Agnosticism only?

[Angel]

A lot of people that I've talked to view pure agnosticism as impractical and impossible, and they further mention it can only be a viable position when combined with theism or negative or weak atheism. I take the position that being exclusively an agnostic is possible although it would be difficult to maintain due to cultural pressure (choosing between only theism or atheism), not wanting to be labelled a fence-sitter or being indecisive with no ground to stand on, and worse yet of course holding two contrary positions at the same time.

Some ways that I think pure agnosticism is possible:
1. I believe being exclusively an agnostic is possible because it's possible to have evidence for and against an issue, and this is especially true when the evidence for either side isn't conclusive or isn't enough to fully rule out the other side. Also, keep in mind what an individual considers good enough evidence may vary from philosphical reasonings to scientific evidence and even personal experiences or experiences of others or a combination of the three, etc. This can lead a person to draw the conclusion that both sides may as well be equally reasonable or probable, and to be consistent try to maintain a balanced ground involving SOME belief or believing/accepting in SOME reasons for why a God exist and believing in some of the reasons given for why a God does NOT exist.

2. An easier reason to consider although it's not common to connect belief AND disbelief of God to the issue are mental disorders. A person with multiple personality disorders or psychosis may have contrasting ideas and of course behave incoherently. There's also 'cognitive dissonance' which is not necessarily insanity but also involves holding contrary ideas. What's not in an insanity setting ties into my #1 point but it involves being confused or not being able to make up your mind on on an issue which to some people is an important and difficult one, especially if that person accepts reasons for why God exists and why He doesn't exists.

-
So lets say a person has some belief that a God exists and some belief that God doesn't exist. Having some belief in God rules out negative and positive atheism. Having some some belief that no God exists rules out theism since theism involves ONLY a belief that God exists. The only position that's not contradicted here or cancelled out is agnosticism.

--------------
With that said, here are the questions for debate...

Is it possible to have evidence for both sides (for and against) an issue?

Do you agree with the above reasons or for whatever other reasons that it's possible for a person to be an agnostic without having to combine it with theism or atheism?

[Filthy Tugboat]

I'm an agnostic Christian so I'm not arguing for my position but rather I'm arguing for others who may want to just be labelled as being agnostic only when it comes to the issue of God's existence.

I understand what you're explaining but that does not fit the scenario I described in post #1 and other posts. Under my scenario, the factors for maintaining pure agnosticism include someone who believes and accepts that there's evidence for both sides of the issue of God's existence. There's also the cognitive dissonance like factor I bought up or where a person may accept one thing with their heart or on more emotional grounds but intellectually accept something to the contrary. At this point, with either factor, both atheism and theism don't apply since atheism involves only no belief or God not existing and theism involves only God existing.

Now I know that God existing and not existing can't be 'logically' true at the same time, and any rational person would have to know that but the issue here is they don't know which one is truly correct. However, they can still accept both as being probable truth or as a belief or whatever other level of certainty that doesn't involve having 100% certainty or absolute truth in a view. One reasonable position and probably the only one to have here with conflicting beliefs is to conclude with "I don't know" or you're confused which still amounts to 'I don't know'. So agnosticism is the only position left here that's not contradicted. In other words, a person who accepts evidence for both sides can still be an agnostic.

If your answer was 'I don't know' further explain your position because if you don't know if one exists or his/her/it's attributes then you certainly don't worship that being or give any form of praise to it which wuld generally put you uinde the atheist answer once again.

Saying "I don't know" does not always include "I don't believe". I think you may find an agnostic who worships God, or at least an agnostic theist.

I truly do not understand your concept of I don't know. If you don't know if a God exists or what that god's attributes are, what you are required to do to show your praise or receive reward then clearly you would pursue no action in worshipping that God and belief in that God would be non existent as you simply know nothing about it. If you focus on the Christian god and still say I don't know if it's true then how can you believe that it is true on any level? How can you be torn between belief, you either believe you are going to Heaven/Hell or you don't, if you believe the former then you do your best to follow the Christian faith to avoid one fate and receive the other, if you do not care about such a result or the existence of God doesn't convince you to perform any theistic actions then why would you consider yourself someone who believes in that God? How could you hold such contradicting views?

If someone was claiming to hold a purely agnostic view then they would presumably not be a theist which by definition makes them an atheist. That's what atheism effectively is, not theism. If you do not proclaim the belief in any God then you are an atheist, if you say I see evidence that they might exist but I also see evidence that they don't exist and then you don't try to worship a God or play any part in praising a deity then you are an atheist. It's as plain and simple as that. Agnosticism is in effect a form of atheism or 'non-theism'.

Regarding Agnostic theism, what is that specifically? Is that like someone hedging their bets? They don't know if it's true but if it is true then I would be in for a world of hurt if I don't do these specific things. This is just a guess, I don't mean to insult your position but I truly do not understand it.

So basically to summerise, theism makes a claim and theists (expectedly) believe in that claim. Atheism/non-theism is eveybody that does not believe in that claim, everyone is an atheist to hundreds of gods (technically infinite given the possible God's there 'could be' but screw getting into that). So basically how can you believe in a claim at the same time as not believing in that claim? You can say there is evidence for both sides and they are moderately convincing but it still rests on the current verdict. If after considering the evidence you still don't believe in or follow any action to pursue belief/worship of tat deity then you are an agnostic atheist, if you do pursue that belief then you are presumably an agnostic theist/theist. As far as I'm aware you cannot believe in something at the same time as not believing in that thing. If you cannot do both at the same time, you canot be purely agnostic.

[Angel]

I'm an agnostic Christian so I'm not arguing for my position but rather I'm arguing for others who may want to just be labelled as being agnostic only when it comes to the issue of God's existence.

I understand what you're explaining but that does not fit the scenario I described in post #1 and other posts. Under my scenario, the factors for maintaining pure agnosticism include someone who believes and accepts that there's evidence for both sides of the issue of God's existence. There's also the cognitive dissonance like factor I bought up or where a person may accept one thing with their heart or on more emotional grounds but intellectually accept something to the contrary. At this point, with either factor, both atheism and theism don't apply since atheism involves only no belief or God not existing and theism involves only God existing.

Now I know that God existing and not existing can't be 'logically' true at the same time, and any rational person would have to know that but the issue here is they don't know which one is truly correct. However, they can still accept both as being probable truth or as a belief or whatever other level of certainty that doesn't involve having 100% certainty or absolute truth in a view. One reasonable position and probably the only one to have here with conflicting beliefs is to conclude with "I don't know" or you're confused which still amounts to 'I don't know'. So agnosticism is the only position left here that's not contradicted. In other words, a person who accepts evidence for both sides can still be an agnostic.

If your answer was 'I don't know' further explain your position because if you don't know if one exists or his/her/it's attributes then you certainly don't worship that being or give any form of praise to it which wuld generally put you uinde the atheist answer once again.

Saying "I don't know" does not always include "I don't believe". I think you may find an agnostic who worships God, or at least an agnostic theist.

I truly do not understand your concept of I don't know. If you don't know if a God exists or what that god's attributes are, what you are required to do to show your praise or receive reward then clearly you would pursue no action in worshipping that God and belief in that God would be non existent as you simply know nothing about it.

