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?

[TRANSPONDER]

[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...

The 'data stream' presented as some evidence of a Cosmic Mind is as dubious a faith -claim as anything Chophra has come up with. I already pointed out that the material default is first choice for hypothetical models and supernatural claims are not an equal option. The burden of proof falls on those making such claims.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #321]

Are you seriously suggesting that minds are 'supernatural'?

I find that idea - at least on the surface - to be an unreasonable proposition. Do you have any evidence to support this apparent hypothesis?

[I myself have never once referred to a Cosmic Mind as being 'supernatural'.]

[Goat]

[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.

Not necessarily. It all depends on what someone's atheism is based on. If it is 'there is convincing evidence that the claims about god are true, therefore I don't believe in those claims', then it's nod dogmatic.

the null position is not the same as the dogmatic insistence that something is there without objective evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #321]

Are you seriously suggesting that minds are 'supernatural'?

I find that idea - at least on the surface - to be an unreasonable proposition. Do you have any evidence to support this apparent hypothesis?

[I myself have never once referred to a Cosmic Mind as being 'supernatural'.]

Don't strawman me, pal. ..I said: The 'data stream' presented as some evidence of a Cosmic Mind is as dubious a faith -claim as anything Chophra has come up with." I specifically said the Cosmic Mind, not 'minds'. Which must mean human minds. The data stream (unless you want to clarify that) must mean events of reality or the 'information' involved in that claimed as some kind of intelligence. That is appeal to the supernatural

[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.

Not necessarily. It all depends on what someone's atheism is based on. If it is 'there is convincing evidence that the claims about god are true, therefore I don't believe in those claims', then it's nod dogmatic.

the null position is not the same as the dogmatic insistence that something is there without objective evidence.

Absolutely. This strawman atheism seems to go back a long way - to when I was a kid. It is almost Theist Dogma, that atheism is a gnostic denial of any god (indeed the old Websters def of atheism said 'Denial of God'. And this is still the Theist view of atheism being peddled today. With 'agnosticism' being represented as a more reasonable position than atheism since it at least leaves room for doubt. Which implies the false logical position that Theism is always striving for - 'Theism is as logically sound as atheism'. This is quite wrong and relied on this strawman of atheism being forced on us.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #324]

I said: The 'data stream' presented as some evidence of a Cosmic Mind is as dubious a faith -claim as anything Chophra has come up with." I specifically said the Cosmic Mind, not 'minds'. Which must mean human minds. The data stream (unless you want to clarify that) must mean events of reality or the 'information' involved in that claimed as some kind of intelligence. That is appeal to the supernatural

Why are you separating "Cosmic Mind" from all other minds, by inferring a Cosmic Mind is 'supernatural'?

I myself do not do that. "Mind is minds", is how I view the concept. The idea stems from the fact that our individual minds are within the Cosmos, and are therefore able to be referred to as cosmic minds.

Your arguing otherwise, is a strawman as I am not arguing for the idea of our minds being fundamentally separate from any overall Cosmic Mind.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #324]

With 'agnosticism' being represented as a more reasonable position than atheism since it at least leaves room for doubt. Which implies the false logical position that Theism is always striving for - 'Theism is as logically sound as atheism'. This is quite wrong and relied on this strawman of atheism being forced on us.

Agnosticism appears to be a wild card and I have removed it altogether as an appropriate name for the Default Position, replacing it with "Natural Neutral" until such a time as "Agnosticism" is better conceptionally represented than it presently is.



Therefore, re the OPQ, Agnosticism is no more or less reasonable that are Atheism and Theism.

The most reasonable position is the Natural Neutral one - similar in appearance to "Agnosticism" but not Agnosticism.

[William]

Posted in wrong thread...post deleted

[Purple Knight]

If the universe is a creation, then why place expectations of morality - including worship - on its creator?

There's not a reason to. At least, not inherently.

The concept of worship derives from ideas of morality.

I agree.

Yet there is no evidence that the universe is based in morality.

This is where I disagree. People are the evidence. I'm a psychopath - I was born blind. I don't perceive any morality. But if everyone else is telling me that colours and light exist, even if sometimes they disagree, I'm not going to be stubborn and claim there's no such thing as sight and the rest of them are blind too, all just putting me on.

I'm going to make the best of what I have which is an incredible intellect. I can get hold of a colour panel and ask people who haven't seen it before whether it is red or not. When most say it is red and only a few odd ones out claim it's green, I am going to start to think the people who say it's green have a defect, but I can test that too, and when I find that the green ones lack a differentiation the red ones possess, I can safely say the red ones have it right, and I've just discovered colourblindness as a blind man.

[William]

William: There is no evidence that the universe is based in morality.
[Replying to Purple Knight in post #328]

People are the evidence.

Incorrect. The universe is not based in 'people'.

[Purple Knight]

William: There is no evidence that the universe is based in morality.
[Replying to Purple Knight in post #328]

People are the evidence.

Incorrect. The universe is not based in 'people'.

I think it is. The moral universe anyway. Perception of morality is an ability people have, and it's as important, or more important than sight.

Remember, I'm coming into this as someone who does not see this morality and it would make me happier than a mafly in May to say they're making it up and it doesn't exist. But I've gotten hold of enough colour palettes and had enough similar answers from people who are not comparing notes (different cultures, even) that I'm forced to say it does exist. I would love it if they each said a different colour and I could laugh them off. But they don't. There is something there, something real, that they are seeing and I do not see.