How relevant is agnosticism in the debate about theism/atheism?

I'll put it this way. The term "agnosticism" - as you point out - concerns a position we take regarding the definition of knowledge itself and how any of us can claim to be certain in that knowledge. It has an application to the question of theism, but only if forced into that employment. Really it is something which can be applied to just about any question of knowing anything in any context.

You say that the default position on this site is for RRS to "claim" agnostics as being on the side of atheism. Personally I see no great evidence of such a policy here. It is really up to each self-proclaimed agnostic to choose which "side" of the theistic debate they favour. But even if it was true then it is still immaterial, unless one reduces the debate to a numbers game. After all atheism - which is simply the absence of a belief shared by theists - cannot by definition put forward an "opposite" belief to theism by which to "tempt" waverers over to its side. It can only appeal to reason, logic and common sense - an approach which historically produces extremely unpredictable results in any field.

What I have noticed over the long period in which I have engaged in this debate is that theists and atheists, for reasons which are obvious, clash fundamentally in the semantic application of language. Evidence for this arises again and again on these threads, for example, which engenders "debate" which is not particularly circular but actually divergent. In other words, unless the semantic disparities are addressed first the debate spirals off into two unconnected directions where shared expressions and terms give the illusion of discourse but dichotomous interpretations of these expressions result in a non-conversation.

Your post is actually a very good example of this. For example, when you say a person can have "some belief in theism and some belief in atheism" you are stating something which to a theist - a person dedicated to the concept of belief in a certain sense - makes total sense, but to an atheist no sense at all since "belief in atheism" is almost a non-sequitur, so contradictory in meaning is it. The problem lies in the use of "belief" (a very common stumbling block semantically in these debates). Even your use of "agnostic" in relation to a single issue is one which an atheist cannot really respond to rationally, since it is not rational to an atheist to impose such a limitation on its application, at least not to an atheist who has thought out the full implications in terms of gnostic principle of abandoning blind belief in anything.

I am sure your post will elicit the usual confused and disjointed reasoning which such semantic obfuscation engenders again and again on this site and, for all I know, such a debate might even suit your own purposes. I have seen many theists derive comfort and false reassurance for their own fallacial stand when the divergence of semantic application leads them to wrongly interpret their interlocutor's stand as being equally fallacial (it happens rarely the other way round since atheists are generally not looking for comfort in such things). But it is pertinent to remember that your own tendentious and subjective semantic stresses are what will have given rise to it, and that if you were genuinely interested in improving your understanding of the "other side's" position, or even your own for that matter, you are most likely doomed to failure.

If you want however to start yet another dichotomous strand of argument to no particular end, then of course you have chosen your words well and good luck with it. But it means nothing ultimately, except in terms of deriving satisfaction from baiting a perceived opposition.

It's not that there's "no room" for agnosticism, it's that it's irrelevant. The supernatural cannot be known, gods are supernatural, therefore gods cannot be known.

Agnosticism isn't even a position, it's just stating the obvious.

 Christ on a fucking pogo stick.  Why is this so hard?

"Gnosticism" refers to knowledge.

"Theism" refers to belief.

"A-" is a prefix indicating negation.

A-gnostic - one who does not possess knowledge of a god.

A-theist - one who does not possess belief in a god.

If atheists are correct, this is how the thing works.  See the big red circle?  Everything in there is OBJECTIVELY TRUE.  See the big blue circle?  That's what people BELIEVE to be true.  See where they intersect?  That's what people believe that also happens to be true.

Get it?

If a god doesn't exist, people can still be gnostic. They would just be wrong in their thinking that they have knowledge of a god.

Most people are agnostic though because few theists claim they "know" a god exists, instead they claim to have "faith" in it. Most atheists don't make any claim, and the ones that do usually say that no one has shown evidence to sway them to that belief.

Think of Russell's teapot. There's no way to definitively prove either that it exists or that it does not. Thus, I am agnostic on that facet of the issue.

However, there is a further question: do I actually BELIEVE in that extraterrestrial teapot? The answer is no. There is no evidence for it. So, while I do not claim to be able to definitely disprove the idea, I do not believe in it. I am an agnostic a-teapot-ist.

The same goes with the concept of god. I do not claim to be able to disprove the concept of a god in general. There are particular gods about whom claims are able to be made and refuted(such as the Judeo-Christian god), but I don't think that there is a general proof against the existence of gods, and so I am agnostic. I do not, however, believe in a god due to the utter lack of evidence, so I am an atheist.

If you don't know, but you choose to believe regardless (or you have a "theory" of a god you believe in) you are an agnostic theist.

That's kinda the problem. Everybody's agnostic towards supernatural things regardless, because the word "supernatural" refers to things we can never test, and thus never really know.

But as ClockCat says, people can be gnostic and be wrong. They'd just be demonstrably wrong.

I just made an assumption regarding his theory topic and will see if he corrects me.

To state that "A person could think that he will only have some belief in theism and some belief in atheism" is an absurd bit of semantics devoid of logic.

Firstly, we are not talking about "belief in theism" OR "belief in atheism" - 'atheism' and 'theism' both do exist, as epistemological positions.