You have to factor in that there's a difference between 'believing' and 'knowing'.
When I say know or I don't know, I'm referring to the philosophical sense that involves rational justification/certainty (based on evidence and/or logic). Belief or acceptance of something does not require logic nor science, and it doesn't even require evidence if it's faith-based belief. So while someone may not know if a God exists or God's attributes, they can still believe a God exists and believe He has such and such attributes.

If you focus on the Christian god and still say I don't know if it's true then how can you believe that it is true on any level? How can you be torn between belief, you either believe you are going to Heaven/Hell or you don't, if you believe the former then you do your best to follow the Christian faith to avoid one fate and receive the other, if you do not care about such a result or the existence of God doesn't convince you to perform any theistic actions then why would you consider yourself someone who believes in that God? How could you hold such contradicting views?

Here again we have to factor in that there's a difference between 'believing' and 'knowing'. I may not know that something is true but I can still accept it as a belief or as being probable, at least. When it comes to someone holding contradictory beliefs, those can arise out of that person seeing that there are good reasons or evidence for both sides of an issue like I explained in post#1. I'm not saying that a person who holds conflicting beliefs accepts that both (God exists and God doesn't exists) are true in reality, but with the available INCONCLUSIVE evidence for both sides, they can hold each side as being a probable or a belief.
I'm thinking even some of those who claim to be only agnostic because they claim they neither believe nor disbelieve are really the people who think there is evidence or reasons that they find to accept both sides of the issue. I may be wrong to a degree but I'm not referring to all agnostics as a whole neither.

but they have reasons pulling them one way and reasons pulling them another.

When it comes to actions, that person can be a Christian and agnostic at the same time. I myself am an agnostic Christian. I don't claim to KNOW that God exists but I still believe in and worship God despite that.

If someone was claiming to hold a purely agnostic view then they would presumably not be a theist which by definition makes them an atheist. That's what atheism effectively is, not theism. If you do not proclaim the belief in any God then you are an atheist, if you say I see evidence that they might exist but I also see evidence that they don't exist and then you don't try to worship a God or play any part in praising a deity then you are an atheist. It's as plain and simple as that. Agnosticism is in effect a form of atheism or 'non-theism'.

Not being a theist does not automatically make you an atheist. You made me realized a word that's left out here and that's 'non-theist' which I would say would be the third option along side theism and atheism.

I never said that a pure agnostic has to worship a god or be a part of a religion. Accepting evidence for both sides would not equal theism nor atheism. As I mentioned in my last post, to be an atheist you can ONLY have no belief or believe that no God exists. That doesn't fit my scenario if the person has some belief/acceptance that a God exists. The person would not be a theist under my scenario because theism involves ONLY belief that a god exists and my scenario the person has some belief that a God doesn't exist.

Regarding Agnostic theism, what is that specifically? Is that like someone hedging their bets? They don't know if it's true but if it is true then I would be in for a world of hurt if I don't do these specific things. This is just a guess, I don't mean to insult your position but I truly do not understand it.

I'm not an agnostic theist out of fear of the things you mentioned. I'm an agnostic theist to be intellecutally honest with myself and I use the term agnostic to show what type of Christian I am. I'm not one that elevates my beliefs to being absolute truth as if all of it is proven or without error. I truly believe that a God exists, I've had experiences involving Him and other supernatural things, however, I understand that I have no way of scientifically or logically validating these things (on the scientific aspect maybe not yet). I however will not discard my beliefs just because scientists can't validate my experiences, nor will I claim my beliefs to be absolute truth when I don't know of any way to prove them.

I adopted the agnostic theist position after I started college and after being exposed to 'good' arguments against God's existence. I actually agree with the 'problem of evil' argument, for instance. I honestly don't know of any reasons that would justify why God would allow some of the evils in the world that I find to be totally unnecessary. I don't consider myself a pure agnostic and hopefully it's not because of denial.

So basically to summerise, theism makes a claim and theists (expectedly) believe in that claim. Atheism/non-theism is eveybody that does not believe in that claim, everyone is an atheist to hundreds of gods (technically infinite given the possible God's there 'could be' but screw getting into that). So basically how can you believe in a claim at the same time as not believing in that claim? You can say there is evidence for both sides and they are moderately convincing but it still rests on the current verdict. If after considering the evidence you still don't believe in or follow any action to pursue belief/worship of tat deity then you are an agnostic atheist, if you do pursue that belief then you are presumably an agnostic theist/theist. As far as I'm aware you cannot believe in something at the same time as not believing in that thing. If you cannot do both at the same time, you canot be purely agnostic.

Believing in something does not require action. There are people out there who are general theists (like deists) who believe that a God exists but are not part of any religion nor do they worship one. You can express your agnosticism philosophically though. You can at least accept both sides as 'probable', in my honest opinion.

[Filthy Tugboat]

You have to factor in that there's a difference between 'believing' and 'knowing'. When I say know or I don't know, I'm referring to the philosophical sense that involves rational justification/certainty (based on evidence and/or logic). Belief or acceptance of something does not require logic nor science, and it doesn't even require evidence if it's faith-based belief. So while someone may not know if a God exists or God's attributes, they can still believe a God exists and believe He has such and such attributes.

Ok so the answer I don't know does not apply to the question, "Do you believe in a God?" I can accept that, so it is now a yes/no question which renders the person that answers the question as either atheist or theist (agnostics included for both sides). I'm yet to see anything to suggest that you can combine those two contradicting beliefs. As previously stated, atheist is basically the position of denying the claims of theists. You can be an atheist to all Gods except one. if you do not currently hold the belief in a God's existence, you are by extention an atheist.

When it comes to someone holding contradictory beliefs, those can arise out of that person seeing that there are good reasons or evidence for both sides of an issue like I explained in post#1. I'm not saying that a person who holds conflicting beliefs accepts that both (God exists and God doesn't exists) are true in reality, but with the available INCONCLUSIVE evidence for both sides, they can hold each side as being a probable or a belief.

I'm thinking even some of those who claim to be only agnostic because they claim they neither believe nor disbelieve are really the people who think there is evidence or reasons that they find to accept both sides of the issue. I may be wrong to a degree but I'm not referring to all agnostics as a whole neither.

but they have reasons pulling them one way and reasons pulling them another.

When it comes to actions, that person can be a Christian and agnostic at the same time. I myself am an agnostic Christian. I don't claim to KNOW that God exists but I still believe in and worship God despite that.

Here you've raised an interesting point, you are regarding atheism as a belief. Positive atheism can be considered a belief however negative atheism is quite the opposite, it is simply a non belief. There is no evidence for both sides, there is simply evidence for and against each specific claim of a God. The evidence(including personal) sways the belief of the individual in question, if as you say they cannot hold both beliefs simultaneously then it all falls down to the yes/No question which leaves us with a theist/atheist result. This sort of yes or no question cannot have fence sitters because it is a yes or no question. People claiming to be purely agnostic simply do not want to label themselves on either side even though most of them are atheists. They don't believe in a God and are therefore atheists.

I brought up actions as a demonstration of belief, when it comes to theism there are requirements in order to gain some form of enlightenment and there are laws which prevent some form of pain/torture. If you don't participate in that activity it is reasonable to assume you don't believe. We can remove this however as technically it is a presumption that may not always be supported.

Not being a theist does not automatically make you an atheist. You made me realized a word that's left out here and that's 'non-theist' which I would say would be the third option along side theism and atheism.

