Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20490
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

AgnosticBoy wrote: 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?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #331

Post by William »

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

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #330]
I think it is. The moral universe anyway.
You might think that it is, but that may be you superimposing your sense of morality onto the physical universe. Placing a moralistic costume upon said PU, does not "make it so".
Perception of morality is an ability people have, and it's as important, or more important than sight.
It is no doubt helpful for biological critters to have any chance of surviving within the PU to invent morals which assist with that process.
However, in order to accept the premise you offer, one would have to say that morals were not invented but discovered. One would have to assign human characteristics to the PU. Do you think that the PU is therefore self aware and has a sense of morality?

You seem to be saying that is the case, where you wrote;
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.
"Where" is this seemingly unconnected cultural exhibition sourced, if not from the mind of the PU itself?

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7858
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #332

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:52 pm
William wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:39 pm 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.
If I get you drift correctly, I'd say that a common morality in humanity may be called 'universal' but does that mean it's down to evolved instinct or to a Cosmic mind? Either would account for it, but evolved instinct better, especially as we can see how morality has evolved as society has evolved. And the example of art, music and literature is uncannily the same in different cultures, though remarkably different. As is the case with religion itself, if it was from a Cosmic mind, you'd expect it all to be the same. If it was from an evolved human instinct, you'd expect us all to do it but with sub -species variants. Which is what we seem to get.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #333

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #332]
As is the case with religion itself, if it was from a Cosmic mind, you'd expect it all to be the same. If it was from an evolved human instinct, you'd expect us all to do it but with sub -species variants. Which is what we seem to get.
What we get through Theism the same as what we get through some other culture.

Your intel if off as you premise would have to be that Theists are fully connected to a Cosmic Mind, which would allow for the expectation that 'it would be all the same' and hasn't allowed/accounted for any misrepresentation and subsequent misrepresentation of a Cosmic Mind which might occur through forms of Theism.

Tread careful - it is a Mind Field...

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3461
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1128 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #334

Post by Purple Knight »

William wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:53 pmIt is no doubt helpful for biological critters to have any chance of surviving within the PU to invent morals which assist with that process.
Correct, they are invented. Numbers too are invented but math is one of the most rock-solid, consistent, logical things we have. I think of morality as a sort of math I just don't understand. If you ask a libertarian, they will tell you that their morals - the Non-Aggression Principle, property rights, that sort - is discovered and not invented. They will insist this with such surety that although this is confusing, behaving as if and defending the fact that morals are discovered, not invented, is one of these fundamental principles. So by telling the truth now I am behaving an an immoral fashion. Which I would well expect of a psychopath such as myself.

I think of the fact that morals are invented and not discovered as a wrong truth, just like the fact that we could make a better world with eugenics and the fact that there wouldn't be any effective racism or any oppression if races were kept separate, as long as land shares were fair. These things are technically correct but also disgusting and indefensible.
William wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:53 pm"Where" is this seemingly unconnected cultural exhibition sourced, if not from the mind of the PU itself?
People. I watch them, study them, listen to them, and I ask them questions.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:50 amIf I get you drift correctly, I'd say that a common morality in humanity may be called 'universal' but does that mean it's down to evolved instinct or to a Cosmic mind? Either would account for it, but evolved instinct better, especially as we can see how morality has evolved as society has evolved. And the example of art, music and literature is uncannily the same in different cultures, though remarkably different. As is the case with religion itself, if it was from a Cosmic mind, you'd expect it all to be the same. If it was from an evolved human instinct, you'd expect us all to do it but with sub -species variants. Which is what we seem to get.
I think it is the latter but that doesn't make it any less real. And I think you could (I attempt to) take all those different variant moralities, and derive the basic mathematical rules that govern them all.

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7858
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #335

Post by TRANSPONDER »

William wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:10 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #332]
As is the case with religion itself, if it was from a Cosmic mind, you'd expect it all to be the same. If it was from an evolved human instinct, you'd expect us all to do it but with sub -species variants. Which is what we seem to get.
What we get through Theism the same as what we get through some other culture.

Your intel if off as you premise would have to be that Theists are fully connected to a Cosmic Mind, which would allow for the expectation that 'it would be all the same' and hasn't allowed/accounted for any misrepresentation and subsequent misrepresentation of a Cosmic Mind which might occur through forms of Theism.

Tread careful - it is a Mind Field...
:D Thanks. That gave a good chuckle. What you have said is a claim that fails because of the result one would expect (Theist given consistency) and we don't get that. So you produce an excuse that the Cosmic mind gave us uniformity, but we humans mucked it up.

You won't need me to tell you that this is the good old Theist claim with no evidence and having to explain away evidence against. That was not a mind field but shooting yourself in the foot that was jammed in your mouth. If you weren't arguing from faithbased Bias (religious or Irreligious Theist) you wouldn't even be making that argument.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #336

Post by William »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #334]
Correct, they are invented. Numbers too are invented but math is one of the most rock-solid, consistent, logical things we have.
I think the more appropriate word to use is 'discovered' rather than 'invented'
With mathematics, the invention is in the symbols created to represent constructs which were invisible to anything but mind(s).

