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]

[Replying to post 1 by otseng]

One agnostic may be more rational than one atheist. Where that one agnostic applies logic and evidence standard to more areas than an atheist who only applies it to matters of religion.

It's not even all that common for the term "agnostic" being used outside of the context of religion, as such the claim that agnostics follows a principle of applying logic and evidence standard to all areas seems a bit outlandish.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by Bust Nak]

Regarding the claim that atheists apply reason and logic to religion, doesn't reason dictate that there are some things that we (at least at this stage) cannot know? If that is the case, then clearly the far more reasonable position when it comes to God and religion (and more humble position as well) is that one simply does not know. I.e. agnosticism.

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.

[benchwarmer]

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?

Depends what you define as 'agnostic' and 'atheist'.

I'm an agnostic atheist so this question doesn't compute. For me, agnosticism is about knowledge (in any area) and theism is about belief in gods. IMHO, taking just one label (as I define them anyways) is not a complete picture.

[AgnosticBoy]

Depends what you define as 'agnostic' and 'atheist'.

I'm an agnostic atheist so this question doesn't compute. For me, agnosticism is about knowledge (in any area) and theism is about belief in gods. IMHO, taking just one label (as I define them anyways) is not a complete picture.

Nowadays, agnosticism is defined as a position but that is not the fullest sense of the word. Thomas Huxley also defined it in terms of a principle or method. The principle is simply to not put any certainty in anything unless it is backed by logic and evidence. Huxley arrived at the position of "not knowing" as a result of applying that principle. Perhaps he also realized the limits of logic and science in areas of religion just as Elijah John pointed out earlier in post #3.

Many atheists use the agnostic label without getting into its foundation and applying it. Huxley did not simply lack knowledge but he was also anti-dogma. Many atheists are not anti-dogma. They don't weed out and shun all beliefs. You find that many of them are also humanists, liberals, Democrats, materialists, etc.

Dogma: a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

(Dictionary.com)

The main reason I consider agnostics to be more reasonable than atheists is because we apply reason consistently and more broadly. Shunning all dogma and ideologies that are not science nor logic-based or supported, like political and philosophical ideologies, reinforces that standard. This creates a mindset that is less prone to be swayed by non-logical/unscientific ideologies. Many atheists are not willing to commit to this.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by otseng]

This is a bit like asking, "Are Buddhists better at math than Presbyterians?" The answer will vary depending on the individual Buddhist and Presbyterian under consideration.


Tcg

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

That would hold true only if one defines Atheism as 'God denial' -- which is insisted upon by many Theists.

It does not hold true if Atheism is: A = not, theism = belief in gods. Thus, "Without belief in gods"

I choose the term Non-Theist to negate an impression of 'God denial' and further clarify in signature with: "ANY of the thousands of ‘gods’ proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist – awaiting verifiable evidence"

It seems as though reserving judgment is wise in the absence of verifiable evidence. Some may consider that to be a form of Agnosticism.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 5 by AgnosticBoy]

Is it possible to be dogmatically agnostic or does that entail a contradiction in your view?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 5 by AgnosticBoy]

Is it possible to be dogmatically agnostic or does that entail a contradiction in your view?

There are many strong agnostics. ("I don't know whether gods exist. You don't know whether gods exist. Nobody knows whether gods exist. Anybody who forms an opinion as to whether gods exist is an idiot.")

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 1 by otseng]

This is a bit like asking, "Are Buddhists better at math than Presbyterians?" The answer will vary depending on the individual Buddhist and Presbyterian under consideration.


Tcg

Being reasonable refers to being guided by reason and/or science. That standard applies to ALL agnostics. On that basis alone, agnostics are more reasonable than atheists who only apply reason to matters of religion. There is room for individual differences but not when it comes to the standard of being anti-dogmatic.

Besides that, I see that a lot of agnostics have won the best debater award on this site. Divine insight has won multiple times. The very first person to be awarded best debater (in 2004) was Corvus, who is an agnostic. They may not have stressed the agnostic principle as much as I have, but in general, the less dogmatic and less extreme you are, then the better you'll fare in intellectual thought, debate included.