Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[otseng]

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

For debate:
Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[AgnosticBoy]

This post is a glitch or someone posted under my name. So delete or disregard this post..

[AgnosticBoy]

Test.

[AgnosticBoy]

I've done so in two ways:
- Pointing out that contradictions can't be reconciled by definition.
- Related to above point, you can't have a belief without an object. A square circle is not an object, certainly not something that someone knows what it is.

How does that imply it is logically impossible to believe that God can lift an unliftable rock?

Because it involves a contradiction. It is not logically possible to do two contradictory things at the same time.

[William]

I've done so in two ways:
- Pointing out that contradictions can't be reconciled by definition.
- Related to above point, you can't have a belief without an object. A square circle is not an object, certainly not something that someone knows what it is.

How does that imply it is logically impossible to believe that God can lift an unliftable rock?

Because it involves a contradiction. It is not logically possible to do two contradictory things at the same time.

If God became the unliftable rock, theoretically, God could lift the rock, because God can even do the impossible. God could lift the rock from within.

The logic has to take into account that it is not logical to think it possible to have an unliftable rock. God would have to create it, and in the creation of it, God has already lifted it from somewhere [nowhere we know about] to where the witnesses are.

Even then, God could lift it and say "Ta Da!" but who else but God would know unless God first created the witnesses, and witnesses would then say "The rock was lifted, so it was not unliftable"...so logically God cannot create a rock that God cannot also lift in front of any witnesses.

God could pretend not to be able to lift the rock, but if the witnesses were using the experiment in order to fidn out if the entity was God or not God, on the premise that God should be able to lift an unliftable rock, then by pretending, God is seen not to be God, by the witnesses.

So if the witnesses were to say "It is impossible for a rock to be lifted by an invisible entity[God], and the rock lifted, then should the witnesses assume an invisible entity [God]lifted it? How did the invisible entity lift the rock? Perhaps by getting into it and lifting it from within?

What happens when an immovable object and an unstoppable object come up against each other?

We can conclude that it is likely they merge and become some other kind of object...an immovable unstoppable object which cannot be said to be still or moving. So also cannot be said to be an "immovable unstoppable object". It has to be called something else.

It depends upon the perspective of the observer. If God is the observer then any witnesses which are not God, will - logically - have a different perspective.

Thus an unliftable rock which can be lifted only by God, has to be said to be unliftable only in relation to other entities. Logically only God can lift the unliftable. Logically the rock is only unliftable in relation to those who cannot lift the rock."

Therefore, setting out illogical tests to determine [what?] appears to end in a self defeated argument...a fallacy. One cannot have both an impossible task and an entity [God] that can do the impossible - without both the impossible task and the entity [God] who can do the impossible - becoming something else entirely. [not God and not impossible]

[Zzyzx]

If God became the unliftable rock, theoretically, God could lift the rock, because God can even do the impossible. God could lift the rock from within.

The logic has to take into account that it is not logical to think it possible to have an unliftable rock. God would have to create it, and in the creation of it, God has already lifted it from somewhere [nowhere we know about] to where the witnesses are.

Even then, God could lift it and say "Ta Da!" but who else but God would know unless God first created the witnesses, and witnesses would then say "The rock was lifted, so it was not unliftable"...so logically God cannot create a rock that God cannot also lift in front of any witnesses.

God could pretend not to be able to lift the rock, but if the witnesses were using the experiment in order to fidn out if the entity was God or not God, on the premise that God should be able to lift an unliftable rock, then by pretending, God is seen not to be God, by the witnesses.

So if the witnesses were to say "It is impossible for a rock to be lifted by an invisible entity[God], and the rock lifted, then should the witnesses assume an invisible entity [God]lifted it? How did the invisible entity lift the rock? Perhaps by getting into it and lifting it from within?

This discussion illustrates the folly of claiming knowledge of the imaginary. It is akin to the medieval discussion 'How many angels can dance on the head (or point) of a needle'?

Small wonder that religionists may struggle with reality.

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" (alternatively "How many angels can stand on the point of a pin?") is a reductio ad absurdum challenge to medieval scholasticism in general, and its angelology in particular, as represented by figures such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. It is first recorded in the 17th century, in the context of Protestant apologetics. It also has been linked to the fall of Constantinople, with the imagery of scholars debating while the Turks besieged the city.

In modern usage, the term has lost its theological context and is used as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence, while more urgent concerns accumulate.

Bold added

[William]

If God became the unliftable rock, theoretically, God could lift the rock, because God can even do the impossible. God could lift the rock from within.

The logic has to take into account that it is not logical to think it possible to have an unliftable rock. God would have to create it, and in the creation of it, God has already lifted it from somewhere [nowhere we know about] to where the witnesses are.

Even then, God could lift it and say "Ta Da!" but who else but God would know unless God first created the witnesses, and witnesses would then say "The rock was lifted, so it was not unliftable"...so logically God cannot create a rock that God cannot also lift in front of any witnesses.

