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?

[Mr.Badham]

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?

I think it would depend on why they were agnostic. Are they agnostic because the existence of god is unknown? Shouldn’t you first be agnostic about whether the person who told you about god is trustworthy?
I’m not atheist because I don’t believe in god. I’m atheist because I don’t believe the people who tell me about him. I don’t believe there is a consistent definition of god.
I also think that most agnostics are only agnostic about the religion they were raised with. Not all religions equally. You will probably find they are atheist about most religions.

[Bust Nak]

What was the logical and/or evidential basis for questioning it?

It doesn't match the common usage and/therefore it is unintuitive.

For the record, I don't accept any view involving a goal unless it is hypothetical.

Which leads to oddity like doing stuff regardless of truth or whether it should be done.

It is interesting that atheists who claim to be guided by reason would want to find unreasonable aspects of life. So much for complaining about religion and Republicans, right?

Is that really all that interesting? Those of us who are guided by reason are naturally drawn to finding, and chip away at unreasonable aspects of life, stuff like religion and Republicans.

As I mentioned before, it's interesting to find so called champions of reason, the atheists, finding joy in the unreasonable areas of life. You would think that so called reasonable people would be more than willing to apply reason to all of the areas that it could be applied.

Well, I think that's part of the reason why I find joy in the unreasonable areas of life, I apply reason to all of the areas that it could be applied and it gets my juices flowing when I spot people claiming to be reasonable failing to live up to my standard.

I appreciate that you now acknowledge the obvious.

You are welcome I guess.

I see no reason to believe that your goal is based on feelings as opposed to an objective morality or some other reason.

Me telling you exactly what feelings my goal is based on doesn't count?

I try to apply reason alone when it comes to all of the areas that I can do that. A debate is one example.

Right, just try to be more careful with your unqualified "all areas."

It's a desire and I don't use it to assert anything. It's certainly not an assertion that the economy is good or that it should be good.

Not seeing how that makes "I want a good economy" an less a claim.

"Scale of proof" does not refer to different levels of proof but rather it refers to evidence that is at the level (or point) of proof. There's a difference between those two statements.

Then may I suggest the term "scale of evidence?"

You're missing the point. The fact is that a square and a circle can't go together. Putting them together in the same sentence does not mean you're putting them together in actuality or even in meaning. If they were able to go together then that would be unintelligible. But again, the fact is that they can't be put together so there is nothing unintelligible to it.

How is that not the same thing as square and circle when put together is meaningless? Either way, some people are putting them together and accepting it as part of their view, and that qualify as a belief by my count.

The two can not go together as a whole at all.

Not to those who accept it in their view.

"Perfectly"? Oh, then that's a bad example. Here's a better one, My adkjflkajfkldjakf is akdjklafjdklfjaklfjkladjfajkfjfalkfjkljaakjdklfj. Is that coherent view? Also point out the contradiction if any.

That's unintelligible. I don't know enough to tell if it is coherent.

Stick to what I said. In intellectual matters, I only deal in logic and evidence. There is NO excuse why this can't be done in a debate. Like I said, it's telling that you're looking for one when many atheists claim to be champions of reason and complain about Christians on these forums.

This is the third time you mention this, I really don't understand what you are getting at here. Why wouldn't us champions of reason go out of our way to hunt out unreasonable stuff? It's the entire reason why we are here complaining about Christians in the first place.

I'm agnostic on those issues.

So they are not really axioms to you?

I assume that it's true as opposed to accepting that it's true.

But that's outside of the context of a hypothetical for the sake of argument. Sounds like a nice loop hole that allows you to just assume any old nonsense without accepting that it is true.

Keep in mind, that I don't even have a goal that I'm claiming is true outside of a hypothetical context.

As above, not much of an achievement when you can simply act as if it's true regardless of context.

So even if goals are based on desire it still has no relevance to my views here on covid-19. But I'm willing to entertain you some on your claim regarding desires and needs always going together.

Your claim that the body has no needs is the most UNscientific statement that you've made thus far. It's a fact that the body needs oxygen to function...

To function. Your body does not need to function.

How does this support your point? If anything, I see that it supports my point about the body having needs. If the body didn't need oxygen, then it would not shutdown.

See above.

You are saying that I require oxygen because of my "wants" as opposed to biology? Perhaps you're trying to say that your "desire" or "want" can accompany that need as opposed to being the cause or basis for that need. I could just as easily be apathetic (no desire) about my breathing, and that would be an example of a need without a desire.

Then it's not a need. Bacteria and viruses has no needs, they simply operate or not.

Naturally speaking, it is not. We are hard-wired to survive.

We as in human or life in general? We as in human are hard-wired to desire for survival. The less mentally capable species don't have desires and as such have no need.

I gave one example of how our body works through "involuntary" mechanisms to ensure our survival. Another example of this would be the fight-or-flight response. Even viruses try to survive and it's not because of a "desire" but because of BIOLOGY.

Again, not needs, not outside of the context of some prescribed goal.

No, earlier you said it was a reason.

Yeah, given the desire for a good economy. It's irrecoverably tied to desires.

I certainly wouldn't act on opening the economy unless I had a PROVEN way to do it while limiting covid-19 deaths.

Why would you act on it at all? You don't have goals outside of hypotheticals, remember?

So if desire is a prerequisite of choice as you're suggesting, then perhaps we can say that my desire is to follow logic and evidence and act on it accordingly.

Desire by itself is certainly not a belief. It certainly is not a basis for truth.

So why assume it's true and at on it in spite of what you said here?

In a purely intellectual context, I don't have any goals that I refer to as "true" with the exception of hypotheticals.

That much is easy enough to get, but it tells me nothing out side of the purely intellectual context. Above you seemed to be saying you don't have goals that you refer to as "true" with the exception of hypotheticals outside of the intellectual context either. What exactly is the practical difference between "assume something to be true, not for the sake of argument but acting on it as if it is true," and "accepting that it is true?"

So not restricting the low risk population would involve more of them being out and about? Perhaps, but I can think of ways to work around that. Again, the high risk population should only be in "essential" areas when outdoors. So that limits the location where they would encounter the low risk population. Essential businesses are already limiting crowd capacity in their stores so that would help reduce the number of contact with the low risk crowd.

Right, but it's still more dangerous for the high risk crowd.

What about it? Are you saying they can't handle it?

No, they are saying they can't handle it.

Are you saying that the low risk population that mostly experiences MILD symptoms will suddenly be flooding the hospitals when current stats shows that it's mostly the high risk population that needed hospitalization?

Yes, this is about raw number, not rates.

People from the low risk and high risk populations are getting fired now. So what's your point?

The point is a) we are in it together. b) when the business itself is not operating, people can just be placed on unpaid leave.

People go to the hospital to get treatment. Is that part harmful?

That part isn't.

Care to scale back on your absolute claim there?

Nah, it was not an absolute claim to begin with. Nor was it the point.

This is an UNSUBSTANITATED claim. You did not do your research, Mr. Atheist.

The reproductive number for flu is about 1.28, while the it is estimated to be 2.5 with Covid 19.

The cases of people infected with the flu far outnumbers the covid-19 cases.

That's because we are taking active measure to limit the spread of Covid 19. That's gonna change when the preventive measures are dialed back.

[Mr.Badham]

It seems to me that the question isn’t whether or not god can be proven to exist or not to exist. The question is, can you show any reason why I should even consider it. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that has ever been said about god that isn’t opinion, or wishful thinking or a straight up lie.
There is no reason to be agnostic. To suggest that an agnostic is carefully considering the facts is disingenuous. There are no facts when it comes to God.

[AgnosticBoy]

What was the logical and/or evidential basis for questioning it?

It doesn't match the common usage and/therefore it is unintuitive.

You bring up common usage but did you bother to pick up a dictionary? Just in case you didn't notice, I used your own source from earlier and it mentions beliefs involving "acceptance". If you say otherwise, then you are ignoring evidence and purposely continuing to make UNSUBSTANTIATED claims.

Does belief involve acceptance according to your own source?

For the record, I don't accept any view involving a goal unless it is hypothetical.

Which leads to oddity like doing stuff regardless of truth or whether it should be done.

Not getting how this helps your case here. Does "oddity" translate into a belief?

As I mentioned before, it's interesting to find so called champions of reason, the atheists, finding joy in the unreasonable areas of life. You would think that so called reasonable people would be more than willing to apply reason to all of the areas that it could be applied.

Well, I think that's part of the reason why I find joy in the unreasonable areas of life, I apply reason to all of the areas that it could be applied and it gets my juices flowing when I spot people claiming to be reasonable failing to live up to my standard.

It's funny that I had to show you how reason could be strictly applied in a debate and other intellectual matters. You only applied it as far as it supported your BELIEFS and ideologies which is not the same as apply it in all areas that it could. Take your covid-19 views, for example. You've simply regurgitated the Democrat worldview and even in that you did a poor job. You accepted their position but couldn't even get simple facts correct, and you've been called on that twice. The Democrat view contains a bunch of unnecessary and unproven views.

I see no reason to believe that your goal is based on feelings as opposed to an objective morality or some other reason.

Me telling you exactly what feelings my goal is based on doesn't count?

Then that's you. Doesn't apply to any of my views here.

