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?

[Lux]

People can say all they want, that is not neccesarily a reflection of what they believe.

I wouldn't claim to know better than them what they believe. That reminds me of people telling me that deep down under I know Yahweh exists but deny it due to some sort of agenda. It's borderline insulting to me when someone tells me that, so I wouldn't do it to agnostics.

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.

I don't understand, how can that be the same? "I believe and disbelieve at the same time" sounds nonsensical to me, whereas I think neither believing nor disbelieving is possible, albeit very rare.

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?

Non-theist is an umbrella term, it covers atheists, agnostic non-theists, apatheists, some (or perhaps most or all) ignostics... All atheists are non-theists, but not all non-theists are atheists.

[Goat]

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?

Like Frankenstein's brain in Young Frankenstein. They used Ab Normal's brain.

[Angel]

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.

We both agree here so far. As I mentioned before though, my points for maintaining pure agnosticism involves holding both belief and disbelief in God simultaneously rather what you describe which boils down to accepting just one or the other.

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.

I see no reason based on logic or science that shows that a person can't have conflicting beliefs or that it would mean their brain doesn’t work properly.

From a philosophical standpoint, there's no violation of logic because 'belief' is not on the same level of certainty and validity as logic or reason. You can also break down belief further when there are ‘degrees of belief’ which involves how much confidence or acceptance a person puts in a belief. A person who sees reasons/evidence from both sides and subsequently accepts some of the reasons from both sides (some times not by choice) may not necessarily put 100% confidence in either belief, but they still hold a belief in both sides to some degree. Now of course any rational person would not conclude that their contradictory beliefs are true in reality, but ‘believing’ something doesn't involve that level of certainty otherwise you’d be in a state of ‘knowing’. I believe in some of the end time prophecies mentioned in the Bible but I still accept that I may be wrong since I don’t know for sure that they will happen and also since prophecies made by many have been failed to occur or were too vague so believing in something does not have to mean that you believe it to be absolute truth but you may still accept it until you have proof that can settle that matter either way.

From a scientific standpoint, I also see no problem with having contradictory ideas, beliefs, feelings, behaviors, etc. One of the concepts that is based on having these contradictory factors simultaneously is accepted as one of the most prominent theories in psychology (cognitive dissonance theory). Scientists are trying to find ways to better evidence the phenomenon by trying to determine where in the brain it occurs, and one area is believed to be in the frontal lobe of the brain, more specifically the 'dorsal anterior cingulate cortex' as Dr. Vincent Van Veen suggests in an article in Nature. The link to this 6 page article is here. (The 1st page of the article covers much of what I'm saying so far. The rest of the article goes into the methods and experiments that are being done to detect which part of the brain is involved with our processing of inconsistent information.)

Here's another source I should mention...
Dr. Joel Cooper who wrote about cognitive dissonance theory and its founder (Leon Festinger) explains it as follows:
"One of the brilliant innovations of cognitive dissonance theory was its use of a relatively new concept called 'cognition'. A cognition is any 'piece of knowledge' a person may have. It can be knowledge of a behavior, knowledge of one's attitude, knowledge about the state of the world. Anything that can be thought about is grist for the dissonance mill.

The state of cognitive dissonance occurs when people believe that two of their psychological representations are inconsistent with each other. More formally, a pair of cognitions is inconsistent if one cognition follows from the obverse (opposite) of the other."

Source: Cognitive Dissonance: 50 Years of a Classic Theory by Dr. Joel M. Cooper, Pg. 6.
(You can read from this book on Amazon.com if you have an account and type in book name and use the "search inside this book" option until you get to pg. 6.)

[Angel]

The post before this one goes with this post...

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.

I wouldn't rule God completely out of the picture IF the Universe did not always exists. In order for something to exists, something would have to have always existed and God meets that criteria since He's always existed. I'm not saying that God is the only potential cause under the scenario of a finite Universe, but it is not void of all logic to consider. It also does not have to be the Christian God, all that's needed is that whatever God to have no cause or to always exist.

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.

It's not rational to dismiss something right off the bat just because you haven't experienced it or even if there was no evidence for it whatsoever. I do agree with you in part though; having evidence for both sides of an issue will not always get someone to believe in both sides, but it can, at times.

I mentioned some supporting reasons earlier in this response. Some times the conflict need not involve conflicting beliefs, it can a conflict between a belief and a behavior, or a conflict between wants and ideas, etc. Although, from my reading so far of Dr. Cooper's book I mentioned earlier, even our actions which conflict with a belief (lets call this belief A) of ours can be caused by another belief that we hold which conflicts with belief A. I don't believe that's always the case though, because some times people can just act contrary to their beliefs out of rebellion, peer-pressure, but nonetheless a conflicting belief is one cause, at times.

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.

