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?

[ChaosBorders]

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

Still redundant. You basically said "will probably be agnostic atheists, agnostic (particular type of theist) or agnostic theists in the end." Would have been simpler just to say "will probably be an agnostic atheist or some type of agnostic theist in the end." Could also have added the possibility of becoming an ignostic.

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.

Yes, it can be used in that way in the same manner that atheist can be used to denote someone who actively disbelieves in God rather than just those who lack a belief that there is a god. Many may choose to use the term in that manner, but it isn't the proper definition. Please note that in that wiki article, deism is included as a type of theism under the general definition. As such, saying someone is an agnostic deist is the same thing as saying they're an agnostic theist.

If you were just illustrating a type of theism, I wouldn't object. But you were clearly using the more specific definition of theism that exludes all the other theists from being called such. I don't think that is an appropriate definition, in the same way that atheists don't like the definition of atheism that exludes all the weak agnostic atheists from being called atheist.

[Lux]

Still redundant. You basically said "will probably be agnostic atheists, agnostic (particular type of theist) or agnostic theists in the end." Would have been simpler just to say "will probably be an agnostic atheist or some type of agnostic theist in the end." Could also have added the possibility of becoming an ignostic.

A deist is a particular type of theist, that's not the same as to say

Agnostic deist and agnostic theist is the same thing

since they can be and often are different.

Yes, it can be used in that way in the same manner that atheist can be used to denote someone who actively disbelieves in God rather than just those who lack a belief that there is a god. Many may choose to use the term in that manner, but it isn't the proper definition. Please note that in that wiki article, deism is included as a type of theism under the general definition. As such, saying someone is an agnostic deist is the same thing as saying they're an agnostic theist.

No, it's not the same. That's like saying that non-theist is the same as atheist, just because all atheists are non-theists that doesn't make it the same thing, because not all non-theists are atheists.

If you were just illustrating a type of theism, I wouldn't object. But you were clearly using the more specific definition of theism that exludes all the other theists from being called such. I don't think that is an appropriate definition, in the same way that atheists don't like the definition of atheism that exludes all the weak agnostic atheists from being called atheist.

I don't particularly care if people are are not aware of what atheist means. If they choose not to be informed on the matter, that's their issue.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to exclude some types of theists from the definition, the only reason I included deism in the list was because I had just mentioned that I used to be an agnostic deist. The fact that I included it in a list doesn't mean I don't know there are several people who fall under the definition of theist, I do know that (as you already know... )

[ChaosBorders]

A deist is a particular type of theist, that's not the same as to say

Agnostic deist and agnostic theist is the same thing

since they can be and often are different.

Except that deists are also theists, so deists are not different than theists. Some theists just happen to be different than deists. Your post 22 basically conceded that, but you felt by their 'most used' definitions they weren't. My response was to explain why the most used definition for theism is incorrect in the same way the most used definition for atheism (or at least formerly most used) was incorrect.

No, it's not the same. That's like saying that non-theist is the same as atheist, just because all atheists are non-theists that doesn't make it the same thing, because not all non-theists are atheists.

When you invert the order like that, yes. Your word order was deist (which is a theist) and then theist (which is also a theist). Using that order without any qualification whatsoever you're basically saying the same thing twice.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to exclude some types of theists from the definition, the only reason I included deism in the list was because I had just mentioned that I used to be an agnostic deist. The fact that I included it in a list doesn't mean I don't know there are several people who fall under the definition of theist, I do know that (as you already know... )

Given your initial defense tries to use the more selective definition, it would be suggestive that you were indeed trying to use the term to specifically denote monotheistic religious doctrines and keeping that separate from deism. This interpretation is supported by your use of the word 'or' in the initial sentence. If you were using the broad definition of theist, then the end of your sentence would basically read "a type of agnostic theist or an agnostic theist." That's highly redundant. It would actually be more understandable if you were trying to use the selective definition of theist, but my contention is that usage is a faulty one. It would also potentially be an inaccurate claim except that you had "in my personal experience and observation" at the beginning of the sentence.

[Lux]

Except that deists are also theists, so deists are not different than theists. Some theists just happen to be different than deists. Your post 22 basically conceded that, but you felt by their 'most used' definitions they weren't. My response was to explain why the most used definition for theism is incorrect in the same way the most used definition for atheism (or at least formerly most used) was incorrect.

Deists are theists by default, but not all theists are deists. Therefore, agnostic theist and agnostic deist are not the same thing.

When you invert the order like that, yes. Your word order was deist (which is a theist) and then theist (which is also a theist). Using that order without any qualification whatsoever you're basically saying the same thing twice.

