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?

[Bust Nak]

I did not say that is the goal, I've said if that is the goal.

Ah huh, but what does that have to do with what I said? We've already established that getting to "that is the goal" requires more than just logic and evidence, this is true whether you said "that is the goal" or not.

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. "

Challenging you as to the coherence of your statement, doesn't count as addressing it?

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

Incorrect. I am referring to the statement "The only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal." Whether you hold the view that "that is the goal" or not is irrelevant to my challenge.

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.

Right, so is "that is the goal" a propositional or not?

Before you go off on a red herring again, let me repeat: whether you said "that is the goal" or not, has no bearing on whether "that is the goal" is propositional or not. And whether this is propositional or not, is important in determining the nature of "the only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal." As I said for if X then Y to be coherent, X needs to be a proposition.

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

Here: "The only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal." You've repeat this statement elsewhere, sometimes phrased differently, would you like more links?

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.

Right, and as I ask days ago, how would that work on views that cannot, even in principle, be back up by logic and evidence alone?

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

Don't know, we haven't even established if this is a coherent statement or not.

[AgnosticBoy]

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

Incorrect. I am referring to the statement "The only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal." Whether you hold the view that "that is the goal" or not is irrelevant to my challenge.

I was referring to the part where you brought up me liking my job. That's a different view than what I just posted.

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.

Right, so is "that is the goal" a propositional or not?

A conditional, such as If that is the goal, is not a statement or proposition by itself.

Before you go off on a red herring again, let me repeat: whether you said "that is the goal" or not, has no bearing on whether "that is the goal" is propositional or not. And whether this is propositional or not, is important in determining the nature of "the only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal." As I said for if X then Y to be coherent, X needs to be a proposition.

I wasn't trying to formulate an if/then statement. To get my full view, you need to take the entire point (some 2 or 3 sentences of it) into account. Try this one:
If the goal is to limit damage to the economy and keep low death count, then the economy should be open. (Then I'd have to explain why or how opening the economy and doing risk-based isolations would help achieve that goal )

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.

Right, and as I ask days ago, how would that work on views that cannot, even in principle, be back up by logic and evidence alone?

I remain agnostic.

[Bust Nak]

I was referring to the part where you brought up me liking my job. That's a different view than what I just posted.

Same thing applies, whether you like your job or not, have no bearing on whether you like you job is a propositional statement or not.

A conditional, such as If that is the goal, is not a statement or proposition by itself.

Not what I asked you, instead I asked you whether "that is the goal" is a propositional statement or not. I asked because if that is the goal then we should do this is only coherent when "that is the goal" is a proposition.

I wasn't trying to formulate an if/then statement.

Then what on Earth is this statement "The only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal" supposed to be if not an if/then statement?

To get my full view, you need to take the entire point (some 2 or 3 sentences of it) into account. Try this one:
If the goal is to limit damage to the economy and keep low death count, then the economy should be open. (Then I'd have to explain why or how opening the economy and doing risk-based isolations would help achieve that goal )

Ah huh, I don't see how that stops it from being an if/then statement. Is "the goal is to limit damage to the economy and keep low death count" a propositional statement?

I remain agnostic.

You hold the view yet remain agnostic? Does that not qualify as a belief?

[AgnosticBoy]

A conditional, such as If that is the goal, is not a statement or proposition by itself.

Not what I asked you, instead I asked you whether "that is the goal" is a propositional statement or not. I asked because if that is the goal then we should do this is only coherent when "that is the goal" is a proposition.

It's not.

Answer me this. Is someone who uses reason in all areas more reasonable than an atheist who uses it towards one area?

I wasn't trying to formulate an if/then statement.

Then what on Earth is this statement "The only reason I say the economy should be open is IF that is the goal" supposed to be if not an if/then statement?

It was a continuation of the previous sentence. You took it out of context.

To get my full view, you need to take the entire point (some 2 or 3 sentences of it) into account. Try this one:
If the goal is to limit damage to the economy and keep low death count, then the economy should be open. (Then I'd have to explain why or how opening the economy and doing risk-based isolations would help achieve that goal )

Ah huh, I don't see how that stops it from being an if/then statement. Is "the goal is to limit damage to the economy and keep low death count" a propositional statement?

No. Conditional statements by themselves are not propositions.

I remain agnostic.

You hold the view yet remain agnostic? Does that not qualify as a belief?

If I hold a view it's because I have logic and evidence for it. If I don't have logic and evidence for it then I simply say I don't know. Can you show me where I've done otherwise

Answer this. Is a person who uses reason in all areas more reasonable than an atheist who only uses reason towards religion?

[Bust Nak]

It's not.

Then your statement is incoherent.

Answer me this. Is someone who uses reason in all areas more reasonable than an atheist who uses it towards one area?

Sure.

It was a continuation of the previous sentence. You took it out of context.

I don't see how your full context is supposed to different from what I said other than being more wordy. See a) below, the same question applies.