For your questions and points towards the end of your comment, I simply would say that I did not know the 'better' option otherwise I would not have been as confused since I wanted the best for myself. I was at that point torn between what to do but I do agree with you in that later on, what was better did emerge eventually.

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?

I already mentioned some but keep in mind this can vary from person to person. One of my friends accepts the cosmological argument for God but when I question him about the 'problem of evil' argument, he has no good response. I don't fully accept the cosmological argument but I do accept as evidence, arguments for God based on religious/supernatural experiences and I also accept the problem of Evil, as well. That's just being honest with myself. That may not be convincing to you or that may not be what you'd consider as reasons for both sides but to me they are but I honestly still want to remain a Christian. I was also born and raised into Christianity so I'm sure that has much to do with it, esp. emotional attachment to it, but I'm one of those theist who will try to study the history, philosophy, and scientific aspects as it relates to my theistic beliefs.

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.

When I mentioned, "necessity of an uncaused cause" that's another way of saying that something would have to have always existed in order for there to be existence. Do you not agree with this statement, at least?

I also don't believe in the Creation account as provided in Genesis. As an Agnostic Christian I don't believe that all of the Bible is 100% factual or even intended to be taken literally. But I try to be careful to not just pick-and-choose or just call something to be taken symbolic just to avoid calling it an error. Whatever areas of the Bible that are clearly proven wrong, I call them as such, WRONG. I do accept other parts though, and not necessarily because they've been proven empirically but on a pragmatic truth sense lets say, practicing Christianity has worked in my life and doing some of the things it has instructed I've seen work successfully in my life.

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 only disagree with you if you're saying that is the case all the time. A position that have evidence for and against it would never get a person to accept both sides? When you say this is 'ESPECIALLY" true of belief in God's existence I'm led to bring up your lack of experience and you not being able to relate to what I'm saying since you as an atheist have never agreed with an argument for God's existence like I've agreed to some of the arguments that atheists use (for now at least).

As for your question/challenge, you may as well ask me what would convince YOU but again this isn't about you. Just because you don't accept the cosmological argument for God doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Just because you don't accept the reasons that I accept for and against God's existence doesn't mean that I don't.

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.

In that same comment of mine you're referring to, I also mentioned the 'existence of God' which presumed that only ONE God existed so disproving that God would mean NO god exists. I still don't agree with how some have used atheism in the way you've mentioned here and earlier but it's not an issue for me to argue over at this point.

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.

This all depends on the person's beliefs. If a person only believe that only ONE god exists and that God is all-good, then the problem of evil would disprove God's existence if the argument is valid. That would lead to a world with no God existing to that person's mind. As a Christian, no other god(s) exists other than the Christian God, so if you disprove that then I will become an atheist completely by my standards since i have NO reason to believe in any other God.

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 already gave examples as in my case, although I am not a pure agnostic. Your request is not reasonable to the topic of this thread neither because the conditions of your question is based on what it would take to convince YOU of both sides, while you don't factor in others may be convinced while you're not. This shouldn't be difficult to accept since we are talking about accepting things based on 'belief' and people believe all types of weird things, even so called 'rational' people.

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.

Well in some cases, theists and atheists won't leave proclaimed pure agnostics alone out of their own false security. Pure agnosticism is obviously a miniority and controversial position, and that alone may be a turn off for atheists and theists who for whatever motivation want more of an established/mainstream side to be on, whether it be at a University where atheism tends to be praised it seems to me, or at Church. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here picking on pure agnostics for that reason, certainly not you since you've offered me more than just saying, well you need to 'make up your mind or not be a fence-sitter'.

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 already mentioned reasons/evidences that some would accept, you disagreed with one of them. I pointed out why your request would not even be good because you'd judge it on what YOU"D accept, rather than considering that others may still accept it even if you don't.

Insanity is not necessary here, consider congitive dissonance which I'd say we all suffer from since we do things incompatible to what we really want to do, and on issues of God and other matters, some find themselves not necessarily doing something but rather 'accepting' both sides in their mind and not by choice necessarily.

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?

The point you mentioned before your question falls in line with the responses I've been giving you to your question. And it doesn't have to involve rationality but can involve 'belief'.

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?

I understand you're trying to get the question across clearly, and I understand and have answered it.

[Filthy Tugboat]

People can say all they want, that is not neccesarily a reflection of what they believe.

I wouldn't claim to know better than them what they believe. That reminds me of people telling me that deep down under I know Yahweh exists but deny it due to some sort of agenda. It's borderline insulting to me when someone tells me that, so I wouldn't do it to agnostics.

I'm not trying to tell people what they believe, I am merely trying to demonstrate that the things people say may not be a true reflection of what they believe and this can be affected by social pressure, family values, lack of knowledge and I'm sure many more factors.

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.

