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]

What beliefs does agnosticism form

None? I said agnostics have beliefs, as opposed to agnosticism form beliefs.

what is the one belief shunned?

The existence of gods.

It is not often one gets to see an atheist admit - albeit indirectly - that they are hindered by their pre-existing ideologies and beliefs.

We are not often asked as we are rather proud to be hindered in such a way to be unable to turn a blind eye to human suffering as some sort of grand plan, as an example.

[AgnosticBoy]

The economy can be balanced with limiting covid-19 deaths. I used logic and evidence to make my case. That's a fact, not a belief.

These are not mutually exclusive terms. I believe in lots of facts. But semantics aside, as that's been discussed to death in that other thread...

Define facts and cite your source. We can then see how that compares to a "belief".

Again, I have NO beliefs.

Read more carefully, I said you believe the economy should be balanced with limiting covid-19 death. Logic and evidence alone cannot get you to that conclusion.

I already told you why I argued my point. The economy can be opened while keeping deaths low. It would be best if you ask me about my view before imposing your opinion on me.

If asked if the economy should be opened then I would say yes, if the goal is to have a good economy. That's goal-oriented and not necessarily moral related. If asked about a moral angle like if it's morally good to have a good economy, then I would say I don't know.

[Zzyzx]

.

The economy can be opened while keeping deaths low. .

What, exactly, do you consider 'low'?

Coronavirus Cases US as of April 21: 817,006 Deaths: 45,226 (in three or four months -- with moderate containment efforts in place)

Would 150,000 to 200,000 annual deaths be 'low'?

Does the rate have to equal 1918 - 19 levels (675,000 US deaths) to be significant? Note: containment issues WERE used in the flu pandemic 100 years ago and death rates were still that high.

Shall we reduce efforts and try for a new record " to save the corporations?

[AgnosticBoy]

.

The economy can be opened while keeping deaths low. .

What, exactly, do you consider 'low'?

Coronavirus Cases US as of April 21: 817,006 Deaths: 45,226 (in three or four months -- with moderate containment efforts in place)

Would 150,000 to 200,000 annual deaths be 'low'?

Does the rate have to equal 1918 - 19 levels (675,000 US deaths) to be significant? Note: containment issues WERE used in the flu pandemic 100 years ago and death rates were still that high.

Shall we reduce efforts and try for a new record " to save the corporations?

How about less than 1% death rate??! That is the percentage of deaths among the LOW risk population (younger than 44 years of age, and no pre-existing chronic disease) in a covid-19 hot spot of New York state (Source). Why would you shut down the economy for a population that has 99% survival rate and that only experiences MILD symptoms?

[Bust Nak]

Define facts and cite your source. We can then see how that compares to a "belief".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
I also refer you back to that other thread.

I already told you why I argued my point. The economy can be opened while keeping deaths low. It would be best if you ask me about my view before imposing your opinion on me.

Again, that's not what I was talking about. You are still talking about "can" here, when I said "should." It would be best if you address what I said like you are doing below, without accusing me of imposing anything on you.

If asked if the economy should be opened...

If? The record would show that I did in fact ask you about "should" instead of "can."

... then I would say yes, if the goal is to have a good economy. That's goal-oriented and not necessarily moral related. If asked about a moral angle like if it's morally good to have a good economy, then I would say I don't know.

You can't formulate a goal with just logic and evidence, you need to insert your own desires as premises. Why that goal and not the complete focus on limiting the disease at the expense of the economy? Why do you want a good economy?

[Clownboat]

Define facts and cite your source. We can then see how that compares to a "belief".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
I also refer you back to that other thread.

I already told you why I argued my point. The economy can be opened while keeping deaths low. It would be best if you ask me about my view before imposing your opinion on me.

Again, that's not what I was talking about. You are still talking about "can" here, when I said "should." It would be best if you address what I said like you are doing below, without accusing me of imposing anything on you.

If asked if the economy should be opened...

If? The record would show that I did in fact ask you about "should" instead of "can."

... then I would say yes, if the goal is to have a good economy. That's goal-oriented and not necessarily moral related. If asked about a moral angle like if it's morally good to have a good economy, then I would say I don't know.

You can't formulate a goal with just logic and evidence, you need to insert your own desires as premises. Why that goal and not the complete focus on limiting the disease at the expense of the economy? Why do you want a good economy?

Just to play the devil's advocate here:
I'm not what anyone would consider a criminal and have never committed anything close to a serious crime.

I would steal to feed my family though (at least I think I would). Fortunately, I have been financially conservative and any thieving to feed my family would be a long time coming.

