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]

I have my view but it is based on logic and verifiable evidence. We can keep the economy open while also keeping covid-19 deaths very low. This is a FACT, and not opinion.

Again, not what I was referring to. Time and time again I've told you, the view I am challenging is this one "we should keep the economy open while also keeping covid-19 deaths very low," which is something that is added to your feelings of love for the country and a simple thought of wanting a good job. What do you call that if not claim, proposition, assertion or opinion?

When I offer my logic and evidence, and people still want to keep the economy closed, then you gotta wonder if politics plays a role, especially when those who disagree are all from the same political party.

It's based on logic and evidence, plus our emotions and personal taste. We have similar political stance because we share the same background emotions and personal taste.

Again, my view is not based on opinion. It is based on logic and evidence.

Which view are you talking about here, "we can keep the economy open while also keeping covid-19 deaths very low" or "we should keep the economy open while also keeping covid-19 deaths very low." I ask because I think we've already established that the latter is not based on logic and evidence alone, but is the product of your emotions and personal taste.

[AgnosticBoy]

I have my view but it is based on logic and verifiable evidence. We can keep the economy open while also keeping covid-19 deaths very low. This is a FACT, and not opinion.

Again, not what I was referring to. Time and time again I've told you, the view I am challenging is this one "we should keep the economy open while also keeping covid-19 deaths very low," which is something that is added to your feelings of love for the country and a simple thought of wanting a good job. What do you call that if not claim, proposition, assertion or opinion?

Just two quick points:
- You're setting up a strawman. If you want to limit the damage on the economy, which I'm not sure why anyone would not want that (winking at the liberals), then you SHOULD want a plan that can keep the economy open while also keep mortality rates low.
- You keep emphasizing my emotions, but that plays little to no role in determining the truth of my view when logic and evidence proves my point.

Again, my view is not based on opinion. It is based on logic and evidence.

Which view are you talking about here, "we can keep the economy open while also keeping covid-19 deaths very low" or "we should keep the economy open while also keeping covid-19 deaths very low." I ask because I think we've already established that the latter is not based on logic and evidence alone, but is the product of your emotions and personal taste.

I want a good economy. So I'm referring to both. And my wants just happen to be consistent with logic and evidence. Even if they weren't, you can't fault me when I've at least gone through the process of finding if or how logic and evidence supports my wants. I don't just go along with my wants.

[Bust Nak]

You're setting up a strawman. If you want to limit the damage on the economy, which I'm not sure why anyone would not want that (winking at the liberals), then you SHOULD want a plan that can keep the economy open while also keep mortality rates low.

That much is fine, it's a conditional statement, I am not refering to that though. Once again, I am talking about the view that one should follow a plan that can keep the economy open while also keep mortality rates low. How is this a strawman, when you have been going round on multiple threads proposing your plan?

You keep emphasizing my emotions, but that plays little to no role in determining the truth of my view when logic and evidence proves my point.

The truth of your view? A mere three posts ago, you said feelings and simple thoughts are not propositional, are those not included as part of your view? What about the conclusion (I am once again referring to "we should follow a plan that can keep the economy open while keeping the mortality low" here) you draw from said feelings and simple thoughts? Is that not part of your view? Further down you seemed to have indicated that this is indeed part of your view. I am pretty sure you don't think it's a propositional statement either, so truth does not apply here?

As for your emotions playing little to no role, it appears to me that a major component of your view is the result of your desire "I want a good economy." Are you just objecting to me throwing this desire under the label emotion? If so then I'd be happy to switch to a term you prefer to avoid another semantic argument. Or are you actually denying that your desire plays a major role?

I want a good economy. So I'm referring to both.

Okay, if you do hold that "we should keep the economy open while keeping mortality low" then why did you call my argument a strawman? Just so that we are clear, this is my understanding of your view:

"I want a good economy" - the words you used for this were: background wants, emotion, personal taste, feelings or thoughts. You also said it's not a proposition.

"Economy can be balanced with low mortality" - a fact based on logic and evidence.

