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?

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #306]

Maybe I have been shown a god and I simply refuse to believe that it is a god.

Defining "what is a God" seems to depend upon ones expectations.

The universe might be structured in such a way that some powerful being at the very top - a god, maybe more than one of them - somehow has say over what morality is and when people do good and when they do evil. And if the universe is structured this way I'm a stubborn idiot and 100% unreasonable because even if it is shown to me that the universe works this way, that being can say kill this fellow and it is good and well knowing I am wrong I will say to him, no I won't and no it does not.

How well do you think your sense of morality aligns with what you observe of the universe?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #307]

I already did. I showed that the actual position of atheism is agnostic non belief, but you insist that gnostic -type denial is actually the atheist position. What is that if not forcing on atheism a position it does not actually hold?

When one enters the data-stream of Experiential Reality one does so, completely ignorant.
However, due to the nature of ones being, -related to the data - one cannot remain ignorant regarding the data.

Folk take the data and shape it to mean something which in turn has those folk who support the positions of Atheism and Theism forming beliefs re meaning.

The position "lacking belief in gods" remains in the realm of the natural position [non-atheist and non- theist] not knowing enough to establish either way.

Therefore, something has occurred which has changed "Lacking belief in gods" [non-atheist and non- theist] into being Atheist.

I maintain that this is because the lacking changed as individuals gathered more knowledge and took a punt of actively believing or actively resisting belief[atheist and theist] re "Do we exist within a creation."

Aside from whether they actually do know the evidence (who can really say they know it all?) given that nothing answers the question, 'we don't know' logically mandates 'we don't believe until we do know'. That is all that atheism is.

Conflating "belief" with "knowledge" is why this occurs. Both atheists and theists are known to do this.

The Natural-Neutral Default Position ensures that one is always clear about which is which.
Atheism is more along the lines of "We won't believe and we know why we won't believe" re The Question "Do we exist within a creation?" and that is the real question being asked.

Lack of belief that we exist in a creation = belief that we do not exist within a creation.

The Natural-Neutral Default Position acknowledges that there is still nowhere near enough data (who can really say they know it all?) to make the call [establish] either way.

Atheism has made the call , the one way. That is why the position exists.
(Theism has made the call the other way.)

We are talking about babies, remember.

Yes. We are actually taking about babies who are born into an information stream and due to their nature, do not remain ignorant. The total ignorance is the default setting in the beginning, and part of that setting has it that the babies are enabled to collect and sort data from the stream and are also able to develop.
Collecting and sorting data and developing, is still an aspect of the Natural-Neutral Default Position. It is not simply one of ignorance, even that it begins as such.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well I'd call that innate instinct that enables automatic responses and ability to learn, (explains animal behaviour without reasoning, and supports evolutionary adaptation, not Cosmic minds). And one of the things we learn is religion, whichever one is taught. And I have yet to be persuaded that without religion we would have irreligious theism at all, taught to babies or anyone else.

[William]

We are actually taking about babies who are born into an information stream and due to their nature, do not remain ignorant. The total ignorance is the default setting in the beginning, and part of that setting has it that the babies are enabled to collect and sort data from the stream and are also able to develop.
Collecting and sorting data and developing, is still an aspect of the Natural-Neutral Default Position. It is not simply one of ignorance, even that it begins as such.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #313]

Well I'd call that innate instinct that enables automatic responses and ability to learn, (explains animal behaviour without reasoning, and supports evolutionary adaptation, not Cosmic minds).

The reason you make the call is because of the position you chose to make that call from.
The Natural-Neutral Default Position does not favor the one idea [innate instinct, automatic responses, evolutionary adaptation] over the other [Cosmic minds] or as it might be described..."The Natural-Neutral Default Position, is the sober journey into self-realization"

one of the things we learn is religion, whichever one is taught.

The Natural-Neutral Default Position does not depend on being taught by any religion, and investigates the data stream of all religions and non-religions of the Theistic position.

And I have yet to be persuaded that without religion we would have irreligious theism at all, taught to babies or anyone else.

This is irrelevant as this ignores the fact that all the data is contained in the data-stream, and altogether points to religions evolving [establishing] from concepts which were not established so much as the were thought possible, or experienced and known to be possible but not understood.

Religion therefore became something [a device] which sought to establish more concrete ideas about the belief we exist within a creation in attempts to make the Ghost been seen.

The Natural-Neutral Default Position re Theism, is that there is not enough information to make a call either way.

[brunumb]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #307]


What's from William and what's from TRANSPONDER?

You're right. I hadn't noted what's from him and what's from me. I do find the quote mechanism a bit of a puzzle. I'll try to sort that in future posts.

