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]

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?

No.

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

That's yet another strawman argument. My view is that not there isn't a distinction between beliefs and FACTs (or views based on logic and evidence). Instead I said they were not mutually exclusive.

Here is a fact, (a view based on logic and evidence): The Earth is not flat.
Here is a belief, (something that is considered to be true): The Earth is not flat.

A goal isn't a true or false issue - it's not a proposition. I have desires and wants but not beliefs.

Ah huh, so what do you call your conclusion that the economy should be kept opened, if not a belief? It's not a conclusion drawn from solely from logic and evidence, as it include something that isn't even a proposition.

I want a good economy because I love my country. Furthermore, I like being able to have a good job instead of unemployment.

So are you not as reasonable as the ideal agnostic since you are hindered by these pre-existing wants and desires?

[AgnosticBoy]

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?

No.

Your response here alone proves my point. Views based on logic and evidence and views based on opinion and imagination are mutually exclusive. Their exclusiveness is based on the basis for accepting it as true.

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

That's yet another strawman argument. My view is that not there isn't a distinction between beliefs and FACTs (or views based on logic and evidence). Instead I said they were not mutually exclusive.

Here is a fact, (a view based on logic and evidence): The Earth is not flat.
Here is a belief, (something that is considered to be true): The Earth is not flat.

Look at the basis behind each view and then you'll find where they are mutually exclusive.

A goal isn't a true or false issue - it's not a proposition. I have desires and wants but not beliefs.

Ah huh, so what do you call your conclusion that the economy should be kept opened, if not a belief? It's not a conclusion drawn from solely from logic and evidence, as it include something that isn't even a proposition.

In a sense, you are right to say that my view is not based solely on logic and evidence. Emotions and personal taste are in the background and can even sway thinking.. That applies to scientists and rationalists, as well. But I am correct by pointing out that these are not beliefs nor ideologies.

So I am correct when I state that I have NO beliefs. That's still more reasonable than an atheists that clings to ideologies and beliefs.

[Purple Knight]

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?

Absolutely.

And when all the loonies are released from all the nuthouses then I will change my group label from atheist to agnostic.

(Not... not the dangerous ones. The ones that think they're from outer space and whatnot.)

[Bust Nak]

Your response here alone proves my point. Views based on logic and evidence and views based on opinion and imagination are mutually exclusive. Their exclusiveness is based on the basis for accepting it as true.

That's moot because you are not addressing my point. Which was views based on logic and evidence and views considered to be true are not mutually exclusive. See my counter example again: The belief that the Earth is not flat is based on logic and evidence, imagination played no part in that equation. As for opinion, are the professional opinion of scientist not considered?

In a sense, you are right to say that my view is not based solely on logic and evidence. Emotions and personal taste are in the background and can even sway thinking.. That applies to scientists and rationalists, as well. But I am correct by pointing out that these are not beliefs nor ideologies.

So I am correct when I state that I have NO beliefs. That's still more reasonable than an atheists that clings to ideologies and beliefs.

Why is it when atheists are sway by background emotions and personal taste, we are less reasonable for being are hindered by pre-existing ideologies and beliefs, but when you are sway by the very same background emotions and personal taste, your are not less reasonable for being are hindered by pre-existing ideologies and beliefs?

[AgnosticBoy]

Your response here alone proves my point. Views based on logic and evidence and views based on opinion and imagination are mutually exclusive. Their exclusiveness is based on the basis for accepting it as true.

That's moot because you are not addressing my point. Which was views based on logic and evidence and views considered to be true are not mutually exclusive. See my counter example again: The belief that the Earth is not flat is based on logic and evidence, imagination played no part in that equation. As for opinion, are the professional opinion of scientist not considered?

A person can not hold a view as both an opinion and fact at the same time. If the person has logic and evidence for a view then it is no longer a "belief".

In a sense, you are right to say that my view is not based solely on logic and evidence. Emotions and personal taste are in the background and can even sway thinking.. That applies to scientists and rationalists, as well. But I am correct by pointing out that these are not beliefs nor ideologies.

So I am correct when I state that I have NO beliefs. That's still more reasonable than an atheists that clings to ideologies and beliefs.

Why is it when atheists are sway by background emotions and personal taste, we are less reasonable for being are hindered by pre-existing ideologies and beliefs, but when you are sway by the very same background emotions and personal taste, your are not less reasonable for being are hindered by pre-existing ideologies and beliefs?

I dont have beliefs. I have emotion. Atheists have both beliefs and emotion. Therefore, I have less arational factors to be swayed by and I apply reason in more areas (like in the areas atheists have beliefs).

[Bust Nak]

A person can not hold a view as both an opinion and fact at the same time. If the person has logic and evidence for a view then it is no longer a "belief".

Not according to the definitions I gave you. If the person has logic and evidence for a view then it is a "belief" on two counts:

It is something that is accepted or considered to be true.

It is conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

I dont have beliefs. I have emotion. Atheists have both beliefs and emotion.

Why do you this when we are working from the same premise? Why is it that when you love your country, when you like having a good job, it's called wants and emotion; but when we love our country, when we like having a good job, it's called dogma and ideologies?

[AgnosticBoy]

A person can not hold a view as both an opinion and fact at the same time. If the person has logic and evidence for a view then it is no longer a "belief".