"If one wants a good economy, then one should follow a plan that balances economy with low mortality" - not entirely sure but I am under the impression that this too, is a fact based on logic and evidence.

"We should follow a plan that balances economy with low mortality" - now this I really have no idea, apart from what it isn't. It's not claim, proposition, policy, assertion nor opinion? So what is this?

Where is the strawman?

you can't fault me when I've at least gone through the process of finding if or how logic and evidence supports my wants. I don't just go along with my wants.

Sure, but I can fault you for suggesting that liberals and atheists don't go through the process of finding if or how logic and evidence supports our wants.

[AgnosticBoy]

You're setting up a strawman. If you want to limit the damage on the economy, which I'm not sure why anyone would not want that (winking at the liberals), then you SHOULD want a plan that can keep the economy open while also keep mortality rates low.

That much is fine, it's a conditional statement, I am not refer to that though. Once again, I am talking about the view that one should follow a plan that can keep the economy open while also keep mortality rates low. How is this a strawman, when you have been going round on multiple threads proposing your plan?

The strawman is that you're suggesting that I have a belief that the economy should be open. I have no underlying "belief" about the economy being open or closed.

You keep emphasizing my emotions, but that plays little to no role in determining the truth of my view when logic and evidence proves my point.

The truth of your view? A mere three posts ago, you said feelings and simple thoughts are not propositional, are those not included as part of your view?

My desire may play a role in the views that I form but I don't accept anything as true unless it is backed by logic and evidence.

My desire, by itself, is not a view. It's certainly not propositional.

What about the conclusion (I am once again referring to "we should follow a plan that can keep the economy open while keeping the mortality low" here) you draw from said feelings and simple thoughts? Is that not part of your view?

My views are not formed from just feelings. Logic and evidence is involved and I don't accept anything as true unless those two are present.

I want a good economy. So I'm referring to both.

Okay, if you do hold that "we should keep the economy open while keeping mortality low" then why did you call my argument a strawman? Just so that we are clear, this is my understanding of your view:

"I want a good economy" - the words you used for this were: background wants, emotion, personal taste, feelings or thoughts. You also said it's not a proposition.

If there is no proposition then there is no belief. The strawman is that you keep trying to suggest or point to a belief when none exist at the point of just a desire.

you can't fault me when I've at least gone through the process of finding if or how logic and evidence supports my wants. I don't just go along with my wants.

Sure, but I can fault you for suggesting that liberals and atheists don't go through the process of finding if or how logic and evidence supports our wants.

Liberalism= belief-system, a political ideology. So in that case, you're finding logic and evidence to support your BELIEFS, something which you already accept as true. Christians do that. They start off claiming to know how the world works according to their BELIEFS, and then they find evidence and logic to support that.

An agnostic starts off with nothing or no beliefs (although they may have pre-existing KNOWLEDGE on various matters), and then uses logic and evidence to develop their view.

[Danmark]

We can keep the economy open while also keeping covid-19 deaths very low. This is a FACT, and not opinion.

It is difficult to credit this opinion as "FACT" when several terms are undefined:
'Keeping the economy "open"
'deaths "very low"

Are you suggesting we can completely open the economy with no restrictions, and the rate of infections and deaths will not be substantially affected?

[Bust Nak]

The strawman is that you're suggesting that I have a belief that the economy should be open.

We've already resolved that part of the debate when you accepted it was a difference in semantics. Your accusation of a strawman is unfounded. What still haven't been resolve, is the apparent inconsistency, in calling my views beliefs while rejecting that label for your own, when as far as I can tell, both are formulated in the same way.

My desire may play a role in the views that I form but I don't accept anything as true unless it is backed by logic and evidence.

My desire, by itself, is not a view. It's certainly not propositional.

Okay. The bit I am really interested in, is you conclusion.

My views are not formed from just feelings. Logic and evidence is involved and I don't accept anything as true unless those two are present.