If the economy is held back for too long though, do we need to worry about those that are not in such a position as myself turning to crime to meet family needs?

Will break-ins and robberies escalate. Will violent crimes escalate?

Are we potentially going to save the lives of mostly the elderly at the cost of the young and defenseless?

I personally don't worry about this if we can return to some sort of normalcy before too long, but what if this disease does stick around for 6 months to a year or what have you?

We can't have the economy suffer forever obviously. So if this disease is a serious as it seems, will we at some point have to risk the elderly to save the defenseless? If so, should we begin such measures to mitigate the potential crime sooner than later?

[Bust Nak]

[Preamble cropped]

If the economy is held back for too long though, do we need to worry about those that are not in such a position as myself turning to crime to meet family needs?

Will break-ins and robberies escalate. Will violent crimes escalate?

Sure.

Are we potentially going to save the lives of mostly the elderly at the cost of the young and defenseless?

Potentially. Support the scientists and health workers to do their thing, and it probably won't come to that.

I personally don't worry about this if we can return to some sort of normalcy before too long, but what if this disease does stick around for 6 months to a year or what have you?

I don't have anywhere enough knowledge to answer that, maybe rationing like in war time? I place my trust into the people who do.

We can't have the economy suffer forever obviously. So if this disease is a serious as it seems, will we at some point have to risk the elderly to save the defenseless?

At some point, sure.

If so, should we begin such measures to mitigate the potential crime sooner than later?

Nah, chances are the other measures would be taken before people would be forced to resort to crime.

To take a step back, I want to point out that I am not suggesting we focus on limiting the disease completely at the expense of the economy. I too want a good economy. I am just saying my wants and desires are at their basis, non-rational. I choose the goals that I do, because they feel good.

[William]

Define facts and cite your source. We can then see how that compares to a "belief".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
I also refer you back to that other thread.

I already told you why I argued my point. The economy can be opened while keeping deaths low. It would be best if you ask me about my view before imposing your opinion on me.

Again, that's not what I was talking about. You are still talking about "can" here, when I said "should." It would be best if you address what I said like you are doing below, without accusing me of imposing anything on you.

If asked if the economy should be opened...

If? The record would show that I did in fact ask you about "should" instead of "can."

... then I would say yes, if the goal is to have a good economy. That's goal-oriented and not necessarily moral related. If asked about a moral angle like if it's morally good to have a good economy, then I would say I don't know.

You can't formulate a goal with just logic and evidence, you need to insert your own desires as premises. Why that goal and not the complete focus on limiting the disease at the expense of the economy? Why do you want a good economy?

Just to play the devil's advocate here:
I'm not what anyone would consider a criminal and have never committed anything close to a serious crime.

I would steal to feed my family though (at least I think I would). Fortunately, I have been financially conservative and any thieving to feed my family would be a long time coming.

If the economy is held back for too long though, do we need to worry about those that are not in such a position as myself turning to crime to meet family needs?

Will break-ins and robberies escalate. Will violent crimes escalate?

Are we potentially going to save the lives of mostly the elderly at the cost of the young and defenseless?

I personally don't worry about this if we can return to some sort of normalcy before too long, but what if this disease does stick around for 6 months to a year or what have you?

We can't have the economy suffer forever obviously. So if this disease is a serious as it seems, will we at some point have to risk the elderly to save the defenseless? If so, should we begin such measures to mitigate the potential crime sooner than later?

William: I suppose that if we were to direct this back to the OP - can we identify the current systems spoken of here are being reasonable, and are they based upon atheist or agnostic reasoning?

I for one do not see a reasonable thing in systems which so easily can be threatened with collapsing and creating great hardships for many of the vulnerable.

[AgnosticBoy]

Define facts and cite your source. We can then see how that compares to a "belief".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
I also refer you back to that other thread.

Here's from your source:
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed- an individual's religious or political beliefs

Are the views expressed by religions based on logic and evidence? If not, then contrary to your view, there is a distinction between beliefs and FACTs (or views based on logic and evidence).

... then I would say yes, if the goal is to have a good economy. That's goal-oriented and not necessarily moral related. If asked about a moral angle like if it's morally good to have a good economy, then I would say I don't know.

You can't formulate a goal with just logic and evidence, you need to insert your own desires as premises. Why that goal and not the complete focus on limiting the disease at the expense of the economy? Why do you want a good economy?

A goal isn't a true or false issue - it's not a proposition. I have desires and wants but not beliefs. I want a good economy because I love my country. Furthermore, I like being able to have a good job instead of unemployment.

[Zzyzx]

.

We can't have the economy suffer forever obviously.

It seems as though a vaccine is required to deal with the situation.