It's a desire and I don't use it to assert anything. It's certainly not an assertion that the economy is good or that it should be good.

Not seeing how that makes "I want a good economy" an less a claim.

What does it claim? Is it anything that amounts to a belief?

You're missing the point. The fact is that a square and a circle can't go together. Putting them together in the same sentence does not mean you're putting them together in actuality or even in meaning. If they were able to go together then that would be unintelligible. But again, the fact is that they can't be put together so there is nothing unintelligible to it.

How is that not the same thing as square and circle when put together is meaningless? Either way, some people are putting them together and accepting it as part of their view, and that qualify as a belief by my count.

If it is illogical, then there is no way to put it together in thought, in actuality, in meaning, etc. Given this fact, it is not possible to hold a belief in the way you're saying because they would not be able to put it together in their head. So it seems that you don't even know how or the way someone would believe contradictory things. Speaking from prior experience, it's really done by believing in each concept separately. There would really be two separate beliefs. One that God is omnipotent. The other belief is a rock no one can lift. Now if the contradiction is disputed, as I suggested earlier, then that's another story.

Either way, I gave an example of an incoherent statement that does not involve a contradiction. Not only does it not involve a contradiction but it's also something that can't be believed in.

The two can not go together as a whole at all.

Not to those who accept it in their view.

You need to factor in how people hold contradictory views. Some people don't even think it's possible. If they can't play it out in their mind then is it really a belief? Calling it a belief doesn't really make it so.

"Perfectly"? Oh, then that's a bad example. Here's a better one, My adkjflkajfkldjakf is akdjklafjdklfjaklfjkladjfajkfjfalkfjkljaakjdklfj. Is that coherent view? Also point out the contradiction if any.

That's unintelligible. I don't know enough to tell if it is coherent.

Wow, you were able to judge one of my views as being incoherent despite the fact that it even had intelligible words, but now you can't make a determination even with unintelligible words? That's odd to say the least.

I'll also remember that you that you couldn't point to a contradiction in the statement.

Stick to what I said. In intellectual matters, I only deal in logic and evidence. There is NO excuse why this can't be done in a debate. Like I said, it's telling that you're looking for one when many atheists claim to be champions of reason and complain about Christians on these forums.

This is the third time you mention this, I really don't understand what you are getting at here. Why wouldn't us champions of reason go out of our way to hunt out unreasonable stuff? It's the entire reason why we are here complaining about Christians in the first place.

Bringing up areas that I did not bring up doesn't hurt my case because I don't need to show reason being applied in ALL areas. That means there WILL be areas where you can't apply it by itself. But of course, there are areas that reason and evidence ALONE can be applied.

I'm agnostic on those issues.

So they are not really axioms to you?

I don't know what they are beyond being the principles that logic is based on.

So even if goals are based on desire it still has no relevance to my views here on covid-19. But I'm willing to entertain you some on your claim regarding desires and needs always going together.

Your claim that the body has no needs is the most UNscientific statement that you've made thus far. It's a fact that the body needs oxygen to function...

To function. Your body does not need to function.

It is biologically obligated to function. That is evidenced by its many involuntary processes that keeps it going. It may fail at that but that doesn't mean it wasn't meant to function but rather it means it's not perfect or that they are things beyond its control.

How does this support your point? If anything, I see that it supports my point about the body having needs. If the body didn't need oxygen, then it would not shutdown.

See above.

You do that.

You are saying that I require oxygen because of my "wants" as opposed to biology? Perhaps you're trying to say that your "desire" or "want" can accompany that need as opposed to being the cause or basis for that need. I could just as easily be apathetic (no desire) about my breathing, and that would be an example of a need without a desire.

Then it's not a need. Bacteria and viruses has no needs, they simply operate or not.

Needs do not apply to just people. If needs were based on choice then I'd agree since only people make choices. Wants apply to people because only people have "desire". Needs simply refer to a requirement. Viruses don't simply operate but rather they operate to survive. Viruses have needs and they act on it by doing what it takes to survive. Of course, that doesn't mean it acts with needs in mind (it has no mind) but that it's biologically determined to do things that would promote survival.

Naturally speaking, it is not. We are hard-wired to survive.

We as in human or life in general? We as in human are hard-wired to desire for survival. The less mentally capable species don't have desires and as such have no need.

Life. Being hard-wired to desire survival, does not mean survival is caused by "desire". Like I said, even about breathing. I could be apathetic about breathing, and my body would still work to breathe because it needs oxygen.

I gave one example of how our body works through "involuntary" mechanisms to ensure our survival. Another example of this would be the fight-or-flight response. Even viruses try to survive and it's not because of a "desire" but because of BIOLOGY.

Again, not needs, not outside of the context of some prescribed goal.

Needs don't have to be determined by someone. They are determined by biology. So yes, they can exist outside of "goals". Many needs don't even need to be carried out voluntarily (which is where "desire" comes in) because they can be carried about "involuntarily" which is strictly BIOLOGY.

No, earlier you said it was a reason.

Yeah, given the desire for a good economy. It's irrecoverably tied to desires.

But not necessarily caused by desire.

I certainly wouldn't act on opening the economy unless I had a PROVEN way to do it while limiting covid-19 deaths.

Why would you act on it at all? You don't have goals outside of hypotheticals, remember?

Incorrect. I don't claim that goals are true outside of hypotheticals. Otherwise, I do have personal goals and I act on them without any consideration of truth so I can make a living. In a debate, none of this is relevant. I can stay away from goals entirely.

I would've expected someone who claims to apply reason in all of the areas that it could be applied to know that.

So if desire is a prerequisite of choice as you're suggesting, then perhaps we can say that my desire is to follow logic and evidence and act on it accordingly.

Desire by itself is certainly not a belief. It certainly is not a basis for truth.

So why assume it's true and at on it in spite of what you said here?

I already gave you an scenario where REASON alone can be applied. So looking for an area where that doesn't apply is a moot point because I'm not claiming it applies to all areas. With that said, we're not going to be playing this game of digging into my life.

Perhaps we can figure out why YOU claim to be a reasonable person but yet FAIL to apply reason ALONE in areas that reason ALONE can be applied. Perhaps you're mixing in your unproven liberal ideology?!!!!!!!!

In a purely intellectual context, I don't have any goals that I refer to as "true" with the exception of hypotheticals.

That much is easy enough to get, but it tells me nothing out side of the purely intellectual context.

Lets stick to debate rather than worrying about my personal life. It is one example of where my point is proven since REASON alone can be applied. Show me where in a debate I've referred to a goal as being true as opposed to assuming it's truth?

So not restricting the low risk population would involve more of them being out and about? Perhaps, but I can think of ways to work around that. Again, the high risk population should only be in "essential" areas when outdoors. So that limits the location where they would encounter the low risk population. Essential businesses are already limiting crowd capacity in their stores so that would help reduce the number of contact with the low risk crowd.

Right, but it's still more dangerous for the high risk crowd.

It is dangerous for the high risk crowd to go out, period. If you were really interested in avoiding danger then you'd quarantine them completely and let the low risk population and government take care of their needs.

And I wouldn't even quarantine them indefinitely. I would only do so until all or most of the Low risk population is able to fight off the infection and RECOVER. That would leave less and less with infection. RECOVERY means they no longer have the infection to spread. It's likely that they would even be immune from reinfection.

What about it? Are you saying they can't handle it?

No, they are saying they can't handle it.

Where are they saying that they can't handle it factoring in my distinction of the low risk crowd not being isolated? Some experts have projected that they wouldn't be able to handle it but then they're referring to when everyone is coming out of isolation and not just the low risk. Please back up your statement.

Is Sweden experiencing overburdened hospitals? Are our hospitals overrun because of the low risk population? This is the kind of information that would prove your case. Think in terms of logic and evidence and not in terms of whatever supports your political party.

Are you saying that the low risk population that mostly experiences MILD symptoms will suddenly be flooding the hospitals when current stats shows that it's mostly the high risk population that needed hospitalization?

Yes, this is about raw number, not rates.

Can you show me evidence like what I've asked for above here?

People from the low risk and high risk populations are getting fired now. So what's your point?

The point is a) we are in it together. b) when the business itself is not operating, people can just be placed on unpaid leave.

First you complained about one group being fired, and now you're changing your tune to make it seem that both groups being fired is okay. That's inconsistent. You can't defend your position which is why you're changing it.

And I'm sure people can be placed on unpaid leave, but how does that help the business owner make a living? Many are opening up their businesses when they don't have to. That should kinda tell you something.

People go to the hospital to get treatment. Is that part harmful?

That part isn't.

I would think that part would be the main part. Instead, you're trying to paint a picture as if it's mostly about dangers all over the place. That's misleading. It's like a negative spin on things.

This is an UNSUBSTANITATED claim. You did not do your research, Mr. Atheist.

The reproductive number for flu is about 1.28, while the it is estimated to be 2.5 with Covid 19.

First, you didn't acknowledge that you were wrong on the infection numbers. So I'll say it for you. You made an UNSUBSTANTIATED claim and tried to slide past it by changing to another issue. So now this other issue is your new standard. Typical changing the goal post. That's evidence of someone who makes excuses to delay opening the economy (some do it because they want to hurt Trump's chances at reelection?) - again typical PARTISAN thinking and I have the EVIDENCE for it.

