Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[otseng]

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

For debate:
Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[Bust Nak]

Here's a better way to put my statement.

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

That is easy to understand, it's a regular conditional statement where both the conditional clause and the main clause are propositional statements. And this is supposed to the equivalent to if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy?

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

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

I am thinking of this view: "that it is the goal" where "that" presumably is running along the lines of "lessen damages cause by closure."

I'll give you 2 or 3 more posts to prove your point because all you're doing so far is asking questions about my view.

Yes and it's already revealed some very odd ideas in your worldview.

If you have the proof, then spit it out and I will gladly weed out the belief.

Well first we have to establish that you have a coherent view. Holding incoherent idea is worse than having beliefs.

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's a better way to put my statement.

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

That is easy to understand, it's a regular conditional statement where both the conditional clause and the main clause are propositional statements.

It's also not a belief.

And this is supposed to the equivalent to if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy?

First explain how that's a belief like you said you would . If it is incoherent, then let me know also because then belief doesn't apply and your goal to find a belief is moot.

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

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

I am thinking of this view: "that it is the goal" where "that" presumably is running along the lines of "lessen damages cause by closure."

Again, is that view a belief? Is it incoherent as formulated earlier, "if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy".

If you know the answer, then just tell me. Stop dancing around the issue. I'll even drop it if you can explain to me how it's a belief. Isn't that a much easier to do then going on this merry-go-round.

I'll give you 2 or 3 more posts to prove your point because all you're doing so far is asking questions about my view.

Yes and it's already revealed some very odd ideas in your worldview.

My view on agnosticism or my view on covid-19? If the latter, that is NOT a worldview. You said yourself that a person who uses reason in ALL areas is more reasonable then someone who uses it in one area. Now you're calling it odd?

If you have the proof, then spit it out and I will gladly weed out the belief.

Well first we have to establish that you have a coherent view. Holding incoherent idea is worse than having beliefs.

Yes, I'm waiting on you to show me that the following is a belief, THEN I'll drop it. Again, give me a straight forward answer. Is the following a belief,

""if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy".

Please explain how or why.

[Bust Nak]

First explain how that's a belief like you said you would .

I don't remember saying that, quote please.

If it is incoherent, then let me know also because then belief doesn't apply and your goal to find a belief is moot.

Yes, that is incoherent. So does an incoherent view does not count as a belief?

Again, is that view a belief?

It's a view that is not backed by evidence and logic only. What do you think it is, if such a thing isn't a belief?

Is it incoherent as formulated earlier, "if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy".

No.

If you know the answer, then just tell me. Stop dancing around the issue. I'll even drop it if you can explain to me how it's a belief. Isn't that a much easier to do then going on this merry-go-round.

Not really my style, but just treat my question as rhetorical to see what I am getting at:

Incoherent thoughts are beliefs because they cannot be backed by logic and evidence.

Statements along the lines of "that is the goal" or "the goal is blab" are propositional statement that cannot be backed by logic and evidence alone, you need feelings as premises, and hence are beliefs.

Statements of feelings such as "I like this" are propositional statement that serves as premises to build other views.

Statements along the lines of "if that is the goal then we should do this" is actually coherent, since that is the goal is propositional.

My view on agnosticism or my view on covid-19? If the latter, that is NOT a worldview.

Neither. I was referring to epistemology stuff like what counts as a view and what doesn't; what counts as a propositional and what doesn't; what counts as a belief and what doesn't.

You said yourself that a person who uses reason in ALL areas is more reasonable then someone who uses it in one area. Now you're calling it odd?

Nah, that's bit is fine. The odd bit is thinking that is even possible to use reason (and evidence) only in all area.

Yes, I'm waiting on you to show me that the following is a belief, THEN I'll drop it. Again, give me a straight forward answer. Is the following a belief,

"if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy".

Please explain how or why.

No, apparently the incoherent does not count as a belief in your book.

[AgnosticBoy]

First explain how that's a belief like you said you would .

I don't remember saying that, quote please.

Here it is:

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

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

If it is incoherent, then let me know also because then belief doesn't apply and your goal to find a belief is moot.

Yes, that is incoherent. So does an incoherent view does not count as a belief?

Why is it incoherent? Can you explain why rather than just making the claim.

Also, if something is meaningless, then you wouldn't believe in it any more than you would believe this: adjlkfjakljflkdajflkdakjfklajfkljaklfjkldajf. How do you even assess something meaningless for truth? Perhaps 'ignostics' can answer.