Yes it does. An atheist denies the claims of a theist and a theist makes claims about a God. That is all those beliefs are. If you disagree with the theist about their specific claim you are an atheist towards their specific God.

I never said that a pure agnostic has to worship a god or be a part of a religion. Accepting evidence for both sides would not equal theism nor atheism. As I mentioned in my last post, to be an atheist you can ONLY have no belief or believe that no God exists. That doesn't fit my scenario if the person has some belief/acceptance that a God exists. The person would not be a theist under my scenario because theism involves ONLY belief that a god exists and my scenario the person has some belief that a God doesn't exist.

So basically your scenario consists aof a confused person that believes God does exist and that God doesn't exist all at the same time? Using a crazy person as an example is not a great idea as it is difficult to use rational thought processes to discern an irrational thought process. If they partially believe in a God while partially not believing in that same God then what the hell are they doing? What is wrong with that person? Do they act on their partial belief in Gods existence? Or perhaps they just continue living as an atheist with a daunting conscience because they still partially believe in that God?

Believing in something does not require action. There are people out there who are general theists (like deists) who believe that a God exists but are not part of any religion nor do they worship one. You can express your agnosticism philosophically though. You can at least accept both sides as 'probable', in my honest opinion.

Believing does not require action however actions do follow beliefs. If the actions are absent it is reasonable to presume the beliefs are too. Deists are not theists, they believe in an impersonal God that has no requirements or afterlife, you can act any damn way you want and that God won't give a crap. They cannot be compared because theists believe in a personal God, a God that cares and helps people.

You can't though, you can't accept two completely opposing ideas as both being 'probable' that means that they are both (for example) 6/10 likely to be correct. That means that the maximal probability is mathematically impossible because that would equal 12/10. This is the core problem with the pure agnosttic belief. You cannot accept them both as being equally likely unless you are severely confused and your logic has stopped working.

[Angel]

You have to factor in that there's a difference between 'believing' and 'knowing'. When I say know or I don't know, I'm referring to the philosophical sense that involves rational justification/certainty (based on evidence and/or logic). Belief or acceptance of something does not require logic nor science, and it doesn't even require evidence if it's faith-based belief. So while someone may not know if a God exists or God's attributes, they can still believe a God exists and believe He has such and such attributes.

Ok so the answer I don't know does not apply to the question, "Do you believe in a God?"

Yes. Agnosticism is not really a middle ground between atheism and theism since it's only about knowledge and not about belief or lack thereof. But agnosticism is compatible with some positions that don’t involve theism and atheism such as the scenario I’ve mentioned in post #1 and in other posts here. A person under that scenario can adopt non-theism or agnosticism as a position.

I can accept that, so it is now a yes/no question which renders the person that answers the question as either atheist or theist (agnostics included for both sides).

It can also be a yes and no answer. This can arise from a person believing/accepting that there are reasons/evidence for and against God’s existence.

The issue of God's existence is very important to a lot of people so you won't always find reactions to it to always being black or white or just simply a yes or no. I'm not sure if you're an atheist or theist or have ever crossed from one to the other because it may be easy for you to say just be an atheist or theist but evidently it's not that easy for others.

I'm yet to see anything to suggest that you can combine those two contradicting beliefs. As previously stated, atheist is basically the position of denying the claims of theists. You can be an atheist to all Gods except one. if you do not currently hold the belief in a God's existence, you are by extention an atheist.

I don’t see belief in God as being any different than other beliefs. I would think that having evidence/reasons for both sides for a person to accept would happen more for the issue of God’s existence than in many other issues since both sides have been offering reasons, evidence, and arguments for their viewpoints for centuries. And when a person can’t make up their mind due to those accepting some of those reasons from both sides, then that would lead having contradictory beliefs inevitably.

I mean there are other issues that a person can be torn between, and one that I know from personal experience is with making up my mind on if I should stay with an ex-girlfriend of mine or not. My heart said yes while my mind said no.

Also, I disagree with the saying that Christians are atheists to non-Christian gods. To be an atheist, you have to have a non-belief or disbelief in God’s existence that applies to all gods, and that's by definition.

When it comes to someone holding contradictory beliefs, those can arise out of that person seeing that there are good reasons or evidence for both sides of an issue like I explained in post#1. I'm not saying that a person who holds conflicting beliefs accepts that both (God exists and God doesn't exists) are true in reality, but with the available INCONCLUSIVE evidence for both sides, they can hold each side as being a probable or a belief.

I'm thinking even some of those who claim to be only agnostic because they claim they neither believe nor disbelieve are really the people who think there is evidence or reasons that they find to accept both sides of the issue. I may be wrong to a degree but I'm not referring to all agnostics as a whole neither.

but they have reasons pulling them one way and reasons pulling them another.

When it comes to actions, that person can be a Christian and agnostic at the same time. I myself am an agnostic Christian. I don't claim to KNOW that God exists but I still believe in and worship God despite that.

Here you've raised an interesting point, you are regarding atheism as a belief. Positive atheism can be considered a belief however negative atheism is quite the opposite, it is simply a non belief. There is no evidence for both sides, there is simply evidence for and against each specific claim of a God.

This depends on how you define God and what conclusion or reaction the person draws from the evidence. The Christian God (which is the only God I believe in) should not exists in a world where there's an unnecessary or dissproportionate amount of evil (disproportionate as in evil in the world seeming to outweigh the evil caused by humans). This argument alone has in some cases discredited God’s existence in the minds of some but I’m not at that point. If you're a deist, then perhaps the problem of evil would not be a compelling argument to discredit the existence of your God concept.

The evidence(including personal) sways the belief of the individual in question, if as you say they cannot hold both beliefs simultaneously then it all falls down to the yes/No question which leaves us with a theist/atheist result. This sort of yes or no question cannot have fence sitters because it is a yes or no question.

I've actually said it's possible for people to hold contrary beliefs. Yes, evidence does or can sway belief but who's to say that's it's always towards one end of the spectrum instead of towards the middle or moderate ground? I was born into one side of the spectrum, Christianity, and listening and reading about both sides of the debate on the issue of God (in addition to my own personal experiences) led me to agnosticism.

People claiming to be purely agnostic simply do not want to label themselves on either side even though most of them are atheists. They don't believe in a God and are therefore atheists.

Not surprisingly, I see it completely different than you. Some theists and atheists don’t want to let pure agnostics be because they can’t stand not having a side to be on. A pure agnostic has no problem standing independently and not engaging in false sense of certainties. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with someone being an atheist or theist, but I am saying don’t try to impose your view on others who don’t want any part of either side.

Not being a theist does not automatically make you an atheist. You made me realized a word that's left out here and that's 'non-theist' which I would say would be the third option along side theism and atheism.

Yes it does. An atheist denies the claims of a theist and a theist makes claims about a God. That is all those beliefs are. If you disagree with the theist about their specific claim you are an atheist towards their specific God.

A pure agnostic does not deny the claims of either under my scenario. Both sides may be viewed as equally probable or the person may accept reasons that would support God existing and reasons that would discredit a God existing. That’s precisely the situation that can arise when you have an issue that can’t be conclusively proven and that has inconclusive evidence or reasons on both sides of the issue. Although I also contend that there’s nothing wrong with this position just as there’s nothing insane about me when I was split between one side of me wanting to get back with my ex and another side of me that didn’t. At least for me, I think that’s confusion or lack of certainty for a good reason as long as you reflect on your thoughts and not rush into things, especially on matters that have important implications.