The cases of people infected with the flu far outnumbers the covid-19 cases.

That's because we are taking active measure to limit the spread of Covid 19.
That's gonna change when the preventive measures are dialed back.

Really? Since you posted that without an ounce of evidence, then I can only assume that Nancy Pelosi told you that.

[Bust Nak]

You bring up common usage but did you bother to pick up a dictionary?

Of course, I was the one who gave you a definition from a dictionary after all, remember? Of course you do.

Just in case you didn't notice, I used your own source from earlier and it mentions beliefs involving "acceptance".

If you remember me giving you a source, then why would you think I didn't boter to pick up a dictionary.

Does belief involve acceptance according to your own source?

Sure.

Not getting how this helps your case here. Does "oddity" translate into a belief?

Depends on your definition.

It's funny that I had to show you how reason could be strictly applied in a debate and other intellectual matters.

You wasted your time. You didn't have to do that.

You only applied it as far as it supported your BELIEFS and ideologies which is not the same as apply it in all areas that it could.

Nah, beliefs and ideology fills in where reason alone is not enough, i.e. outside of purely intellectual matters.

Take your covid-19 views, for example. You've simply regurgitated the Democrat worldview and even in that you did a poor job.

That's a poor example because my view on that matter is either non-purely intellectual, related to goals and desires, or they are proven as facts.

Then that's you. Doesn't apply to any of my views here.

You asked me a question remember? I gave you an answer, whether it applies to any of your view does not change the fact that your challenge has been answered.

What does it claim?

It claims you want a good economy.

Is it anything that amounts to a belief?

Depends on your definition.

If it is illogical, then there is no way to put it together in thought, in actuality, in meaning, etc. Given this fact, it is not possible to hold a belief in the way you're saying because they would not be able to put it together in their head. So it seems that you don't even know how or the way someone would believe contradictory things.

That's because I am a champion of reason. I can't put it together in my head because I am bounded by logic. Other people may not have that limitation.

Speaking from prior experience, it's really done by believing in each concept separately. There would really be two separate beliefs. One that God is omnipotent. The other belief is a rock no one can lift. Now if the contradiction is disputed, as I suggested earlier, then that's another story.

Either way, I gave an example of an incoherent statement that does not involve a contradiction. Not only does it not involve a contradiction but it's also something that can't be believed in.

Well they say they accept it. Take it up with them.

You need to factor in how people hold contradictory views. Some people don't even think it's possible. If they can't play it out in their mind then is it really a belief? Calling it a belief doesn't really make it so.

Accepted as truth, is a proposition, but proven. Fits your definition doesn't it?

Wow, you were able to judge one of my views as being incoherent despite the fact that it even had intelligible words, but now you can't make a determination even with unintelligible words? That's odd to say the least.

What's so odd about that?

I'll also remember that you that you couldn't point to a contradiction in the statement.

And the significance of that is what exactly?

Bringing up areas that I did not bring up doesn't hurt my case because I don't need to show reason being applied in ALL areas. That means there WILL be areas where you can't apply it by itself. But of course, there are areas that reason and evidence ALONE can be applied.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have said agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

I don't know what they are beyond being the principles that logic is based on.

Why use them if you are not sure if they are true?

It is biologically obligated to function.

Obligated by whom exactly?

That is evidenced by its many involuntary processes that keeps it going.

That doesn't support the claim that there is any needs to said processes.

It may fail at that but that doesn't mean it wasn't meant to function but rather it means it's not perfect or that they are things beyond its control.

Meant to function? Who was the architect and what was his intention? Are you sure you are an agnostic?

Needs do not apply to just people. If needs were based on choice then I'd agree since only people make choices. Wants apply to people because only people have "desire". Needs simply refer to a requirement.

A requirement for what? To function. Functionality is not required.

Viruses don't simply operate but rather they operate to survive...

Yeah, but they don't need to survive.

Life. Being hard-wired to desire survival, does not mean survival is caused by "desire".

That's still moot when survival is not needed.

I could be apathetic about breathing, and my body would still work to breathe because it needs oxygen.

That it still work to breath does not indicate a need.

Needs don't have to be determined by someone. They are determined by biology.

Biology is mindless, it cannot determine anything.

But not necessarily caused by desire.

What does it even mean to say a reason is caused by desire?

Incorrect. I don't claim that goals are true outside of hypotheticals. Otherwise, I do have personal goals and I act on them without any consideration of truth so I can make a living.

But you told me goals are propositional statements. You have goals, they are either true or false, but you don't care if they are true or not? That's not very rational.

I would've expected someone who claims to apply reason in all of the areas that it could be applied to know that.

That's a rather unreasonable expectation given how very odd your claims are.

I already gave you an scenario where REASON alone can be applied.

That's moot when I am looking for things that are unreasonable.

So looking for an area where that doesn't apply is a moot point because I'm not claiming it applies to all areas.

Well first of all, you weren't all that careful with your qualifier to begin with. It took me days to get you to concede that reason does not apply in all areas.

More importantly, you still need to be internally consistent in area where reason alone is not enough. It's no good to be reasonable in debate then holding wacky beliefs in your head.

With that said, we're not going to be playing this game of digging into my life.

Perhaps we can figure out why YOU claim to be a reasonable person but yet FAIL to apply reason ALONE in areas that reason ALONE can be applied. Perhaps you're mixing in your unproven liberal ideology?!!!!!!!!

That's a dead end discussion because as a champion of reason, I apply reason alone in all areas where reason alone suffice.

Lets stick to debate rather than worrying about my personal life.

Lets not. Besides, it's not really about your personal life, it's about your epistemology and your internal consistency.

Show me where in a debate I've referred to a goal as being true as opposed to assuming it's truth?

I've done that already on multiple occasions, you've just dismissed it with an "oops I forgot the if in that instance" even after I double checked with you at the time.

It is dangerous for the high risk crowd to go out, period.

I am not just talking about going out, even at home their risk is increase because quarantine is not perfect. They still need to interact with the outside world at some time, even when it's to take a plate of food from outside their bed room door.

If you were really interested in avoiding danger then you'd quarantine them completely and let the low risk population and government take care of their needs.

That's easy to say, what if they live with the low risk? Now instead of just staying at home, they have to stay in their room.

And I wouldn't even quarantine them indefinitely. I would only do so until all or most of the Low risk population is able to fight off the infection and RECOVER. That would leave less and less with infection. RECOVERY means they no longer have the infection to spread. It's likely that they would even be immune from reinfection.

Immune for how long though, we don't know. How long could they still be infectious after they recovered, I remember a report says up to two weeks.

Where are they saying that they can't handle it factoring in my distinction of the low risk crowd not being isolated? Some experts have projected that they wouldn't be able to handle it but then they're referring to when everyone is coming out of isolation and not just the low risk. Please back up your statement.

I am just going by said experts' projection.

Is Sweden experiencing overburdened hospitals?
According this this article, not yet, but it's getting close.

Are our hospitals overrun because of the low risk population?

Some are according to this.

First you complained about one group being fired, and now you're changing your tune to make it seem that both groups being fired is okay.

No, I am saying neither groups would be fired - that's the point of unpaid leave.

And I'm sure people can be placed on unpaid leave, but how does that help the business owner make a living?

It's not suppose to help, it's suppose to be fair, everyone suffer a moderate amount, as opposed to some suffering a huge amount while others don't.

Many are opening up their businesses when they don't have to. That should kinda tell you something.

It tells me they care more about their business than their workers.

I would think that part would be the main part. Instead, you're trying to paint a picture as if it's mostly about dangers all over the place. That's misleading. It's like a negative spin on things.

I am not to blame for your interpretation. I even told you that's not the angle I was going for the first time you challenged me.

First, you didn't acknowledge that you were wrong on the infection numbers.

That's because I didn't say anything about infection numbers. I said Covid-19 is more infectious than flu, as indicated by a much higher R0.

So I'll say it for you. You made an UNSUBSTANTIATED claim and tried to slide past it by changing to another issue. So now this other issue is your new standard. Typical changing the goal post. That's evidence of someone who makes excuses to delay opening the economy (some do it because they want to hurt Trump's chances at reelection?) - again typical PARTISAN thinking and I have the EVIDENCE for it.

Well, you are wrong, so how about you do as you claim you would and discard this belief of yours?

Really? Since you posted that without an ounce of evidence, then I can only assume that Nancy Pelosi told you that.

You don't have to assume that, lets instead conclude that feelings is creeping in when you should have been using pure reasoning.

[AgnosticBoy]

*FYI:
The reason I have been and will continue taking it hard to Bust Nak is because he and others take it hard to Christians. Hypocrisy ticks me off. There's that, and I also dislike when all atheists try to equate themselves to agnostics. Bust Nak has done that by trying to bring down the agnostic standard rather than RISING to the standard. And yes, I have evidence of him using his WANTS (influenced by liberal ideology?) in places where evidence could've been used.

It's funny that I had to show you how reason could be strictly applied in a debate and other intellectual matters.

You wasted your time. You didn't have to do that.

Then you wasted our time asking all of those unnecessary questions. That's why I said if you know the answer then you should spit it out. I'll keep this in mind next time you want to ask me a series of questions rather than spitting out the answer that you supposedly know already.