Again, is that view a belief?

It's a view that is not backed by evidence and logic only. What do you think it is, if such a thing isn't a belief?

So the only problem is that it's not backed by logic and evidence? Sorry, but that doesn't make something "incoherent"... If that were the case then all "beliefs" which are not backed by logic and evidence, would be incoherent.

Is it incoherent as formulated earlier, "if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy".

No.

Now you are saying that the quoted statement is not incoherent when earlier you said it was. Your views are inconsistent.

If you know the answer, then just tell me. Stop dancing around the issue. I'll even drop it if you can explain to me how it's a belief. Isn't that a much easier to do then going on this merry-go-round.

Not really my style, but just treat my question as rhetorical to see what I am getting at:

It's not your style? Didn't you say earlier that you were a "straightforward" person? Want me to quote where said that?

Incoherent thoughts are beliefs because they cannot be backed by logic and evidence.

You can have a thought without having a belief. If you don't know what the thought is or means, then it's not even a clear thought and you'd therefore wouldn't know what to believe any more than the following: Can I can believe in xkajkdjfkljalkdjfd;ajfdkl? Eventhough, a'dkjflkjalkdjfklj, is not backed by logic and evidence?

Statements along the lines of "that is the goal" or "the goal is blab" are propositional statement that cannot be backed by logic and evidence alone, you need feelings as premises, and hence are beliefs.

Oh, I agree except for when you add the word "IF" in front of those statements. When you add the word "if", then I only meant for that to be hypothetical as in assuming that the goal was what we are to follow.

My view on agnosticism or my view on covid-19? If the latter, that is NOT a worldview.

Neither. I was referring to epistemology stuff like what counts as a view and what doesn't; what counts as a propositional and what doesn't; what counts as a belief and what doesn't.

So one incoherent statement, which is NOT a worldview, is enough to pass judgement on my agnostic WORLDVIEW? Especially, when your views are all over the place given your inconsistencies.

You said yourself that a person who uses reason in ALL areas is more reasonable then someone who uses it in one area. Now you're calling it odd?

Nah, that's bit is fine. The odd bit is thinking that is even possible to use reason (and evidence) only in all area.

Oh, now you're bringing this up. Well even if it weren't, but just the fact that someone uses it in "more" areas (perhaps not all) would still make my point valid. Agnostics are more reasonable than atheists, if the agnostic doesn't use "ideologies" when it comes to politics and religion, compared to the atheists who DO use ideology for politics. In other words, an agnostic is like a non-partisan (Independent, no political ideologies to commit to), while atheists tend to be partisan (i.e LIBERAL Democrats).

Yes, I'm waiting on you to show me that the following is a belief, THEN I'll drop it. Again, give me a straight forward answer. Is the following a belief,

"if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy".

Please explain how or why.

No, apparently the incoherent does not count as a belief in your book.

Thank you, sir.

[Danmark]

I'm only claiming that an agnostic who shuns all beliefs in favor of reason is more reasonable than an atheist that has beliefs.

This is a tautology.
"An atheist who shuns all beliefs in favor of reason is more reasonable than an agnostic that has beliefs."

You make another error here. You appear to fail to recognize that someone with no beliefs at all is not reasonable. Your hypothetical agnostic "who shuns all beliefs" does not believe in reason, by definition. One who does not believe in reason is not reasonable.

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm only claiming that an agnostic who shuns all beliefs in favor of reason is more reasonable than an atheist that has beliefs.

This is a tautology.
"An [strike]atheist[/strike] [agnostic] who shuns all beliefs in favor of reason is more reasonable than an [strike]agnostic[/strike] [atheist] that has beliefs."

You misquoted me so I crossed out the errors.

You make another error here. You appear to fail to recognize that someone with no beliefs at all is not reasonable. Your hypothetical agnostic "who shuns all beliefs" does not believe in reason, by definition. One who does not believe in reason is not reasonable.

An agnostic might claim that they don't know about the validity of the axioms for reason and science but they still use it.

I would say someone who applies reason is reasonable. You don't have to believe in reason to apply it.

[Bust Nak]

Here it is:

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

Before I do that...

That was for a different statement. I was gonna show how "we should open the economy" is a belief, which I did. Where as you are claiming that I said I would show how "if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy." Please be more careful next time.