I never said that a pure agnostic has to worship a god or be a part of a religion. Accepting evidence for both sides would not equal theism nor atheism. As I mentioned in my last post, to be an atheist you can ONLY have no belief or believe that no God exists. That doesn't fit my scenario if the person has some belief/acceptance that a God exists. The person would not be a theist under my scenario because theism involves ONLY belief that a god exists and my scenario the person has some belief that a God doesn't exist.

So basically your scenario consists aof a confused person that believes God does exist and that God doesn't exist all at the same time? Using a crazy person as an example is not a great idea as it is difficult to use rational thought processes to discern an irrational thought process.

I only used those extremes ((Multiple Personalities, Cognitive Dissonance (although not really a state of insanity all the time), Psychosis, etc.)) as examples to show that having conflicting beliefs is possible. I would extend that to also say that it’s possible in non-insanity related settings like being confused, having compelling reasons/evidence for both sides of an issue that’s not conclusively proven, the example that I gave about a past relationship, and perhaps more.

If they partially believe in a God while partially not believing in that same God then what the hell are they doing? What is wrong with that person? Do they act on their partial belief in Gods existence? Or perhaps they just continue living as an atheist with a daunting conscience because they still partially believe in that God?

So just because someone weighs both sides and finds both sides equally probable there is something wrong with them? And as a result, just because they don’t fit perfectly as a theist or atheist, there’s something wrong with them? Would you rather someone take a side that they’re not comfortable with and rush them into it before they’re ready to make up their mind?

You’re presupposing that to believe in God requires that you act on it like worshiping, etc and that’s not the case. Atheism is really a viewpoint of belief or lack of belief, it’s really not a lifestyle practice, nor does theism need to be (take general theists for example or deists who don’t all worship a God). A pure agnostic can write about their views of how both sides are equally probable, or keep seeking answers ‘questioning EVERYTHING’ among other things.

Believing in something does not require action. There are people out there who are general theists (like deists) who believe that a God exists but are not part of any religion nor do they worship one. You can express your agnosticism philosophically though. You can at least accept both sides as 'probable', in my honest opinion.

Believing does not require action however actions do follow beliefs. If the actions are absent it is reasonable to presume the beliefs are too. Deists are not theists, they believe in an impersonal God that has no requirements or afterlife, you can act any damn way you want and that God won't give a crap. They cannot be compared because theists believe in a personal God, a God that cares and helps people.

I’ve had theists friends who are not affiliated with any religion. Deists still believe that a God exists so it is not compatible with atheism. None of these two forms of theism require acting on belief beyond just the state of mind of belief. None of them, and I’ll also include atheism, are lifestyle practices.

You can't though, you can't accept two completely opposing ideas as both being 'probable' that means that they are both (for example) 6/10 likely to be correct. That means that the maximal probability is mathematically impossible because that would equal 12/10. This is the core problem with the pure agnosttic belief. You cannot accept them both as being equally likely unless you are severely confused and your logic has stopped working.

Why couldn’t it be 5/10 or 50% chance? I mean not that I’m saying that the reasons for and against God can be quantified. It can also be ‘probable’ qualitatively to the person or how compelling they feel the arguments are to themselves or how reasonable the arguments are just as ‘probable cause’ is not necessarily based on quantity but reasonable suspicion.

[Filthy Tugboat]

It can also be a yes and no answer. This can arise from a person believing/accepting that there are reasons/evidence for and against God’s existence.

The issue of God's existence is very important to a lot of people so you won't always find reactions to it to always being black or white or just simply a yes or no. I'm not sure if you're an atheist or theist or have ever crossed from one to the other because it may be easy for you to say just be an atheist or theist but evidently it's not that easy for others.

Someone can accept that there is evidence for and against God's existence yes, I get that but the problem is that is purely a knowledge based statement. Their beliefs however are different. Just because you accept evidence for and against God doesn't mean that you believe that a God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time.

I am an atheist and have effectively been one for my entire life. I'm not telling people that they should man up and choose one or the other, I'm telling them to man up and accept that they are one or the other.

I don’t see belief in God as being any different than other beliefs. I would think that having evidence/reasons for both sides for a person to accept would happen more for the issue of God’s existence than in many other issues since both sides have been offering reasons, evidence, and arguments for their viewpoints for centuries. And when a person can’t make up their mind due to those accepting some of those reasons from both sides, then that would lead having contradictory beliefs inevitably.

I mean there are other issues that a person can be torn between, and one that I know from personal experience is with making up my mind on if I should stay with an ex-girlfriend of mine or not. My heart said yes while my mind said no.

Also, I disagree with the saying that Christians are atheists to non-Christian gods. To be an atheist, you have to have a non-belief or disbelief in God’s existence that applies to all gods, and that's by definition.

I'll start from the bottom, to be an atheist you need to hold no belief in any God, that is in regards to the religious position. When speaking about specific Gods however and the claims made by people about those Gods you can be an atheist in regards to that God, if you don't like that word, pick a different one but it means the same thing. Atheism as a position is all Gods but when you analyze the non belief in individual Gods it will look remarkably similar to every other God because all it is is a lack of belief. That's what I mean when I say an atheist to all Gods but one.

Redarding your proposition about indecisiveness between choosing to stay with your partner or not, that is entirely different because that is about a choice, not a belief regarding existence. Lets break them down belief in God requires evidence for it's existence. Choosing between leaving or staying with your partner requires evidence to suggest that you would be better off with the choice you make. Previous experiences and knowledge about your partner influence your belief in which choice is wiser, believing in God is based entirely on guesswork and stories that cannot be shown to be objectively true (we can remove deism from this debate as belief in a deistic God is not influenced by any kind of event or logic beyond first cause, deism has nothing suggesting it's real other than the claim that everything had to come from somewhere). Now if we put the choice in contrast with a religious position, while you are making up your mind about what is the better option, you are presumably remaining with your partner. While not committing to the break up you are hanging around with your partner presumably because you believe it to be the better option, you can be as torn up about it as you want but while you remain with them and have no intention to actually break up with them you are demonsterating that you believe this to be the better option, when your beliefs change and you realise that being with them is not the best option, the intention to break up with them arises and often, a breakup follows.

When you can't make up your mind about a subject you still sit on one side of the fence. With your partner, you stay with them until you break up. Your example demonstrates exactly what I've been trying to say.

This depends on how you define God and what conclusion or reaction the person draws from the evidence. The Christian God (which is the only God I believe in) should not exists in a world where there's an unnecessary or dissproportionate amount of evil (disproportionate as in evil in the world seeming to outweigh the evil caused by humans). This argument alone has in some cases discredited God’s existence in the minds of some but I’m not at that point. If you're a deist, then perhaps the problem of evil would not be a compelling argument to discredit the existence of your God concept.

How does it depend on your definition of God? There is no evidence to support atheism in the sense that no Gods exist, there is only evidence for and against each specific claim of God like the evil problem you brought up against the Christian God (and almost every personal God ever). Was this post supposed to reinforce my point? Or was it opposing something I have missed?