You only applied it as far as it supported your BELIEFS and ideologies which is not the same as apply it in all areas that it could.

Nah, beliefs and ideology fills in where reason alone is not enough, i.e. outside of purely intellectual matters.

Well in intellectual matters, if reason can not resolve the matter, then you can remain agnostic.

Take your covid-19 views, for example. You've simply regurgitated the Democrat worldview and even in that you did a poor job.

That's a poor example because my view on that matter is either non-purely intellectual, related to goals and desires, or they are proven as facts.

Come on! You could've at least formulated a view based on logic and evidence when it comes to what can be done. Perhaps you are unwilling to take your time and gather evidence or you don't know about the evidence that would justify such a view? Or perhaps, you were more interested in going off of your WANTS (influenced by liberal ideology?) instead of looking for and going by LOGIC AND EVIDENCE? Don't you and Zzzyx go after Christians for the same thing - why the double standard??

Does that explain why you made statements that were blatantly lacking in research and you purposely did so without citing a source for it, TWICE in fact?! Hmm, I know so.

What does it claim?

It claims you want a good economy.

It does not mean that we should have a good economy. I know I hold a want since I know my own mind. That part is not opinion.

If it is illogical, then there is no way to put it together in thought, in actuality, in meaning, etc. Given this fact, it is not possible to hold a belief in the way you're saying because they would not be able to put it together in their head. So it seems that you don't even know how or the way someone would believe contradictory things.

That's because I am a champion of reason. I can't put it together in my head because I am bounded by logic. Other people may not have that limitation.

Why are the laws of logic called the laws of "thought"? Can you conceive a contradiction? Again, it's not because it is meaningless because the terms have meaning, but rather it's because the meaningful terms can NOT go together. A champion of reason would know all of this already.

Speaking from prior experience, it's really done by believing in each concept separately. There would really be two separate beliefs. One that God is omnipotent. The other belief is a rock no one can lift. Now if the contradiction is disputed, as I suggested earlier, then that's another story.

Either way, I gave an example of an incoherent statement that does not involve a contradiction. Not only does it not involve a contradiction but it's also something that can't be believed in.

Well they say they accept it. Take it up with them.

I'm telling you how it would work.

You need to factor in how people hold contradictory views. Some people don't even think it's possible. If they can't play it out in their mind then is it really a belief? Calling it a belief doesn't really make it so.

Accepted as truth, is a proposition, but proven. Fits your definition doesn't it?

"What" are they accepting? Belief is not about acceptance alone. It's about acceptance of something. If the person doesn't know what it is then they can't accept it anymore than they can call this akdjfkljadlkfjdlakfjkldjfkladjfk true.

I'll also remember that you that you couldn't point to a contradiction in the statement.

And the significance of that is what exactly?

Um, you were suggesting that just because someone can believe in a contradiction, then they can also believe in an incoherent view. You were trying to justify that claim by showing that contradictory statements are also incoherent. My point which you responded to is evidence AGAINST your claim since you could NOT point out the contradiction in the example I gave you. Keep up!!!

Bringing up areas that I did not bring up doesn't hurt my case because I don't need to show reason being applied in ALL areas. That means there WILL be areas where you can't apply it by itself. But of course, there are areas that reason and evidence ALONE can be applied.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have said agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

They are in intellectual matters if they use only logic and evidence based views. Debate is one example. You agreed to this so don't backtrack.

I don't know what they are beyond being the principles that logic is based on.

Why use them if you are not sure if they are true?

Because it works and it's the best tool we have to ensure truth. Much of the scientific method is also grounded in axioms, like the assumption of an objective Universe, or other minds exist, etc. We still use science because it works. It is certainly better than faith and beliefs.

It is biologically obligated to function.

Obligated by whom exactly?

It's funny you mention that. Did you ever consider a god? And if that's the case, then that's not a "desire". But for now I will say that's how BIOLOGY set up life since the body works "involuntarily" (no personal agency needed) to breathe on its own but perhaps a god may play a role. No one has disproven that. Hek, even coma patients can breathe on their own in some cases.

That is evidenced by its many involuntary processes that keeps it going.

That doesn't support the claim that there is any needs to said processes.

The body needs oxygen to survive. It also needs to function. This alone proves my case. The only reason I'm stress on "involuntary" is to just highlight that it is not based on your "wants". Sure, you can act on your wants and go against your body's needs by starving it and perhaps ending its function, but that is a conflict between desire and need.

It may fail at that but that doesn't mean it wasn't meant to function but rather it means it's not perfect or that they are things beyond its control.

Meant to function? Who was the architect and what was his intention? Are you sure you are an agnostic?

Not who, but what. Biology. Life. Did you disprove God? If not, then how can you claim that it is desire and not God?

Needs do not apply to just people. If needs were based on choice then I'd agree since only people make choices. Wants apply to people because only people have "desire". Needs simply refer to a requirement.

A requirement for what? To function. Functionality is not required.

Go tell coma patients that. Some of them who probably want to check out of life but can't because their body keeps working. This is a classic case of mind vs. body. Desires come from the mind, but needs not so much. Needs are obligatory, they are requirements. They are often involuntarily carried out.

Viruses don't simply operate but rather they operate to survive...

Yeah, but they don't need to survive.

Biology has programmed it to survive so they are meant or obligated to survive. Again, can't rule out God either.

I could be apathetic about breathing, and my body would still work to breathe because it needs oxygen.

That it still work to breath does not indicate a need.

The body needs oxygen.

Needs don't have to be determined by someone. They are determined by biology.

Biology is mindless, it cannot determine anything.

Ever hear of 'determinism'? If you read up on that then you'll notice that "determine" does not simply refer to action taken by humans. For instance, homosexuality is determined by genes and other prenatal factors. It is not a choice or want, if it were then wanting to be heterosexuality would change their orientation.

Incorrect. I don't claim that goals are true outside of hypotheticals. Otherwise, I do have personal goals and I act on them without any consideration of truth so I can make a living.

But you told me goals are propositional statements. You have goals, they are either true or false, but you don't care if they are true or not? That's not very rational.

Context is everything.. Of course, in an intellectual context I look at goals one way, but in a non-intellectual context they are like personal beliefs.

Lets stick to debate rather than worrying about my personal life.

Lets not. Besides, it's not really about your personal life, it's about your epistemology and your internal consistency.

I've already proven my case. You already agreed.

Show me where in a debate I've referred to a goal as being true as opposed to assuming it's truth?

I've done that already on multiple occasions, you've just dismissed it with an "oops I forgot the if in that instance" even after I double checked with you at the time.

Okay, and those have been weeded out. I appreciate you helping me meet my own standard of going by reason alone to establish truth.

It is dangerous for the high risk crowd to go out, period.

I am not just talking about going out, even at home their risk is increase because quarantine is not perfect. They still need to interact with the outside world at some time, even when it's to take a plate of food from outside their bed room door.

So if it's dangerous indoors, then why shut down the economy, when the purpose of that was to prevent outdoor activity? Indeed, there is data that some 60% of recent New York cases (i'm sure there's more but other states are not focused on tracking this stat) involved those who were following the stay-at-home orders. Not only is a large percentage of this group catching the virus, but there's also potential for increased stress, poverty, depression, domestic violence, which further deteriorates health and families.

But you can't have it both ways. Either you let the high risk population out while limiting contact with the low risk population as much as possible, or you confine them to their homes. But if you're going to let any group out then you may as well let them participate in the economy. Limit the high risk to essential places only.

If you were really interested in avoiding danger then you'd quarantine them completely and let the low risk population and government take care of their needs.

That's easy to say, what if they live with the low risk? Now instead of just staying at home, they have to stay in their room.

Then they'll have to practice social distancing in the house. That is what healthcare workers who live with kids, their spouses, and other family members are resorting to.

And I wouldn't even quarantine them indefinitely. I would only do so until all or most of the Low risk population is able to fight off the infection and RECOVER. That would leave less and less with infection. RECOVERY means they no longer have the infection to spread. It's likely that they would even be immune from reinfection.

Immune for how long though, we don't know. How long could they still be infectious after they recovered, I remember a report says up to two weeks.

We may not know the information for that for months or even years. Keeping people indoors for that period of time while the economy suffers (whatever is left of it), especially given what you said earlier about infections occurring even within a home, is ludicrous.

Again, I'm not even concerned about the low risk population because they only experience mild symptoms. We do know from other viruses, that eventually the virus will run its course, to where you're no longer infectious. And if I get reinfected again, although there's no evidence of that either, then bring on those MILD symptoms and I'll get right through it again, even better in fact, given I already have antibodies in my system.

Where are they saying that they can't handle it factoring in my distinction of the low risk crowd not being isolated? Some experts have projected that they wouldn't be able to handle it but then they're referring to when everyone is coming out of isolation and not just the low risk. Please back up your statement.

I am just going by said experts' projection.

Oh? And you do know a lot of the experts projections have been off by a lot. New York did not have the amount of hospitalizations and ICU care that they were projected to have according to their "experts".

So again, you have no proven case. In fact, I've found data of hospitalization rates DECREASING in some of the states while they're opening. Sure, some of those same states are seeing increase in infections (that might be due to more tests catching those who were already infected), but still hospitalization rate is not increasing. I can post that source AFTER you back up your claim or admit that you don't know. And also, make sure that it is evidence that speaks to my scenario of letting only the low risk population out as opposed to letting EVERYONE out.

