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.