That's fine, we've already established that much a day ago when you said your view is not based solely on logic and evidence and that emotions and personal taste are in the background and can even sway thinking. The question remains though, what do you call views that are influenced by feelings, if not beliefs? Surely you wouldn't label such views as facts?

If there is no proposition then there is no belief. The strawman is that you keep trying to suggest or point to a belief when none exist at the point of just a desire.

So answer my challenge, what do you call your view that the economy should be reopened while keeping mortality low, if not a belief? And if it is not a proposition, why then speak of the truth of your view?

Liberalism= belief-system, a political ideology. So in that case, you're finding logic and evidence to support your BELIEFS, something which you already accept as true.

Why would you think I already accept Liberalism as true, as opposed to a conclusion formulated based on logic, evidence and my feelings? Why is it not accepted as truth, when logic and evidence are both present, along side different feelings?

An agnostic starts off with nothing or no beliefs (although they may have pre-existing KNOWLEDGE on various matters), and then uses logic and evidence to develop their view.

And feelings, don't forget the role feelings play in your view.

[AgnosticBoy]

We can keep the economy open while also keeping covid-19 deaths very low. This is a FACT, and not opinion.

It is difficult to credit this opinion as "FACT" when several terms are undefined:
'Keeping the economy "open"
'deaths "very low"

Are you suggesting we can completely open the economy with no restrictions, and the rate of infections and deaths will not be substantially affected?

Refer to post # 44.

[AgnosticBoy]

The strawman is that you're suggesting that I have a belief that the economy should be open.

We've already resolved that part of the debate when you accepted it was a difference in semantics.

The strawman I'm referring to is not about fact vs. beliefs. It's about you thinking that I simply "believe" the economy should be opened. I have explained that I don't believe but rather I KNOW that the economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

our accusation of a strawman is unfounded. What still haven't been resolve, is the apparent inconsistency, in calling my views beliefs while rejecting that label for your own, when as far as I can tell, both are formulated in the same way.

That's because desires and simple thoughts aren't beliefs. I'm sure you love your country as well but you go beyond just feelings and into beliefs. You do so when you have a political ideology. I don't have a political ideology.

My views are not formed from just feelings. Logic and evidence is involved and I don't accept anything as true unless those two are present.

That's fine, we've already established that much a day ago when you said your view is not based solely on logic and evidence and that emotions and personal taste are in the background and can even sway thinking. The question remains though, what do you call views that are influenced by feelings, if not beliefs? Surely you wouldn't label such views as facts?

I never have only feelings and personal taste when forming a view. I ALWAYS have logic and evidence involved with every view and this alone would rule it out from being called an opinion.

If there is no proposition then there is no belief. The strawman is that you keep trying to suggest or point to a belief when none exist at the point of just a desire.

So answer my challenge, what do you call your view that the economy should be reopened while keeping mortality low, if not a belief? And if it is not a proposition, why then speak of the truth of your view?

Again, I am not using "should' in the sense that you think I'm using it. I'm not making some moral judgement. Like a scientist, I simply asked myself if there was a way to open the economy while limiting covid-19 deaths. From there, I sought after logic and evidence to see if or how that could be done.

Liberalism= belief-system, a political ideology. So in that case, you're finding logic and evidence to support your BELIEFS, something which you already accept as true.

Why would you think I already accept Liberalism as true, as opposed to a conclusion formulated based on logic, evidence and my feelings?

Because I see no daylight between your views and that of other Democrats and because you're a liberal. Why would you suspend your liberalism in this case on a political matter?

Lets even forget the word liberal. If you still accept the view that the economy can not be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low DESPITE evidence showing otherwise, then that is clearly a belief on your part. It is a belief since it ignores logic and evidence.

Why is it not accepted as truth, when logic and evidence are both present, along side different feelings?

That's because people use BELIEFS as truth and to inform them. So what happens many times is that people use science and logic to the extent that it supports their belief-system. If you had only logic and evidence, then you would not need beliefs.

