jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (61 posts)

Who are more reasonable atheists or agnostics?

  1. profile image61
    Pachomiusposted 6 years ago

    In regard to the article of Arthur Windermere  on atheists being reasonable while agnostics are not, I wrote a comment on it but it did not come out.

    In my comment I said that atheists are not reasonable in terms of their attitudes and actions with regard to God, while agnostics are reasonable in their attitudes and actions in regard to God.


    My point is that Arthur does not know or does not apply the concept of degrees of reasonable-ness in his article.


    Of course, Arthur is talking about atheists being reasonably certain that there is no God, while according to him agnostics are not being reasonably certain about what? that they cannot know for a reasonable certainty that God exists or He does not exist.

    And I want to bring Arthur to the idea of the degrees of reasonable-ness.


    Anyway, I tend to see that his article betrays that he has a low degree of reasonable-ness in his thinking and writing in that article.

    I thought that if he had reacted to my comment (if the comment had come out and he read it), I would have wanted him to exchange thoughts with me about certainty in regard to the truth of an affirmative proposition like the sun will come out tomorrow, and certainty in regard to the truth of a negative proposition like it will not rain tomorrow.

    Because I can see that there is something peculiarly engrossing in his thinking that atheists enjoy reasonable certainty in regard to the non-existence of God, while agnostics do not have reasonable certainty in regard to their position that God cannot be proven to exist or to not exist for them (agnostics).



    Well, I guess this message will not come out because some people will complain that it is trolling.



    Pachomius

    1. Claire Evans profile image88
      Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I find agnostics to be reasonable.  Atheists think that just because they can't interpret evidence of the supernatural, then that is proof it doesn't exist.

      1. spookyfox profile image79
        spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The supernatural is only the natural yet unkown.

        1. Claire Evans profile image88
          Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You mean that can't be explained? Some people know the supernatural exists as fact.

          1. profile image0
            Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            by what evidence?

            1. Claire Evans profile image88
              Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You've got to experience yourself to believe it.

              1. profile image0
                Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                oh, so your 'evidence' is a subjective feeling?

                1. Claire Evans profile image88
                  Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Not just a feeling, my friend.

                  1. profile image0
                    Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    elaborate then

          2. Beelzedad profile image58
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Really? Yet, no one has ever come forth with such facts, nor has anyone even remotely provided a shred of evidence of any kind to support the existence of the supernatural.

            Who exactly are those "Some people" and why doesn't the world know about the existence of the supernatural? smile

            1. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I've just written a hub about 'knowing' the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

              1. Beelzedad profile image58
                Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Just read it. lol

                1. profile image0
                  Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  so the smiley face means my attempt at humour/satire was ok?

                  1. Beelzedad profile image58
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I laughed, I cried, I ate pasta. smile

            2. Claire Evans profile image88
              Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Why doesn't the world know about the existence of the supernatural? I think plenty of people do. 

              Just think about this for one second.  Millions of people through the eons have claimed to have experienced the supernatural.  Are ALL of them hallucinating?

              Nobody believes what the evidence paranormal investigators bring up.  There's always "another" explanation.   You have to experience for yourself to believe it.

              1. Beelzedad profile image58
                Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Because, it's a silly fantasy?



                Certainly, there are those who pretend they do.



                Where did you get information?



                Nonsense, so-called 'paranormal investigators' are charlatans and frauds or just delusional. Not one of them has ever produced a shred of evidence to support the paranormal, the supernatural, or leprechauns. smile

                1. Claire Evans profile image88
                  Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Look, it doesn't really matter.  I was just giving my two cents worth.

              2. profile image0
                Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                so many religions deal with the supernatural - what makes you so confident you have the 'right' one?

                1. Claire Evans profile image88
                  Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I think the greatest way for me to know Jesus is Lord is to examine how evil reacts to Him. 

                  Jesus is known as the arch enemy of Satan and Satanists.  Upside crosses produce negative energy. 

                  And, of course, having family subjected to the power of evil and using crucifixes and the name of Christ to fight them, gives me a lot of proof as well.  Personal experience as well.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image21
                    Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    From a man suffering on a cross to a arch enemy of Satan in hell, as proof.

                    mmmm,,

                    I think I will go down this less traveled, 3rd happiness path

                  2. Beelzedad profile image58
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

      2. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        someone can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist - I find both these types more reasonable than gostic theists & gostic atheists

        1. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I find the gnostic theists aka the black&white rigid fundies the most irritating and obnoxious of all.