Same goes for all things of the mind. Symbols have been invented to represent them in the physical world where they exist as invisible entities within mind(s) able to connect with and influence how the physical world outside unfolds re Human interactions with it.

Language. Morals.
Everything to do with conceptualization and subsequent dot-connecting...
What I like about it, is that it gives one more scope in which to work within...
I think of morality as a sort of math I just don't understand.
Could it be that morality is a sort of math hard to understand.

Why is it hard to understand? You obviously understand it enough to argue for its importance...
If you ask a libertarian, they will tell you that their morals - the Non-Aggression Principle, property rights, that sort - is discovered and not invented. They will insist this with such surety that although this is confusing, behaving as if and defending the fact that morals are discovered, not invented, is one of these fundamental principles. So by telling the truth now I am behaving an an immoral fashion. Which I would well expect of a psychopath such as myself.
There is both invention and discovery. It is therefore important to get it right. The tendency to invent explanations and superimpose these upon what is discovered, muddies those waters.

This happens from both Theist and Atheist camps. We simply do not know enough about where we get our information of the mind from, to be placing potentially misleading information on this vastly invisible reality.

Search "psychopath"
a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour. an unstable and aggressive person.
I do not see the connect between an unstable and aggressive personality and someone who is uncovering truth and consequently behaving immorally.
Are you sure you have the correct diagnosis?
I think of the fact that morals are invented and not discovered as a wrong truth, just like the fact that we could make a better world with eugenics and the fact that there wouldn't be any effective racism or any oppression if races were kept separate, as long as land shares were fair. These things are technically correct but also disgusting and indefensible.
They are that way because they rely on being able to bypass natural morality by superimposing belief onto the natural state of life humans project.

One can and did understand eugenics in another epoch, just as surely as cannibalism and incest had their ordinary place of practice. We need be careful not to conflate our current epoch with those forerunners in such a way that we prevent ourselves from truly understanding the process the human race is going through, re the epochs.

To judge too harshly won't get us out of the woods. We might want to also project our thoughts into the undetermined future and ask ourselves how future humans will judge our handling of our epoch...with any good foresight, we should be able to ascertain that we were on the right path, still had work to do, and did the work, therefore rendering gratitude rather than judgement from said decedents.

We appear to have descended from ancestors who prefer to judge ancestors rather than feel gratitude. We have to work on our understanding of morality in order to break that habit...

William: "Where" is this seemingly unconnected cultural exhibition sourced, if not from the mind of the PU itself?
People. I watch them, study them, listen to them, and I ask them questions.
I think of this as practically the same thing. Observing people I see the Mind of the Cosmos struggling to be heard above the fray...it appears to want to be heard through that Human medium, but that medium resists hearing, except what it wants to hear for its own individual agenda, rather than recognizing the overall.

This type of resistance can be conscious or subconscious in its effort to remain unconscious of the invisible reality of the overall mindfulness. Focused attention on personal agenda is a rather successful way in which to drown out such musing...

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #337

Post by William »

[Replying to William in post #336]
Thanks. That gave a good chuckle.
We should count our blessing, great and small. O:)

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7858
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #338

Post by TRANSPONDER »

William: "Where" is this seemingly unconnected cultural exhibition sourced, if not from the mind of the PU itself?
People. I watch them, study them, listen to them, and I ask them questions.
I think of this as practically the same thing. Observing people I see the Mind of the Cosmos struggling to be heard above the fray...it appears to want to be heard through that Human medium, but that medium resists hearing, except what it wants to hear for its own individual agenda, rather than recognizing the overall.

This type of resistance can be conscious or subconscious in its effort to remain unconscious of the invisible reality of the overall mindfulness. Focused attention on personal agenda is a rather successful way in which to drown out such musing...
No, no, no. We don't need the Music of the spheres these days. The universe was not built for our convenience. Most of it is trying to kill us. It has no divine plan, no uplifting message, no homely advice and no refunds in case of dissatisfaction. We are on our own and battling to survive because that is the hand that evolution dealt us. There is no reason other than faithbased self -delusion for whatever reason, residual religion - First cause turned into a Dogma to be battled for - I don't know. But I do know it has no logical or evidential case or basis.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #339

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #338]

Is that an atheistic expression?

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7858
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #340

Post by TRANSPONDER »

William wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:51 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #338]

Is that an atheistic expression?

Music of the spheres? Neutral, perhaps. It related to an ancient claim and belief that the heavenly spheres generated music or musical sounds at least as they trundled in their courses. It was something of a philosophical assumption, but religion didn't have a problem with God doing it. I used it as an example of a claim of belief without anything evidential to back it up.

Post Reply