[Bust Nak]

The strawman I'm referring to is not about fact vs. beliefs. It's about you thinking that I simply "believe" the economy should be opened. I have explained that I don't believe but rather I KNOW that the economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

That's a strawman of your own creation. I've not challenged you on whether the economy can be opened or not. As for whether the economy should be opened or not, I've avoided calling it a belief after I got the affirmation from you that there was a semantic difference, instead I've been asking you what you would call it, if not a belief.

That's because desires and simple thoughts aren't beliefs. I'm sure you love your country as well but you go beyond just feelings and into beliefs. You do so when you have a political ideology. I don't have a political ideology.

That's the inconsistency I am talking about. Why it is that when I have desire and simple thoughts, then develop my views from that with evidence and logic, I have beliefs and ideology. But when you have desire and simple thoughts, then develop your views from that with evidence and logic, you don't have beliefs and ideology?

I never have only feelings and personal taste when forming a view. I ALWAYS have logic and evidence involved with every view and this alone would rule it out from being called an opinion.

You are still not answering my question. I was very clear, I was not talking about views that have only feelings and personal taste. This is what I asked you: what do you call a view that involve logic, evidence plus feelings and personal taste, if it is not a belief, opinion, claim nor proposition?

Again, I am not using "should' in the sense that you think I'm using it. I'm not making some moral judgement.

Why do you think I was referring to should as a moral judgement? I have not implied one way or not other. What do you think a scientist is saying, when she says we should cut our carbon emission? Is your "we should open the economy," the same "should" as her "we should cut our carbon emission?"

Like a scientist, I simply asked myself if there was a way to open the economy while limiting covid-19 deaths. From there, I sought after logic and evidence to see if or how that could be done.

Ah huh, but that doesn't get you to "we should open the economy." What do you call that view that we should open the economy?

Because I see no daylight between your views and that of other Democrats and because you're a liberal. Why would you suspend your liberalism in this case on a political matter?

I wouldn't suspend my liberalism because facts and logic don't change, and I don't foresee my feelings changing. But that doesn't answer my question. How does the similarity between my views and Democrats' indicate that I begun with liberalism instead of arriving at it as a conclusion based on logic, evidence and my feelings?

If you still accept the view that the economy can not be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low...

That's not relevant to the debate at hand, I have stayed away from the can be opened question debate exactly because it does not involve anything beyond logic and evidence. We both agree that much isn't a belief, the way you defined "belief."

If your world of "truth" was based only on logic and evidence then that would be one thing, but that is not all you rely on for truth or to inform you.

I am careful with how I use the word "truth." My world of truth is based on logic and evidence; plus axioms as self-evidently true, such as the rules of logic themselves; plus axioms for the sake of pragmatism, such as the basic reliability of my mind and senses, or the existence of external world.

But I am more interested in your world of "truth," your view that the economy should be opened is not based only on logic and evidence, but also your feelings, do you include that view as truth?

You also have beliefs - political and philosophical ideologies.

Same as above re: inconsistency. I arrived at my conclusion via logic, evidence and feelings, the same methodology you used for the conclusion "we should open the economy," yet I have beliefs and you don't?

If logic and evidence can deal with the issue, then why resort to belief systems such as liberalism?

As I keep telling you, logic and evidence alone cannot deal with all issues, some issues you also need you feelings as premises, you've agreed with that much, right? We don't resort to liberalism, we resort to feelings because logic and evidence alone isn't enough and liberalism is the result.

[AgnosticBoy]

The strawman I'm referring to is not about fact vs. beliefs. It's about you thinking that I simply "believe" the economy should be opened. I have explained that I don't believe but rather I KNOW that the economy can be opened while keeping covid-19 deaths low.

That's a strawman of your own creation. I've not challenged you on whether the economy can be opened or not. As for whether the economy should be opened or not, I've avoided calling it a belief after I got the affirmation from you that there was a semantic difference, instead I've been asking you what you would call it, if not a belief.

Outside of the goal I told you about, I don't accept that the economy "should" be opened. I never claimed that it should be opened for any personal reason.

So where does that leave your point?