I don't understand, how can that be the same? "I believe and disbelieve at the same time" sounds nonsensical to me, whereas I think neither believing nor disbelieving is possible, albeit very rare.[/quote]

If you neither disbelieve nor believe a claim, is that not the same as saying you both believe and disbelieve. You remember maths when you add two negatives and they make a positive? Yeah, saying that you don't dibelieve is the same as saying you believe while saying that you don't belive is saying that you don't believe, 0 - 1 = -1, 0--1 =1 you've said you don't agree with one position and effectively said that you agree with that same position. I agree however, the position is nonsensical.

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?

Non-theist is an umbrella term, it covers atheists, agnostic non-theists, apatheists, some (or perhaps most or all) ignostics... All atheists are non-theists, but not all non-theists are atheists.[/quote]

That very well may be true but what is a nontheists, I can only determine that a non theist is someone who is not a theist, they accept no claims of a theistic worldview. However, that sounds exactly like atheists because that same criteria is used to judge if someone is an atheist.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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.

I wouldn't rule God completely out of the picture IF the Universe did not always exists. In order for something to exists, something would have to have always existed and God meets that criteria since He's always existed. I'm not saying that God is the only potential cause under the scenario of a finite Universe, but it is not void of all logic to consider. It also does not have to be the Christian God, all that's needed is that whatever God to have no cause or to always exist. [/quote]

I can't rule God out of the picture but that doesn't make belief in God reasonable. The Cosmological argument is reasonable but in no sense of logic can you determine that the first cause was the Judeo-Christian God. A god as in the proposed being which has NO evidence and is entirely illogical(if you consider the proposition of omnipotence and omniscience). Basically it is not only a jump to consider the cosmological argument means a god, it is a ridiculous(as in unbelievable) jump to believe the cosmoligcal argument supports 'your god'. Is the argument in support of theism? No it isn't, people just like to view it that way. So if you believe the cosmological argument can be held as well as the proposition of the problem of evil, then you may be right but you canmnot hold the two as reasonable with the Christian God due to the conflict between the two. If you do then I cannot understand your position and I would like someone to present a logical situation where the two can be combined. If you cannot show that such a combination is logical then why are you bothering to propose such an idea on a debating forum? You are supporting the position that all forms of belief are equal and ion a personal level they are, however, if you are trying to present something as if it is a logical or reasonable position yiou HAVE to show the reasoning and logic behind sucha postion. So far you are trying to tell me thay because I don't believe it and I have never followed theism I 'can't understand', that doesn't fly in a debate. You need to show your reasoning in a more objective fashion, rather than make it look as if my subjective reasoning is important in discrediting my position.

It's not rational to dismiss something right off the bat just because you haven't experienced it or even if there was no evidence for it whatsoever. I do agree with you in part though; having evidence for both sides of an issue will not always get someone to believe in both sides, but it can, at times.

How can it? I've asked you to provide reasons and you haven't. Believing in somethings existence is a much more definitive stance than believing in choices. If you believe something exists, how can you believe at the same time that thing doesn't exist? It defies logic to believe in both at the same time becauce they cannot both be true. You are literally defining confusion and then suggesting it is a reasonable and sane stance to take on a subject. How can you hold contradicting views on a subject as if they were both true? What views can be held? I've already demonstrated why the Cosmological argument ( a general argument for first cause that in no way suggests a God or any form of intelligence) and the argument of evil(an argument that immediately disqualifies any God proposing to have both the power to destroy evil and the will to destroy evil and still not destroying evil) cannot be held simultaneously in any sense of the Christian God.

I mentioned some supporting reasons earlier in this response. Some times the conflict need not involve conflicting beliefs, it can a conflict between a belief and a behavior, or a conflict between wants and ideas, etc. Although, from my reading so far of Dr. Cooper's book I mentioned earlier, even our actions which conflict with a belief (lets call this belief A) of ours can be caused by another belief that we hold which conflicts with belief A. I don't believe that's always the case though, because some times people can just act contrary to their beliefs out of rebellion, peer-pressure, but nonetheless a conflicting belief is one cause, at times.

A conflict between a desire(want) and a belief(idea) is not contradictory, They can exist together without being incompatible. I wish I could just win the lottery and cruise through life, I believe that that will not happen. There is no contradiction there. I really want to know how you can logically or even reasonably believe and not believe in a God simultaneously or believe reasons for both?

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.

For your questions and points towards the end of your comment, I simply would say that I did not know the 'better' option otherwise I would not have been as confused since I wanted the best for myself. I was at that point torn between what to do but I do agree with you in that later on, what was better did emerge eventually.

Yes, you were confused, do you understand why i am saying that 'pure agnosticism is a confusing position to take? That's confused about what choice to make, imagine how confused you would be if you believed a being that controlled your eternal life existed while simultaneously knowing he could not logically exist (argument from evil). The analogy is one that is comparable, but at the same time is considerably less definitive than existence vs. non-existence.

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?