Why is it incoherent? Can you explain why rather than just making the claim.

What's wrong with the explanation I've already given? Repeated here for your examination: A->B is only coherent where A is a proposition; you claimed that your A was not a proposition, hence the whole statement is incoherent.

Also, if something is meaningless, then you wouldn't believe in it any more than you would believe this: adjlkfjakljflkdajflkdakjfklajfkljaklfjkldajf. How do you even assess something meaningless for truth? Perhaps 'ignostics' can answer.

I don't know, which is why I asked you how you are holding that view. I think it indicates that your worldview is logically inconsistent.

So the only problem is that it's not backed by logic and evidence? Sorry, but that doesn't make something "incoherent"... If that were the case then all "beliefs" which are not backed by logic and evidence, would be incoherent.

My claim was that the statement is incoherent, therefore its a belief not backed by logic and evidence. You can't turn that around to belief not backed by logic and evidence therefore incoherent, that's an affirming the consequent fallacy.

Now you are saying that the quoted statement is not incoherent when earlier you said it was.

What? Those were different statements, "that it is the goal" is fine, while "if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy" is not (given the premise that "the goal is lessen damage..." is not a proposition.)

It's not your style? Didn't you say earlier that you were a "straightforward" person? Want me to quote where said that?

I don't remember saying I was a straight forward person. Perhaps you are referring to my willingness to give straight answers? I think I demonstrate that by telling you explicitly what I was getting at with my questions.

You can have a thought without having a belief. If you don't know what the thought is or means, then it's not even a clear thought and you'd therefore wouldn't know what to believe any more than the following: Can I can believe in xkajkdjfkljalkdjfd;ajfdkl? Eventhough, a'dkjflkjalkdjfklj, is not backed by logic and evidence?

Well, don't know about anyone else but I can't. Not everyone can be as logical as I am. Having said that, chances are you don't actually think it's incoherent, you just need to sort out your epistemology.

Oh, I agree except for when you add the word "IF" in front of those statements. When you add the word "if", then I only meant for that to be hypothetical as in assuming that the goal was what we are to follow.

That's not what you said before. You said no even I made it doubly clear I was asking you whether "that is the goal" is a propositional statement or not, without the "if."

So one incoherent statement, which is NOT a worldview, is enough to pass judgement on my agnostic WORLDVIEW?

Absolutely.

Especially, when your views are all over the place given your inconsistencies.

That's explained by a lack of vigilance in reading what I actually wrote.

Oh, now you're bringing this up. Well even if it weren't, but just the fact that someone uses it in "more" areas (perhaps not all) would still make my point valid. Agnostics are more reasonable than atheists, if the agnostic doesn't use "ideologies" when it comes to politics and religion, compared to the atheists who DO use ideology for politics. In other words, an agnostic is like a non-partisan (Independent, no political ideologies to commit to), while atheists tend to be partisan (i.e LIBERAL Democrats).

Not much of a point. LIBERAL Democrats are more reasonable than agnostics, if the Liberal Democrat doesn't use "ideologies" when it comes to politics and religion, compared to the agnostics who DO use ideology for politics.

The contentious part is thinking that agnostics, as a rule, uses less ideologies than atheists or liberal democrats.

Thank you, sir.

Right, but perhaps you can revisit your epistemology book?

[AgnosticBoy]

That was for a different statement. I was gonna show how "we should open the economy" is a belief, which I did.

It's also a view that I do not hold. And I've also requested that you show that my actual statement is a belief:
"if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy."

Why is it incoherent? Can you explain why rather than just making the claim.

What's wrong with the explanation I've already given? Repeated here for your examination: A->B is only coherent where A is a proposition; you claimed that your A was not a proposition, hence the whole statement is incoherent.

I accept that it is a proposition. Now can you do what is part of the whole point of this thread and explain why it is a belief?

Also, if something is meaningless, then you wouldn't believe in it any more than you would believe this: adjlkfjakljflkdajflkdakjfklajfkljaklfjkldajf. How do you even assess something meaningless for truth? Perhaps 'ignostics' can answer.

I don't know, which is why I asked you how you are holding that view. I think it indicates that your worldview is logically inconsistent. And of course, until you've answered, you have not proven.