God could pretend not to be able to lift the rock, but if the witnesses were using the experiment in order to fidn out if the entity was God or not God, on the premise that God should be able to lift an unliftable rock, then by pretending, God is seen not to be God, by the witnesses.

What happens when an immovable object and an unstoppable object come up against each other?

We can conclude that it is likely they merge and become some other kind of object...an immovable unstoppable object which cannot be said to be still or moving. So also cannot be said to be an "immovable unstoppable object". It has to be called something else.

It depends upon the perspective of the observer. If God is the observer then any witnesses which are not God, will - logically - have a different perspective.

Thus an unliftable rock which can be lifted only by God, has to be said to be unliftable only in relation to other entities. Logically only God can lift the unliftable. Logically the rock is only unliftable in relation to those who cannot lift the rock."

Therefore, setting out illogical tests to determine [what?] appears to end in a self defeated argument...a fallacy. One cannot have both an impossible task and an entity [God] that can do the impossible - without both the impossible task and the entity [God] who can do the impossible - becoming something else entirely. [not God and not impossible]

So if the witnesses were to say "It is impossible for a rock to be lifted by an invisible entity[God], and the rock lifted, then should the witnesses assume an invisible entity [God]lifted it? How did the invisible entity lift the rock? Perhaps by getting into it and lifting it from within?

This discussion illustrates the folly of claiming knowledge of the imaginary. It is akin to the medieval discussion 'How many angels can dance on the head (or point) of a needle'?

Small wonder that religionists may struggle with reality.

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" (alternatively "How many angels can stand on the point of a pin?") is a reductio ad absurdum challenge to medieval scholasticism in general, and its angelology in particular, as represented by figures such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. It is first recorded in the 17th century, in the context of Protestant apologetics. It also has been linked to the fall of Constantinople, with the imagery of scholars debating while the Turks besieged the city.

In modern usage, the term has lost its theological context and is used as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence, while more urgent concerns accumulate.

Bold added

Yes. Often non-theists [mostly anti-theists] have trouble integrating metaphor with reality. Perhaps it is simply a brain-malfunction where they are unable to integrate imagination as a natural aspect of the mind. Maybe fear is the underlying reason for this inability? Who can say, and why would it matter what causes it? Metaphorically, opinions expressed through such flimsy filters are but farts in the wind for all the difference they make in the world unfolding...

Love Your Life.

[Zzyzx]

Yes. Often non-theists [mostly anti-theists] have trouble integrating metaphor with reality.

Beats considering metaphor or imagination to BE reality.

Perhaps it is simply a brain-malfunction where they are unable to integrate imagination as a natural aspect of the mind.

What is it called when people are unable to distinguish between imagination and reality?

Maybe fear is the underlying reason for this inability?

Fear? Fear of metaphors / imagination?

Who can say, and why would it matter what causes it? Metaphorically, opinions expressed through such flimsy filters are but farts in the wind for all the difference they make in the world unfolding...

So, tell us, how many angels can dance on the head (or point) of a pin / needle -- since that is evidently a major metaphorical issue (along with the rock of great concern).

[Tcg]

Yes. Often non-theists [mostly anti-theists] have trouble integrating metaphor with reality. Perhaps it is simply a brain-malfunction where they are unable to integrate imagination as a natural aspect of the mind.

Ah, yes. It is always informative when one of the enlightened ones refers to those who don't buy their woo as mentally retarded. Smells like anti-non-theism to me.

What was it that Christ said, ridicule your neighbors? Something's off with that quote, but you wouldn't know it by the comment I quoted above.


Tcg

[William]

I agree that the idea idea that

I've done so in two ways:
- Pointing out that contradictions can't be reconciled by definition.
- Related to above point, you can't have a belief without an object. A square circle is not an object, certainly not something that someone knows what it is.

How does that imply it is logically impossible to believe that God can lift an unliftable rock?

Because it involves a contradiction. It is not logically possible to do two contradictory things at the same time.

Indeed, a square circle does not exist, and an unliftable rock is only so for those who cannot lift it.

[Goat]

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?

It all depends on how you view atheism and agnosticism. If you look at atheism/theism as one axis, and gnosticism and agnosticism (the knowledge meaning not the specific term for the religion) , they are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist (you do not believe in a god, but you don't KNOW there is no god), You can be an agnostic theist. (you believe in a god, but do not know there is a god), or you could be more certain, and KNOW there is no god, or KNOW there is a God. In that sense, the 'Gnosticism' is not so much knowledge, but certainly of belief.

I think a more valid question is 'agnosticism more reasonable than Gnosticism.' How reasonable is it to be very certain of your belief. ? Can your believe be swayed if objective and tangible evidence is provided for the opposite view.

I personally feel that the level of certainly of the proposition is emotional rather than logical . I have also seen the extremist view of 'we can not know anything' too .. which also is an emotional evaluation rather than one based on evidence.