I already mentioned some but keep in mind this can vary from person to person. One of my friends accepts the cosmological argument for God but when I question him about the 'problem of evil' argument, he has no good response. I don't fully accept the cosmological argument but I do accept as evidence, arguments for God based on religious/supernatural experiences and I also accept the problem of Evil, as well. That's just being honest with myself. That may not be convincing to you or that may not be what you'd consider as reasons for both sides but to me they are but I honestly still want to remain a Christian. I was also born and raised into Christianity so I'm sure that has much to do with it, esp. emotional attachment to it, but I'm one of those theist who will try to study the history, philosophy, and scientific aspects as it relates to my theistic beliefs.?

I'm not debating on personal preference, I want to know reasons and logic behind the choices, if a position cannot be explained by reason and logic then that leads me to conclude it is a position that is both unreasonable and illogical. The person you brang up appears to consult ignorance as his answer, he shy's away from questions that challenge his faith. How is this a logical position to take? This is not someone accepting both, this friend (presuming you have presented him accurately) is not being honest, he wants his belief to stay so he will ignore blatantly persuasive evidence that tells him that his God cannot exist in the light that the Bible shines. If your 'theory' cannot account for evidence and bltantly contradicts the evidence presented then it's perhaps time you seriously analyze the theory. This could either lead to a different theory, the same theory but improved and more accurate or abandonment of that theory. Ignoring evidence is not a logical position to take and it seems that is the light you shine on agnosticism, confusion.

When I mentioned, "necessity of an uncaused cause" that's another way of saying that something would have to have always existed in order for there to be existence. Do you not agree with this statement, at least?

I also don't believe in the Creation account as provided in Genesis. As an Agnostic Christian I don't believe that all of the Bible is 100% factual or even intended to be taken literally. But I try to be careful to not just pick-and-choose or just call something to be taken symbolic just to avoid calling it an error. Whatever areas of the Bible that are clearly proven wrong, I call them as such, WRONG. I do accept other parts though, and not necessarily because they've been proven empirically but on a pragmatic truth sense lets say, practicing Christianity has worked in my life and doing some of the things it has instructed I've seen work successfully in my life.

No, I do not agree with that statement, We know absolutely nothing outside of this universe we don't even know if there is something outside of this universe let alone what laws that thing follows. If something exists outside of this universe and just dor the sake of argument we call it God, we could never suggest it is 'an uncaused cause' and we certainly could not give such a being attributes.

I only disagree with you if you're saying that is the case all the time. A position that have evidence for and against it would never get a person to accept both sides? When you say this is 'ESPECIALLY" true of belief in God's existence I'm led to bring up your lack of experience and you not being able to relate to what I'm saying since you as an atheist have never agreed with an argument for God's existence like I've agreed to some of the arguments that atheists use (for now at least).

As for your question/challenge, you may as well ask me what would convince YOU but again this isn't about you. Just because you don't accept the cosmological argument for God doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Just because you don't accept the reasons that I accept for and against God's existence doesn't mean that I don't.

Again, this is not about subjective experience, be it mine or anothers, this is about holding a logical position that is neither atheistic nor theistic, can it be done? What logic and reasons allows someone to not believe in a God and simultaneously believe in a God. If atheism is the lack of belief in theistic claims and theism is the position that supports God then how can you be neither? The only room is simultaneous belief and I am yet to see a combination of reasons that can be held simultaneously with reasoned argument. I've already shown that the Cosmological argument (which is not an argument for theism) and the argument from evil contradict each other when discussing the Christian God and I'm yet to see a worldview that can be held with both of those arguments presented. I am after reasoned debate, not you suggesting some peoples subjective beliefs can be held simultaneously while being reasonable. Show me how it is logical, don't just tell me that they exist.

In that same comment of mine you're referring to, I also mentioned the 'existence of God' which presumed that only ONE God existed so disproving that God would mean NO god exists. I still don't agree with how some have used atheism in the way you've mentioned here and earlier but it's not an issue for me to argue over at this point.

Just because some people consider only one God to exist and that that Gos HAS to be their God does not make that claim hold wait. An argument for atheism has to work against all possible Gods, if it doesn't then each individual argument simply applies to the God(s) it works against.

This all depends on the person's beliefs. If a person only believe that only ONE god exists and that God is all-good, then the problem of evil would disprove God's existence if the argument is valid. That would lead to a world with no God existing to that person's mind. As a Christian, no other god(s) exists other than the Christian God, so if you disprove that then I will become an atheist completely by my standards since i have NO reason to believe in any other God.

