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?

[AgnosticBoy]

Explain why the view that we "should" open the economy is a belief.

Before I do that, I think you owe it to me to explain what on Earth you think this thought is. I spent the best part of a week challenging you on that, you've told me often enough it's not a belief. Is it a view? If so then why wasn't it included in post#91?

Sure. Saying that the economy can be open while limiting covid-19 deaths is based on two goals. If the two goals are to limit covid-19 deaths and limit harming the economy then the economy should be opened. I saw no meaningful difference between saying the economy can be open and the context that I used the word should.

I made it clear way before post 91 that I was not referring to should based on any moral or belief context.

As I bought up earlier in our conversation, even way before post 91, I'm not referring to should an any personal or moral context.'ve used should in the context of a goal, as in if the goal is to limit damage to the economy, then we should open the economy...

Yes, that fine, it's not a moral "should" but a goal-orientated "should." I head you the first time round.

Are you ready to debate this one on one?

[Bust Nak]

Sure. Saying that the economy can be open while limiting covid-19 deaths is based on two goals. If the two goals are to limit covid-19 deaths and limit harming the economy then the economy should be opened.

I still don't understand what you are saying. Are these two views or one? What does goals have to do with whether the economy can be opened or not? That's like saying I can bench press 200lb if the goal is to lose weight. So suddenly my ability to bench press just drop off, if I no longer want to lose weight?

So you are ready to debate this one on one, correct?

Sure, but I want to do it in the causal format, i.e. just like how we've been debating so far. None of that open statement then rebuttal business.

[AgnosticBoy]

Sure. Saying that the economy can be open while limiting covid-19 deaths is based on two goals. If the two goals are to limit covid-19 deaths and limit harming the economy then the economy should be opened.

I still don't understand what you are saying. Are these two views or one? What does goals have to do with whether the economy can be opened or not? That's like saying I can bench press 200lb if the goal is to lose weight. So suddenly my ability to bench press just drop off, if I no longer want to lose weight?

Both views are not much different from each other. The difference is just more wording. But of course the reason why I'm saying that the economy can be open is because the goal that we can do so while keeping covid-19 deaths low at the same time. You really didn't know that?

In the case of your bench press example it would be like saying if the goal is to get stronger or be able to bench press 200 pounds then I should bench press 200 pounds. Doing so would accomplish the goal.

ready to debate this one on one, correct?

Sure, but I want to do it in the causal format, i.e. just like how we've been debating so far. None of that open statement then rebuttal business.

It's got to be in the head-to-head section. I'm not sure why you want to do it in the casual format but I would need to fully spell out my argument and our positions. Then I also want expedited moderating intervention for unsubstantiated claims.

[Bust Nak]

Both views are not much different from each other. The difference is just more wording. But of course the reason why I'm saying that the economy can be open is because the goal that we can do so while keeping covid-19 deaths low at the same time. You really didn't know that?

No, it made no sense and still doesn't:

In the case of your bench press example it would be like saying if the goal is to get stronger or be able to bench press 200 pounds then I should bench press 200 pounds. Doing so would accomplish the goal.

If I couldn't already bench press 200lb, then the should is irrelevant since I couldn't do it even if I wanted to. If I could already bench press 200lb, then the should is irrelevant since I could do it regardless of whether I should or not.

Try another example:

My car can reach 210kph if my goal is to get from New york to Philadelphia in an hour. What if my goal is a isn't that? Does the top speed of my car changes, now it can no longer do 210?

It's got to be in the head-to-head section. I'm not sure why you want to do it in the casual format but I would need to fully spell out my argument and our positions. Then I also want expedited moderating intervention for unsubstantiated claims.

That's fine. You do it how you like. I would respond to it as I am responding now, I am giving you advance notice just so I don't get any complains about style.

[AgnosticBoy]

In the case of your bench press example it would be like saying if the goal is to get stronger or be able to bench press 200 pounds then I should bench press 200 pounds. Doing so would accomplish the goal.

If I couldn't already bench press 200lb, then the should is irrelevant since I couldn't do it even if I wanted to. If I could already bench press 200lb, then the should is irrelevant since I could do it regardless of whether I should or not.