There is only one particular statement that is in question. However, the rest of my covid-19 "worldview" is PROVEN. The most important point is that the economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

Also, belief requires an object and acceptance. If I don't know what the object (a statement, a thing, or being) is then how can I believe it? Furthermore, how could I then "accept" it as true? Your answer is "I DON'T KNOW". The fact is that asking questions or answering with "I DON't KNOW" proves nothing. In other words, you have not proven that this is a belief for me.

So the only problem is that it's not backed by logic and evidence? Sorry, but that doesn't make something "incoherent"... If that were the case then all "beliefs" which are not backed by logic and evidence, would be incoherent.

My claim was that the statement is incoherent, therefore its a belief not backed by logic and evidence. You can't turn that around to belief not backed by logic and evidence therefore incoherent, that's an affirming the consequent fallacy.

The only thing I agree with is that incoherent statements would not be backed by logic and evidence. But throwing "belief" in there makes your argument questionable. It becomes a non-sequitur. I see two separate concepts being connected together, no different than saying, the statement is inaccurate, therefore it's offensive. I see no connection between incoherence and "belief", just as there's none between inaccurate and offensive.

Also, keep in mind that you can have something not backed by logic and evidence without it being a belief. For instance, all FUTURE discoveries are not backed by logic and evidence since they are not known about yet. I'm sure there are other examples we can come up with.

You also need to explain this while factoring in my explain on beliefs which is in this post, the previous reply.

Now you are saying that the quoted statement is not incoherent when earlier you said it was.

What? Those were different statements, "that it is the goal" is fine, while "if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy" is not (given the premise that "the goal is lessen damage..." is not a proposition.)

In YOUR view, is it a proposition? In fact, lets just say it's a proposition. Is it a belief?

You can have a thought without having a belief. If you don't know what the thought is or means, then it's not even a clear thought and you'd therefore wouldn't know what to believe any more than the following: Can I can believe in xkajkdjfkljalkdjfd;ajfdkl? Eventhough, a'dkjflkjalkdjfklj, is not backed by logic and evidence?

Well, don't know about anyone else but I can't. Not everyone can be as logical as I am. Having said that, chances are you don't actually think it's incoherent, you just need to sort out your epistemology.

In general, if something is meaningless to a person then they can't believe in it. I explained that earlier by bringing up what beliefs require, i.e. an object, acceptance, etc.

So one incoherent statement, which is NOT a worldview, is enough to pass judgement on my agnostic WORLDVIEW?

Absolutely.

Then why is this part of my covid-19 worldview proven:
There is a way to open the economy while keeping covid-19 deaths low?

Oh, now you're bringing this up. Well even if it weren't, but just the fact that someone uses it in "more" areas (perhaps not all) would still make my point valid. Agnostics are more reasonable than atheists, if the agnostic doesn't use "ideologies" when it comes to politics and religion, compared to the atheists who DO use ideology for politics. In other words, an agnostic is like a non-partisan (Independent, no political ideologies to commit to), while atheists tend to be partisan (i.e LIBERAL Democrats).

Not much of a point. LIBERAL Democrats are more reasonable than agnostics, if the Liberal Democrat doesn't use "ideologies" when it comes to politics and religion, compared to the agnostics who DO use ideology for politics.

The main point is not using or relying on unproven ideologies. That is actually what defines an 'agnostic' but not so with the Democrat/atheist. I'm claiming that many atheists that I've encountered, you included, don't follow that point. An agnostic would be more reasonable than this group of atheists.

[Bust Nak]

It's also a view that I do not hold.

Hang on, can I get an affirmation that you accept that "we should open the economy" is a belief first, whether you hold that view or not?

And I've also requested that you show that my actual statement is a belief:
"if the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure then we should open the economy."

I pass.

I accept that it is a proposition. Now can you do what is part of the whole point of this thread and explain why it is a belief?

That is easy enough after you've accepted that the statement "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" is a proposition. It is a proposition that is not backed by logic and evidence alone, hence a belief.

And of course, until you've answered, you have not proven.

Proven what exactly? That I don't know how to hold an incoherent thought have no bearing on whether incoherent thoughts are beliefs or not.

There is only one particular statement that is in question. However, the rest of my covid-19 "worldview" is PROVEN. The most important point is that the economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

Not in this topic it isn't. One lone statement is enough to sink the claim that agnostics live by the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to all areas.

Also, belief requires an object and acceptance. If I don't know what the object (a statement, a thing, or being) is then how can I believe it? Furthermore, how could I then "accept" it as true?

