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]

Come on. You asked me what my beliefs were and I told you. I am not using beliefs to support my arguments.

I did not ask you what your beliefs were, especially in a DEBATE. I asked you if it was a belief. There is a difference. And of course the reason I asked that is so I can dismiss it since beliefs mean nothing in terms of proof in a debate.

Do you agree and will you stop making that claim without evidence?

In fact, it was another one of your beliefs that prompted you to offer your belief on socialism:

In fact, if you factor in underlying disease, then you would find that a nice chunk of the low risk crowd that required hospitalization were the ones that had an underlying disease. That's why I classified the lowest population as not only being for those who are 44 years old and younger but also does without any underlying disease.

That sounds fair to those 44 years old and younger with underlying disease.

Was your response here a belief? If it's a belief then it doesn't disprove nor rebut my point about underlying disease, correct?

[Bust Nak]

I did not ask you what your beliefs were, especially in a DEBATE. I asked you if it was a belief. There is a difference.

Okay, asking about my beliefs then. Don't see how that make it any less acceptable for me to offer you my beliefs.

And of course the reason I asked that is so I can dismiss it since beliefs mean nothing in terms of proof in a debate.

Or you can assume that it is true for the sake of argument?

Do you agree and will you stop making that claim without evidence?

Nah, not when it's not a purely intellectual matter.

Was your response here a belief?

Yes.

If it's a belief then it doesn't disprove nor rebut my point about underlying disease, correct?

That depends if you care about fairness or not.

[AgnosticBoy]

I did not ask you what your beliefs were, especially in a DEBATE. I asked you if it was a belief. There is a difference.

Okay, asking about my beliefs then. Don't see how that make it any less acceptable for me to offer you my beliefs.

I was asking you about your view to make sure you saw it as a belief. You've since confirmed that it is a belief.

Do you agree and will you stop making that claim without evidence?

Nah, not when it's not a purely intellectual matter.

In a debate, you typically Express a disagreement with a position unless you have evidence to offer against it.

]Was your response here a belief?

Yes.

I appreciate your honesty and willingness to follow the rules of debate.

[AgnosticBoy]

Only rational people have "thoughts"?

No, but only rational people have rational thoughts.

My view is that thoughts follow what is logically possible. Being logically possible does not mean that all of your statements will be logically true. It is logically possible for something to be false or even contradict something else. You are claiming that someone can actually believe in a contradictory statement by reconciling the two contradictory terms (as in putting the two terms together). So you need to explain how you can reconcile two contradictory terms. If it can't be done, then why are you saying that people believe in such a thing when they can't even conceive of it?

This is why I question if you pressed these Christians to define their beliefs. I'm sure if you did do that, then you would realize that either they don't have a belief in the way that you're claiming that they have or they are not going by accurate definitions of the terms.I say that because if they were going by accurate definitions, then they would know that the two are irreconcilable.

So kindly offer evidence that someone believes in contradictions by reconciling the two terms together as opposed to holding each term as a separate belief. A person "saying" that they believe doesn't mean that they actually believe it. I'd argue that they can't believe it because they would not know what a reconciled contradiction is - there's nothing to reconcile. You're being gullible if you think someone can believe that gjfrbkhbfhn is true just because they say so.

[AgnosticBoy]

I would hope most atheists want to think for themselves. Imagine the atheists who don't then going on to attack Christians. That would be hypocritical, of course.

This good enough for you?

My ideal world would have 50% atheists and 50% theists. Then everyone has the exact same level of reinforcement, and as a bonus, nobody falls into believing something because it's what everybody else believes.

Nobody is bullying anybody obviously, but you get a bully effect when most of the world thinks one particular thing and you don't want to. Even if nobody's bugging you. Even if everyone gives you all the respect you could want. You still have to think, "Geez, am I really the only one who can't see the emperor's clothes?"

I also want there to be more flat earthers and more comet-worshipers and more Scientologists. If it means the world is a bit crazy, fine, just nobody kill anybody. I want the crazy world and no pressure to believe a particular thing over another.

It is not my ideal. It would be interesting though. I believe people should just stay away from all ideologies unless they are proven.

Disclaimer: This belief will be weeded out by the time I hit the post button (that way this can't be used against me in a debate).