You seem to hold the opinion that subjective experince holds weight over reality. Whether or not you believe in a God does not make that belief true or even credible. Just because you or I think that an argument works against certain claims people believe to hold absolute truth does not disqualify the possibility of Gods and by extention we cannot say that because of the argument of evil Gods do not exist. We don't know that and the existence of Gods is still possible. Argument for atheism has to remove every possible God for consideration. The problem of evil only applies to people that claim their God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

I already gave examples as in my case, although I am not a pure agnostic. Your request is not reasonable to the topic of this thread neither because the conditions of your question is based on what it would take to convince YOU of both sides, while you don't factor in others may be convinced while you're not. This shouldn't be difficult to accept since we are talking about accepting things based on 'belief' and people believe all types of weird things, even so called 'rational' people.

I am not asking for evidence that would convince me, I am asking for evidence that is supported with reason and logic. The examples you gave are incompatible (Christian God and the problem forom evil are incompatible) and inconclusive(Cosmological argument is not an argument for theism). So if pure agnosticism is possible then what beliefs or reasons/arguments for both sides can be held simultanously? If you don't know what any arguments are that allow for pure agnosticism, then why believe it is a reasonable or even logically permisable position to take?

Well in some cases, theists and atheists won't leave proclaimed pure agnostics alone out of their own false security. Pure agnosticism is obviously a miniority and controversial position, and that alone may be a turn off for atheists and theists who for whatever motivation want more of an established/mainstream side to be on, whether it be at a University where atheism tends to be praised it seems to me, or at Church. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here picking on pure agnostics for that reason, certainly not you since you've offered me more than just saying, well you need to 'make up your mind or not be a fence-sitter'.

My only problem with the stance is that I can see no logical possibility of it, in order to hold a belief in and hold a non-belief in anything one must be crazy. Seriously imagine believing your tv is real while simultaneously believing it isn't? Does that make any sense yto you? Now you can understand where I'm at. Examples relating to choices are very different to examples relating to existence. What you will tell me is that there is evidence for your TV(visual and hearing aids as well as social reinforcement), at which point I challenge the assertion of evidence for God, people seperate the two but the only way one can do that is to suggest that God has little to no evidence for it while a TV in your living room has lots.

I already mentioned reasons/evidences that some would accept, you disagreed with one of them. I pointed out why your request would not even be good because you'd judge it on what YOU"D accept, rather than considering that others may still accept it even if you don't.

Insanity is not necessary here, consider congitive dissonance which I'd say we all suffer from since we do things incompatible to what we really want to do, and on issues of God and other matters, some find themselves not necessarily doing something but rather 'accepting' both sides in their mind and not by choice necessarily.

I understand that you mentioned things that may exist, I want you to show that belief in both sides is logical or reasonable, the two you mentioned are logically incompatible or do not demonstrate such a belief to be reasonable (depending on how you look at the cosmological argument and which God you attribute it to). Again, the position may exist and 'insanity' my be a harsh term but can you demonstrate that the position is reasonable?

[Angel]

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.

I wouldn't rule God completely out of the picture IF the Universe did not always exists. In order for something to exists, something would have to have always existed and God meets that criteria since He's always existed. I'm not saying that God is the only potential cause under the scenario of a finite Universe, but it is not void of all logic to consider. It also does not have to be the Christian God, all that's needed is that whatever God to have no cause or to always exist.

I can't rule God out of the picture but that doesn't make belief in God reasonable.

I never claimed that belief or non-belief or disbelief in God is reasonable or unreasonable. My points have primarily focused on 'beliefs' (not 'reasonable' belief) and how to maintain pure agnosticism.

The Cosmological argument is reasonable but in no sense of logic can you determine that the first cause was the Judeo-Christian God. A god as in the proposed being which has NO evidence and is entirely illogical(if you consider the proposition of omnipotence and omniscience).

I've read some of the objections to omnipotence and omniscience, but I've yet to encounter any objection that shows those two to be illogical. Either way, this does not speak for pure agnosticism which is my focus here.

Basically it is not only a jump to consider the cosmological argument means a god, it is a ridiculous(as in unbelievable) jump to believe the cosmoligcal argument supports 'your god'. Is the argument in support of theism?

Many theists do consider the cosmological argument as a reasonable argument for God despite you claiming that it is illogical. So until you can prove it or change their belief, they will still hold it and pure agnostics will still accept that argument along with another contradictory argument still hold it as being reasonable or establish some belief based on it.

No it isn't, people just like to view it that way. So if you believe the cosmological argument can be held as well as the proposition of the problem of evil, then you may be right but you canmnot hold the two as reasonable with the Christian God due to the conflict between the two.

Under my scenario, which you haven't shown to be false, you can hold both simultaneously if a person accepts both of them. They don't even have to accept them as being reasonable.

If you do then I cannot understand your position and I would like someone to present a logical situation where the two can be combined.

It would be logically possible to hold both positions simultaneously but it would not be logical to use logic to say that both are correct. You can hold both simultaneously as a belief in a scenario where there's evidence for both sides that you accept. As I also mentioned before, you don't have to believe that something is absolutely true but you may still see some validity or truth in it that you accept. And from another angle you don't have to put 100% acceptance or confidence in a belief, which also means you don't accept it as absolute truth and you accept that it can be wrong which can leave the door open for you to also accept the opposing position depending on if you feel both sides are just as compelling.

