Agnosticism and A/theism

This is my point, though. Neil did not define himself as an agnostic atheist, he definied himself as an agnostic. His video is about people defining himself as an atheist, even though he states that's not the case. The ensuing conversation is about him being an atheist even though he doesnt consider himself as one.

Right, he defined his terms, which lets us understand his views which is fine for that video.

What I did was make my case for what I think the accepted definitions should be, and why I think they should be the accepted definitions.

I make it really simple: if you believe in at least one deity - no matter what the reason - you are a theist. Anyone else is an atheist.

If you believe you have knowledge of the existence/non-existence of a deity you are a gnostic.

If you believe you don't have knowledge of the existence/non-existence of a deity you are an agnostic.

These definitions are simple and convey useful information. Two continuums which provide four options that help us understand the person's position.

I argue that getting rid of gnosticsm and putting atheism - agnosticsm - theism on the same continuum you lose a whole bunch of utility to the definitions. You also reduce the "atheist" category to a tiny percentage of people. Further, you need to come up with new terms to make up for the reduced utility of the other terms. No longer can a theist who doesn't claim to know there is a god call themselves an agnostic theist. They'll either have to come up with a new term or they'll just have to spell it out. We have the downside of losing the (a)gnostic dichotomy. And we have simply the inelegance of merging terms with different roots onto the same continuum.
 
I'm an advocate of letting people self-identify however they want, but NDT is still an atheist by my definition.

The OP of this thread, however, is not.
 
I think many philosophers would disagree with you. Nevertheless, I don't see how not believing in something is a belief system in any meaningful way. That means I have a belief system for everything I don't believe in. And then I have a belief system for things I've never even heard of, since I don't believe in them either.

~~ Paul
That's saiko's point; there isn't. So it's a belief system. Simply saying I dont believe in any gods is the same as saying I believe there are no gods.

No exactly. The statement "I don't believe in any gods" may have various meanings. The corresponding question becomes " Do you believe there are no gods?" An atheist say yes, and agnostic says no. NB - We are of course assuming that people are being open and honest with their answers.
 
I think many philosophers would disagree with you. Nevertheless, I don't see how not believing in something is a belief system in any meaningful way. That means I have a belief system for everything I don't believe in. And then I have a belief system for things I've never even heard of, since I don't believe in them either.

~~ Paul
Not believing in something is of course based on beliefs. Do you really think that "lack of belief" in something exists in a vacuum? Of course, even if you do think that, such thinking would also be an expression of beliefs. Everything humans think and do is based on beliefs.

However - if you don't believe that any deities exist and you also don't believe that no deities exist you'd be an agnostic. And that too is a belief.
Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown

Try as you might it all comes back to beliefs.
 
Not believing in something is of course based on beliefs. Do you really think that "lack of belief" in something exists in a vacuum? Of course, even if you do think that, such thinking would also be an expression of beliefs. Everything humans think and do is based on beliefs.

Saiko: what is your answer to the question I posed above: Do you believe there are an even number of stars in the universe?

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown

Right - but I can believe something without knowing it is true and I can lack a belief in something without knowing that it is not true. These are separate concepts. How does it add clarity in merging them onto one continuum?
 
Saiko: what is your answer to the question I posed above: Do you believe there are an even number of stars in the universe?

I don't believe or not believe. There may be, there may not be. I have no opinion about it.

Right - but I can believe something without knowing it is true and I can lack a belief in something without knowing that it is not true. These are separate concepts.
The true/not true part is both irrelevant and an attempt at obfuscation. Maybe an unintentional one. Your statement comes down to "One can have a belief without "knowing" if it's true." Which - on the levels we're discussing - is obvious.

BTW the point you're missing is that no one "lacks a belief" -they simply have different beliefs.
 
But I believe that the whole point behind what the OP was trying to say is that agnosticism should not be considered synomous with atheism. Neil DeGrasse Tyson made a video about the question of whether or not he was an atheist ( since he's pretty highly regarded in the New Atheist movement ( especially amongst redditors)). He explained in the video that he would define himself as a strict agnostic, not as an atheist, and that people should stop characterizing him as an atheist. The ensuing conversation among atheists was how Neil was actually defined as an atheist ( because he considers himself agnostic), so he's an atheist.