I've actually said it's possible for people to hold contrary beliefs. Yes, evidence does or can sway belief but who's to say that's it's always towards one end of the spectrum instead of towards the middle or moderate ground? I was born into one side of the spectrum, Christianity, and listening and reading about both sides of the debate on the issue of God (in addition to my own personal experiences) led me to agnosticism.

Evidence always sways to one side of the spectrum, presuming you exist on the spectrum previous to discovering that evidence. The default position being atheism, when you see evidence for theism (and believe it is actually evidence for theism) then it pushes you both towards the middle and theism. Where ever you are on the spectrum and your beliefs are swayed one way or another it is either towards atheism or towards theism. The middleground can also be on one of those paths. If you were born into theism and picked it up as your belief structure and are now currently an agnostic theist then you have moved closer to atheism and agnosticism. Same as an atheist that moves to agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, they have moved both closer to the middleground and to theism.

Not surprisingly, I see it completely different than you. Some theists and atheists don’t want to let pure agnostics be because they can’t stand not having a side to be on. A pure agnostic has no problem standing independently and not engaging in false sense of certainties. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with someone being an atheist or theist, but I am saying don’t try to impose your view on others who don’t want any part of either side.

Here you're presupposing that someone can be on neither side, that is the question for debate and presuming that is illogical and removes the point of the debate.

A pure agnostic does not deny the claims of either under my scenario. Both sides may be viewed as equally probable or the person may accept reasons that would support God existing and reasons that would discredit a God existing. That’s precisely the situation that can arise when you have an issue that can’t be conclusively proven and that has inconclusive evidence or reasons on both sides of the issue. Although I also contend that there’s nothing wrong with this position just as there’s nothing insane about me when I was split between one side of me wanting to get back with my ex and another side of me that didn’t. At least for me, I think that’s confusion or lack of certainty for a good reason as long as you reflect on your thoughts and not rush into things, especially on matters that have important implications..

The way you talk about atheism is misleading, it has no probability for it at all, atheism is once again the lack of theism, if you are not a theist you are an atheist. Basically it goes like this, while you are indecisive and compiling your evidence to sway your beliefs if you do not believe in a God but want to or think it's plausible yet you are not convinced, you're an atheist. If you do believe in a God but you are questioning that belief and wondering if it's correct and finding evidence for it and against it but you still maintain your belief in that God, then you are a theist. Just because you don't want the label doesn't change what you are. Again with the ex sxenario, were you at anypoint with your ex as well as not being with them? You can cheat on them and still be with them, but at any point were you both with them and not with them? This is what it comes down to, this is agnosticism in an analogy.

I only used those extremes ((Multiple Personalities, Cognitive Dissonance (although not really a state of insanity all the time), Psychosis, etc.)) as examples to show that having conflicting beliefs is possible. I would extend that to also say that it’s possible in non-insanity related settings like being confused, having compelling reasons/evidence for both sides of an issue that’s not conclusively proven, the example that I gave about a past relationship, and perhaps more.

Again, having evidence for both and being partially convinced enough to question your beliefs does not make you actually believe both at the same time. In the same context that being with your partner can be done simultaneously with not being with your partner.

So just because someone weighs both sides and finds both sides equally probable there is something wrong with them? And as a result, just because they don’t fit perfectly as a theist or atheist, there’s something wrong with them? Would you rather someone take a side that they’re not comfortable with and rush them into it before they’re ready to make up their mind?

Atheism and Theism are not choices, you don't choose to believe that God is real anymore than you choose to believe the sky is blue or green. Beliefs are not a choice, acting on beliefs is a choice, choosing to do research that later changes your belief is a choice but the beliefs change cannot be chosen. If you think that it can, do a test, believe the sky is green, choose to do it for the lols. You can't because your mind doesn't work like that. Our minds believe what is more rational to us, no choice occurs. So there's no rushing someone into making up their mind in this. Again with your notion of weighing both sides? There is nothing in support of atheism, there is only evidence for/against theism. If you do not believe in the theists claims then you are an atheist towards that specific God, if you believe no theists claims then you are an atheist. You can be as unsure about your position as you want but while you are not a theist you are by extention an atheist.

You’re presupposing that to believe in God requires that you act on it like worshiping, etc and that’s not the case. Atheism is really a viewpoint of belief or lack of belief, it’s really not a lifestyle practice, nor does theism need to be (take general theists for example or deists who don’t all worship a God). A pure agnostic can write about their views of how both sides are equally probable, or keep seeking answers ‘questioning EVERYTHING’ among other things.

Ok that was my fault, I am now removing my claim that belief requires action.

Why couldn’t it be 5/10 or 50% chance? I mean not that I’m saying that the reasons for and against God can be quantified. It can also be ‘probable’ qualitatively to the person or how compelling they feel the arguments are to themselves or how reasonable the arguments are just as ‘probable cause’ is not necessarily based on quantity but reasonable suspicion.

They can be equally probable but you have said multiple times that the person considers both propositions as 'probable' probable means more than 50%. This is in reference to a personal opinion as theological belief is entirely personal.

[Angel]

It can also be a yes and no answer. This can arise from a person believing/accepting that there are reasons/evidence for and against God’s existence.

The issue of God's existence is very important to a lot of people so you won't always find reactions to it to always being black or white or just simply a yes or no. I'm not sure if you're an atheist or theist or have ever crossed from one to the other because it may be easy for you to say just be an atheist or theist but evidently it's not that easy for others.

Someone can accept that there is evidence for and against God's existence yes, I get that but the problem is that is purely a knowledge based statement. Their beliefs however are different. Just because you accept evidence for and against
God doesn't mean that you believe that a God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time.

Evidence for both sides of an issue will not always lead someone to accept both sides, but sometimes it can. You also implied that evidence means knowledge but not necessarily. The evidence may not be enough to constitute drawing the conclusion that you KNOW a God exists or doesn't. Also, not all types of evidence are of the scientific or reason-based type either; for example, historical evidence, anectodal evidence, etc. Pretty much anything can serve as evidence if it's something that you use to support a claim and it's not proven false.

I am an atheist and have effectively been one for my entire life. I'm not telling people that they should man up and choose one or the other, I'm telling them to man up and accept that they are one or the other.

This is all assuming that you're correct. Your statement does go to show that you likely can't relate to what I'm saying since you've never agreed with any arguments for God.

I don’t see belief in God as being any different than other beliefs. I would think that having evidence/reasons for both sides for a person to accept would happen more for the issue of God’s existence than in many other issues since both sides have been offering reasons, evidence, and arguments for their viewpoints for centuries. And when a person can’t make up their mind due to those accepting some of those reasons from both sides, then that would lead having contradictory beliefs inevitably.

I mean there are other issues that a person can be torn between, and one that I know from personal experience is with making up my mind on if I should stay with an ex-girlfriend of mine or not. My heart said yes while my mind said no.
Also, I disagree with the saying that Christians are atheists to non-Christian gods.

To be an atheist, you have to have a non-belief or disbelief in God’s existence that applies to all gods, and that's by definition.

I'll start from the bottom, to be an atheist you need to hold no belief in any God, that is in regards to the religious position. When speaking about specific Gods however and the claims made by people about those Gods you can be an atheist in regards to that God, if you don't like that word, pick a different one but it means the same thing. Atheism as a position is all Gods but when you analyze the non belief in individual Gods it will look remarkably similar to every other God because all it is is a lack of belief. That's what I mean when I say an atheist to all Gods but one.