If you cannot show that such a combination is logical then why are you bothering to propose such an idea on a debating forum?

I've explained how it is logical but not to say that the belief is logically valid but rather that the capability to have contradictory 'BELIEFS' is logically possible. You also left out the points I mentioned based from a scientific standpoint.

You are supporting the position that all forms of belief are equal and on a personal level they are, however, if you are trying to present something as if it is a logical or reasonable position yiou HAVE to show the reasoning and logic behind sucha postion.

Here you accept that a person can hold both sides simultaneously, and what you're leaving out is that a 'belief' can be held based on nothing more than personal reasons. You're unnecessarily requiring logical reasons and from there we would not be talking about 'belief' but would be in the realm of 'knowing'.

So far you are trying to tell me thay because I don't believe it and I have never followed theism I 'can't understand', that doesn't fly in a debate. You need to show your reasoning in a more objective fashion, rather than make it look as if my subjective reasoning is important in discrediting my position.

Now you are attempting to oversimplify my argument by using only one comment that I made and saying that's all my argument involves. What about all the other points I made? I explained how my position is logically possible for one reason being that we have the ability to do it and based on the what a belief is or involves, esp. when there's a scenario of evidence for both sides of an issue. I also pointed to science to support my position. The definition of 'objective' does not mean "being able to convince Filthy Tugboat." : )

It's not rational to dismiss something right off the bat just because you haven't experienced it or even if there was no evidence for it whatsoever. I do agree with you in part though; having evidence for both sides of an issue will not always get someone to believe in both sides, but it can, at times.

How can it? I've asked you to provide reasons and you haven't. Believing in somethings existence is a much more definitive stance than believing in choices. If you believe something exists, how can you believe at the same time that thing doesn't exist? It defies logic to believe in both at the same time becauce they cannot both be true.

A contradictory belief is a contradictory belief whether it be about God's existence or something that involves a choice. And what we choose oftentimes depends on our standards, beliefs, etc.

You are literally defining confusion and then suggesting it is a reasonable and sane stance to take on a subject. How can you hold contradicting views on a subject as if they were both true? What views can be held?

It can be confusion but my scenario from the very 1st post on this thread does not always involve that. It involves dealing with an issue where there's no conclusive proof for either way, and worse yet there's evidence for both sides which is also possible. I can understand this being confusion if there were clear cut answers or proof and yet the person was still believing that both sides are correct, but the person doesn't KNOW which side is correct so they're left with accepting evidence for one side or both sides and as long as they acknowledge that it's a BELIEF, or even a degree of belief or some belief in both sides, then there's no insanity or confusion at play here.

I mentioned some supporting reasons earlier in this response. Some times the conflict need not involve conflicting beliefs, it can a conflict between a belief and a behavior, or a conflict between wants and ideas, etc. Although, from my reading so far of Dr. Cooper's book I mentioned earlier, even our actions which conflict with a belief (lets call this belief A) of ours can be caused by another belief that we hold which conflicts with belief A. I don't believe that's always the case though, because some times people can just act contrary to their beliefs out of rebellion, peer-pressure, but nonetheless a conflicting belief is one cause, at times.

A conflict between a desire(want) and a belief(idea) is not contradictory, They can exist together without being incompatible. I wish I could just win the lottery and cruise through life, I believe that that will not happen. There is no contradiction there. I really want to know how you can logically or even reasonably believe and not believe in a God simultaneously or believe reasons for both?

Well they are not contradictory 'beliefs' since they are not both beliefs, but they are contradictory or incompatible when you look at the subject matter, i.e. winning the lottery and not winning the lottery. But either way, you've only mentioned ONE way that we can have conflicting states in our mind. From the sources I mentioned for 'cognitive dissonance thoery' it can also involve a conflict between feeling and belief, behavior and belief, behavior and feeling, and yes, between belief and belief.

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.

For your questions and points towards the end of your comment, I simply would say that I did not know the 'better' option otherwise I would not have been as confused since I wanted the best for myself. I was at that point torn between what to do but I do agree with you in that later on, what was better did emerge eventually.

Yes, you were confused, do you understand why i am saying that 'pure agnosticism is a confusing position to take? That's confused about what choice to make, imagine how confused you would be if you believed a being that controlled your eternal life existed while simultaneously knowing he could not logically exist (argument from evil). The analogy is one that is comparable, but at the same time is considerably less definitive than existence vs. non-existence.

Your point here sets a belief up against logic whereas my point is about a belief vs. belief. I accept the 'Problem of Evil' argument as a reason but not necessarily a logical proven one but I don't accept it as much as arguments from supernatural/religious experience and I've experienced supernatural things myself.