I believe this is the point the OP was trying to make. There are agnostics who give weight to both sides of the argument ( fence-sitters ), and just don't know the answer.

The video of Neil DeGrasse Tyson that you're referring to is here:

The reason he labels himself an agnostic is because weak atheists (those with claim an absence of belief in gods) are often inconsistent. His explanation has some merit because I myself have encountered many weak atheists who SAY they're neutral but yet they tend to align with gnostic/positive (god does not exist) atheists in debates. I suppose it's only by reputation of being more open-minded that agnostics aren't looked at the same way as weak atheists eventhough both tend to claim to have no beliefs. In other words, agnostics are seen as being more of a fence-sitter or at least being equally skeptical of both sides, rather than being in favor abolishing God/religion or vice-versa.

My view in the opening post tackles this issue from another angle. Rather than the behavior of weak atheists I focus on how beliefs aren't always binary - either you believe or you don't. I'll elaborate further by responding to another poster's point.
 
I don't believe or not believe. There may be, there may not be. I have no opinion about it.

You have no opinion which means you don't have a belief. You have no belief that there is an even number of stars in the universe. But as you note, you also have no belief that there are not and even number of stars in the universe. That's my point. Not believing something simply means you don't believe it. It doesn't necessarily mean that you believe it to be false.

The true/not true part is both irrelevant and an attempt at obfuscation. Maybe an unintentional one. Your statement comes down to "One can have a belief without "knowing" if it's true." Which - on the levels we're discussing - is obvious.

Right, but the way you are defining these words, you want to not let them describe that situation. We have 4 scenarios:

Belief with knowledge
Belief without knowledge
Non-belief with knowledge
Non-belief without knowlege

My definitions cover all those categories. Yours don't. My way allows for more effective communication, imo.

BTW the point you're missing is that no one "lacks a belief" -they simply have different beliefs.

Of course people lack beliefs They lack belief in anything they don't already believe in. I have no belief that you ate a peanut butter sandwich today. But I don't think you'd suggest that I therefore believe you didn't eat a peanut butter sandwich today.
 
Right, he defined his terms, which lets us understand his views which is fine for that video.
I make it really simple: if you believe in at least one deity - no matter what the reason - you are a theist. Anyone else is an atheist.

I disagree with your point here and my opening post explains why in the Pure Agnosticism section. Someone with contradictory beliefs, having some belief that God exist and a second belief that God doesn't exist, would not fit the atheist label because atheism involves ONLY disbelief. The person would not even fit the 'weak atheism' label because the person has beliefs, albeit contradictory beliefs. If you apply the same logic in my statements you can see why the person would also not be a theist. In short, your definitions are simplistic whereas belief-forming is not always all that simple.

Another scenario can involve someone not knowing what to believe or what they believe if they can't make up their mind. Can the person truly say that they believe in God when they have lingering doubts or are easily swayed to the other side or between the two sides? That can be caused by having a lack of strong commitment or confidence in your beliefs. Is it worth being on a side and joining the debate when you don't feel fully committed or you feel unstable? I'd say no.
 
I disagree with your point here and my opening post explains why in the Pure Agnosticism section. Someone with contradictory beliefs, having some belief that God exist and a second belief that God doesn't exist, would not fit the atheist label because atheism involves ONLY disbelief.

I'm not sure what you really mean is have some belief that a god exists and some belief that one doesn't. I think what you really mean is that you can assess the arguments in favour of both and see the strengths and weaknesses. But I don't think you can both believe and not believe. I think belief involves crossing a threshold. You can have stronger beliefs and weaker beliefs, but they are all across the threshold of belief. You might go back and forth between believing and not believing though.

Another scenario can involve someone not knowing what to believe or what they believe if they can't make up their mind. Can the person truly say that they believe in God when they have lingering doubts or are easily swayed to the other side or between the two sides? That can be caused by having a lack of strong commitment or confidence in your beliefs. Is it worth being on a side and joining the debate when you don't feel fully committed or you feel unstable? I'd say no.