Again, I don't know.

Your answer is "I DON'T KNOW". The fact is that asking questions or answering with "I DON't KNOW" proves nothing. In other words, you have not proven that this is a belief for me.

Same as above. How it is can be believed is irrelevant as to whether it is believed or not. But this is kinda moot now that you've affirmed that "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" is a proposition after all.

The only thing I agree with is that incoherent statements would not be backed by logic and evidence. But throwing "belief" in there makes your argument questionable. It becomes a non-sequitur. I see two separate concepts being connected together, no different than saying, the statement is inaccurate, therefore it's offensive. I see no connection between incoherence and "belief", just as there's none between inaccurate and offensive.

Incoherence is connected with not backed by logic and evidence, and not backed by logic and evidence is connected with belief, and connected is a transitive relationship, is it not? The only wiggle room that I can see, is whether a statement is a proposition or not.

Also, keep in mind that you can have something not backed by logic and evidence without it being a belief. For instance, all FUTURE discoveries are not backed by logic and evidence since they are not known about yet. I'm sure there are other examples we can come up with.

You also need to explain this while factoring in my explain on beliefs which is in this post, the previous reply.

Well that sounds like a belief to me. What do you call a thought about a future discovery that is yet to be backed by logic and evidence, if not a belief?

In YOUR view, is it a proposition? In fact, lets just say it's a proposition. Is it a belief?

Yes, a proposition that is not backed by logic and evidence alone is a belief, that's the criteria you provided, isn't it?

While we are here. What do you mean "lets just say..." Didn't you affirmed twice that it is indeed a proposition, now it sounds like you are just entertaining the possibility.

In general, if something is meaningless to a person then they can't believe in it. I explained that earlier by bringing up what beliefs require, i.e. an object, acceptance, etc.

Holding such a view does not count as accepting it?

Then why is this part of my covid-19 worldview proven:
There is a way to open the economy while keeping covid-19 deaths low?

Because it is backed by evidence and logic? Not sure what you are getting at here, why can't a logically inconsistent worldview include parts that can be proven?

The main point is not using or relying on unproven ideologies. That is actually what defines an 'agnostic' but not so with the Democrat/atheist. I'm claiming that many atheists that I've encountered, you included, don't follow that point. An agnostic would be more reasonable than this group of atheists.

Meh, you forgot the qualifier again. An agnostic would be not be more reasonable than that group of atheists, because agnostics rely just as much on unproven ideologues. Only an agnostic who does not rely on unproven ideologues could be said to be more reasonable than that group of atheists.

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's a recap for the readers:
- You have already agreed with the overall point of the OP, which is that someone who applies reason to ALL areas is more reasonable than someone who applies reason to ONE area. The labels only come into play because agnostics are defined in terms of applying reason to ALL matters involving the intellect (esp. debates). This standard does not define the atheists, esp. those who commit themselves to unproven ideologies.
- The only thing we're left debating is if someone can believe in an incoherent view. I'm trying to find out if one simple view of mine is incoherent. I'm willing to drop that view if it can be proven to be unreasonable.

It's also a view that I do not hold.

Hang on, can I get an affirmation that you accept that "we should open the economy" is a belief first, whether you hold that view or not?

That would depend on the context. It could be a reasonable view if it's part of a hypothetical point. Outside of a hypothetical context, I can agree with you.

I accept that it is a proposition. Now can you do what is part of the whole point of this thread and explain why it is a belief?

That is easy enough after you've accepted that the statement "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" is a proposition. It is a proposition that is not backed by logic and evidence alone, hence a belief.

If I say that the view is proven, then that means that every bit of it is supported by logic and evidence. It contains no opinion. A view can not be both an opinion and knowledge at the same time. We've been through this before.

Before, you brought up my mentioning of my desire and feelings on the matter. Feelings are not a "belief". Perhaps some may use feelings as a basis for belief but I don't. But then , perhaps it may even happen unconsciously. But even if it did, it would become a nonfactor (or replaced, even) once logic and evidence comes into the picture and those two (logic/evidence) alone are what makes the view true. Even if I held it as a belief, well now that belief turns into KNOWLEDGE once I accept the logic and evidence.

And of course, until you've answered, you have not proven.

Proven what exactly? That I don't know how to hold an incoherent thought have no bearing on whether incoherent thoughts are beliefs or not.

