is suited for debate.

That's just the rationalism. Agnostics don't own that.

atheists are NOT as reasonable since they are hindered by their pre-existing ideologies and beliefs.

The same goes for agnostics.

William: It is not often one gets to see an atheist admit - albeit indirectly - that they are hindered by their pre-existing ideologies and beliefs.

[AgnosticBoy]

Not true. The reason I say atheists have beliefs is because they only lack belief in one area. Those like you (liberals) choose to hold beliefs on matters not involving religion.

Again, that applies to agnostics also. Agnostics have beliefs because they only shun belief in one area. Those like you (independents) hold beliefs on matters not involving religion, such as the belief that the economy should be balanced with limiting the spread of Covid-19. These beliefs hinder reason or they're not justified by it. Insisting that agnostics shun beliefs on all matters is a non starter.

A minor point, I don't choose to hold any beliefs. I hold them because I am convinced, no choice involved.

The economy can be balanced with limiting covid-19 deaths. I used logic and evidence to make my case. That's a fact, not a belief.

Again, I have NO beliefs.

[Bust Nak]

The economy can be balanced with limiting covid-19 deaths. I used logic and evidence to make my case. That's a fact, not a belief.

These are not mutually exclusive terms. I believe in lots of facts. But semantics aside, as that's been discussed to death in that other thread...

Again, I have NO beliefs.

Read more carefully, I said you believe the economy should be balanced with limiting covid-19 death. Logic and evidence alone cannot get you to that conclusion.