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]

It can be understood as two separate terms.

Not what I asked you. Why can't square circle be understood, if it is not incoherent?

Again, I never said it couldn't be understood at all.

You can not judge an incoherent statement logically.

False by counter example. I can judge square circle logically.

You assume it is incoherent in all cases. We've brought up 2 scenarios. Consider both and you'll notice they'll lead to different conclusions.

No. Two words next to each other without reconciliation vs w/ reconcilation.

I just told you, I am not talking about reconciliation but combining them into one concept.

That's reconciliation. You're going to have to change your language if you want me to accept your claim. Stop saying "one" concept or admit that you meant reconcilation at first, but then scaled back to to being about two words next to each other AFTER I exposed the fallacy of your point.

I recommend posting more often because I don't see that you're remembering your own views. It's been close to a week since you last posted here.

That's not a problem, we have a post history so you can see for yourself that my claims is consistent.

I'd focus more on logic and evidence rather than your "post history". You were in deep trouble then and your point remains that way now.

We can not understand OPPOSING terms as ONE concept because they can't go together. Just factor in the definition of 'contradiction'.

Cannot understand you say? There is a word for that - incoherent.

The only thing I don't understand right now is your logic.

Square circle can be understood SEPARATELY or as two (not one) different terms.

We've been through this already, remember?

Yes, and we have establish that square circle as ONE concept, (not two) cannot be understood, remember? All that's left for you to do is to connect "cannot be understood" with the word "incoherent."

When you weren't posting as much the problem was you not remembering your position. Now, you posting more often is turning into a problem applying good logic and evidence.
Your point is a blatant non-sequitor. Look if you want to convince me you're going to have to give me stronger logic and evidence. I have explained precisely why you are wrong here and I will not repeat it.

[Bust Nak]

Again, I never said it couldn't be understood at all.

Your post history shows otherwise. "We can not understand OPPOSING terms as ONE concept because they can't go together." It seems there is a problem with not remembering your position regardless of the frequency of your post.

You assume it is incoherent in all cases. We've brought up 2 scenarios. Consider both and you'll notice they'll lead to different conclusions.

One scenario you proposed, reconciliating the concept of circle with the concept of a square, is impossible. There is no point going deeper into that scenario. The other one, combining them as one concept, leads to incoherence.

That's reconciliation.

No, it's not. Merely sticking the two words together would make them into one concept. Reconciliation would involve making sense of the concept as a coherent whole, which is impossible.

I'd focus more on logic and evidence rather than your "post history". You were in deep trouble then and your point remains that way now.

You say that but what do you think my post history is, if not evidence of my goal post remaining the same for the past month? I understand wanting to move away from evidence when it proves you wrong, but what makes you think you'd have any more success on the logic front?

The only thing I don't understand right now is your logic.

Well, not everyone can be a champion of logic and rationality like myself.

When you weren't posting as much the problem was you not remembering your position. Now, you posting more often is turning into a problem applying good logic and evidence.

Have you considered the scenario that the problem solely is on your side?

Your point is a blatant non-sequitor. Look if you want to convince me you're going to have to give me stronger logic and evidence. I have explained precisely why you are wrong here and I will not repeat it.

Perhaps writing it step by step would help your understanding.

1) square circle cannot be understood.
2) what cannot be understood is either incoherent or unintelligible.
3) square circle is not unintelligible.
4) therefore square circle is incoherent.

[AgnosticBoy]

Again, I never said it couldn't be understood at all.

Your post history shows otherwise. "We can not understand OPPOSING terms as ONE concept because they can't go together." It seems there is a problem with not remembering your position regardless of the frequency of your post.

Yes, putting two contradictions together or as "ONE concept" is incoherent or not understandable. But keeping them separate is understandable and that's why we judge contradictions to be FALSE. You have to understand it before you can judge it true or false.

Is the following true? akjdlkjflakjdkljfklajfkldjalk;fdj?

[Bust Nak]

Yes, putting two contradictions together or as "ONE concept" is incoherent or not understandable.

But somehow, a square circle is not ONE concept in your book.

But keeping them separate is understandable and that's why we judge contradictions to be FALSE. You have to understand it before you can judge it true or false.

Is the following true? akjdlkjflakjdkljfklajfkldjalk;fdj?

Don't know. You are still getting unintelligible mixed up with incoherence. It only needs to be intelligible to be judge true or false.

[AgnosticBoy]

Yes, putting two contradictions together or as "ONE concept" is incoherent or not understandable.

But somehow, a square circle is not ONE concept in your book.

You have not convinced me otherwise. You'll have to offer supporting logic and evidence for your view.

But keeping them separate is understandable and that's why we judge contradictions to be FALSE. You have to understand it before you can judge it true or false.

Is the following true? akjdlkjflakjdkljfklajfkldjalk;fdj?

Don't know. You are still getting unintelligible mixed up with incoherence. It only needs to be intelligible to be judge true or false.

Unintelligible goes with incoherence. Both involve something not understandable.

[Bust Nak]

You have not convinced me otherwise. You'll have to offer supporting logic and evidence for your view.

How about a definition: contradiction - a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.
Followed by a rhetorical question: what happens when you combine two things together, do you have two things or one?

Unintelligible goes with incoherence. Both involve something not understandable.

Not seeing the what your point is. Unintelligible goes with incoherence, but incoherence need not goes with unintelligible. I've already mentioned that before.

[AgnosticBoy]

You have not convinced me otherwise. You'll have to offer supporting logic and evidence for your view.

How about a definition: contradiction - a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.
Followed by a rhetorical question: what happens when you combine two things together, do you have two things or one?

You can not combine two things when they are opposed to each other.

Unintelligible goes with incoherence. Both involve something not understandable.

Not seeing the what your point is. Unintelligible goes with incoherence, but incoherence need not goes with unintelligible. I've already mentioned that before.

I am still not convinced. Incoherence has to do with statements that don't make sense. Perhaps it would help to understand that being intelligible does not mean that a statement will be true. A perfectly sensible statement can also be false.

[Bust Nak]

You can not combine two things when they are opposed to each other.

Then you reject the definition of contradiction given?

I am still not convinced. Incoherence has to do with statements that don't make sense. Perhaps it would help to understand that being intelligible does not mean that a statement will be true. A perfectly sensible statement can also be false.

What does this has to do with my point that you only need intelligibility to judge something as a contradiction or not?

[Icey]

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?

Generally speaking, I'd say, if not more reasonable, at least more honest. Does being more honest equate, somehow, to being more reasonable? Maybe. Maybe not (no concept that I've ever experienced through all my years of practice in Christianity equate to KNOWING anything - it's all a belief and convictions that cause actions based on that belief).
What we 'know' about life is exceptionally limited. No book or writing or teaching (or all combined) will be able to allow us to know everything.

[William]

I think the agnostic position is more reasonable, when understood in the way the diagram presents the main positions.