I don't see where you factored in a "goal". Goals are set to be met. If the goal is for you to bench 200 pounds, then until you do it you have not accomplished that goal. To accomplish the goal, you "should" do it. Getting back to the economy again. If the goal is to limit damage to it while also keeping covid-19 deaths low, then the economy should be opened while doing risk based isolations. That would accomplish that goal. Of course, should implies that you can, and I have logic and evidence that it can be done. If goals are to be met, then it should be done, otherwise you're not meeting the goal.

How could you set a goal and say that it should not be met if the object of a goal is that it's met?

It's got to be in the head-to-head section. I'm not sure why you want to do it in the casual format but I would need to fully spell out my argument and our positions. Then I also want expedited moderating intervention for unsubstantiated claims.

That's fine. You do it how you like. I would respond to it as I am responding now, I am giving you advance notice just so I don't get any complains about style.

Did the above explanation help? I ask because I don't want to get into a debate just to find out that we agree all along or that we're just arguing out of a misunderstanding of each other's positions.

If I get into the debate to support the following view:
If the goal is to open the economy while limiting deaths, then the economy should be opened while doing risk-based isolations.


All I will have to show is how that goal can be met.

Edit: After getting a 2nd opinion, the "should" part may even be easier if all I gotta do is refer to the definition of "goal" to show that it is something that is meant to be met. So if the goal is to open the economy, then opening it would accomplish that goal. There, I win!!! (but I'm willing to challenge myself more and explain with logic and evidence HOW or WHY it can be met).

[Bust Nak]

I don't see where you factored in a "goal". Goals are set to be met. If the goal is for you to bench 200 pounds, then until you do it you have not accomplished that goal. To accomplish the goal, you "should" do it.

Right, but either you cannot bench 200lb, which means the should bench 200lb is irrelevant; or you can bench 200lb, which means the should is redundant, since you are already at the goal of benching 200lb. In that example the "should" is the same as the goal - benching 200lb.

Getting back to the economy again. If the goal is to limit damage to it while also keeping covid-19 deaths low, then the economy should be opened while doing risk based isolations. That would accomplish that goal.

Right, and I am saying whether it is possible to keep the economy open while doing risk based isolations, have no bearing on the above. If it is possible to keep it open while doing risk based isolations, then it is the case that keeping the economy while doing risk based isolations would achieve that goal; if it is impossible to keep it open while doing risk based isolations, then it is still the case that keeping the economy while doing risk based isolations would achieve that goal.

Of course, should implies that you can, and I have logic and evidence that it can be done. If goals are to be met, then it should be done, otherwise you're not meeting the goal.

That's the point - should is only relevant when it is possible, and whether you can or not has no bearing on whether you should or not.

How could you set a goal and say that it should not be met if the object of a goal is that it's met?

Don't know. What does that has to do with what is or isn't possible?

Did the above explanation help? I ask because I don't want to get into a debate just to find out that we agree all along or that we're just arguing out of a misunderstanding of each other's positions.

No, the above did not help. But the next bit does help frame the discussion.

If the goal is to open the economy while limiting deaths, then the economy should be opened while doing risk-based isolations.

All I will have to show is how that goal can be met...

This bit make sense, but it's quite a bit different from "if the goal is to be able to bench press 200lb then I should bench press 200lb" you suggested before. It's more like "if the goal is to be able to bench press 200lb then you should do weight training." Still not seeing what this has to do with whether I can weight train or not; or what the above has to do with whether the economy can be opened while doing risk-based isolations or not.

After getting a 2nd opinion, the "should" part may even be easier if all I gotta do is refer to the definition of "goal" to show that it is something that is meant to be met. So if the goal is to open the economy, then opening it would accomplish that goal.

What I am really getting at, is for you to defend this concept of "meant to be" with only logic and evidence. From where I am sitting, what is and isn't "meant to be" is trivially an opinion/belief.

[AgnosticBoy]

After getting a 2nd opinion, the "should" part may even be easier if all I gotta do is refer to the definition of "goal" to show that it is something that is meant to be met. So if the goal is to open the economy, then opening it would accomplish that goal.

What I am really getting at, is for you to defend this concept of "meant to be" with only logic and evidence. From where I am sitting, what is and isn't "meant to be" is trivially an opinion/belief.

Well it's meant to be met per the definition of "goal". That's why I said goals are set to be met. So the only way I'll be debating a statement involving "should" is by showing how the goal is met - how the economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

I don't see where you factored in a "goal". Goals are set to be met. If the goal is for you to bench 200 pounds, then until you do it you have not accomplished that goal. To accomplish the goal, you "should" do it.