Whether you feel it is worth it to join a debate when you have uncertainty is not related to the brute status of your belief of lack thereof. Having doubts about one's beliefs are a separate question from the belief itself. Doubts can push one from belief to non-belief or vice versa. There is nothing that says one can't vacilate between belief and non-belief.

I think what you're doing is merging concepts together that don't need to be merged. We're losing the utility of these words which will result in less clarity in expressing one's position.

It is more useful to be able to say, imo, something like "I don't believe in any deities but I see some of the arguments in favour and I could become convinced." Or, "I believe in god but I'm having trouble with the evidence and think I might be losing that belief."

Under your definitions what would you call the person who says they believe in God but don't know that God exists? What would you call the person who says I don't believe in any gods but I don't think I can ever know that there are no gods? For me, I call them Agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. What do you call them?
 
I disagree with your point here and my opening post explains why in the Pure Agnosticism section. Someone with contradictory beliefs, having some belief that God exist and a second belief that God doesn't exist, would not fit the atheist label because atheism involves ONLY disbelief. The person would not even fit the 'weak atheism' label because the person has beliefs, albeit contradictory beliefs. If you apply the same logic in my statements you can see why the person would also not be a theist. In short, your definitions are simplistic whereas belief-forming is not always all that simple.

Another scenario can involve someone not knowing what to believe or what they believe if they can't make up their mind. Can the person truly say that they believe in God when they have lingering doubts or are easily swayed to the other side or between the two sides? That can be caused by having a lack of strong commitment or confidence in your beliefs. Is it worth being on a side and joining the debate when you don't feel fully committed or you feel unstable? I'd say no.

I agree with your overall sentiment, with the exception of this point:

atheism involves ONLY disbelief.

A lack of belief really isn't the same thing as disbelief. I do disbelieve in a personal, intervening, all-powerful, all-loving god that sends people to hell, for example, but I'm very agnostic about the god of deism.
 
But I don't think you can both believe and not believe. I think belief involves crossing a threshold. You can have stronger beliefs and weaker beliefs, but they are all across the threshold of belief. You might go back and forth between believing and not believing though.

Ok, but where do you draw the line between having a "very strong suspicion" and a belief? Or if the fluctuation between belief and not only depends on which way you look at something?
I see where you're going and what you mean, I think, but I also think it's fair to say that it's possible to kind of believe, and kind of not believe, basically at the same time. I feel that way about some of my childhood memories, for example.
 
I agree with your overall sentiment, with the exception of this point:



A lack of belief really isn't the same thing as disbelief. I do disbelieve in a personal, intervening, all-powerful, all-loving god that sends people to hell, for example, but I'm very agnostic about the god of deism.

In reference to my previous post, post #30, I forgot to emphasize the type of atheism I was referring to when I said it involves ONLY disbelief. In the next sentence after that point, I emphasized the type of atheism that involves lack of belief, i.e. 'weak atheism'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kay
Ok, but where do you draw the line between having a "very strong suspicion" and a belief? Or if the fluctuation between belief and not only depends on which way you look at something?
I see where you're going and what you mean, I think, but I also think it's fair to say that it's possible to kind of believe, and kind of not believe, basically at the same time. I feel that way about some of my childhood memories, for example.

I think that you can only figure out whether you believe something by reflecting on it. In many situations one might be on the threshold of belief/non-belief. This is easily expressed just like that.

We need to remember that the purpose of these words are to help us convey meaning. The threshold cases are easily expressed by explaining one in on the threshold.
 