Is Sweden experiencing overburdened hospitals?

According this this article, not yet, but it's getting close.

This was a poor article. It is again referencing unnamed experts and their "projections". I don't even recall seeing any stats that are relevant to hospitalization. Your UNSUBSTANTIATED claims and choice of sources are consistent with someone who is just grasping for whatever they can to support their PERSONAL view. Perhaps there are political reasons?

Are you a Trump supporter? Do you want him to lose?

I want actual numbers and that is because the "projections" have been wrong. Sweden has allowed their low risk population to function with little to no restrictions and its hospitals are still NOT overburdened. And that's on top of all of the other sicknesses and injuries that they have to deal with. So much for your claim that allowing the low risk population out would OVERburdened hospitals. Sweden is not overburdened and they've largely followed my policy from the START.

Are our hospitals overrun because of the low risk population?

Some are according to this.

Um, did you actually read your article instead of reading the headline? It talks about some rural hospitals being stretched for cash. It is because covid-19 is scaring away non-covid-19 patients which is hurting their pockets. I didn't come across anything in the article that talked about the hospitals being overburdened because of too many covid-19 patients in their doors. It seems these rural hospitals aren't getting any business at all.

Seriously man. You're a champion of reason (according to your earlier statement) but then you can't even do your research? This is the third piece of evidence I have showing of you trying to further the Democrat's narrative (they also want the economy closed) as opposed to a narrative that's rooted in logic and evidence. And I should trust a person who claims that hospitals are overwhelmed or will be when you have NO evidence and POOR research to show for it? And to think atheists attack Christians for going off of ideologies, feelings, and lack of research.

First you complained about one group being fired, and now you're changing your tune to make it seem that both groups being fired is okay.

No, I am saying neither groups would be fired - that's the point of unpaid leave.

So they're not working and not getting paid. How is that much better than not using the official word "fired"?

And I'm sure people can be placed on unpaid leave, but how does that help the business owner make a living?

It's not suppose to help, it's suppose to be fair, everyone suffer a moderate amount, as opposed to some suffering a huge amount while others don't.

It is your socialist ideology that suffering must be shared even when some have the option of not suffering. Thank God you can't prove that so it can be dismiss for the socialist pipe dream that it is. In fact, are you making sure you're suffering just as much as everyone else? Could you possibly turn off your computer and give it to a poor person who needs it for home schooling because schools are closed? Play out that principle.

Nancy Pelosi was on her webcam not too long ago showing off her gourmet ice cream in her Hollywood mansion? Can she let some of those homeless people move in? Perhaps she can throw an ice cream party?

Many are opening up their businesses when they don't have to. That should kinda tell you something.

It tells me they care more about their business than their workers.

Or that they care about both since both benefit by having income. Oh, you're getting more extreme and from my experience the more extreme someone gets the more they deviate from logic. I wish this came out earlier so that I would know that this influences your thinking and not logic and evidence.

First, you didn't acknowledge that you were wrong on the infection numbers.

That's because I didn't say anything about infection numbers. I said Covid-19 is more infectious than flu, as indicated by a much higher R0.

You started out using the hospitalization numbers as one reason to disagree with my plan of not restricting the low risk population. After I exposed how you were wrong on that, then you shifted your position by responding to my point with "infliction rate". How does bringing that up prove your point that the numbers of hospitalizations for covid-19 (the low risk population) are lower than the numbers for the flu? If you were worried about the hospitalizations, then wouldn't you close the economy for the illness that causes higher number of hospitalizations?

Keep in mind also, that covid-19 being more infectious doesn't necessarily mean that it will have a higher hospitalization rate/number. The simple reason for that is because those infected with covid-19 may only experience MILD symptoms and not require hospitalization. But here's data on that from the World Health Organization:

For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation.

Later on I will present evidence that even says the flu can spread quicker.

Really? Since you posted that without an ounce of evidence, then I can only assume that Nancy Pelosi told you that.

You don't have to assume that, lets instead conclude that feelings is creeping in when you should have been using pure reasoning.

I'm entitled to dislike OPINIONS being used as a supporting reason in a DEBATE. Can you back up our claims that the infection numbers for covid-19 will go past that for the flu if we just let everyone out? I mean since people are already catching it indoors, even, would that be a moot point? Also consider the following from WHO:

The speed of transmission is an important point of difference between the two viruses. Influenza has a shorter median incubation period (the time from infection to appearance of symptoms) and a shorter serial interval (the time between successive cases) than COVID-19 virus. The serial interval for COVID-19 virus is estimated to be 5-6 days, while for influenza virus, the serial interval is 3 days. This means that influenza can spread faster than COVID-19.

[Zzyzx]

.

Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Agnosticism (“I do not know about gods�) is no more rational or irrational than Atheism (“I do not believe in gods�).

Those who go beyond 'not believe in gods' to maintain that gods do not exist are no more rational or irrational than Theists who claim to know that gods exist.

Ignosticism may be the most rational position – “The question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term 'god' has no coherent and unambiguous definition. It may also be described as the theological position that other theological positions assume too much about the concept of god.� ‎https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ignosticism

[Bust Nak]

The reason I have been and will continue taking it hard to Bust Nak is because he and others take it hard to Christians. Hypocrisy ticks me off. There's that, and I also dislike when all atheists try to equate themselves to agnostics. Bust Nak has done that by trying to bring down the agnostic standard rather than RISING to the standard.

Just trying? Successfully, I may added. The lofty standard of "applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas" is now been brought down to a mere "applying logic and evidence standard to ALL purely intellectual areas."

Then you wasted our time asking all of those unnecessary questions. That's why I said if you know the answer then you should spit it out.

I think they were worth asking, we've found many oddities with your views via my questions.

I'll keep this in mind next time you want to ask me a series of questions rather than spitting out the answer that you supposedly know already.

I'll take your suggestion into consideration.

Well in intellectual matters, if reason can not resolve the matter, then you can remain agnostic.

I still don't see how that is workable given certain unfalsifiable axioms that we all take for granted.

Come on! You could've at least formulated a view based on logic and evidence when it comes to what can be done.

Sure. My plan is to listen to scientific advice and do what they recommend, based on the logic and evidence that they are professional advice based on their research and expertise.

Perhaps you are unwilling to take your time and gather evidence or you don't know about the evidence that would justify such a view?

Or perhaps the view above is easy to justify without taking much time?

Or perhaps, you were more interested in going off of your WANTS (influenced by liberal ideology?) instead of looking for and going by LOGIC AND EVIDENCE?

That's a given since politics isn't a purely intellectual matter.

Don't you and Zzzyx go after Christians for the same thing - why the double standard??

Loaded questions cannot be answered. There is no double standard.

Does that explain why you made statements that were blatantly lacking in research and you purposely did so without citing a source for it, TWICE in fact?! Hmm, I know so.

Nah, there is an easier explanation: it's bait.

It does not mean that we should have a good economy. I know I hold a want since I know my own mind. That part is not opinion.

That sounded very much like you are saying the other part is an opinion. More to the point, you said "I want a good economy" wasn't a claim. You have not addressed that here.

Why are the laws of logic called the laws of "thought"? Can you conceive a contradiction? Again, it's not because it is meaningless because the terms have meaning, but rather it's because the meaningful terms can NOT go together. A champion of reason would know all of this already.

I can't but who knows how others can conceive a contradiction. Again, meaningful terms can NOT go together, sounded very much like meaningless when they are put together.

I'm telling you how it would work.

However it is supposed to work, there are people out there who accepts that the incoherent as truth.

"What" are they accepting?

In short that God can do the logically impossible like lifting unliftable rocks and making square circles.

Belief is not about acceptance alone. It's about acceptance of something. If the person doesn't know what it is then they can't accept it anymore than they can call this akdjfkljadlkfjdlakfjkldjfkladjfk true.

Again, take it up with them. I am not the one calling this akdjfkljadlkfjdlakfjkldjfkladjfk true.

Um, you were suggesting that just because someone can believe in a contradiction, then they can also believe in an incoherent view. You were trying to justify that claim by showing that contradictory statements are also incoherent. My point which you responded to is evidence AGAINST your claim since you could NOT point out the contradiction in the example I gave you. Keep up!!!

My claim is contradictory -> incoherent, the evidence you have provided here is only good enough to go up against incoherent -> contradictory. Not the same thing.

They are in intellectual matters if they use only logic and evidence based views. Debate is one example. You agreed to this so don't backtrack.

No, I did not agree to that. What I did agree with, is that agnostics who uses only logic and evidence based views are more reasonable than atheists who do not uses only logic and evidence based views in purely intellectual matters. Look here, your lack of care when it comes to qualifying your grandiose claims is what put you in this whole mess to begin with. Qualify your claims.

Because it works and it's the best tool we have to ensure truth.

Ensure truth?! Falsehood cannot do that. You don't sound very agnostic.

Much of the scientific method is also grounded in axioms, like the assumption of an objective Universe, or other minds exist, etc. We still use science because it works. It is certainly better than faith and beliefs.

Sure, but we don't say scientific method is the best tool for ensure truth. It can't do that exactly because of all the assumptions it makes.