[Bust Nak]

I was asking you about your view to make sure you saw it as a belief. You've since confirmed that it is a belief.

Well that's hardly surprising when I saw "my car is red" as a belief.

In a debate, you typically Express a disagreement with a position unless you have evidence to offer against it.

That's only for purely intellectual matters. We are not debating a purely intellectual matter, at least with that part of the conversation about what one ought to do.

You are claiming that someone can actually believe in a contradictory statement by reconciling the two contradictory terms (as in putting the two terms together). So you need to explain how you can reconcile two contradictory terms.

Why? I don't need to do that any more than I have to explain how a swan can be anything by white when I claim there are black swans.

If it can't be done, then why are you saying that people believe in such a thing when they can't even conceive of it?

Because they say it can be done and they are doing it.

So kindly offer evidence that someone believes in contradictions by reconciling the two terms together as opposed to holding each term as a separate belief.

Do you really want me to dig up someone saying God can do the logically impossible such as lifting an unliftable rock? Are you not willing to accept that much for granted? I ask because you don't look like you would be satisfied with such testimonies.

A person "saying" that they believe doesn't mean that they actually believe it.

Then take it up with them.

You're being gullible if you think someone can believe that gjfrbkhbfhn is true just because they say so.

Are we back to debating intelligible vs incoherent again? We've been through that already.

[AgnosticBoy]

You are claiming that someone can actually believe in a contradictory statement by reconciling the two contradictory terms (as in putting the two terms together). So you need to explain how you can reconcile two contradictory terms.

Why? I don't need to do that any more than I have to explain how a swan can be anything by white when I claim there are black swans.

Why? Because it's your claim. You said someone accepts the contradiction by merging both opposing concepts together. That's another way of saying they reconciled it. Until you support that with logic and evidence, it remains UNSUBSTANTIATED.

If it can't be done, then why are you saying that people believe in such a thing when they can't even conceive of it?

Because they say it can be done and they are doing it.

You're repeating your old claim and not addressing my objections.

If someone says they believe, then does that make it true that they do believe? (Remember, one reason I'm asking that question is because I'm questioning the possibility of having a belief in something meaningless.)

How do they believe in the contradiction? Is it by having each concept as a separate belief or does it involve merging the two concepts together?

So kindly offer evidence that someone believes in contradictions by reconciling the two terms together as opposed to holding each term as a separate belief.

Do you really want me to dig up someone saying God can do the logically impossible such as lifting an unliftable rock? Are you not willing to accept that much for granted? I ask because you don't look like you would be satisfied with such testimonies.

I want you to dig up where they specified how they hold the view or belief. Is it as two separate beliefs or is it as one belief that involves merging the concepts? Did you ask them if they reconciled the concepts or are you just claiming they did?

A person "saying" that they believe doesn't mean that they actually believe it.

Then take it up with them.

Nice dodge. You did not acknowledge the FACT that a person's statement on something does not make it true. The Biblical writers said many of things that we wouldn't accept as truth in a DEBATE unless there is logic and evidence involved.

Again, I'm not disputing that someone can have contradictory beliefs. I'm disputing HOW they hold those beliefs mentally. So far, you have offered no scientific support (and you claimed in a previous statement you lacked such evidence). You've offered no logic because it is NOT logically possible to reconcile two contradictory terms. You simply believe that a person believes in that way despite the fact that you can't even show me the conversation showing how they belief is held.

You're being gullible if you think someone can believe that gjfrbkhbfhn is true just because they say so.

Are we back to debating intelligible vs incoherent again? We've been through that already.

No, my point is about gullibility. You believe someone just because their word. So by that standard, you may as well believe someone when they say that they believe in akjfajlkfjlkajf or that adkjfklajflkajfdl is true. That's the problem with being gullible or having a weak standard.

[Bust Nak]

Why? Because it's your claim.

But it's not my claim though.

You said someone accepts the contradiction by merging both opposing concepts together. That's another way of saying they reconciled it. Until you support that with logic and evidence, it remains UNSUBSTANTIATED.

Sure, but what does this has to do with demonstrating how it can be done?

You're repeating your old claim and not addressing my objections.

Your objection is invalid because I made no claim about know how it can be done.

If someone says they believe, then does that make it true that they do believe?

No, but it is evidence that they do believe.

How do they believe in the contradiction?