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?

I'm not a pure agnostic so I can not tell you what two contradictory arguments someone would accept. I will say though that it's an ability we have, even if I don't know of any pure agnostics who've used it and why.
One example I can offer, not to say that anyone holds it, but like in my case someone may accept the 'problem of evil' argument while also accepting religious experience. The person here doesn't accept either argument as conclusive but at least as being evidence, good points, but not conclusive proof.

I already mentioned some but keep in mind this can vary from person to person. One of my friends accepts the cosmological argument for God but when I question him about the 'problem of evil' argument, he has no good response. I don't fully accept the cosmological argument but I do accept as evidence, arguments for God based on religious/supernatural experiences and I also accept the problem of Evil, as well. That's just being honest with myself. That may not be convincing to you or that may not be what you'd consider as reasons for both sides but to me they are but I honestly still want to remain a Christian. I was also born and raised into Christianity so I'm sure that has much to do with it, esp. emotional attachment to it, but I'm one of those theist who will try to study the history, philosophy, and scientific aspects as it relates to my theistic beliefs.?

I'm not debating on personal preference, I want to know reasons and logic behind the choices, if a position cannot be explained by reason and logic then that leads me to conclude it is a position that is both unreasonable and illogical.

We are talking about 'beliefs'. The reasons behind someone's belief don't have to involve logic, evidence, or even anything with a basis in reality.

The person you brang up appears to consult ignorance as his answer, he shy's away from questions that challenge his faith. How is this a logical position to take? This is not someone accepting both, this friend (presuming you have presented him accurately) is not being honest, he wants his belief to stay so he will ignore blatantly persuasive evidence that tells him that his God cannot exist in the light that the Bible shines. If your 'theory' cannot account for evidence and bltantly contradicts the evidence presented then it's perhaps time you seriously analyze the theory. This could either lead to a different theory, the same theory but improved and more accurate or abandonment of that theory. Ignoring evidence is not a logical position to take and it seems that is the light you shine on agnosticism, confusion.

I personally don't know any agnostics who claim to be pure agnostics for the reasons I mentioned, I'm just saying it's possible to be one even if it's rare. I gave an example 2 responses ago (I mentioned religious experience and 'problem of evil').

I only disagree with you if you're saying that is the case all the time. A position that have evidence for and against it would never get a person to accept both sides? When you say this is 'ESPECIALLY" true of belief in God's existence I'm led to bring up your lack of experience and you not being able to relate to what I'm saying since you as an atheist have never agreed with an argument for God's existence like I've agreed to some of the arguments that atheists use (for now at least).

As for your question/challenge, you may as well ask me what would convince YOU but again this isn't about you. Just because you don't accept the cosmological argument for God doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Just because you don't accept the reasons that I accept for and against God's existence doesn't mean that I don't.

Again, this is not about subjective experience, be it mine or anothers, this is about holding a logical position that is neither atheistic nor theistic, can it be done? What logic and reasons allows someone to not believe in a God and simultaneously believe in a God. If atheism is the lack of belief in theistic claims and theism is the position that supports God then how can you be neither? The only room is simultaneous belief and I am yet to see a combination of reasons that can be held simultaneously with reasoned argument.

You've asked this question many times before in this thread, and I've already answered. By definition, to be an atheist you can ONLY disbelieve or have no belief in God's existence. In theism, you can ONLY believe that a god exists. My scenario involves someone simultaneously having some belief that God exists based on reasons and on the flip side they also have some belief that a God doesn't exists based on contrary reasons. This is about all I can add in addition to what I've previously answered for this same question.

I've already shown that the Cosmological argument (which is not an argument for theism) and the argument from evil contradict each other when discussing the Christian God and I'm yet to see a worldview that can be held with both of those arguments presented. I am after reasoned debate, not you suggesting some peoples subjective beliefs can be held simultaneously while being reasonable. Show me how it is logical, don't just tell me that they exist.

I gave an example a couple responses before this one (I mentioned religious experience and 'problem of evil'). I personally don't know of any pure agnostics who hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously but then again I don't know any 'positive atheists' neither.

In that same comment of mine you're referring to, I also mentioned the 'existence of God' which presumed that only ONE God existed so disproving that God would mean NO god exists. I still don't agree with how some have used atheism in the way you've mentioned here and earlier but it's not an issue for me to argue over at this point.

Just because some people consider only one God to exist and that that Gos HAS to be their God does not make that claim hold wait. An argument for atheism has to work against all possible Gods, if it doesn't then each individual argument simply applies to the God(s) it works against.

I agree with you. I'll rephrase to say an atheistic argument, or at least one that would make someone an atheist. That would mean that person believed that only one God existed, that God was then discredited, and now the person has no belief in any God existing.