I'm not sure what you really mean is have some belief that a god exists and some belief that one doesn't.
I'm referring to a person who holds two beliefs that contradict each other. One belief entails God existing and the other belief entails God not existing. These type of beliefs can arise unconsciously or consciously. One way contradictory beliefs can occur is if a person sees evidence/validity for two opposing sides, and ends up having some acceptance (belief) for both sides. In this case, the person wouldn't know which belief is ultimately true. Another point is that people can have MANY beliefs, and to think that all of them will naturally fall into place, in terms of coherency/consistency, both implicitly and explicitly is unreasonable. One weak atheist I debated with did not realize that having a belief in naturalism led to God not existing which contradicted his belief that he was a weak atheist with NO assertions about God. So another way for contradictory beliefs to occur is by our own ignorance of or about our beliefs. Keep in mind, atheists have no problems claiming that Christians believe in contradictory notions, like the Trinity, for instance. There are some philosophical discussions on how to explain contradictory beliefs, like psychological partioning or compartementalization, or cognitive dissonance or ambivalence. For now, I think my examples will do.
I think what you really mean is that you can assess the arguments in favour of both and see the strengths and weaknesses. But I don't think you can both believe and not believe. I think belief involves crossing a threshold. You can have stronger beliefs and weaker beliefs, but they are all across the threshold of belief. You might go back and forth between believing and not believing though.
My experience with contradictory beliefs, which I discovered through introspection, does not involve believing and not believing. That would be self-defeating since having no belief would change as soon as you adopt a belief. My view involves TWO beliefs that go against each other. I believe there's validity to both of them but I don't know which is true in reality.
Whether you feel it is worth it to join a debate when you have uncertainty is not related to the brute status of your belief of lack thereof. Having doubts about one's beliefs are a separate question from the belief itself. Doubts can push one from belief to non-belief or vice versa. There is nothing that says one can't vacilate between belief and non-belief.
What you say is true in that it can happen but what I'm explaining can happen at other times, as well. Belief requires accepting something as true but if you have lingering doubts or switching back and forth about that something then I'd question if you really accept it to begin with or are you just pretending. To tell a person that what currently accept (or what they think they do) is what they really believe under that scenario (doubts, conflicting thoughts/feelings, shifting back and forth) can lead to overlooking denial (cover-up beliefs, if you like), self-deception, etc. If a woman stays in an abusive relationship, does it mean that she really believes that the abuser loves her and will change or is she just using that to cover up something else that she knows to be true?
I think what you're doing is merging concepts together that don't need to be merged. We're losing the utility of these words which will result in less clarity in expressing one's position.
It is more useful to be able to say, imo, something like "I don't believe in any deities but I see some of the arguments in favour and I could become convinced." Or, "I believe in god but I'm having trouble with the evidence and think I might be losing that belief."
Under your definitions what would you call the person who says they believe in God but don't know that God exists? What would you call the person who says I don't believe in any gods but I don't think I can ever know that there are no gods? For me, I call them Agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. What do you call them?
I accept the terms agnostic theist and agnostic atheist but pure agnostic is another option.
 
Last edited:
One way contradictory beliefs can occur is if a person sees evidence/validity for two opposing sides, and ends up having some acceptance (belief) for both sides. In this case, the person wouldn't know which belief is ultimately true.

Again, I think you're mixing together the belief that there are arguments for and against a concept with the belief in the concept itself. Having the belief without knowledge that it is true is not a contradiction. Its the essence of the agnostic theist position.

Another point is that people can have MANY beliefs, and to think that all of them will naturally fall into place, in terms of coherency/consistency, both implicitly and explicitly is unreasonable.

I don't hold that. I do hold that one cannot both believe and disbelieve in a single thing though. I either believe in a deity or I lack a belief in a deity. I might switch back and forth between the two, but I don't both believe and disbelieve at the same time.

One weak atheist I debated with did not realize that having a belief in naturalism led to God not existing which contradicted his belief that he was a weak atheist with NO assertions about God. So another way for contradictory beliefs to occur is by our own ignorance of or about our beliefs.

I can't really comment on that discussion as I haven't seen it. But again, I'm talking about the belief or lack of belief in a single concept, not contradictions between different concepts.

My experience with contradictory beliefs, which I discovered through introspection, does not involve believing and not believing. That would be self-defeating since having no belief would change as soon as you adopt a belief. My view involves TWO beliefs that go against each other. I believe there's validity to both of them but I don't know which is true in reality.