    2. Cindy Frye profile image60
      Cindy Fryeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm agnostic and I think I'm pretty reasonable in my beliefs regarding the existance of "God". 

      I think it's fairly arrogant to insist that there is absolutely NOTHING that influences what happens in the world.  A woman can grow a baby inside her body from 2 tiny, microscopic organisms, bodies can heal themselves of horrific wounds,  There are limitless examples to support the idea that there HAS to be some kind of influence. Do I think it's a man sitting up in the sky with a beard and omnipotant power, controling EVERYTHING that goes on?  No, I absolutely don't.  But I'm not so arrogant to believe that there's...nothing. 

      Athiests have a more closed-minded approach to the situation, I feel.  They refuse to consider that there is any explaination other than what they've come to believe.

  2. kephrira profile image61
    kephriraposted 6 years ago

    I don't know. I'm agnostic tongue

  3. Daniel Carter profile image92
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    Generalizations about either don't really tell the truth, and only lead to instilling more ignorance.

    I have met atheists who have no agenda in "preaching." I have met atheists who do have a big agenda and preach. Likewise, I have met agnostics who have no agenda in "preaching," as well as I have met agnostics who do preach a lot.

    The difference as I see it is their ego. The bigger the ego, the more need to be right and prove themselves. Those who are secure with themselves and don't let their ego rule them seem to be fine with their beliefs and have no apparent need to flaunt or preach.

    In that regard, I think all other opinions are bogus, including the article.

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      VERY well said, Daniel! You're always the voice of reason.

  4. profile image69
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    Who are more reasonable atheists or agnostics?

    I think Both are errant and confused. They don't have any reasonable platform to stand upon.

  5. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    personal opinion is agnostics...any person who views nature closely and takes holistic view would get convinced that all religions are man made...but possibility of god cannot be reject totally...so agnostics seems more reasonable than atheist...yest atheist have their reasons to be atheist and that is why i said it is my personal opinion...

    1. profile image69
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't agree with you. History is not that old as religion is; it is pre-historic.

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        when did i talk about history?..

  6. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    Hmm, you are presenting two points of a single pencil.
    Both can be awfully sharp and equally as dull, depending on what machine they are using at the moment to hone their ends with.

    Since there is really no such thing as a "pure" atheist (as anyone has encountered some form of sensationalism/theology in this lifetime) I would argue that agnosticism is more tolerable/reasonable as a belief system. The reason: Atheism is dangerously expressed as/by a gross, postmortem sensationalism. An autopsy of self in many respects, filled with stagnant embalming fluid of cynicism/criticism, rather than thorough and practical critique --from reasons perspective and not presumption.

    James.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, atheism is as the term describes is defined by what it negates and therefore nonexistent without whatever it is opposed to.

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hello stranger. Happy New Year!

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Happy New Year, strange -er! lol

      2. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        so does non-fiction

  7. Hugh Williamson profile image88
    Hugh Williamsonposted 6 years ago

    "Who are more reasonable atheists or agnostics?"

    Agnostics. Agnostics don't concern themselves with things that are unprovable. Atheists and believers both defend positions which can never be proven.

    Maybe deep inside everyone's an agnostic. smile

    1. Castlepaloma profile image21
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I find hard core religious or atheists extreme, yes, I do find an agnostics move better toward a middle grounds of reason.

  8. mememy profile image60
    mememyposted 6 years ago

    do you know the mark on facebook?

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Atheists are more hardcore, their beliefs are solid. Agnostics don't know what to believe, so, commit to nothing. Goldilocks always takes the middle path.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image21
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Agnostic maybe realizes mankind is not capable of knowing what God's high energy and form really is.

  9. profile image69
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    Who are more reasonable atheists or agnostics?

    Both are unreasonable.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image21
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      One sided in any group is reasonable, not for me.

      Everything will change toward the middle grounds anyways and always has, in history after one sided group had gotten,  too abusive.

    2. frogdropping profile image84
      frogdroppingposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Excepting frogs. I'm reasonable personified. Or perhaps anthropomorphically personified as reasonable smile

      1. Castlepaloma profile image21
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, I looked up anthropomorphically, what a very interesting and meaningful word.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image21
          Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Not kidding.

 
working