This all depends on the person's beliefs. If a person only believe that only ONE god exists and that God is all-good, then the problem of evil would disprove God's existence if the argument is valid. That would lead to a world with no God existing to that person's mind. As a Christian, no other god(s) exists other than the Christian God, so if you disprove that then I will become an atheist completely by my standards since i have NO reason to believe in any other God.

You seem to hold the opinion that subjective experince holds weight over reality. Whether or not you believe in a God does not make that belief true or even credible. Just because you or I think that an argument works against certain claims people believe to hold absolute truth does not disqualify the possibility of Gods and by extention we cannot say that because of the argument of evil Gods do not exist. We don't know that and the existence of Gods is still possible. Argument for atheism has to remove every possible God for consideration. The problem of evil only applies to people that claim their God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

I answered this in my response before this one, but I rephrased to basically say an argument that leads someone to atheism if they accept that an argument against the existence of the one and only God they believe to exist.

I already gave examples as in my case, although I am not a pure agnostic. Your request is not reasonable to the topic of this thread neither because the conditions of your question is based on what it would take to convince YOU of both sides, while you don't factor in others may be convinced while you're not. This shouldn't be difficult to accept since we are talking about accepting things based on 'belief' and people believe all types of weird things, even so called 'rational' people.

I am not asking for evidence that would convince me, I am asking for evidence that is supported with reason and logic. The examples you gave are incompatible (Christian God and the problem forom evil are incompatible) and inconclusive(Cosmological argument is not an argument for theism). So if pure agnosticism is possible then what beliefs or reasons/arguments for both sides can be held simultanously? If you don't know what any arguments are that allow for pure agnosticism, then why believe it is a reasonable or even logically permisable position to take?

If we are talking about 'belief' the reasons behind that belief do not have to be supported by reason or logic. I gave an example of what two contradictory beliefs a pure agnostic may hold a few responses ago (regarding religous experience and problem of evil).

Well in some cases, theists and atheists won't leave proclaimed pure agnostics alone out of their own false security. Pure agnosticism is obviously a miniority and controversial position, and that alone may be a turn off for atheists and theists who for whatever motivation want more of an established/mainstream side to be on, whether it be at a University where atheism tends to be praised it seems to me, or at Church. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here picking on pure agnostics for that reason, certainly not you since you've offered me more than just saying, well you need to 'make up your mind or not be a fence-sitter'.

My only problem with the stance is that I can see no logical possibility of it, in order to hold a belief in and hold a non-belief in anything one must be crazy.

Not if no one knows the answer either way, but yet finds good reasons for both sides.

Seriously imagine believing your tv is real while simultaneously believing it isn't? Does that make any sense yto you? Now you can understand where I'm at.

Big difference between my scenario on God's existence/non-existence and your tv example. I can at least prove that a tv exists, but the issue of God is not easily asessable and it seems no one KNOWS either way.

Examples relating to choices are very different to examples relating to existence.

And what we choose oftentimes depends on our standards, beliefs, etc. I've already answered this question in more detail towards the beginning of this post when I mentioned all the ways humans can exhibit contradictions (between two beliefs, between belief and behavior, between feeling and belief, etc.)

What you will tell me is that there is evidence for your TV(visual and hearing aids as well as social reinforcement), at which point I challenge the assertion of evidence for God, people seperate the two but the only way one can do that is to suggest that God has little to no evidence for it while a TV in your living room has lots.

Yes, there is a difference in evidence and also what it would take to prove both would be much more different. God is also not easily assessable as a tv in your living room, even a person who believes in God would likely tell you that. This is why I don't consider your example about the tv as being on par with my example about God's existence and how that issue could be harder for a person to decide on.

I already mentioned reasons/evidences that some would accept, you disagreed with one of them. I pointed out why your request would not even be good because you'd judge it on what YOU"D accept, rather than considering that others may still accept it even if you don't.

Insanity is not necessary here, consider congitive dissonance which I'd say we all suffer from since we do things incompatible to what we really want to do, and on issues of God and other matters, some find themselves not necessarily doing something but rather 'accepting' both sides in their mind and not by choice necessarily.

I understand that you mentioned things that may exist, I want you to show that belief in both sides is logical or reasonable, the two you mentioned are logically incompatible or do not demonstrate such a belief to be reasonable (depending on how you look at the cosmological argument and which God you attribute it to). Again, the position may exist and 'insanity' my be a harsh term but can you demonstrate that the position is reasonable?

A few responses ago, I already gave an example of what two contradictory beliefs a pure agnostic may hold (regarding religious experience and problem of evil).

[Filthy Tugboat]

Under my scenario, which you haven't shown to be false, you can hold both simultaneously if a person accepts both of them. They don't even have to accept them as being reasonable.

Here is where we are arguing for different points. I was under the belief that you were suggesting pure agnosticism was rational. My whole argument has been that as a stance it would be irational but still possible.