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 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.

I sgree thst the people that lebel themselves as pure agnostic are really just fluctuating beteen qgnostic atheism and agnotic theism but at no point can they be neither, either you believe theistic claims or you don't. Now just because people fluctuate and name themselves agnostic does not make them both at the same time or neither, it simply
means they are confused and often drifting between the two. Pure agnosticism cannot exist because both propositions cannot be held simultaneously and they both represent every aspect of belief in God. You either do or don't believe in theistic claims, if you don't you are an atheist, if you do then you are a theist. If you believe that a God does exist while simultaneously believe that a God does not exist then you are confuseed and beyond rational help and are simply not using rational thouht processes.

[Lux]

Agnostic deist and agnostic theist is the same thing

Ain't At least not in the most used definitions for deism and theism, although they can be expanded to the point that they mean pretty much the same, or until one includes the other.

[Lux]

Pure agnosticism cannot exist because both propositions cannot be held simultaneously and they both represent every aspect of belief in God. You either do or don't believe in theistic claims, if you don't you are an atheist, if you do then you are a theist. If you believe that a God does exist while simultaneously believe that a God does not exist then you are confuseed and beyond rational help and are simply not using rational thouht processes.

Both can't be held at the same time, but what about neither? Those who are interested in the matter but don't have enough information to decide, aren't they agnostics? Agnosticism doesn't mean holding both positions, it means holding neither.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Pure agnosticism cannot exist because both propositions cannot be held simultaneously and they both represent every aspect of belief in God. You either do or don't believe in theistic claims, if you don't you are an atheist, if you do then you are a theist. If you believe that a God does exist while simultaneously believe that a God does not exist then you are confuseed and beyond rational help and are simply not using rational thouht processes.

Both can't be held at the same time, but what about neither? Those who are interested in the matter but don't have enough information to decide, aren't they agnostics? Agnosticism doesn't mean holding both positions, it means holding neither.

How can you belief in something that is not a belief, atheims is not a belief, atheism is the lack of belief in a theistic claim, if you do not believe in a theistic claim, you are an atheist towards that claim, if you do not believe in any theistic claim then you are an atheist, plain and simple.how can you believe in neither of both sides of an argument, agnosism falls under both atheism and theism and those are the only two options as one provides a claim and one denies that claim. What else is there? If you do not believe that claim then you are an atheist, if you belive the claim you are a theist. I truly do not understand how you can maintain a poosition that is outside of 'yes I believe in your claim' or 'no I do not believe your claim. How can you hold a belief that allows for both non existence and existence of a being?

[Lux]

How can you belief in something that is not a belief, atheims is not a belief, atheism is the lack of belief in a theistic claim, if you do not believe in a theistic claim, you are an atheist towards that claim, if you do not believe in any theistic claim then you are an atheist, plain and simple.how can you believe in neither of both sides of an argument, agnosism falls under both atheism and theism and those are the only two options as one provides a claim and one denies that claim. What else is there? If you do not believe that claim then you are an atheist, if you belive the claim you are a theist. I truly do not understand how you can maintain a poosition that is outside of 'yes I believe in your claim' or 'no I do not believe your claim. How can you hold a belief that allows for both non existence and existence of a being?

You can't both believe and disbelieve at the same time, but you can not be sure whether you do or don't believe. Those who claim to be only agnostics say they do not know if there is a god, and they neither believe not disbelieve it. That's not the position I hold now, but I do recall thinking that way when I was a child.

[ChaosBorders]

Agnostic deist and agnostic theist is the same thing

Ain't At least not in the most used definitions for deism and theism, although they can be expanded to the point that they mean pretty much the same, or until one includes the other.

Theism: The belief there is a at least one god.
Deism: Belief God can be known through observation and reason. Usually also the belief no gods actively interfere with the world, but that a god or gods started the universe.

All deists are theists. Not all theists are deists.

[Filthy Tugboat]

How can you belief in something that is not a belief, atheims is not a belief, atheism is the lack of belief in a theistic claim, if you do not believe in a theistic claim, you are an atheist towards that claim, if you do not believe in any theistic claim then you are an atheist, plain and simple.how can you believe in neither of both sides of an argument, agnosism falls under both atheism and theism and those are the only two options as one provides a claim and one denies that claim. What else is there? If you do not believe that claim then you are an atheist, if you belive the claim you are a theist. I truly do not understand how you can maintain a poosition that is outside of 'yes I believe in your claim' or 'no I do not believe your claim. How can you hold a belief that allows for both non existence and existence of a being?

You can't both believe and disbelieve at the same time, but you can not be sure whether you do or don't believe. Those who claim to be only agnostics say they do not know if there is a god, and they neither believe not disbelieve it. That's not the position I hold now, but I do recall thinking that way when I was a child.

If you do not believe a claim then you disbelieve that claim, if you neither believe nor disbelieve then idk what you are trying to say because that is a logical incompatibality.

[Lux]

Agnostic deist and agnostic theist is the same thing

Ain't At least not in the most used definitions for deism and theism, although they can be expanded to the point that they mean pretty much the same, or until one includes the other.

Theism: The belief there is a at least one god.
Deism: Belief God can be known through observation and reason. Usually also the belief no gods actively interfere with the world, but that a god or gods started the universe.

All deists are theists. Not all theists are deists.

Even by your definitions, it's not the same to say theist than deist, since not all theists are deists.

However, the following distinction is made sometimes:

Wiki's article on Deism:

The term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that God has a plan for the universe that is not to be altered by intervention in the affairs of human life.

And on theism:

In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

[Lux]

If you do not believe a claim then you disbelieve that claim, if you neither believe nor disbelieve then idk what you are trying to say because that is a logical incompatibality.

I don't know why you think it's illogical to neither accept nor discard a proposition immediately. If you came to me and told me that there is a man called Larry who can turn pigeons into solid gold, I'd be skeptical. I'd probably not believe you at first, but suppose then you present evidence for Larry. I would now be agnostic about Larry until I have had time to ponder and analyze your evidence. The same thing can happen with claims about god, if it's the first time one's hearing about them, and the period of doubt can vary in length.

[Filthy Tugboat]

If you do not believe a claim then you disbelieve that claim, if you neither believe nor disbelieve then idk what you are trying to say because that is a logical incompatibality.

I don't know why you think it's illogical to neither accept nor discard a proposition immediately. If you came to me and told me that there is a man called Larry who can turn pigeons into solid gold, I'd be skeptical. I'd probably not believe you at first, but suppose then you present evidence for Larry. I would now be agnostic about Larry until I have had time to ponder and analyze your evidence. The same thing can happen with claims about god, if it's the first time one's hearing about them, and the period of doubt can vary in length.

So I present some evidence for Larry, in the time that you analyze that evidence do you believe my claim or not? It is as simple as that, you either believe or you don't, you don't have to discard a position to hold no current belief about it. You are not sure but you currently do not believe that Larry can turn pigeons into solid gold = agnostic non believer. While ulling over the evidence, you do believe it is true before coming to a conclusive position on the matter = agnostic believer. In order to be a pure agnostic you have to hold belief both for and against the existence of that specific God, which is contradictory. If you do believe that God(or any God for that matter) exists then you are a theist, if you do not believe in any form of God you are an atheist, you can be agnostic on both of these issues but you are truly confused if you believe both simultaneously. So even while considering evidence you must either hold an atheistic belief or a theistic belief. Pure agnosticism can only be based off the idea that you believe both simultaneously as atheism is a lack of belief and has no evidence for it.