But the believe in a deity/not believe in a deity does not involve two beliefs. It involves either side of a coin on a single belief. That's the nature of the dichotomy. 100% of the population fall under the atheist/theist divide.

What you say is true in that it can happen but what I'm explaining can happen at other times, as well. Belief requires accepting something as true but if you have lingering doubts or switching back and forth about that something then I'd question if you really accept it to begin with or are you just pretending.

We can only figure out what our beliefs are through reflection. We can pretend we don't have certain beliefs in what we say to others, and maybe even in some internal dialogue but our expression of our beliefs is different from our actual beliefs.

To tell a person that they currently accept is what they really believe under that scenario (doubts, conflicting thoughts/feelings, shifting back and forth) can lead to overlooking denial (cover-up beliefs, if you like), self-deception, etc. If a woman stays in an abusive relationship, does it mean that she really believes that the abuser loves her and will change or is she just using that to cover up something else that she knows to be true?

You're talking about telling people what they believe or guessing about what they believe. We've been talking about how to categorise beliefs more generally.

I accept the terms agnostic theist and agnostic atheist but pure agnostic is another option.

Given that the 4 options cover 100% of the population where does the "pure agnostic" fit in?
 
Again, I think you're mixing together the belief that there are arguments for and against a concept with the belief in the concept itself. Having the belief without knowledge that it is true is not a contradiction. Its the essence of the agnostic theist position.

Can you show me where in my statements have I confused accepting that there can be arguments for and against a concept with accepting the arguments for and against a concept? To be honest, you really shouldn’t be going by what YOU think my view is when I’m telling you exactly what my view is. The last time I checked with myself, I remember my view involving a scenario where a person sees some merit to BOTH sides or ACCEPTING that both sides (arguments for and against) have some truth to them.

I don't hold that. I do hold that one cannot both believe and disbelieve in a single thing though. I either believe in a deity or I lack a belief in a deity. I might switch back and forth between the two, but I don't both believe and disbelieve at the same time.

Let me make few points that may help to clarify because I really don’t see you offering any reasons beyond your belief and limited experience. First off, my view does not involve accepting both beliefs with 100% conviction but rather it involves accepting that both sides have some truth while the ultimate truth is unknown. I doubt that it’s possible for someone to know that their contradictory beliefs can’t be true and then that person goes on to have full acceptance of each belief – again that’s not what my view involves. Secondly, while the two beliefs that contradict each other may be based on one issue, i.e. God, but they are still derived from different reasons/evidence. If you accept (or believe) that there can be evidence for and against an issue, then I fail to see why you assume that someone would simply or always just accept one side DESPITE accepting that there’s evidence for both sides. At best, contradictory beliefs would usually create tension but I see no basis for saying that it’s impossible under all circumstances. Lastly, you keep interchanging belief and absence or lack of belief so I don’t know which understanding of my view that you have. My view involves the contradiction being between two BELIEFS and not being between belief and non-belief.

I can't really comment on that discussion as I haven't seen it. But again, I'm talking about the belief or lack of belief in a single concept, not contradictions between different concepts.

Again, we are discussing my view so I fail to see how talking about something that is not part of my view will help explain how my view is wrong. My view does not involve having a belief and lack or absence of belief. Also, my view has not been about having contradictory beliefs on different issues. A contradiction would have to be centered on one issue anyways.

In reference to how I exposed a contradiction in one weak atheist, you say that you didn’t see the conversation. Do you really have to see the conversation to understand that a ‘weak atheist’ who accepts naturalism but doesn't realize its full implications can unknowingly have contradictory views if they say they have no view on Gods (weak atheism supposedly involves no belief in God)? Naturalism outrules the existence of all or most Gods in other words so for a weak atheist to accept that while also accepting that they have no claims about God's existence is a contradiction.

But the believe in a deity/not believe in a deity does not involve two beliefs. It involves either side of a coin on a single belief. That's the nature of the dichotomy. 100% of the population fall under the atheist/theist divide.