It's funny you mention that. Did you ever consider a god? And if that's the case, then that's not a "desire".

Why not? Gods don't have desires?

But for now I will say that's how BIOLOGY set up life since the body works "involuntarily" (no personal agency needed) to breathe on its own but perhaps a god may play a role. No one has disproven that. Hek, even coma patients can breathe on their own in some cases.

That's moot since you still don't have any needs without desires.

It also needs to function.

Prove this claim. Look here, a ball drops under gravity involuntarily. It does not need to fall, it simply falls.

Not who, but what. Biology. Life.

Neither can do that as biology and life in general have no intention.

Did you disprove God? If not, then how can you claim that it is desire and not God?

I don't need to, if it is God then my point is proven, the need to function is tied to desire, God's.

Go tell coma patients that. Some of them who probably want to check out of life but can't because their body keeps working. This is a classic case of mind vs. body. Desires come from the mind, but needs not so much. Needs are obligatory, they are requirements. They are often involuntarily carried out.

Required by whom?

Biology has programmed it to survive so they are meant or obligated to survive.

That's a non sequitur. "Meant" can only exist with an intention. Biology has no intents.

Again, can't rule out God either.

Again, God would only prove my point.

The body needs oxygen.

In order to function, the body does not need to function.

Ever hear of 'determinism'? If you read up on that then you'll notice that "determine" does not simply refer to action taken by humans. For instance, homosexuality is determined by genes and other prenatal factors. It is not a choice or want, if it were then wanting to be heterosexuality would change their orientation.

Which means there is no need without desire.

Context is everything.. Of course, in an intellectual context I look at goals one way, but in a non-intellectual context they are like personal beliefs.

Woah, sounds to me like you are saying you have personal beliefs. Can I get an affirmation?

I've already proven my case. You already agreed.

Agreed to what exactly?

So if it's dangerous indoors, then why shut down the economy, when the purpose of that was to prevent outdoor activity? Indeed, there is data that some 60% of recent New York cases (i'm sure there's more but other states are not focused on tracking this stat) involved those who were following the stay-at-home orders. Not only is a large percentage of this group catching the virus, but there's also potential for increased stress, poverty, depression, domestic violence, which further deteriorates health and families.

Not sure what your point is. That's it's dangerous is surely all the more reason to stick to the quarantine, least it become even more dangerous.

But you can't have it both ways. Either you let the high risk population out while limiting contact with the low risk population as much as possible, or you confine them to their homes. But if you're going to let any group out then you may as well let them participate in the economy. Limit the high risk to essential places only.

Or limit everyone to essential places only? Is that having it both ways?

Then they'll have to practice social distancing in the house. That is what healthcare workers who live with kids, their spouses, and other family members are resorting to.

Yeah, and it's making things harder.

We may not know the information for that for months or even years. Keeping people indoors for that period of time while the economy suffers (whatever is left of it), especially given what you said earlier about infections occurring even within a home, is ludicrous.

Again, I'm not even concerned about the low risk population because they only experience mild symptoms. We do know from other viruses, that eventually the virus will run its course, to where you're no longer infectious.

There is a balance to be had here. Risking economy vs risking heath. The consensus of the medical and scientific community is leaning towards staying put. That will change in time.

And if I get reinfected again, although there's no evidence of that either, then bring on those MILD symptoms and I'll get right through it again, even better in fact, given I already have atibodies in my system.

Or you discovered that you have some underlying health issue that you weren't aware of or that the virus have mutated just enough, that you are hospitalised or worse.

Oh? And you do know a lot of the experts projections have been off by a lot. New York did not have the amount of hospitalizations and ICU care that they were projected to have according to their "experts".

That doesn't make it any less prudent to listen to experts.

So again, you have no proven case. In fact, I've found data of hospitalization rates DECREASING in some of the states while they're opening. Sure, some of those same states are seeing increase in infections (that might be due to more tests catching those who were already infected), but still hospitalization rate is not increasing. I can post that source AFTER you back up your claim or admit that you don't know. And also, make sure that it is evidence that speaks to my scenario of letting only the low risk population out as opposed to letting EVERYONE out.

Or we can listen to the experts.

This was a poor article. It is again referencing unnamed experts and their "projections".

Unnamed? Maria Furberg, MD, PhD, an infectious diseases expert at Umea University Hospital in northeastern Sweden. Mozhu Ding, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Karolinska Institute. Cecilia Soderberg-Naucler, PhD, an immunologist at the Karolinska Institute.

I understand dismissing their claims as anecdotal, quite another to say they are unnamed. Or perhaps you are referring to the "group of 22 clinicians, virologists, and researchers?" In which case there is a link to another page.

Are you a Trump supporter? Do you want him to lose?

No, yes.

I want actual numbers and that is because the "projections" have been wrong. Sweden has allowed their low risk population to function with little to no restrictions and its hospitals are still NOT overburdened. And that's on top of all of the other sicknesses and injuries that they have to deal with. So much for your claim that allowing the low risk population out would OVERburdened hospitals. Sweden is not overburdened and they've largely followed my policy from the START.

We'll see if they strategy was the right one in time.

Um, did you actually read your article instead of reading the headline? It talks about some rural hospitals being stretched for cash. It is because covid-19 is scaring away non-covid-19 patients which is hurting their pockets. I didn't come across anything in the article that talked about the hospitals being overburdened because of too many covid-19 patients in their doors. It seems these rural hospitals aren't getting any business at all.

And the fear will be worse when more people are infected. But I shall let you have the satisfaction to hear me say I only read the title.

Seriously man. You're a champion of reason (according to your earlier statement) but then you can't even do your research?

Because the experts have already done the hard work for me.

This is the third piece of evidence I have showing of you trying to further the Democrat's narrative (they also want the economy closed) as opposed to a narrative that's rooted in logic and evidence.

That's not mutually exclusive.

And I should trust a person who claims that hospitals are overwhelmed or will be when you have NO evidence and POOR research to show for it?

You don't need to trust me. Trust the scientists and medical workers.

So they're not working and not getting paid. How is that much better than not using the official word "fired"?

They will have a job to go back to when the quarantine ends.

It is your socialist ideology that suffering must be shared even when some have the option of not suffering. Thank God you can't prove that so it can be dismiss for the socialist pipe dream that it is. In fact, are you making sure you're suffering just as much as everyone else? Could you possibly turn off your computer and give it to a poor person who needs it for home schooling because schools are closed? Play out that principle.

Nah, that's mine. The state is suppose to do the evening out with socialism.

Nancy Pelosi was on her webcam not too long ago showing off her gourmet ice cream in her Hollywood mansion? Can she let some of those homeless people move in? Perhaps she can throw an ice cream party?

That's up to her.

Or that they care about both since both benefit by having income. Oh, you're getting more extreme and from my experience the more extreme someone gets the more they deviate from logic. I wish this came out earlier so that I would know that this influences your thinking and not logic and evidence.

As above, that's to be expected since politics isn't a purely intellectual matter.

You started out using the hospitalization numbers as one reason to disagree with my plan of not restricting the low risk population. After I exposed how you were wrong on that, then you shifted your position by responding to my point with "infliction rate". How does bringing that up prove your point that the numbers of hospitalizations for covid-19 (the low risk population) are lower than the numbers for the flu?

Because it shows how many more people could be infected than the flu?

If you were worried about the hospitalizations, then wouldn't you close the economy for the illness that causes higher number of hospitalizations?

We would and have done exactly that?

Keep in mind also, that covid-19 being more infectious doesn't necessarily mean that it will have a higher hospitalization rate/number.

Rate, sure, but raw number would increase, that's just simple math.

The simple reason for that is because those infected with covid-19 may only experience MILD symptoms and not require hospitalization. But here's data on that from the World Health Organization:

For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation.

Later on I will present evidence that even says the flu can spread quicker.

What's the numbers for seasonal flu for comparison? The article says percentages is higher.

I'm entitled to dislike OPINIONS being used as a supporting reason in a DEBATE. Can you back up our claims that the infection numbers for covid-19 will go past that for the flu if we just let everyone out?

Well, R0 is about double, the percentage of severe infection, and critical infection is higher according to WHO. You tell me if that back up my claim or not.

[AgnosticBoy]

The reason I have been and will continue taking it hard to Bust Nak is because he and others take it hard to Christians. Hypocrisy ticks me off. There's that, and I also dislike when all atheists try to equate themselves to agnostics. Bust Nak has done that by trying to bring down the agnostic standard rather than RISING to the standard.

The lofty standard of "applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas" is now been brought down to a mere "applying logic and evidence standard to ALL purely intellectual areas."

Are you bothered by the fact that you don't even meet the lower standard? If you did meet that standard, why did you resort to using your liberal beliefs on multiple occasions in a DEBATE? A debate should be the easiest setting to stay away from beliefs but you haven't even been able to do that.

I'll keep this in mind next time you want to ask me a series of questions rather than spitting out the answer that you supposedly know already.

I'll take your suggestion into consideration.

You won't have a choice because I won't give any answers when I suspect you know the answers. You wanted me to get to the point when it came to the different meanings of "beliefs" and even complained that I didn't do that from the start, so lets try to be consistent and "straightforward" as you called yourself.

Well in intellectual matters, if reason can not resolve the matter, then you can remain agnostic.

