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.
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.
The supernatural is only the natural yet unkown.
You mean that can't be explained? Some people know the supernatural exists as fact.
You've got to experience yourself to believe it.
oh, so your 'evidence' is a subjective feeling?
oh, so you've been involved with the occult?
No, I haven't but some family members have dabbled in such things like ouija boards with undesireable results. My deceased grandfather had to exorcise a bewitched girl. And, well, I have experienced some strange things. To this day I'm still trying to find a logical explanation for it. I want it to be logical!
Stay away from occult stuff.
I'm not interested in occult & all that. There are some things I can't explain, but I'm not interested in the supernatural
There is a perfectly logical reason. You are suffering from religious delusions. Sadly - within our culture these delusions are acceptable as they validate other people's religious delusions. Your grandfather no doubt suffered them as well - it has been a common affliction for centuries. We are only now starting to realize this and are in the process of removing them from our collective psyche.
Part of this delusion is also the mistaken belief that you are qualified to warn complete strangers as to what they should or should not be doing. This is particular to the monotheistic delusions and appears to be one of the most appealing aspects of maintaining this particular delusion.
Try reading some Sigmund Freud as well. Good luck in your road to mental health. Recognizing that you have a problem is the first step to recovery.
You seem to contradict yourself here. If you are adamant in your belief of the supernatural, then finding a logical explanation isn't needed as it will only serve to diminish reasons for believing in the supernatural.
So, it would appear that it does indeed matter, but only if you're sincere in making it matter.
To Mark Knowles, lol, you make a lot of assumptions.
Let me tell you a story my friend. Non religious people experience this stuff also. I suppose those who practice witchcraft are also delusional.
You go dabble in witchcraft and see where that gets you. Go on, contact a demon. Why not take out a Aleister Crowly book and summon up some spirits? Prove me wrong.
And what's it to you if I am crazy or not? What you believe doesn't change the truth.
@Beelzedad, no, it is not a contradiction. If one automatically thinks something is supernatural, then it's like they are believing out of the power of suggestion, i.e, they want to believe it. You have to rule out rational explanations first to deduce if something may be supernatural.
So - you are not interested in a logical explanation after all? Silly me for offering one - I should have known you were not actually seeking knowledge. You were just spreading word salad in defense of your irrational beliefs - like all religious people.
No, you don't rule out rational explanation. Just because an explanation does not present itself immediately, that does not mean one jumps to the conclusion of fantasy as an explanation.
Mark, why are you making assumptions? My grandfather was not a religious nut. I am not delusional. How can you say I suffer from delusions when you don't even know me and my background? Are you a psychiatrist?
If I were you, I'd make it may business to keep an open mind. Truth has this knack of sneaking up from behind and giving you a good smack on the ass.
Why did you plead for a logical explanation if you are going to reject it out of hand? This is actually close minded.
But par for the course when protecting a religious delusion. You are not alone - you just need help. Recognizing the problem is the first step - obviously you are not ready yet to take that first step - despite asking for logical answers.
I presume what you were actually doing is feeding your delusions by pretending to want logical answers so as to demonstrate it is not possible to provide any - therefore substantiating the idea that there are demons that need exorcising by your grandfather, etc etc.
Then we can all see how reasonable and rational you really are and these demons are real. You have explored all rational possibles.
But - then you went and ruined it by rejecting a logical explanation without giving it a moments consideration.
The truth has just snuck up behind you and given you a smack on the ass and all you are doing is looking the other way pretending it never happened.
Oh dear, Mark Knowles. More assumptions.
I suffered from terrible night terrors 5 years ago and went to a psychiatrist to ask if I was going nuts. Perhaps my religious delusions were making me mentally ill?
I was declared mentally sound. I was perfectly rational. I think the psychiatrist would have said I was delusional if I really was. I think the professionals know more than you do. You have come across some religious nuts and now assume that everyone who is religious is delusional. That's generalisation and that's wrong.
What you consider logical explanations have turned out not to be true as I have outlined above.
What does it matter what I think anyhow? Leave me to be delusional.
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?
I've just written a hub about 'knowing' the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
so the smiley face means my attempt at humour/satire was ok?
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.
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.
so many religions deal with the supernatural - what makes you so confident you have the 'right' one?
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.
From a man suffering on a cross to a arch enemy of Satan in hell, as proof.
I think I will go down this less traveled, 3rd happiness path
someone can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist - I find both these types more reasonable than gostic theists & gostic atheists
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.
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.
Who are more reasonable atheists or agnostics?
I think Both are errant and confused. They don't have any reasonable platform to stand upon.
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...
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.
I agree, atheism is as the term describes is defined by what it negates and therefore nonexistent without whatever it is opposed to.
"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.
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.
Who are more reasonable atheists or agnostics?
Both are unreasonable.
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.
Excepting frogs. I'm reasonable personified. Or perhaps anthropomorphically personified as reasonable
by aka-dj3 years ago
It seems that Islam is on the rise in just about every nation around the globe.They are pushing their agenda onto any and every government that is TOLERANT, and using the freedom (and laws) in those countries to gain...
by Rhonda D Johnson5 years ago
1. I've never met an evangelicval atheist:. They're under no commission to spread the gospel of atheism to every creature so they have no problem with what I choose to believe or not believe.2. No atheist...
by paarsurrey7 years ago
Atheists! Agnostics! What is right and what is wrong?How would you define it and on what basis?Others could also join in and respond.ThanksI am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
by Tony Lawrence6 years ago
I think not.Some say that they just aren't sure, but they figure "I'm a good person, so if there is, I'm fine". I'd say that person is actually a theist.Others say they don't know and don't care. They never...
by paarsurrey7 years ago
Hi friendsI don't agree with dutchman1951 .The Atheists Agnostics are equally brainwashed as are the religionists; being humans all are equally susceptible to such tendencies. Who has given the Atheists Agnostics the...
by secularist106 years ago
How many atheists and agnostics are there really in America, or in the world?The Pew Forum indicates that about 16% of Americans are "unaffiliated," which includes 3 groups:Atheist: 1.6%Agnostic: 2.4%Nothing...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.