We are talking about belief in the existence of some form of supernatural entity labelled 'God', or lack of such belief.

Secondly, where one position is lack of belief in the existence of G, and the other is strong belief in G, there is no intermediate position made up some combination of those positions. Any intermediate position would be some level of belief in G, so only one extreme would correspond to actual atheism.

'Agnosticism', in so far as it makes sense, is based on assessing the strength of the arguments for and against the existence of God. If one finds the totality of the arguments on both sides not adequate to form a strong position, amounting to proof or something very close to it, it has become standard to label oneself 'agnostic'. 

It is a very asymmetric position: arguments against God's existence can really only be based on showing inconsistencies or contradictions in the particular concept, plus pointing out the inadequacy or logical flaws in the arguments for its existence. Once you are prepared to postulate a being with arbitrarily great powers, intrinsically beyond ordinary experience, you can always explain away any apparent lack of evidence or inconsistency by positing some particular ability and/or motive. SInce some Theists go so far as to attribute Logic itself as deriving from God, there is no way to show them how absurd such a position is by logic.

Luminon believes things that specifically contradict the science of chemistry, so ...

I rest my case.

Yeah, I had problems with RRS's quasi-English definitions.

I felt like I was in Faux News "No Spin Zone."

I've posted on some of my differences with RRS's Agnostic or Theist link twice in other threads. No need to do it again.

We appear to be in agreement on the problems IN the Spin Zone.

Has it ocurred to you that with blogs like that no thread will ever get anywhere. We'll either die of boredom or exhastion first.

I don't get it. Can you explain that diagram with another diagram? My reading comprehension is on par with Paisley/OC.

edit: And apparently Treat too...

"faecal matter" is as obsolete as a tiresome ranter.

The stupidity here's quite plain. Fools abound. RRS links to quasi-English are
modulated "spin", just as Nordmann,

You are compelled to respond
to my posts.

I am your God!

Presuppositionalist,

It's interesting that Nordman, from its first post, has continued to make every attempt to sidetrack and spam your thread.

Now, Nordman continues to do so and claims it's not trolling, but another with interest in the subject is trolling.

Such is the nature of true trolls. Modulation on and on.

No, not at all. I'm arguing that "supernatural" in its vague definition, was invented specifically to elude reality like a kid chasing its shadow. If reality included a supernatural piece, then the supernatural would be natural.

There's no reason to say that you're agnostic about a concept that was specifically designed to evade "gnosis".

The Agnostic does not claim as you do.

Your argument is the position of an Atheist.

More specifically, the Gnostic does not say god is unknowable. The Agnostic merely ssays that god might exist because presently we do
not yet know.

That is entirely different than the Agnostic, as the Agnostic does not claim gods are unknowable. The gods may
well be knowable according to the Agnostic. The Agnostic simply says it may well be, and it might even be possible
to know. THAT is why the Agnostic is "uncertain".

You've well explained one reason why an Atheist may hold to the belief that given
what can not be proven, there is no valid reason to claim it exists, nor to claim that it can be proven.

That's one reason one might be an Atheist, but, not a reason anyone would be an Agnostic.

In short, Agnostics are "wishy washy." They commit to nothing. Anything could be
true, including what the Atheist calls as scientifically unknowable.

I like your explanation of agnosticism. Some would say that the agnostic is at around a 50% belief in God because it is unknowable (since the beliefs are not justifiable from evidence) and hence in the middle. But intuitively we know most atheists are closer to 0% then 50% and are still agnostic. But the dempster-shafer method is slightly different from probability and a person can put 10% toward belief in God, 30% toward no belief in God, and 60% toward ignorance . This would be based on their subjective weight of the evidence. Then we can define an agnostic to be someone who has a larger ignorance than the other two. Some say that D-S is equivalent to provabilities instead of probabilities. Its used to handle conflicting evidence or missing evidence.

Though I am not saying we should all use D-S now instead of probabilities. In most cases its more of a headache then its worth. But in cases where the conflicts cannot be ironed out it may help.

But in the end I agree that the term agnostic adds no information to the conversation except pergahps that the person thinks that God will remain unprovable in the future (even with the advent of increasingly better definitions.)

What exactly is my mission?

BTW, you had a spelling error in that post.

That's theism for you.

Believing in that which can be rationally demonstrated, adduced or surmised gives one tremendous peace of mind however.

 What if we, for the sake of argument, were to look at this from the angle of a naturalistic god as opposed to a supernatural one. For example, instead of using the typical standard of the Judeo-Christian god, what if were to consider a concept such as Mother Earth? Or, for that matter, any "god" really which sort of mundanely controlled the natural laws of our world without the smoke and mirrors that we often attribute to god figures. In other words, what if we're all wrong and things like the laws of chemistry that you mentioned and gravity are actively controlled by a being through natural means?

a) Would that still constitute a supernatural being?

b) Could we validate statement a?

c) Does your definition of agnosticism being irrelevant still hold true?

Just thought it would be a fun direction to take this as it's turned into a giant troll session (which seems, remarkably, to happen everywhere treat goes. hmmm...).