I still don't see how that is workable given certain unfalsifiable axioms that we all take for granted.

It's easier show in a debate. When you are presented with a claim that lacks logic and evidence, I suspend judgement. How is that unworkable?

Come on! You could've at least formulated a view based on logic and evidence when it comes to what can be done.

Sure. My plan is to listen to scientific advice and do what they recommend, based on the logic and evidence that they are professional advice based on their research and expertise.

You mean you listen to the experts that agree with you. Did you know that other experts were suggesting otherwise? Did you evaluate the evidence yourself instead of just "listening" to someone tell you the evidence? Did you consider that their problem-solving ability is only as good as their focus? In other words, their not saying my plan wouldn't work, but rather they didn't even focus on it at all? You should really think and research for yourself as well, instead of just blindly following your "experts".

Perhaps you are unwilling to take your time and gather evidence or you don't know about the evidence that would justify such a view?

Or perhaps the view above is easy to justify without taking much time?

You're the one that brought up desires. I simply pointed out that I was able to formulate a covid-19 view that is built on logic and evidence. That shows it can be done, so I'm not sure why you couldn't do it.

Or perhaps, you were more interested in going off of your WANTS (influenced by liberal ideology?) instead of looking for and going by LOGIC AND EVIDENCE?

That's a given since politics isn't a purely intellectual matter.

Some areas are and some aren't. But I certainly don't claim that the UNPROVEN areas are true and use that in a DEBATE like your "equal suffering" view (it's odd that you would actually make someone suffer when they have an option not to but that's another story). I certainly wouldn't cling to the UNPROVEN areas when there is available logic and evidence for that area. On several occasions you've clung to your ideologies and beliefs, when evidence was available.

Don't you and Zzzyx go after Christians for the same thing - why the double standard??

Loaded questions cannot be answered. There is no double standard.

Oh, you don't like questions now when they're not your own and prove a point. Another double standard.

Does that explain why you made statements that were blatantly lacking in research and you purposely did so without citing a source for it, TWICE in fact?! Hmm, I know so.

Nah, there is an easier explanation: it's bait.

At least, you're acknowledging your errors but you can't blame me for asking if politics played a role given this is a heated political issue and you're a liberal afterall.

It does not mean that we should have a good economy. I know I hold a want since I know my own mind. That part is not opinion.

That sounded very much like you are saying the other part is an opinion. More to the point, you said "I want a good economy" wasn't a claim. You have not addressed that here.

The statement that we should have a good economy is an opinion but not mine, of course.

Why are the laws of logic called the laws of "thought"? Can you conceive a contradiction? Again, it's not because it is meaningless because the terms have meaning, but rather it's because the meaningful terms can NOT go together. A champion of reason would know all of this already.

I can't but who knows how others can conceive a contradiction. Again, meaningful terms can NOT go together, sounded very much like meaningless when they are put together.

Perhaps the 3 laws of "thought" might give you a hint on what can be "thought" of?!

Um, you were suggesting that just because someone can believe in a contradiction, then they can also believe in an incoherent view. You were trying to justify that claim by showing that contradictory statements are also incoherent. My point which you responded to is evidence AGAINST your claim since you could NOT point out the contradiction in the example I gave you. Keep up!!!

My claim is contradictory -> incoherent, the evidence you have provided here is only good enough to go up against incoherent -> contradictory. Not the same thing.

So now you admit that I have a point. You're now saying that someone can believe in an incoherent statement if it's derived from a contradiction. That's a different statement than what you said earlier when you suggested without any qualification, that someone can have incoherent beliefs.
"To a rational person like myself, sure. But others are perfectly capable of believing something that is incoherent to them." ([quote="post 130). (No mention of contradiction in your statement)

You and I agreed that the meaninglessness would only come in if the person combines two opposing concepts, like a square and circle, together into one concept. I'm telling you that can't be done. My support for that are the laws of thought and my own experience. You admitted that you don't know how someone would hold contradictory views so how can you say that it involves combining two opposing concepts as opposed to keeping them separate by having two separate beliefs?

They are in intellectual matters if they use only logic and evidence based views. Debate is one example. You agreed to this so don't backtrack.

No, I did not agree to that. What I did agree with, is that agnostics who uses only logic and evidence based views are more reasonable than atheists who do not uses only logic and evidence based views in purely intellectual matters. Look here, your lack of care when it comes to qualifying your grandiose claims is what put you in this whole mess to begin with. Qualify your claims.

You already conceded to my point starting at post #2 of this thread. The mess started with your 50 million questions which only resulting in.showing that one of my views was hypothetical. Wow, that one really hurts my case! But now when it comes to me examining your views , and not just by asking questions, but actually presenting logic and evidence to expose your ideology, falsehoods, and shifts in position, now you don't like it. Like I said, that's hypocritical.

Because it works and it's the best tool we have to ensure truth.

Ensure truth?! Falsehood cannot do that. You don't sound very agnostic.

What are you referring to as false? The axioms of logic in the scientific method?

Much of the scientific method is also grounded in axioms, like the assumption of an objective Universe, or other minds exist, etc. We still use science because it works. It is certainly better than faith and beliefs.

Sure, but we don't say scientific method is the best tool for ensure truth. It can't do that exactly because of all the assumptions it makes.

Is it the best tool that we have for knowledge?

It's funny you mention that. Did you ever consider a god? And if that's the case, then that's not a "desire".

Why not? Gods don't have desires?

From his perspective it might be a desire, but God's desire is not the same as your desire. From your perspective, it would be how you were designed. So that is after all something that's carried out that doesn't have to do with your desire.

But for now I will say that's how BIOLOGY set up life since the body works "involuntarily" (no personal agency needed) to breathe on its own but perhaps a god may play a role. No one has disproven that. Hek, even coma patients can breathe on their own in some cases.

That's moot since you still don't have any needs without desires.

The needs of my body exist without desire. Do you agree that I can breathe regardless of if I desire it or not? The desires is something that can be added to that bodily need but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily linked.

It also needs to function.

Prove this claim. Look here, a ball drops under gravity involuntarily. It does not need to fall, it simply falls.

Not in a theistic universe. But even in a non-theistic universe, purpose could just simply apply to all of biology and not physics. It is very common for us to hear scientists talkin about the needs of the body or physiological needs. Your limititation is arbitrary when it comes to the concept of needs.

Not who, but what. Biology. Life.

Neither can do that as biology and life in general have no intention.

Well again, one point that supports my view is a theistic universe. But let's look at biology also. Biology may not have a mind to ponder about life but we cannot deny that it has put things in place to function towards a particular end. For instance, heart and the lungs work together to keep our body oxygenated. Oxygen is required or is a need for the body.

Did you disprove God? If not, then how can you claim that it is desire and not God?

I don't need to, if it is God then my point is proven, the need to function is tied to desire, God's.

Again, God's desire is not equivalent to your desire. Your body has requirements or needs if God designed it for a reason. It is required by him that it functions. It is not based on your desire.

Go tell coma patients that. Some of them who probably want to check out of life but can't because their body keeps working. This is a classic case of mind vs. body. Desires come from the mind, but needs not so much. Needs are obligatory, they are requirements. They are often involuntarily carried out.

Required by whom?

God. If you asks what then I can say biology. Biology leaves us with rules and our bodies work towards that particular end.

Biology has programmed it to survive so they are meant or obligated to survive.

That's a non sequitur. "Meant" can only exist with an intention. Biology has no intents.

Meant can exist with a purpose. The heart has a purpose or function, does it not?

Context is everything.. Of course, in an intellectual context I look at goals one way, but in a non-intellectual context they are like personal beliefs.

Woah, sounds to me like you are saying you have personal beliefs. Can I get an affirmation?

I don't have any beliefs when it comes to politics, religions, and philosophy and other areas that only intellect can be applied.

I've already proven my case. You already agreed.

Agreed to what exactly?

Start by referring to your own post, post #2.

So if it's dangerous indoors, then why shut down the economy, when the purpose of that was to prevent outdoor activity? Indeed, there is data that some 60% of recent New York cases (i'm sure there's more but other states are not focused on tracking this stat) involved those who were following the stay-at-home orders. Not only is a large percentage of this group catching the virus, but there's also potential for increased stress, poverty, depression, domestic violence, which further deteriorates health and families.

Not sure what your point is. That's it's dangerous is surely all the more reason to stick to the quarantine, least it become even more dangerous.

The point of keeping people indoors was to prevent infection. But now that we know that even that can be dangerous then that undercuts the Democrat governors point that they are protecting the citizens from infection by keeping them indoors.

But you can't have it both ways. Either you let the high risk population out while limiting contact with the low risk population as much as possible, or you confine them to their homes. But if you're going to let any group out then you may as well let them participate in the economy. Limit the high risk to essential places only.

Or limit everyone to essential places only? Is that having it both ways?

You still want the economy shutdown while also admitting that keeping it shut, by keeping people indoors, can also spread infection. Remember the goal is to reduce damages to the economy while keeping the death count low. How would limiting everyone to essential areas help the economy, let alone stop the spread? In the most extreme case, what I'm asking is why keep the economy shut if everybody's going to get infected anyway? it just seems you want to keep it shut down no matter what. Just because many people are anti Trump and don't want to see him succeed that doesnt mean you get the tear down the country and take everybody else with you.