Right, but either you cannot bench 200lb, which means the should bench 200lb is irrelevant; or you can bench 200lb, which means the should is redundant, since you are already at the goal of benching 200lb. In that example the "should" is the same as the goal - benching 200lb.

Getting back to the economy again. If the goal is to limit damage to it while also keeping covid-19 deaths low, then the economy should be opened while doing risk based isolations. That would accomplish that goal.

Right, and I am saying whether it is possible to keep the economy open while doing risk based isolations, have no bearing on the above. If it is possible to keep it open while doing risk based isolations, then it is the case that keeping the economy while doing risk based isolations would achieve that goal; if it is impossible to keep it open while doing risk based isolations, then it is still the case that keeping the economy while doing risk based isolations would achieve that goal.

Of course, should implies that you can, and I have logic and evidence that it can be done. If goals are to be met, then it should be done, otherwise you're not meeting the goal.

That's the point - should is only relevant when it is possible, and whether you can or not has no bearing on whether you should or not.

How could you set a goal and say that it should not be met if the object of a goal is that it's met?

Don't know. What does that has to do with what is or isn't possible?

Did the above explanation help? I ask because I don't want to get into a debate just to find out that we agree all along or that we're just arguing out of a misunderstanding of each other's positions.

No, the above did not help. But the next bit does help frame the discussion.

If the goal is to open the economy while limiting deaths, then the economy should be opened while doing risk-based isolations.

All I will have to show is how that goal can be met...

This bit make sense, but it's quite a bit different from "if the goal is to be able to bench press 200lb then I should bench press 200lb" you suggested before. It's more like "if the goal is to be able to bench press 200lb then you should do weight training." Still not seeing what this has to do with whether I can weight train or not; or what the above has to do with whether the economy can be opened while doing risk-based isolations or not.

[AgnosticBoy]

After getting a 2nd opinion, the "should" part may even be easier if all I gotta do is refer to the definition of "goal" to show that it is something that is meant to be met. So if the goal is to open the economy, then opening it would accomplish that goal.

What I am really getting at, is for you to defend this concept of "meant to be" with only logic and evidence. From where I am sitting, what is and isn't "meant to be" is trivially an opinion/belief.

Per definition, goals are meant to be met. The only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal. You open it so that the goal is met.

Is my view above a belief?

[Bust Nak]

Per definition, goals are meant to be met. The only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal. You open it so that the goal is met.

Is my view above a belief?

Lets see shall we? We've already established that getting to "that is the goal" requires more than just logic and evidence. You formulated that goal with premises such as "I like having a good job." When I challenged you on that earlier, you said goals are not propositional, so how is that conditional statement coherent? If X then Y. The X here needs to be a proposition.

While we are here, you also denied saying "the economy should be open is because I like having a good job." Looks like there is just an extra intermediate step - this is the goal, between the economy should be open and I like having a good job. Adding that intermediate step is enough to separate your feelings from opening the economy?

[AgnosticBoy]

Per definition, goals are meant to be met. The only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal. You open it so that the goal is met.

Is my view above a belief?

Lets see shall we? We've already established that getting to "that is the goal" requires more than just logic and evidence.

I did not say that is the goal, I've said if that is the goal. You're also not addressing the view that I asked you about. Does this constitute a belief:
"The only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal. "

You formulated that goal with premises such as "I like having a good job." When I challenged you on that earlier, you said goals are not propositional, so how is that conditional statement coherent?

You're not referring to the view that I just bought up. Instead you're bringing up another view.

Either way, saying that I like something is not a proposition. It's personal taste and you could even call it a feeling towards having a good job.

If X then Y. The X here needs to be a proposition.

Please cite where I made the statement that you're referring to.

While you are here, you also denied saying "the economy should be open is because I like having a good job." Looks like there is just an extra intermediate step - this is the goal, between the economy should be open and I like having a good job. Adding that intermediate step is enough to separate your feelings from opening the economy?

No, I can admit that my feelings played a role initially. But once I got logic and evidence, and those two alone prove my case, then there's no more need for feelings or even beliefs. The view than becomes a fact.

Does this constitute a belief...
"The only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal. "