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?

[DavidLeon]

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.

Of course not. A god isn't a god until someone other than the entity makes it a god. This is why the term atheist is nonsensical. There are billions of gods.

[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.

Of course not. A god isn't a god until someone other than the entity makes it a god. This is why the term atheist is nonsensical. There are billions of gods.

Billions?

[DavidLeon]

Billions?

Yup. There are probably a billion in Shintoism and Hinduism alone. Consider the definition of the word god, which basically isn't a definition at all, it's a list of examples. The definition or meaning of the word god is anyone or anything attributed a might that is greater than the one attributing it or anyone or anything venerated. So, from a dictionary: 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2. a) in certain other religions a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. b) an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. c) used as a conventional personification of fate.

3. an adored, admired, or influential person.

4. The gallery in a theater.

These are actually examples rather than definitions, but what they all have in common is the attribution of might mentioned above.

[RJG]

There is no evidence that any, 'supreme being', created the universe.

[DavidLeon]

There is no evidence that any, 'supreme being', created the universe.

Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. It's subjective. The Bible is the only source of evidence regarding the alleged supreme being creating the universe. If you want to make the claim that said being didn't create the universe you have to demonstrate that to be false.

[AgnosticBoy]

Why? Because it's your claim.

But it's not my claim though.

You've made statements about how contradictory beliefs are held. This is one of them:
"How is that not the same thing as square and circle when put together is meaningless? Either way, some people are putting them together and accepting it as part of their view, and that qualify as a belief by my count." (source"]).

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?

The simple reason is that if there's no how or way for it to occur, then it can't occur. So far you've offered no logic and evidence to support your claim. In contrast, I've presented logic and evidence not only showing your view can't possibly work, but I've also given an alternative as to how a contradictory view can be held without having to combine two opposing terms.

If the word "how" is too confusing then we can even forget about that word. Just prove that reconciling contradictory concepts is possible. If it is not possible, then explain why you think someone can hold a contradictory belief that involves reconciling contradictory concepts.

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.

You did. You stated that the belief involves "putting together" two contradictory terms. You started getting into this aspect to show how a contradiction can lead to incoherence. Now I want you to prove that contradictory concepts can be reconciled in beliefs or otherwise. How do you even know that they are holding it in the way you explained as opposed to the way I explained in my view? (my view doesn't involve incoherence or meaningless statements)

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

No, but it is evidence that they do believe.

No, it's only evidence of their statement but not of actual belief. The reason is that belief requires certain things to be in place. Belief requires an object, acceptance, etc. A square circle can not be conceived and therefore can not be an object of thought. A person would not know what it is any more than they would know what akdjlkfjdakljfkldjaklfjd is or means. In either example, it points to nothing (no object means no belief).

How do they believe in the contradiction?

Don't know.

You don't know but yet you claim that it involves putting two opposing terms together as opposed to keeping them separate? So not only have you not proven that contradictory concepts can be reconciled, but you don't even know if someone is even claiming to hold a belief in such a way.

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.

Saying that contradictions can happen doesn't involve reconciling two opposing terms. No two concepts or terms are even mentioned. It's a general statement that is meaningful and by knowing what it means I can also tell you whether it is true or false. So at best, you've only shown that someone believes in a general statement. Now if you add or specify actual details to that statement, then it turns into something else because there are additional details and the issue of combining or reconciling comes into play as well as my point about TWO separate beliefs.

Again, you have not shown that someone holds a contradictory view by "putting together" opposing terms nor have you shown that it's possible to begin with.

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.

I've already explained how your general statement, and a belief in it, would not support your case. Again, my view is that someone can hold a contradictory view BUT the way or how that it's done is clearly different from your view. My view involves no combining of opposing concepts and therefore no incoherence or meaningless. Your view involves combining two opposing terms, which would be incoherent. I'm arguing that your view is not possible.

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've stated that the belief involves combining or the "putting together" of two contradictory concepts. That speaks to "how" contradictory views are held. I'm requesting that you prove that it can be done in the way you explained it.

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?

I'm not equating the two. I'm connecting the two when it comes to proof. I've proven that there is no way for it to happen in that it is not logically possible, therefore it can not happen. There is no "if it can", when there is no way or how for it to happen.

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

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

Is the following meaningless: akdfjkadljfkldajfkljdakfljadkljfkdlajfkldajkljfeiejriefjf??? Does it mean anything to you?

[brunumb]

The Bible is the only source of evidence regarding the alleged supreme being creating the universe.

No. The Bible is merely a source of claims regarding an alleged supreme being creating the universe. Those claims are not supported by any evidence. The burden of proof lies with those who wish the claims to be accepted as true.

[Tcg]

Of course not. A god isn't a god until someone other than the entity makes it a god. This is why the term atheist is nonsensical. There are billions of gods.

It is a perfectly sensible term. Atheists lack belief in all gods. The claimed total number of gods has no bearing on this fact.


Tcg

[DavidLeon]

It is a perfectly sensible term. Atheists lack belief in all gods. The claimed total number of gods has no bearing on this fact.

Okay.

Here is the definition of atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

And here is the definition of god.

1. In Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2. a) In certain other religions a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. b) an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. c) used as a conventional personification of fate.

3. An adored, admired, or influential person.

4. The gallery in a theater.

And here is the definition of belief.

1. An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

2. Trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

I don't believe (have trust, faith or confidence) in Zeus. I don't believe Zeus ever existed. I don't worship Zeus. Zeus is a god. In the definition of god given above, 2 b and c, 3 and 4 are examples of gods who have existed. You lack the belief in the existence of these? The definition of atheism says disbelief or lack of belief in, not only a specific God but gods as well.

Among the gods mentioned in the Bible are Moses, the Judges of Israel, Jesus and the Sumerian King Tammuz, and a person's belly. Do you doubt that all of these existed? (Exodus 4:16; 7:1; Psalm 82:1, 6; John 10:34-35; Isaiah 9:6; Ezekiel 8:14; Romans 16:18; Philippians 3:19)

[DavidLeon]

No. The Bible is merely a source of claims regarding an alleged supreme being creating the universe. Those claims are not supported by any evidence. The burden of proof lies with those who wish the claims to be accepted as true.

Again, from the same post which you quoted me, evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. It's subjective.

You see evidence for and against. Both can't be true. Evidence doesn't establish truth or falsity, it is merely information for consideration. The Bible is evidence of a supreme being creating the universe. What evidence is there against it? Just because the Bible is evidence doesn't make the Bible truth and just because you have evidence of it being false doesn't mean it's false.