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?

[McCulloch]

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

Yes, there are numerous issues that are still unresolved. Either the evidence is insufficient to resolve the issue or the issue awaits a better theory that explains all relevant evidence.

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?

It depends on your definitions.
If theism is defined as a belief in god, God or gods then agnosticism cannot be theism, in that an agnostic does not believe.
If atheism is defined as not having a belief in god, God or gods, then agnosticism is one form of atheism. If, however, you define atheism as explicit disbelief in god, God or gods, then agnosticism does not fit.

[Angel]

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

Yes, there are numerous issues that are still unresolved. Either the evidence is insufficient to resolve the issue or the issue awaits a better theory that explains all relevant evidence.

I just wonder why do some people think it's an easy and quick process to choose either theism or atheism if having evidence for both sides is possible. If there's evidence for both sides, and a person sincerely believes that, then it would not hold an an intellectually honest position to pick one side over the other.

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?

It depends on your definitions.
If theism is defined as a belief in god, God or gods then agnosticism cannot be theism, in that an agnostic does not believe.
If atheism is defined as not having a belief in god, God or gods, then agnosticism is one form of atheism. If, however, you define atheism as explicit disbelief in god, God or gods, then agnosticism does not fit.

Well, I didn't mean to sound like I was referring to agnosticism being the same as theism or positive atheism. It's just an add-on to those viewpoints where you believe and you also don't know. So we can both agree that belief for or against has nothing to do with agnosticism. But I was using 'belief' to show how both atheism and theism are cancelled out and by default leaving only pure agnosticism as an option when it comes to the issue of God's existence. That's assuming a person draws the conclusion that the issue is unknown or unknowable because there is evidence for both sides.

[McCulloch]

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

Yes, there are numerous issues that are still unresolved. Either the evidence is insufficient to resolve the issue or the issue awaits a better theory that explains all relevant evidence.

I just wonder why do some people think it's an easy and quick process to choose either theism or atheism if having evidence for both sides is possible. If there's evidence for both sides, and a person sincerely believes that, then it would not hold an an intellectually honest position to pick one side over the other.

I was speaking generically about an issue. About the specific issue of the existence of God, I have reviewed the evidence and found no convincing evidence supporting God's existence and loads of evidence against. So with regard to most common definitions of what God is, I am a positive atheist.

However, if you sincerely believe that the evidence is inconclusive then you must declare yourself to be agnostic in order to be intellectually honest. I respect that.

[ForkieUK]

Agnosticism to me always seems to be a bizarre stance to have (or think you have). I can't quite fathom how true agnosticism can exist.

If strength of belief can be represented by a line as below, where,
Y= Yes, there is definitely a god
Ag= Agnostic
N= No, there definitely is no god


Y---------------Ag---------------N


No one can be on Y or N of course, as no one can say "There definitely is/is no God". To be agnostic is to have no belief either way whatsoever, but since both beliefs can be infinitely reduced to smaller and smaller distances from the "middle", it surely cannot exist?

[Angel]

Agnosticism to me always seems to be a bizarre stance to have (or think you have). I can't quite fathom how true agnosticism can exist.

If strength of belief can be represented by a line as below, where,
Y= Yes, there is definitely a god
Ag= Agnostic
N= No, there definitely is no god


Y---------------Ag---------------N


No one can be on Y or N of course, as no one can say "There definitely is/is no God". To be agnostic is to have no belief either way whatsoever, but since both beliefs can be infinitely reduced to smaller and smaller distances from the "middle", it surely cannot exist?

I agree with your number line in general if agnosticism could only be maintained by having no belief at all, but that is not the angle that I'm looking at for how agnosticism can be maintained. Although I don't completely agree with putting Agnosticism in the middle of a spectrum that involves belief when agnosticism is not about belief. My point on agnosticism is actually based on a person accepting reasons for and against God's existence at the same time if they sincerely believe there is evidence for both sides. At least, by definition, this would cancel out theism since theism involves ONLY belief in God's existence whereas my scenario involves SOME belief/acceptance on God not existing. Also, atheism (both negative and positive) would be cancelled out if the person holds some belief/acceptance in the reasons for why a god exists. This however does not cancel out agnosticism though. That's not to say that belief and disbelief is the same as agnosticism since that involves "knowledge' but it can lead to it at least through implication if the person also says they don't know in addition to their non-theism and non-atheism position.

[McCulloch]

Agnosticism to me always seems to be a bizarre stance to have (or think you have). I can't quite fathom how true agnosticism can exist.

If strength of belief can be represented by a line as below, where,
Y= Yes, there is definitely a god
Ag= Agnostic
N= No, there definitely is no god

Y---------------Ag---------------N

No one can be on Y or N of course, as no one can say "There definitely is/is no God". To be agnostic is to have no belief either way whatsoever, but since both beliefs can be infinitely reduced to smaller and smaller distances from the "middle", it surely cannot exist?

There is, of course, another approach.
A theist ways, "I believe that God exists."
An atheist would say, "I don't believe that God exists".
An agnostic would say, "I don't know whether or not God exists".
And as you point out, there are an arbitrary number of gradations between these positions.

But an ignostic would say, "I don't even know what you mean when you say, 'God exists' ". The various concepts of what god is, are ambiguous and contradictory.

[Angel]

To be an atheist or theist, you can only believe or disbelieve or have no belief. There is no gradation from this to where you can still retain atheism or theism by definition so there's only agnosticism left under my scenario. Using a number line for this may not be the best example, I'm thinking in the first place.

[Filthy Tugboat]

To be an atheist or theist, you can only believe or disbelieve or have no belief. There is no gradation from this to where you can still retain atheism or theism by definition so there's only agnosticism left under my scenario. Using a number line for this may not be the best example, I'm thinking in the first place.

Angel, it comes down to this: Do you believe in any form of deity? If you say no then you are an atheist and you very well may be an agnostic atheist. That's all there is, from a yes/no question. 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 uinder the atheist answer once again. Agnostic atheism is basically you saying, "I don't believe in any form of deity at the moment but I am open to the concept."

[Angel]

To be an atheist or theist, you can only believe or disbelieve or have no belief. There is no gradation from this to where you can still retain atheism or theism by definition so there's only agnosticism left under my scenario. Using a number line for this may not be the best example, I'm thinking in the first place.

Angel, it comes down to this: Do you believe in any form of deity? If you say no then you are an atheist and you very well may be an agnostic atheist. That's all there is, from a yes/no question... Agnostic atheism is basically you saying, "I don't believe in any form of deity at the moment but I am open to the concept."

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.