Thanks. I just read another post where you praised the points raised, but there were posts before yours and no real way to tell which one you were directly referring to.

If you want to reply to a specific post without quoting any of the content, just use the reply button bottom right. For a general, non specific reply, use the reply button bottom left.

Using the reply with quotes can become a bit tricky if you want to comment separately on different bits along the way. Unless one is careful identities can get interchanged. I click the reply with quote button then copy the first line that begins [quote=.... to the top of each paragraph I want to respond to specifically. Then I type the end quote command at the end of each of those paragraphs. It's easy to go back and insert my responses after each of those paragraphs. Works most times

[brunumb]

This tutorial may be of help.

Oops. Wish I had seen that before I replied.

[TRANSPONDER]

This tutorial may be of help.

Post by brunumb » Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:44 am
Oops. Wish I had seen that before I replied.

That was actually helpful and it explained how I might do what the tutorial said.
oops I meant to respond to.....hang on....

We are actually taking about babies who are born into an information stream and due to their nature, do not remain ignorant. The total ignorance is the default setting in the beginning, and part of that setting has it that the babies are enabled to collect and sort data from the stream and are also able to develop.
Collecting and sorting data and developing, is still an aspect of the Natural-Neutral Default Position. It is not simply one of ignorance, even that it begins as such.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #313]

Well I'd call that innate instinct that enables automatic responses and ability to learn, (explains animal behaviour without reasoning, and supports evolutionary adaptation, not Cosmic minds).

The reason you make the call is because of the position you chose to make that call from.
The Natural-Neutral Default Position does not favor the one idea [innate instinct, automatic responses, evolutionary adaptation] over the other [Cosmic minds] or as it might be described..."The Natural-Neutral Default Position, is the sober journey into self-realization"

one of the things we learn is religion, whichever one is taught.

The Natural-Neutral Default Position does not depend on being taught by any religion, and investigates the data stream of all religions and non-religions of the Theistic position.

And I have yet to be persuaded that without religion we would have irreligious theism at all, taught to babies or anyone else.

This is irrelevant as this ignores the fact that all the data is contained in the data-stream, and altogether points to religions evolving [establishing] from concepts which were not established so much as the were thought possible, or experienced and known to be possible but not understood.

Religion therefore became something [a device] which sought to establish more concrete ideas about the belief we exist within a creation in attempts to make the Ghost been seen.

The Natural-Neutral Default Position re Theism, is that there is not enough information to make a call either way.

The common logical error about Theism vs materialism is the believers thinking that one equals the other. They do not. Materialism is the default -theory. Not only do we know what is repeatable reality, we also know that speculations about gods, cosmic minds and data -streams and other Chophraesque faith claims are hypotheses, and the mechanism of the apologetic is to claim that materialism is no more credible than various faith -claims.

It is the validated basic - science tells us how things work and there is no god needed. Therefore the burden of proof is on the Faith - claimant of Gods, Cosmic minds or data streams to make their case, not try to get away with 'it's as valid as materialism'. It isn't. Materialist reality and mechanisms would still be true, even if a god, Cosmic mind or data stream could be validated and added to the material. The onus falls squarely on the proponents of supernatural hypotheses to prove them.

"this ignores the fact that all the data is contained in the data-stream, " This is not a fact, but a faith -claim. The cause of religion and indeed instincts of trust in mentor -figures from infancy, is equally a good theory as evolved survival -instincts, and we know those are true. Thus evolved instinct is the default, not hypothethical streams of cosmic Consciousness.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #317]

You still have to work on a way of tiding up your posts as you have it looking like brunumb writing that stuff you wrote about materialism.

The data-stream I wrote about is simply all information available. I am not sure how [or why] you have referred to that as a "Chophraesque faith claim"...but anyway - please make sure your replies are formatted correctly...it isn't difficult to do once one puts some effort into it...

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #306]

Maybe I have been shown a god and I simply refuse to believe that it is a god.

Defining "what is a God" seems to depend upon ones expectations.

All I can put together is that a god is worthy of worship, which is why I wouldn't be God no matter what powers I had.

How well do you think your sense of morality aligns with what you observe of the universe?

Terribly. But it's the best I have. The moment I can do better, and have consistency, that becomes my sense of morality.

[William]

How well do you think your sense of morality aligns with what you observe of the universe?

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #319]

Terribly. But it's the best I have. The moment I can do better, and have consistency, that becomes my sense of morality.

Yet there is no evidence that the universe is based in morality. If the universe is a creation, then why place expectations of morality - including worship - on its creator?

The concept of worship derives from ideas of morality.