Not according to the definitions I gave you. If the person has logic and evidence for a view then it is a "belief" on two counts:

It is something that is accepted or considered to be true.

It is conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Then we'll have to say that there are different meanings for 'belief'. This is the one that I'm referring to from your source which you left out:

"something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed- an individual's religious or political beliefs"

This meaning involves "opinion". You agreed with me earlier that this meaning of 'belief' was not based on logic and evidence (post 51). So let me clarify my earlier statement:

A person can not hold a view as both an opinion and fact at the same time. If the person has logic and evidence for a view then it is no longer a "belief" (according to the definition I posted from your source).

Again I have NO beliefs (in the sense of opinions).

I dont have beliefs. I have emotion. Atheists have both beliefs and emotion.

Why do you this when we are working from the same premise? Why is it that when you love your country, when you like having a good job, it's called wants and emotion; but when we love our country, when we like having a good job, it's called dogma and ideologies?

It is because feelings and simple thoughts are not propositional by themselves. Now when you add beliefs, policies, and ideologies to such feelings then it becomes propositional - it involves assertions or claims. Many atheists are liberals, and although they love their country, but they also have VIEWS, beliefs, ideologies. Agnostics do not have these things.

[William]

A person can not hold a view as both an opinion and fact at the same time. If the person has logic and evidence for a view then it is no longer a "belief".

Not according to the definitions I gave you. If the person has logic and evidence for a view then it is a "belief" on two counts:

It is something that is accepted or considered to be true.

It is conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Then we'll have to say that there are different meanings for 'belief'. This is the one that I'm referring to from your source which you left out:

"something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed- an individual's religious or political beliefs"

This meaning involves "opinion". You agreed with me earlier that this meaning of 'belief' was not based on logic and evidence (post 51). So let me clarify my earlier statement:

A person can not hold a view as both an opinion and fact at the same time. If the person has logic and evidence for a view then it is no longer a "belief" (according to the definition I posted from your source).

Again I have NO beliefs (in the sense of opinions).

I dont have beliefs. I have emotion. Atheists have both beliefs and emotion.

Why do you this when we are working from the same premise? Why is it that when you love your country, when you like having a good job, it's called wants and emotion; but when we love our country, when we like having a good job, it's called dogma and ideologies?

It is because feelings and simple thoughts are not propositional by themselves. Now when you add beliefs, policies, and ideologies to such feelings then it becomes propositional - it involves assertions or claims. Many atheists are liberals, and although they love their country, but they also have VIEWS, beliefs, ideologies. Agnostics do not have these things.

William: Perhaps it serves the argument better if we understand as a fact that these labels "Theism Agnosticism and Atheism" are describing positions and "Theist Agnostic and Atheist" describe...

...People.

People have opinions. It can be argued that your statement "Agnostics do not have these things" misleads as it does not take in account that - People do actually have VIEWS, beliefs, ideologies...and even your statement can be regarded as a VIEW.

True. Agnosticism does not have these things. This is what sets it apart from Theism (there is a Creator/this is a Creation) and Atheism (there is no creator/this is not a creation.)

What can be developed through the position of Agnosticism for the person practicing it?

We can formulate ideas and VIEWS about the fact of life to the degree that ideas of Theism and Atheism allow this to happen.

With Atheism, the task is easy. We agree that there is 'nothing to see here folks"
Theism presents a set of puzzles and there is much to see here folks...

While study of Theistic beliefs etc offer insight, we can - with practice - remain in unbelief...but what of the possibility of truth behind the myth and legend?

Do we exist in a Creation and what of the Creator?

This leads to a combined position of "Agnosticism and Theism" where the Theist is required to remain Agnostic and just get about sorting through the available evidence...and there is enough of that to keep one busy for a lifetime.

It also allows for one to 'offer a VIEW' and still be Agnostic. Not so much for the sake of argument so much as for the sake of acquiring the generated feedback and feeding that feedback into The Study... VIEWS are important to that process as interim...they don't have to become BELIEFS because, such is avoidable.

And certainly FACTS - because of their nature - need never become "Beliefs" or "Opinions" and as such can be studied intricately without fear of ridicule.

[Bust Nak]

Then we'll have to say that there are different meanings for 'belief'...

It would have been easier had you offered this from the moment you saw my definitions, as if it wasn't obviously a semantic difference from the get go.

It is because feelings and simple thoughts are not propositional by themselves. Now when you add beliefs, policies, and ideologies to such feelings then it becomes propositional - it involves assertions or claims.

Still not seeing the difference. What do you call your suggestion of what we ought to do in the face of Covid19, something added to your feelings of love for country and simple thought of wanting a good job, if not a proposition, policy, assertion or claim? How is it different from other suggestions that makes them propositional?

[AgnosticBoy]

It is because feelings and simple thoughts are not propositional by themselves. Now when you add beliefs, policies, and ideologies to such feelings then it becomes propositional - it involves assertions or claims.

Still not seeing the difference. What do you call your suggestion of what we ought to do in the face of Covid19, something added to your feelings of love for country and simple thought of wanting a good job, if not a proposition, policy, assertion or claim?

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.

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.

How is it different from other suggestions that makes them propositional?

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