No. Conditional statements by themselves are not propositions.

a) Again, not what I asked you. Is "the goal is to limit damage to the economy and keep low death count" a propositional statement, note the lack of if/then in that statement. And just in case, whether you hold the view that "the goal is to limit damage to the economy and keep low death count" or not is irrelevant to my challenge. At the top you seemed to have indicated that it is not. Which would make your view "If the goal is to limit damage to the economy and keep low death count, then the economy should be open. (Then I'd have to explain why or how opening the economy and doing risk-based isolations would help achieve that goal)" incoherent.

b) By "conditional statements by themselves" you are referring to the conditional clauses of conditional statements, right? I ask because conditional statements are clearly propositional statements, whether by themselves or in conjunction with other statements.

If I hold a view it's because I have logic and evidence for it. If I don't have logic and evidence for it then I simply say I don't know. Can you show me where I've done otherwise.

Trivially, by your own words, your feelings played a role initially, once you got logic and evidence, and those two alone prove your case, then it becomes a fact. Between the initial formation of the view and the time you've got logic and evidence to prove the case, you hold a view without logic and evidence for it.

And then there are the non-propositional views such as "the goal is to limit damage to the economy and keep low death count." Logic and evidence doesn't apply to non-propositional views, right?

Answer this. Is a person who uses reason in all areas more reasonable than an atheist who only uses reason towards religion?

Same as above, yes. I have no problem giving you straight answers.

[Danmark]

Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

The question is ridiculous. It calls for an absurd over generalization.

Many Christians are more reasonable than some atheists or agnostics.
Many atheists are more reasonable than some Christians or agnostics.
Many agnostics are more reasonable than some atheists or Christians.

In one sense, except for those who might claim absolute knowledge, everyone is an agnostic. As for the distinction between agnostics and atheists I suggest it comes down to weighting the belief. The reasonable atheist comes to a point where she says "There is a chance there is some sort of theistic god, but it is so unlikely as to not be worthy of much consideration. The reasonable agnostic says she doesn't know so she's not going to make a bet.

[AgnosticBoy]

It's not.

Then your statement is incoherent.

The problem as you brought up earlier is that bringing in the word "should" in my statement is redundant. If the goal is x, and you can do x, then you've already at the goal. All my point is that there is a way to meet the goal. Now of course, I'm hypothetically saying that it is the goal as opposed to say that it should be the goal.

Answer me this. Is someone who uses reason in all areas more reasonable than an atheist who uses it towards one area?

Sure.

Thank you.

Nothing else to debate, especially when I tell you that I'm willing to weed out my beliefs.

Answer this. Is a person who uses reason in all areas more reasonable than an atheist who only uses reason towards religion?

Same as above, yes. I have no problem giving you straight answers.

Much appreciated.

[Bust Nak]

The problem as you brought up earlier is that bringing in the word "should" in my statement is redundant. If the goal is x, and you can do x, then you've already at the goal. All my point is that there is a way to meet the goal. Now of course, I'm hypothetically saying that it is the goal as opposed to say that it should be the goal.

You are saying "if the goal is X then we so do Y" is synonymous with "Y is a way to achieve Y?"

Nothing else to debate, especially when I tell you that I'm willing to weed out my beliefs.

Willing is one thing, Can you though? Like the non-proposition views I mentioned before?

[AgnosticBoy]

Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

The question is ridiculous. It calls for an absurd over generalization.

Well you have to read the rest of the OP. Being an agnostic is not just about maintaining a position of uncertainty. Thomas Huxley held that position in response to the problem of people substituting their beliefs for knowledge. So he pushed for a standard where if something is not knowledge (not backed solely by logic and evidence) then you are to maintain uncertainty across the board - that means no beliefs, even. To reinforce his standard, he stated it positively as the agnostic principle which is simply to base all views on what can be proven.

Atheists would like to have that standard but many of them don't because they have beliefs and ideologies. I'm only claiming that an agnostic who shuns all beliefs in favor of reason is more reasonable than an atheist that has beliefs.

[AgnosticBoy]

The problem as you brought up earlier is that bringing in the word "should" in my statement is redundant. If the goal is x, and you can do x, then you've already at the goal. All my point is that there is a way to meet the goal. Now of course, I'm hypothetically saying that it is the goal as opposed to say that it should be the goal.

You are saying "if the goal is X then we so do Y" is synonymous with "Y is a way to achieve Y?"

Here's a better way to put my statement.

If the economy was open, then it would lessen damages that's caused by the closure.
x= opening the economy
y= lessening damages

Nothing else to debate, especially when I tell you that I'm willing to weed out my beliefs.

Willing is one thing, Can you though? Like the non-proposition views I mentioned before?

Yes, I can and have. It is very possible to form views that logic and evidence alone proves. Scientists are supposed to be doing that. If I find a belief, then I weed it out in favor of logic and evidence OR I remain agnostic.

Are you referring to the non-propositional view that you haven't shown is a belief? If one of my statements was incoherent, then how can you call it a belief? I have to know what something is before I can say I believe it.

I'll give you 2 or 3 more posts to prove your point because all you're doing so far is asking questions about my view. If you have to fish for your proof, then you clearly don't have any proof that I have a belief. If you have the proof, then spit it out and I will gladly weed out the belief.