Then they'll have to practice social distancing in the house. That is what healthcare workers who live with kids, their spouses, and other family members are resorting to.

Yeah, and it's making things harder.

It's tough but it can be done. It's tough to also isolate people indoors but apparently that can be done. So clearly being tough is not a standard to not do it.

We may not know the information for that for months or even years. Keeping people indoors for that period of time while the economy suffers (whatever is left of it), especially given what you said earlier about infections occurring even within a home, is ludicrous.

Again, I'm not even concerned about the low risk population because they only experience mild symptoms. We do know from other viruses, that eventually the virus will run its course, to where you're no longer infectious.

There is a balance to be had here. Risking economy vs risking heath. The consensus of the medical and scientific community is leaning towards staying put. That will change in time.

You're not risking the health of the low risk population that don't have any underlying diseases. If the options are to risk having a runny nose vs. economic damage, then of course I would choose to help the economy. Your thinking only comes from someone who would treat all populations the same way as if the virus affect all groups the same way.

And if I get reinfected again, although there's no evidence of that either, then bring on those MILD symptoms and I'll get right through it again, even better in fact, given I already have atibodies in my system.

Or you discovered that you have some underlying health issue that you weren't aware of or that the virus have mutated just enough, that you are hospitalised or worse.

Then you can make adjustments based on what happens. If that started happening on the large-scale then we can act on it then. People usually don't pause that life for risk that they don't even know the chances of it happening. In fact there's more of a case that can be made that the probability of it happening based on other diseases is low.

Oh? And you do know a lot of the experts projections have been off by a lot. New York did not have the amount of hospitalizations and ICU care that they were projected to have according to their "experts".

That doesn't make it any less prudent to listen to experts.

You should listen to a so-called expert when they are wrong time and time again? I think it's better that people listen but also do their own research.

This was a poor article. It is again referencing unnamed experts and their "projections".

Unnamed? Maria Furberg, MD, PhD, an infectious diseases expert at Umea University Hospital in northeastern Sweden. Mozhu Ding, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Karolinska Institute. Cecilia Soderberg-Naucler, PhD, an immunologist at the Karolinska Institute.

I understand dismissing their claims as anecdotal, quite another to say they are unnamed. Or perhaps you are referring to the "group of 22 clinicians, virologists, and researchers?" In which case there is a link to another page.

Did any of those named doctors say that the system was overwhelmed? Also, was there any data provided to backup any claims of Sweden's hospitals being overwhelmed?

Are you a Trump supporter? Do you want him to lose?

No, yes.

So you want him to win even though you don't support him? You don't want any of the democratic candidates to win?

I want actual numbers and that is because the "projections" have been wrong. Sweden has allowed their low risk population to function with little to no restrictions and its hospitals are still NOT overburdened. And that's on top of all of the other sicknesses and injuries that they have to deal with. So much for your claim that allowing the low risk population out would OVERburdened hospitals. Sweden is not overburdened and they've largely followed my policy from the START.

We'll see if they strategy was the right one in time.

Did you really mean you hope it doesn't work? (Joking)

Um, did you actually read your article instead of reading the headline? It talks about some rural hospitals being stretched for cash. It is because covid-19 is scaring away non-covid-19 patients which is hurting their pockets. I didn't come across anything in the article that talked about the hospitals being overburdened because of too many covid-19 patients in their doors. It seems these rural hospitals aren't getting any business at all.

And the fear will be worse when more people are infected. But I shall let you have the satisfaction to hear me say I only read the title.

Oh so never mind you dodged the fact that you posted a terrible article that had nothing to do with what you were trying to assert. Hospitals complaining about losing money is not the same thing as them complaining about being overburdened by covid-19 patients.

Seriously man. You're a champion of reason (according to your earlier statement) but then you can't even do your research?

Because the experts have already done the hard work for me.

I know you put your faith in them. I suppose the experts in Sweden are wrong, the ones that disagree with you I mean.

This is the third piece of evidence I have showing of you trying to further the Democrat's narrative (they also want the economy closed) as opposed to a narrative that's rooted in logic and evidence.

That's not mutually exclusive.

A republican would say the same thing. They can't both be right!

And I should trust a person who claims that hospitals are overwhelmed or will be when you have NO evidence and POOR research to show for it?

You don't need to trust me. Trust the scientists and medical workers.

This is your debate. So now you have to back up what they're saying with evidence. Stop quoting poor articles. In fact you should be posting the exact information in the article instead of sending me on wild goose chases .

So they're not working and not getting paid. How is that much better than not using the official word "fired"?

They will have a job to go back to when the quarantine ends.

Let's play the what if game since you do that with the virus and me being re-infected. So what if the economy collapses?

It is your socialist ideology that suffering must be shared even when some have the option of not suffering. Thank God you can't prove that so it can be dismiss for the socialist pipe dream that it is. In fact, are you making sure you're suffering just as much as everyone else? Could you possibly turn off your computer and give it to a poor person who needs it for home schooling because schools are closed? Play out that principle.

Nah, that's mine. The state is suppose to do the evening out with socialism.

So you're not even willing to follow your own standard but yet you want the government to impose everyone else to follow that standard? Yeah that sets a great example.

Your socialist opinion is is dismissed. the goal is to open the economy while limiting covid-19 deaths. That's what the governor's are saying. The not saying they want to spread the suffering around. To think that someone would make someone suffer when that person has the option of not suffering, I wonder what would be the implications for that when it comes to the problem of evil.

Nancy Pelosi was on her webcam not too long ago showing off her gourmet ice cream in her Hollywood mansion? Can she let some of those homeless people move in? Perhaps she can throw an ice cream party?

That's up to her.

Uh oh. It doesn't sound like a good idea when not even you live up to that standard, right?

Or that they care about both since both benefit by having income. Oh, you're getting more extreme and from my experience the more extreme someone gets the more they deviate from logic. I wish this came out earlier so that I would know that this influences your thinking and not logic and evidence.

As above, that's to be expected since politics isn't a purely intellectual matter.

It could be if all actions were based on logic and evidence and not politics and power.clearly, most politicians aren't using logic and evidence in all the areas that it could be used, and that includes you.

You started out using the hospitalization numbers as one reason to disagree with my plan of not restricting the low risk population. After I exposed how you were wrong on that, then you shifted your position by responding to my point with "infliction rate". How does bringing that up prove your point that the numbers of hospitalizations for covid-19 (the low risk population) are lower than the numbers for the flu?

Because it shows how many more people could be infected than the flu?

]
But the goal is to limit covid-19 deaths, not limit infection spread. In other words you can have one without the other.

If you were worried about the hospitalizations, then wouldn't you close the economy for the illness that causes higher number of hospitalizations?

We would and have done exactly that?

The flu has has a higher rate of hospitalization then covid-19. But yet we didn't close down for the flu so I'm not sure what you're talkin about other than trying to avoid your obvious double standard.

Keep in mind also, that covid-19 being more infectious doesn't necessarily mean that it will have a higher hospitalization rate/number.

Rate, sure, but raw number would increase, that's just simple math.

11 is one more than 10. So let's shut down the hospitals because we're going to see a little increase. Yeah that's such an "overburden" to the hospitals.

The simple reason for that is because those infected with covid-19 may only experience MILD symptoms and not require hospitalization. But here's data on that from the World Health Organization:

For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation.

What's the numbers for seasonal flu for comparison? The article says percentages is higher.

You don't need to compare to the flu to make the point that the majority of the people who get covid-19 will not need hospitalization. That's why I posted those percentages.

I'm entitled to dislike OPINIONS being used as a supporting reason in a DEBATE. Can you back up our claims that the infection numbers for covid-19 will go past that for the flu if we just let everyone out?

Well, R0 is about double, the percentage of severe infection, and critical infection is higher according to WHO. You tell me if that back up my claim or not.

Well if you were worried about the speed of transmission, then your point is not proven based on my source.
The reproductive rate is not a constant number. It is actually very context-specific which is why different countries have different reproductive rate numbers. You said the reproductive number was 2.5. Can you tell me if that was referring to our country or was it referring to one particular state. For instance would the state of Montana have a lower reproductive rate of infection then say the state of New York given that there's less population density?

Let's look at Germany?

Germany's reproduction rate for the novel coronavirus has dipped back below the key threshold of 1, the country's center for disease control said today.

The so-called R0 had been above 1 for three consecutive days -- a sign the disease may have been expanding rather than being pushed back.

CNN
An R0 of 1 is much lower than the 2.5 figure you mentioned in your last post, correct?

[Danmark]

Rather than rely on a partisan screed, I'll go with the experts. The Lancet is just one example.

"The COVID-19 pandemic continues to worsen in the USA with 1·3 million cases and an estimated death toll of 80 684 as of May 12. States that were initially the hardest hit, such as New York and New Jersey, have decelerated the rate of infections and deaths after the implementation of 2 months of lockdown."
....
In the decades following its founding in 1946, the CDC became a national pillar of public health and globally respected. . . CDC support was instrumental in helping WHO to eradicate smallpox. However, funding to the CDC for a long time has been subject to conservative politics that have increasingly eroded the agency's ability to mount effective, evidence-based public health responses.
....
Americans must put a president in the White House come January, 2021, who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 5/fulltext