Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[otseng]

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

For debate:
Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to otseng]

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

So “I don’t know,� or “I lack belief in that,� or “You can’t prove it,� or however you want to phrase it is always going to be the most defensible position to hold in debate and the least useful position to hold in life.

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

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

[Zzyzx]

.

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

Agree. Many people seem very reluctant to admit that they don't know (something) – and/or to pretend that they KNOW that which they only believe but cannot demonstrate actual knowledge. One test is willingness to acknowledge doubt and/or absence of certainty.

"The wise man doubts often, and his views are changeable. The fool is constant in his opinions, and doubts nothing, because he knows everything, except his own ignorance" Pharaoh Akhenaton, c.1250BCE

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.� Bertrand Russell

Here in debate we often see examples of people claiming to KNOW precisely what happened and what was said thousands of years ago – based on reading ancient literature which cannot be verified as truthful and accurate.

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

Agree. When one is convinced that they KNOW truth, they have ceased to learn -- and cannot acknowledge that they may be wrong or that they may have accepted faulty or false information.

[AgnosticBoy]

Again, the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas

Nobody does that.

It's a great ideal, something to strive towards, but nobody's perfect that way. Nobody applies logic and evidence to ALL areas.

This is the main point I want to focus on because it is what separates agnostics from atheists.

I can say from experience that it is possible to apply logic and evidence to all matters and hold views that are based on that standard. Of course, I only do this on matters that I engage with the intellect. You can do this by shunning all beliefs and ideologies. When people don't go by logic and evidence, they usually let belief and ideologies fill in the gaps and that informs their view on various matters. But if you have no beliefs, then beliefs won't be part of your view. In other words, an anti-dogmatic mindset clears the way for someone to think only in terms of logic and evidence.

Now many atheists won't commit to this and it's because they are unwilling to let go of ideologies. Atheists tend to also want to be liberals, Democrats, materialists, humanists, etc. An agnostic would reject all ideologies.

would mean that we use REASON more than the atheists that only applies it to matters of religion.

I'm not sure I understand you here. It seems like you're saying that atheists are logically perfect when it comes to religion, but agnostics are logically perfect on all subjects.

Am I reading you right?

My point is not about perfection, but rather its about the areas that agnostics apply reason. We don't only apply reason to religion, but rather we apply it in all matters. For instance, an atheist will say that they have no beliefs in God's existence but of course they have beliefs on other things which takes away reason. Reason and "belief" don't go together. An agnostic would say they have no beliefs on all matters. Agnostics are anti-belief or anti-dogma while atheists are not on that scale.

I'll go ahead and say because of this the agnostic would be more reasonable than an atheist,

To address this, I'll assume that your agnostic is my weak atheist.

- Theists believe that gods do exist.
- Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

And I'll ask whether there are any non-religious claims that can reasonably be taken to be false. Can a reasonable person believe, for instance, that these claims are false?

- Elvis is alive.
- Hitler is alive.
- Bigfoot is alive.
- The Democrats just pretend that the corona virus exists, and they do it to get rid of Trump. (I know one of these people.)

If a reasonable person can believe that some non-religious claims are false, then why can't she believe that some religious claims are false? Why can't she, for instance, believe that gods do not exist?

I am not against this point of yours. As an agnostic, I am only against views that lack logic and evidence. If a view is backed by logic and evidence, then I have no problem accepting it.

What do you call someone who (a) doesn't know whether gods exist, and (b) doesn't have an opinion one way or the other, and who (c) isn't familiar with your principle, and (d) wouldn't agree with it if you told her about it?

The agnosticism I'm describing is what Huxley intended it to be. The person you described would be agnostic in a very limited sense. I'm sure they would have "beliefs" on other matters. But that is not what Huxley had in mind. An agnostic was meant to be anti-dogma and they were to reinforce it by applying a standard of logic and evidence to ALL matters.

[bjs]

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

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

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

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

[William]

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

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

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

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

William: "The Right Answer?" What has that proven itself to be? The 'right position' has to be the Agnostic one. If evidence comes along to clearly show something is 'the right answer' then this does not mean the agnostic shifts position in relation to other 'answers' which might claim to be 'right' but have not been shown to be so.

So it is not about avoiding arriving at 'the right answer' but avoiding assuming one has arrived at the right answer when said answer has not been shown to be true/right.

[Tcg]

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

The flip side to the atheism coin is theism. All versions of theism. There is no reason to throw Fundamentalists under the bus. All theists are dogmatic in their belief in god/gods.


Tcg

[Tcg]

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

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

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out where benchwarmer claimed his goal was to "avoid arriving at the right answer." I don't see it.

If your reply is nothing more than a strawman, no response is needed.


Tcg

[bjs]

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out where benchwarmer claimed his goal was to "avoid arriving at the right answer." I don't see it.

I happen to believe that continually searching is a far better position than thinking I have arrived at the right answer

[Willum]

They were more reasonable in the 19th and 20th centuries. Before we knew the things we do now.

But now we do know.
There is refutation by those who can not accept reality, but to say, "I am not sure if a God exists," today is lazy.

It shows one is too lazy to define a god well enough to parameterize or disprove it.
It shows one is too lazy to come to a conclusion based on evidence.

[Tcg]

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out where benchwarmer claimed his goal was to "avoid arriving at the right answer." I don't see it.

I happen to believe that continually searching is a far better position than thinking I have arrived at the right answer

You are suggesting that the phrases "thinking I have arrived at" and "avoid arriving at" are equivalent? If so, please defend your claim.


Tcg