Don't know.

Is it by having each concept as a separate belief or does it involve merging the two concepts together? ...Is it as two separate beliefs or is it as one belief that involves merging the concepts? Did you ask them if they reconciled the concepts or are you just claiming they did?

Ask them. I am claiming I have evidence that they believe that contradictions can happen.

I want you to dig up where they specified how they hold the view or belief.

I pass. I would however offer once again, to dig up someone saying that God can make contradictions happen, but it looks like it is unnecessarily since you are not disputing that someone can have contradictory beliefs.

Nice dodge. You did not acknowledge the FACT that a person's statement on something does not make it true. The Biblical writers said many of things that we wouldn't accept as truth in a DEBATE unless there is logic and evidence involved.

Again, I'm not disputing that someone can have contradictory beliefs.

Good, then it's settled.

I'm disputing HOW they hold those beliefs mentally. So far, you have offered no scientific support (and you claimed in a previous statement you lacked such evidence). You've offered no logic because it is NOT logically possible to reconcile two contradictory terms.

That's to be expected. I made no claim about HOW they hold these beliefs mentally after all.

You simply believe that a person believes in that way despite the fact that you can't even show me the conversation showing how they belief is held.

Whether they can or not, is a very different question to how the belief is held. Why are you equating the two?

No, my point is about gullibility. You believe someone just because their word.

No, I told you, I am agnostic on this issue.

[RJG]

I think it is reasonable to believe it is just possible an entity of some sort could exist in another dimension. However, I am of the opinion that none of the gods in which people on our planet believe are anymore than human creations.

[DavidLeon]

I don't make sweeping generalizations about groups of people. As a whole I think people are idiots; keeping in mind that, of course, I'm a person. It's like the Man In Black said: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Sin is like a child who's father was imprisoned for life. Though the child isn't punished for the crime his father committed the child suffers from it nonetheless. The child has no choice but to live in the environment the father's crime created which negatively effects the child's life. One of the products of sin is being distracted and mislead by ideologies. The science of ideas, economic, political and social. The reason for this is that Jehovah God, our creator's sovereignty was challenged by Satan in Eden.

People think religion harmful, but it isn't. People are. You see this ideological possession in, not only religion and politics, but also nationalism, fashion, music, art, sports, entertainment - any and every possible human endeavor. My art is art, your art isn't art. My religion is right, your's isn't, my taste in clothes is the best, God is on our side.

So, having said that, it has been my experience that anti-theism is the most reasonable, with atheism and theism tying in second place and agnosticism last. Note that this doesn't apply to members of each group generally, but rather is specifically applied to people being effected by each paradigm. In other words, like the Men In Black quote above, a person is smart, but theists, atheists, agnostics are dumb, panicky dangerous . . .

If anyone cares to consider my reasoning for this here it is.

Anti-theism reasons that theism is harmful. The reasoning behind anti-theism is predicated upon this premise which is indisputable. Jehovah doesn't call himself Jehovah of Armies for nothing. Jesus wasn't joking when he said he came not bringing peace but a sword. The Bible, culminating in the book of Revelation, as well as the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita are no picnics. People operate on the illusion that their religion is warm and fuzzy with blinders to it's effect upon everyone else around them, and like my example of art, fashion, politics etc. above when even a smart person puts on those blinders they become most dangerous. They are seemingly incapable of seeing beyond that their (fill in the blank) is good for them, not necessarily everyone else.

Theism and atheism Theism and atheism are both reasonable paradigms, in my opinion. Though atheism is more reasonable than theism because theism is faith based and difficult to reason with due to it's complexity, syncretism and inaccessibility. However, even though atheism is more reasonable in that regard, it doesn't make much difference overall due to the aforementioned ideological possession. Both atheism and theism start off with good intentions, both effect careless people who lose their capacity for logical thought due to their emotional attachment to the paradigm itself.

Agnosticism is the most unreasonable by it's own design. A Gnostic. The antithesis to knowledge as atheism is the antithesis to theism. The very tenet of agnosticism is that you can't reason regarding the specific question of theism. Although this is strictly true inasmuch as you can't know for certain that doesn't imply you can't seek knowledge and the subsequent abandonment of that ultimate knowledge promotes unreasonableness. You can't know everything about anything for certain.