Again, this is not part of my view and now I’m beginning to see why you don’t fully understand my position. Believing that God exists is a belief. Believing that God does not exist is a belief. There can be reasons to support both beliefs. What you’re referring to is different than my point because it involves a belief and a ABSENCE or lack of belief. We are in agreement in that ABSENCE of belief is not a belief but I disagree with you when you try to attribute ABSENCE of belief to my view.

We can only figure out what our beliefs are through reflection. We can pretend we don't have certain beliefs in what we say to others, and maybe even in some internal dialogue but our expression of our beliefs is different from our actual beliefs.

Yes, we can know what we believe through reflection but I’d specify that that’s not always a quick and easy task. Feelings may get in the way, there may be denial, self-deception, etc. A superficial and quick reflection (as opposed to deep and honest reflection) may not bring these things to light. Ideally, an agnostic, or any intellectually-honest person, will take whatever time they need to make sure they get to know themselves and what they really believe before just jumping on a side.

You're talking about telling people what they believe or guessing about what they believe. We've been talking about how to categorise beliefs more generally.

My discussion with you started from your claim that someone can only be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist and not just an agnostic. I’m in part going into my experience and experiences of some other agnostics to explain to you how someone can be an agnostic without fitting the atheist and theist label.

Given that the 4 options cover 100% of the population where does the "pure agnostic" fit in?

These labels: Gnostic atheism, Agnostic atheism, Gnostic theism, and agnostic theism? None of these fit me so I reject them all. Based on past experience, I anticipate that some will still try to paint me as being on one side or another. I believe people have and will continue to notice that there are some differences between agnostics and atheists if they look at the two in practice (how they think and draw conclusions, etc). My views tend to be more moderate, I tend to be a gray thinker and come up with alternative explanations, and all this probably stems from my tendency to not see one side as being absolutely right or wrong. This type of thinking and views usually don’t fit in well with your typical atheist and theist, esp. with those that are strongly committed to their mainstream views/philosophies which seems to be MOST when you see them in action in debates.
 
A lot to unpack there! I'm going to break it up into two posts (edit- nope three posts!) because I've exceeded the character count.

Can you show me where in my statements have I confused accepting that there can be arguments for and against a concept with accepting the arguments for and against a concept? To be honest, you really shouldn’t be going by what YOU think my view is when I’m telling you exactly what my view is. The last time I checked with myself, I remember my view involving a scenario where a person sees some merit to BOTH sides or ACCEPTING that both sides (arguments for and against) have some truth to them.

I didn't mean to offend and I tried to frame it in a way that indicated that I wasn't sure that's what you were getting at but that I was suggesting it. Honestly though, as you ellaborate on it here, I think you're still making the same mix up. I'll try and clarify:

When I hear you say: "I remember my view involving a scenario where a person sees some merit to BOTH sides or ACCEPTING that both sides (arguments for and against) have some truth to them." I understand that as someone seeing pros and cons to both sides of an argument. What I'm suggesting though, is that at any given time, while there may be some doubts, the person still will fall on one side of the threshold of belief in that argument.

That is: a person can see merit to various atheistic and theistic arguments. The person may not feel comfortable in their current position. Their belief in a deity or lack thereof may volley back and forth as they contemplate the various arguments for and against. But my argument is that at any given time, that person will either have a belief in a deity, or lack one. At any given time they will be somewhere on the continuum from completely rejecting the god hypothesis to completely accepting the god hypothesis. They may spend some time around the zero mark, alternating between following below 0 (lacking belief in a deity) to above 0 (believing in a deity).

I'm separating the belief that an argument has merit from the belief in the object of the argument. That is, I can currently believe in a deity but recognise the strenghth in some of the atheistic arguments. Or I can not believe in a deity currently but recognise the force of some theistic arguments. My belief in the strength or weakness of the various arguments for or against a deity is different from my current belief or lack thereof of that deity. Do you see what I'm getting at? They are are separate beliefs.

First off, my view does not involve accepting both beliefs with 100% conviction but rather it involves accepting that both sides have some truth while the ultimate truth is unknown.