I'm referring to something being truly incoherent and not something where it's disputed. Something that is truly incoherent can not be believed. In reference to the incoherent view, a person wouldn't know what it is, and of course, would not be able to accept it.

There is only one particular statement that is in question. However, the rest of my covid-19 "worldview" is PROVEN. The most important point is that the economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

Not in this topic it isn't. One lone statement is enough to sink the claim that agnostics live by the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to all areas.

So for the record, you're not referring to my covid-19 worldview which is PROVEN, but you're referring to my view on agnosticism. Got it.

As for my agnostic worldview, my claim is that agnostics use logic and evidence but that doesn't mean they will always be right. Not even scientists are always right eventhough they apply scientific method. In either case, the agnostic or scientist may misunderstand/misinterpret the evidence or they may even miss a step in their reasoning or be off completely. The main point is that they are still dealing in logic and evidence. That's better than letting "beliefs" and unproven ideologies decide if something is true or false.

Your answer is "I DON'T KNOW". The fact is that asking questions or answering with "I DON't KNOW" proves nothing. In other words, you have not proven that this is a belief for me.

Same as above. How it is can be believed is irrelevant as to whether it is believed or not. But this is kinda moot now that you've affirmed that "the goal is to lessen damages cause by closure" is a proposition after all.

I'm claiming that it can't be believed. If it is impossible to believe in such views then there's no sense in asking "how" it can be done.

The only thing I agree with is that incoherent statements would not be backed by logic and evidence. But throwing "belief" in there makes your argument questionable. It becomes a non-sequitur. I see two separate concepts being connected together, no different than saying, the statement is inaccurate, therefore it's offensive. I see no connection between incoherence and "belief", just as there's none between inaccurate and offensive.

Incoherence is connected with not backed by logic and evidence, and not backed by logic and evidence is connected with belief, and connected is a transitive relationship, is it not? The only wiggle room that I can see, is whether a statement is a proposition or not.

Your conclusion is not a necessary condition of the premise. You can have something lacking logic and evidence without it being a belief. In my last post, I gave you an example of that with my point on future discoveries.

Besides logic and evidence not always applying to belief, I also explained why it doesn't apply to incoherence at all. You're not considering the definition of the terms or what belief involves.

Also, keep in mind that you can have something not backed by logic and evidence without it being a belief. For instance, all FUTURE discoveries are not backed by logic and evidence since they are not known about yet. I'm sure there are other examples we can come up with.

You also need to explain this while factoring in my explain on beliefs which is in this post, the previous reply.

Well that sounds like a belief to me. What do you call a thought about a future discovery that is yet to be backed by logic and evidence, if not a belief?

Well I had to express the thought to provide an example to you. But in actuality, you would not have a thought about a future discovery because you wouldn't know about it yet. So how can you believe in something that you don't know about? Something you don't know about would also lack logic and evidence.

Then why is this part of my covid-19 worldview proven:
There is a way to open the economy while keeping covid-19 deaths low?

Because it is backed by evidence and logic? Not sure what you are getting at here, why can't a logically inconsistent worldview include parts that can be proven?

I agree with you. A logically inconsistent worldview can have some parts that are proven and others are not.

But as it relates to my view, you have not shown that my view on covid-19 is logically inconsistent. Claiming that it is not based "only" on logic and evidence, which I assume you say because I brought up my desire, is a moot point because the logic and evidence alone proves it. Most importantly, I accept that the view is true because of that logic and evidence. So the feeling gets weeded out and becomes a nonfactor.

The main point is not using or relying on unproven ideologies. That is actually what defines an 'agnostic' but not so with the Democrat/atheist. I'm claiming that many atheists that I've encountered, you included, don't follow that point. An agnostic would be more reasonable than this group of atheists.

Meh, you forgot the qualifier again. An agnostic would be not be more reasonable than that group of atheists, because agnostics rely just as much on unproven ideologues. Only an agnostic who does not rely on unproven ideologues could be said to be more reasonable than that group of atheists.

You did not factor in my description for agnostic . An agnostic is non-ideological. So the agnostics that rely on an unproven ideology are not real agnostics, and that's by definition per Huxley.

If atheists were so non-ideological, why couldn't they think of a way to open the economy while limiting covid-19 deaths? Why did it take an agnostic to show that? That's why I say that one good way to demonstrate my point here is by seeing the two groups in action - see how they form views, see their conclusions, etc.