To be an atheist by definition, you have to have no belief in any God and/or God's existence. Even if I don't accept the Hindu, Greek, Norse, Sumerian gods, I still believe in the Christian God which by definition makes me a theist rather than a theist and atheist at the same time as you're implying.

Redarding your proposition about indecisiveness between choosing to stay with your partner or not, that is entirely different because that is about a choice, not a belief regarding existence.

My example was to show that you can have contradictory positions and they indeed lead you to believe contradictory things. She might be good for me for this reason but at the same time she's not good with me for that reason. You also mentioned in your last post that 'belief' can influence action (choice) and the choice would only be acting out what you feel and believe, and that's not what I'm referring to. I'm only talking about mindsets and not acting out contradictory things which can't be done (at least not at the same time).

Lets break them down belief in God requires evidence for it's existence. Choosing between leaving or staying with your partner requires evidence to suggest that you would be better off with the choice you make.
Previous experiences and knowledge about your partner influence your belief in which choice is wiser

Here you agree with me that my example is also a matter of belief and not just choice. And what you don't factor in that it is also a belief in contradictory things, to stay with my partner and not to stay - God exists and God doesn't exist. A person can have both of these in their mind, that doesn't always mean that they have to think about both simultaneously everytime, but they do accept both and can spend some time deliberating on one and deliberate on the other another time.

believing in God is based entirely on guesswork and stories that cannot be shown to be objectively true (we can remove deism from this debate as belief in a deistic God is not influenced by any kind of event or logic beyond first cause, deism has nothing suggesting it's real other than the claim that everything had to come from somewhere).

Believing in God is not necessarily about guesswork although the belief as you say can't be shown to be objectively true. My belief in God is based on evidence and some reason, e.g. my experiences, necessity of an uncaused existence and then to first cause.

Now if we put the choice in contrast with a religious position, while you are making up your mind about what is the better option, you are presumably remaining with your partner. While not committing to the break up you are hanging around with your partner presumably because you believe it to be the better option, you can be as torn up about it as you want but while you remain with them and have no intention to actually break up with them you are demonsterating that you believe this to be the better option, when your beliefs change and you realise that being with them is not the best option, the intention to break up with them arises and often, a breakup follows.

As I showed 2 statements ago in my response to you, you mentioned that my example using my ex does involve belief. You agreed in your last post to me towards the end that belief does not necessarily involve action. Obviously, my beliefs can't manifest in reality through choice by choosing to stay with my ex and not choosing or that God exists and doesn't exists but I can at least say that there's evidence (inconclusive) to support both sides or that both sides are equally probable or that I some belief in both sides.

When you can't make up your mind about a subject you still sit on one side of the fence. With your partner, you stay with them until you break up. Your example demonstrates exactly what I've been trying to say.

My example about my ex did not involve me making a choice nor does it have to. I was only trying to point out how I felt and believed contradictory things based on conflicting reasons.

This depends on how you define God and what conclusion or reaction the person draws from the evidence. The Christian God (which is the only God I believe in) should not exists in a world where there's an unnecessary or dissproportionate amount of evil (disproportionate as in evil in the world seeming to outweigh the evil caused by humans). This argument alone has in some cases discredited God’s existence in the minds of some but I’m not at that point. If you're a deist, then perhaps the problem of evil would not be a compelling argument to discredit the existence of your God concept.

How does it depend on your definition of God?

I was speaking in the context of how ONE valid argument of atheism can discredit the existence of God. If you define God as an all-good being, and it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that there is unnecessary evil in the world, then that certainly would discredit the existence of the person's god or at least make a strong case against it.

There is no evidence to support atheism in the sense that no Gods exist, there is only evidence for and against each specific claim of God like the evil problem you brought up against the Christian God (and almost every personal God ever). Was this post supposed to reinforce my point? Or was it opposing something I have missed?

There may not be any 'conclusive' evidence, but there can be evidence based of the arguments and points that atheists throughout history and today have brought up. I gave an example in my response right before this one.

I've actually said it's possible for people to hold contrary beliefs. Yes, evidence does or can sway belief but who's to say that's it's always towards one end of the spectrum instead of towards the middle or moderate ground? I was born into one side of the spectrum, Christianity, and listening and reading about both sides of the debate on the issue of God (in addition to my own personal experiences) led me to agnosticism.

Evidence always sways to one side of the spectrum, presuming you exist on the spectrum previous to discovering that evidence. The default position being atheism, when you see evidence for theism (and believe it is actually evidence for theism) then it pushes you both towards the middle and theism. Where ever you are on the spectrum and your beliefs are swayed one way or another it is either towards atheism or towards theism. The middleground can also be on one of those paths. If you were born into theism and picked it up as your belief structure and are now currently an agnostic theist then you have moved closer to atheism and agnosticism. Same as an atheist that moves to agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, they have moved both closer to the middleground and to theism.

I agree with you based on the terms you described, but those are not the terms I've mentioned to maintain pure agnosticism. My terms involves accepting evidence from both sides which can mean you have reasons to believe that a God doesn't exist and reasons to believe that a God does exist. This outrules both theism and atheism since both of these involves ONLY belief or ONLY lack of belief. There's no middle ground here.

Not surprisingly, I see it completely different than you. Some theists and atheists don’t want to let pure agnostics be because they can’t stand not having a side to be on. A pure agnostic has no problem standing independently and not engaging in false sense of certainties. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with someone being an atheist or theist, but I am saying don’t try to impose your view on others who don’t want any part of either side.

Here you're presupposing that someone can be on neither side, that is the question for debate and presuming that is illogical and removes the point of the debate.

I started this thread to discuss if one can be an agnostic without having to also be a theist or atheist side. I'm arguing that you can be an agnostic without being on either side which is one side to take in the debate.

A pure agnostic does not deny the claims of either under my scenario. Both sides may be viewed as equally probable or the person may accept reasons that would support God existing and reasons that would discredit a God existing. That’s precisely the situation that can arise when you have an issue that can’t be conclusively proven and that has inconclusive evidence or reasons on both sides of the issue. Although I also contend that there’s nothing wrong with this position just as there’s nothing insane about me when I was split between one side of me wanting to get back with my ex and another side of me that didn’t. At least for me, I think that’s confusion or lack of certainty for a good reason as long as you reflect on your thoughts and not rush into things, especially on matters that have important implications..

The way you talk about atheism is misleading, it has no probability for it at all, atheism is once again the lack of theism, if you are not a theist you are an atheist. Basically it goes like this, while you are indecisive and compiling your evidence to sway your beliefs if you do not believe in a God but want to or think it's plausible yet you are not convinced, you're an atheist. If you do believe in a God but you are questioning that belief and wondering if it's correct and finding evidence for it and against it but you still maintain your belief in that God, then you are a theist. Just because you don't want the label doesn't change what you are.

I understand your point here but you are not talking about a person who holds some belief in both atheist and theist viewpoints, which is what I'm referring to. I'm not talking about someone who believes or disbelieves and searches or is curious about evidence to the side that's against him or her, I'm referring to people who already accept evidence from both sides. 'Negative' atheism or lack of belief in God doesn't fit my scenario because the person would have some belief that a God exists so there is no atheism here whatsoever.