I'm trying to understand what you mean here. When you say "both sides have some truth" are you saying something different from "both sides have some arguments that are strong or compelling?"

I doubt that it’s possible for someone to know that their contradictory beliefs can’t be true and then that person goes on to have full acceptance of each belief – again that’s not what my view involves.

To be clear, as I referred to above, I see it as a continuum from full acceptance or rejection on either extreme, with more doubt-filled positions centred around the 0 mark.

Secondly, while the two beliefs that contradict each other may be based on one issue, i.e. God, but they are still derived from different reasons/evidence. If you accept (or believe) that there can be evidence for and against an issue, then I fail to see why you assume that someone would simply or always just accept one side DESPITE accepting that there’s evidence for both sides.

I'm simply saying that at any given time they are somewhere on the continuum from complete lack of belief to complete acceptance. But they will fall at any given time on one side of 0 or the other. 0 is the threshold from lack of belief to belief.
 
At best, contradictory beliefs would usually create tension but I see no basis for saying that it’s impossible under all circumstances. Lastly, you keep interchanging belief and absence or lack of belief so I don’t know which understanding of my view that you have. My view involves the contradiction being between two BELIEFS and not being between belief and non-belief.

Each belief has its own continuum. I thought we were talking about the atheism/theism continuum. Two sides of the same coin, on the same continuum. I thought you were placing agnosticism on that continuum as a third category but on the same line.

In reference to how I exposed a contradiction in one weak atheist, you say that you didn’t see the conversation. Do you really have to see the conversation to understand that a ‘weak atheist’ who accepts naturalism but doesn't realize its full implications can unknowingly have contradictory views if they say they have no view on Gods (weak atheism supposedly involves no belief in God)? Naturalism outrules the existence of all or most Gods in other words so for a weak atheist to accept that while also accepting that they have no claims about God's existence is a contradiction.

I'm sure its possible that the person could have a contradictory view. People have contradictory views all the time. But again, your OP is about the belief or lack of it in a deity. That's the only thing I've been focussing on here and what I thought you were talking about in your OP.

Again, this is not part of my view and now I’m beginning to see why you don’t fully understand my position. Believing that God exists is a belief. Believing that God does not exist is a belief. There can be reasons to support both beliefs. What you’re referring to is different than my point because it involves a belief and a ABSENCE or lack of belief. We are in agreement in that ABSENCE of belief is not a belief but I disagree with you when you try to attribute ABSENCE of belief to my view.

I don't think I tried to categorise your particular belief. I was talking about your definitions.

Yes, we can know what we believe through reflection but I’d specify that that’s not always a quick and easy task. Feelings may get in the way, there may be denial, self-deception, etc. A superficial and quick reflection (as opposed to deep and honest reflection) may not bring these things to light. Ideally, an agnostic, or any intellectually-honest person, will take whatever time they need to make sure they get to know themselves and what they really believe before just jumping on a side.

It may be an objectively better thing to really deeply reflect on one's beliefs (I certainly try to do that) - but that's a separate issue from the belief itself. We've been talking about categories and definitions, not how to best reflect on beliefs. That's a different topic.

My discussion with you started from your claim that someone can only be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist and not just an agnostic. I’m in part going into my experience and experiences of some other agnostics to explain to you how someone can be an agnostic without fitting the atheist and theist label.

Under my definition the joint category of atheist/theist encompases 100% of the population. On that definition every agnostic must by definition fall within one of those two categories. You are arguing, I think, for a different defintion of atheist and theist but as I've argued above I think your definitions make it more difficult for people to communicate about their position and therefore is a less effective definition. If you are defining agnostic as a third designation in between atheist and theist then you can have agnostics that are neither atheists or theists. But you also seem to agree that there are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists which would suggest they are not part of the athest/theist continuum but rather crossect with them. This, IMO, leads to confusion and therefore why I am not advocating using your definitions as they seem to make things murkier.

Remember: we're not arguing that there are people who wobble between sides and who see the value in arguments from both sides. This is a semantic discussion about how best to define these groups to be able to most effectively and effeciently convey information.
 
Back
Top