The order was the order in which I thought of them, you're inferring way too much. There are many terms I could have added to that list. I could have said non-theist instead on atheist, that would have been more precise.

Given your initial defense tries to use the more selective definition, it would be suggestive that you were indeed trying to use the term to specifically denote monotheistic religious doctrines and keeping that separate from deism. This interpretation is supported by your use of the word 'or' in the initial sentence. If you were using the broad definition of theist, then the end of your sentence would basically read "a type of agnostic theist or an agnostic theist." That's highly redundant. It would actually be more understandable if you were trying to use the selective definition of theist, but my contention is that usage is a faulty one. It would also potentially be an inaccurate claim except that you had "in my personal experience and observation" at the beginning of the sentence.

I used the selective description of both to point out the fact that it's faulty to say that an agnostic theist is the same as an agnostic deist. That doesn't mean I don't know what a theist is, and since I can't help but assume that you already know that, I think this is an incredibly useless argument to be having

[ChaosBorders]

Except that deists are also theists, so deists are not different than theists. Some theists just happen to be different than deists. Your post 22 basically conceded that, but you felt by their 'most used' definitions they weren't. My response was to explain why the most used definition for theism is incorrect in the same way the most used definition for atheism (or at least formerly most used) was incorrect.

Deists are theists by default, but not all theists are deists. Therefore, agnostic theist and agnostic deist are not the same thing.

Same: Conforming in every way.

Since deists ARE theists, deists are also the same as theists. But I suppose I should have said something more along the lines of "Isn't that a bit redundant?"

There are many terms I could have added to that list. I could have said non-theist instead on atheist, that would have been more precise.

Given that non-theist generally covers atheists and some ignostics, and I've never heard of an agnostic ignostic, I think agnostic atheist is plenty precise.

I used the selective description of both to point out the fact that it's faulty to say that an agnostic theist is the same as an agnostic deist.

If I said it in that order, yes it would be faulty. I said it in the reverse order though, which is true. An agnostic deist is the same thing as an agnostic theist because an agnostic deist IS an agnostic theist. Maybe I should have put "is the same thing" in between the nouns to make that clearer....

That doesn't mean I don't know what a theist is, and since I can't help but assume that you already know that, I think this is an incredibly useless argument to be having

Maybe, and perhaps I could of worded it better, but I feel my statement is still technically true so I might as well defend my use of it.

[Lux]

Maybe, and perhaps I could of worded it better, but I feel my statement is still technically true so I might as well defend my use of it.

If I could go back to the past, I'd say "will become agnostic theists or agnostic non-theists". But my statement is also still techinally true

Maybe we could have both worded our statements better, and perhaps we could even stop scaring the normal people away from this thread

[ChaosBorders]

Maybe we could have both worded our statements better, and perhaps we could even stop scaring the normal people away from this thread

Psh, normal people who get scared away are just being cowards. lol

[Lux]

Psh, normal people who get scared away are just being cowards. lol

Totally. But if all the normal people went away there'd be so few of us left, and we'd be lonely

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.

While I, personally, would probably doubt Larry very soon, I observe that there are people much less inclined towards skepticism than me, and some of them are inclined towards genuine doubt.
Like I said, I do not know that anyone claims to believe and disbelieve simultaneously, they claim they're neither believing nor disbelieving. Just because that's not how you and I are soft-wired doesn't mean it does not happen.

[ChaosBorders]

Psh, normal people who get scared away are just being cowards. lol

Totally. But if all the normal people went away there'd be so few of us left, and we'd be lonely

Like anyone on this site is actually normal?

[Filthy Tugboat]

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.

While I, personally, would probably doubt Larry very soon, I observe that there are people much less inclined towards skepticism than me, and some of them are inclined towards genuine doubt.
Like I said, I do not know that anyone claims to believe and disbelieve simultaneously, they claim they're neither believing nor disbelieving. Just because that's not how you and I are soft-wired doesn't mean it does not happen.

If you claim to neither belive or disbelive a specific claim, you are effectively saying the same in reverse, you both accept and deny the claim as true and false. People can say all they want, that is not neccesarily a reflection of what they believe. So, if you both believe a God exists while simultaneously believe a that god doesn't exist then you are both a pure agnositc and totally confused. If you do not believe in a God then you are ahn atheist towards that God, if you do believe in a God then you are an atheist towards that God.

Regarding you previous comments about 'Non-theists' what does that mean. Are all non-theists atheists? If not, why not? If atheism is the non belief in God (which it is) then what is a non-theist, is that a form of atheism?