Again with the ex sxenario, were you at anypoint with your ex as well as not being with them? You can cheat on them and still be with them, but at any point were you both with them and not with them? This is what it comes down to, this is agnosticism in an analogy.

Physically, as in actually acting out how I felt and believed, no. But I'm only referring to belief/acceptance and not acting on the belief.

I only used those extremes ((Multiple Personalities, Cognitive Dissonance (although not really a state of insanity all the time), Psychosis, etc.)) as examples to show that having conflicting beliefs is possible. I would extend that to also say that it’s possible in non-insanity related settings like being confused, having compelling reasons/evidence for both sides of an issue that’s not conclusively proven, the example that I gave about a past relationship, and perhaps more.

Again, having evidence for both and being partially convinced enough to question your beliefs does not make you actually believe both at the same time. In the same context that being with your partner can be done simultaneously with not being with your partner.

Your analogy is incompatible between the two examples. Both could've just simply involved believing instead of one involving believing and the other involving acting out.

So just because someone weighs both sides and finds both sides equally probable there is something wrong with them? And as a result, just because they don’t fit perfectly as a theist or atheist, there’s something wrong with them? Would you rather someone take a side that they’re not comfortable with and rush them into it before they’re ready to make up their mind?

Atheism and Theism are not choices, you don't choose to believe that God is real anymore than you choose to believe the sky is blue or green. Beliefs are not a choice, acting on beliefs is a choice, choosing to do research that later changes your belief is a choice but the beliefs change cannot be chosen. If you think that it can, do a test, believe the sky is green, choose to do it for the lols. You can't because your mind doesn't work like that. Our minds believe what is more rational to us, no choice occurs. So there's no rushing someone into making up their mind in this. Again with your notion of weighing both sides? There is nothing in support of atheism, there is only evidence for/against theism. If you do not believe in the theists claims then you are an atheist towards that specific God, if you believe no theists claims then you are an atheist. You can be as unsure about your position as you want but while you are not a theist you are by extention an atheist.

I can agree that theism and atheism is not a choice if you go by evidence. You mention that our minds believe what is more rational, and what may be rational to you or the conclusions you draw or accept may not be the same for another person. Some person may be much more moderately than your average theist and atheist and end up accepting some of the reasons from both sides.

Why couldn’t it be 5/10 or 50% chance? I mean not that I’m saying that the reasons for and against God can be quantified. It can also be ‘probable’ qualitatively to the person or how compelling they feel the arguments are to themselves or how reasonable the arguments are just as ‘probable cause’ is not necessarily based on quantity but reasonable suspicion.

They can be equally probable but you have said multiple times that the person considers both propositions as 'probable' probable means more than 50%. This is in reference to a personal opinion as theological belief is entirely personal.

I agree with you here.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Evidence for both sides of an issue will not always lead someone to accept both sides, but sometimes it can. You also implied that evidence means knowledge but not necessarily. The evidence may not be enough to constitute drawing the conclusion that you KNOW a God exists or doesn't. Also, not all types of evidence are of the scientific or reason-based type either; for example, historical evidence, anectodal evidence, etc. Pretty much anything can serve as evidence if it's something that you use to support a claim and it's not proven false.

Fortunately 'KNOWING' a god exists or doesn't exist doesn't fall under any of the categories ranging from atheism to theism. Believing a God exists whole heartedly and refusing to accept the fact that there is no way to be 100% sure about it is theism. Believing God exists but accepting that you could be wrong is agnostic theism. Not believing in a God but accepting that one could exist is negative/agnostic atheism. Believing no God's exist or can exist and refusing to accept the possibility is positive atheism.

Finding evidence for both sides of an issue can't lead a sane person to believe both sides of an issue are correct if they contradict each other. Our brains don't work that way unless they are broken. In regards to an issue as distinct as atheism and theism believing partially in both is one of the most confusing position to hold because it doesn't make any sort of sense. For instance, you believe that first cause means a God exists (flawed argument and void of all logic to discern that the first cause is God and that this infinitely more complex being does not require a cause), through some sort of criteria I cannot discern this person decides that the first cause is the Christian God. Simultaneously this person accepts that the problem of evil makes the Christian God obsolete and impossible to be a reality. So basically, through those two arguments we find an incompatible belief. If you can propose a combination of beliefs that allows someone to agree with problems for God's existence and evidence in support of God's existence without being insane be my guest. This is actually the only way I can think of that you could support your proposition.

This is all assuming that you're correct. Your statement does go to show that you likely can't relate to what I'm saying since you've never agreed with any arguments for God.

Just because I've never been in the shoes of someone who believes in arguments for God doesn't mean I can't understand the logic behind it and the evidence proposed.

To be an atheist by definition, you have to have no belief in any God and/or God's existence. Even if I don't accept the Hindu, Greek, Norse, Sumerian gods, I still believe in the Christian God which by definition makes me a theist rather than a theist and atheist at the same time as you're implying.

I realise that, that is why I said that you can pick a different word if you like but it means the same thing. Using it in specific relations with certain claims is different to the religious position of 'atheist'. When I say you're an atheist in regards to Thor I am not suggesting your religious position is atheism, I am merely pointing out that our disbelief in Thos is the same as my disbelief in the Judeo-Christian God.

My example was to show that you can have contradictory positions and they indeed lead you to believe contradictory things. She might be good for me for this reason but at the same time she's not good with me for that reason. You also mentioned in your last post that 'belief' can influence action (choice) and the choice would only be acting out what you feel and believe, and that's not what I'm referring to. I'm only talking about mindsets and not acting out contradictory things which can't be done (at least not at the same time).

Having different reasons/evidence to believe in different things doesn't make you believe in both things simultaneously. I don't think it can, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it can. Regarding the girlfriends analogy, lets dissect that even further then. The belief sides in this can be split up into multiple sections. Believing you will be happy with/without her, being able to maintain all of your friendships with/without her, being sad with/without her and being angry with/without her. For example, you believe that you would be happy with her most of the time, sad without her most of the time, angry with her half of the time and you would be able to maintain all of your friendships that might divide up if you and your girlfriend split. On the other side, if you split: you are happy when you're not fighting with her, angry at losing someone you spent most of your time with, sad at losing someone that you spent most of your time with, happy you have the freedom to do things she wouldn't let you and angry that a group of your friends cut off ties with you in order to maintain their friendship with her. These beliefs are all separate and help to sway the larger belief in whether you would be better off with/without her. Through all of this at what point do you believe that you will both be better off with and without her? This is describing confusion not a legitimate position on any issue. You can be conflicted on an issue but the overall belief of which is the better option for you is not both simultaneously unless you can prove otherwise.

Here you agree with me that my example is also a matter of belief and not just choice. And what you don't factor in that it is also a belief in contradictory things, to stay with my partner and not to stay - God exists and God doesn't exist. A person can have both of these in their mind, that doesn't always mean that they have to think about both simultaneously everytime, but they do accept both and can spend some time deliberating on one and deliberate on the other another time.

I don't agree that it is a belief in contradictory things, I believe that it is conflicting interests with beliefs deciding which is the better option. I have at no point seen any evidence/reason to suggest you believed being with your girlfriend and splitting up with your girlfriend were both preferable options. But comparing this analogy to belief in God, what combination of reasoning permits both belief in and non-belief in God?

Believing in God is not necessarily about guesswork although the belief as you say can't be shown to be objectively true. My belief in God is based on evidence and some reason, e.g. my experiences, necessity of an uncaused existence and then to first cause.

Believing in God is always about guesswork because even the biblical story eludes you to believe that any personal experience could be and is just as probable to be the Devil. Your ideas of first cause do not relate to the Judeo-Christian God in any way other than the Christian version of the creation myth. Last but not least, 'necessity of uncaused existence' is illogical and special pleading. Presuming some entity exists that is not of or universe and simultaneously controls every part of our universe requires no cause is not based in reason or logic, to propose such a being the only thing you can say about it is that you know nothing about it. So everything you just gave demonstrates massive amounts of guesswork.

As I showed 2 statements ago in my response to you, you mentioned that my example using my ex does involve belief. You agreed in your last post to me towards the end that belief does not necessarily involve action. Obviously, my beliefs can't manifest in reality through choice by choosing to stay with my ex and not choosing or that God exists and doesn't exists but I can at least say that there's evidence (inconclusive) to support both sides or that both sides are equally probable or that I some belief in both sides.

Just because you find both sides of an issue equally probable does not mean to say you believe both are true to any degree. This is especially true of belief in God's existence. Again, I put it to you, what evidences or reasons of believing both sides of atheism and theism are compatible for a sane person to believe any part of both?

I was speaking in the context of how ONE valid argument of atheism can discredit the existence of God. If you define God as an all-good being, and it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that there is unnecessary evil in the world, then that certainly would discredit the existence of the person's god or at least make a strong case against it.

If you believe valid arguments of 'atheism' can discredit one specific God then why don't you believe the term atheism can be used to describe beliefs regarding individual claims of Gods? Either way, negative atheism being only the absence of belief, holds no claims or arguments for it's cause. The problem of evil is an argument against the Judeo-Christian God(and many others), it is not an argument for atheism.

There may not be any 'conclusive' evidence, but there can be evidence based of the arguments and points that atheists throughout history and today have brought up. I gave an example in my response right before this one.

As I stated in my response to your previous example you merely reinforced my point as the argument in question is not an argument that opposes belief in every possible God it is merely directed at a select few, it is therefore not an argument in and of itself, it is merely a counter-argument. Just because atheists are the ones that presented these arguments doesn't make the arguments support their cause. Nothing about the problem with evil or any other argument against other Gods suggests that Gods are impossible to exist therefore none of the arguments presented support the idea that no Gods exist which by extension shows that they do not support atheism, they only argue against specific claims of Gods.

I agree with you based on the terms you described, but those are not the terms I've mentioned to maintain pure agnosticism. My terms involves accepting evidence from both sides which can mean you have reasons to believe that a God doesn't exist and reasons to believe that a God does exist. This outrules both theism and atheism since both of these involves ONLY belief or ONLY lack of belief. There's no middle ground here.

Reasons to believe in something doesn't mean you actually believe in it, especially if you also have reasons to believe the exact opposite is true. But again I offer you the chance to defend pure agnosticism, what combination of reasons/evidence can coexist to permit both a partial belief in God and a partial non-belief in that same God?

I started this thread to discuss if one can be an agnostic without having to also be a theist or atheist side. I'm arguing that you can be an agnostic without being on either side which is one side to take in the debate.

You can argue that all you want but suggesting it is a reality and then telling me what these 'pure agnostics' do and don't believe and going on to suggest that theists and atheists won't leave them alone is not arguing your point but presuming that you're correct before the debate is over.

I understand your point here but you are not talking about a person who holds some belief in both atheist and theist viewpoints, which is what I'm referring to. I'm not talking about someone who believes or disbelieves and searches or is curious about evidence to the side that's against him or her, I'm referring to people who already accept evidence from both sides. 'Negative' atheism or lack of belief in God doesn't fit my scenario because the person would have some belief that a God exists so there is no atheism here whatsoever.

Ok so back to the same proposition one more time, what evidences/reasons can be accepted both for and against the claims of any God? What is compatible without proposing a crazy person?

I can agree that theism and atheism is not a choice if you go by evidence. You mention that our minds believe what is more rational, and what may be rational to you or the conclusions you draw or accept may not be the same for another person. Some person may be much more moderately than your average theist and atheist and end up accepting some of the reasons from both sides.

Yes, the standards of rationality are different for different people. What reasons/evidences are compatible to hold beliefs both for and against the claims of any god/deity?

Sorry that I asked that question so many times but tbh, that's what it boils down to. If belief in both is compatible what evidences /reasons make those beliefs compatible?

[ChaosBorders]

Ok so the answer I don't know does not apply to the question, "Do you believe in a God?" I can accept that, so it is now a yes/no question which renders the person that answers the question as either atheist or theist (agnostics included for both sides). I'm yet to see anything to suggest that you can combine those two contradicting beliefs. As previously stated, atheist is basically the position of denying the claims of theists. You can be an atheist to all Gods except one. if you do not currently hold the belief in a God's existence, you are by extention an atheist.

My opinion would be this. Most of those claiming to be 'pure agnostics' are using the wrong definition of atheism and think that it means only those who are asserting a positive disbelief in the existence of any gods. Since they merely have a lack of belief, they mistakenly do not believe think they are atheists. (They may also just be trying to avoid being labeled one for social reasons). Many of these I think are also apatheists. Thus their general position would be "I don't know if God exists or not, but I don't really care either way."

I think many others are ignostics that have never heard that term or understand what it means.

I think the remainder of 'pure agnostics' are really people in a deep state of confusion whose beliefs are in a constant state of flux between believing there is a god and not believing there is a god. Since they genuinely are not sure of their beliefs from moment to moment, it is easier for such people to claim purely to be agnostics. I have not encountered many of these 'pure agnostics,' but I have met and heard of a few.

[Lux]

I considered myself an agnostic at two points in my life. The first was when I was a kid, I'd been raised agnostic and didn't know much about any particular gods or religions, but since I had an interest in the subject I wouldn't say I was an apatheist.

The second was when I was 15-16, when I went back and forth between deism and atheism at a rate of 4 times per week. If someone whom I could have a real conversation with came along and asked, I'd tell them my position of the day and explain that I wasn't sure, but most of the time I labeled myself agnostic.

So, I think it's possible to be agnostic without adding theist or atheist, but in my personal experience and observation of others, most agnostics actually lean very slightly to one side (perhaps some of them actually have a bit of trouble accepting which side they're leaning towards), and will probably be agnostic atheists, agnostic deists or agnostic theists in the end.

[ChaosBorders]

I considered myself an agnostic at two points in my life. The first was when I was a kid, I'd been raised agnostic and didn't know much about any particular gods or religions, but since I had an interest in the subject I wouldn't say I was an apatheist.

The second was when I was 15-16, when I went back and forth between deism and atheism at a rate of 4 times per week. If someone whom I could have a real conversation with came along and asked, I'd tell them my position of the day and explain that I wasn't sure, but most of the time I labeled myself agnostic.

So, I think it's possible to be agnostic without adding theist or atheist, but in my personal experience and observation of others, most agnostics actually lean very slightly to one side (perhaps some of them actually have a bit of trouble accepting which side they're leaning towards), and will probably be agnostic atheists, agnostic deists or agnostic theists in the end.

Agnostic deist and agnostic theist is the same thing