Which position is the most philosophically unassailable, agnostocism, atheism, or theism?

Answer 1

I have no idea, but who am I to tell you? I'm an agnostic.
On the other hand, one must know something to admit they know nothing, hence, agnosticism is pretty easy to attack as long as the attacker is willing to admit that the agnostic must, in fact, know something.

"Unassailable" is a dichotomous choice, so either a position is assailable or not. All positions being assailable, the answer is thus "none of the above."

Which one frustrates the hell out of everyone else? I'm not sure, but I would guess that agnostics like me really piss people off.

Answer 2

Really great question ...Personally I believe in a Supreme Being ...but must concede both agnosticism and atheism are in the most philosophically and rhetorically unassailable positions ... Of those two, I really can't pick one as less or more assailable than the other ...

Answer 3

The only unassailable position is agnosticism. You cannot know for an absolute fact that god does not exist.

However, it doesn't make sense to believe in a god without evidence of its existence.

So I'm an atheistic agnostic, but bordering on an anti-theistic agnostic. :)

Theism is easily the most assailable, simply for the reason that it makes the most assumptions.

Answer 4

In my humble opinion: atheism.

Edit:
Well, since everyone else seems to be saying agnosticism, I guess I'll elaborate.

Through the same logic that you state that god might exist, you must also acknowledge the possibility of all sorts of other fantastic beings. You would also have to concede the possibility of a Cartesian "Evil Genius." Eventually all these "I don't knows" degrade in tho nihilism which, as I could explain with much more space and time, is a philosophically weak position.

Answer 5

All three positions have been philosophically assailed on many occasions. None of them has been decisively discredited philosophically.

Every person has to look impartially at the full spectrum of argument, and the full range of data to be accounted for, before they adopt one of those positions. I'm a theist because I'm convinced that, holistically speaking, theism offers the most coherent and complete account of the data.

Answer 6

Agnoticism is not a position as it is a non-statement. Of course it is true that it may or may not rain today. That says nothing.

Theism and atheism can be equally well defended or attacked. Both are reasonable.

Answer 7

When wisdom comes alertness dissapears, Plato said. Agnosticism is neither wise nor assailable, for attendance is suffering for the consequent and reason is meant for the assembled not the sufferer. With quiet disposition in mind alert creatures are to extend their calm surrender to withdrawal, yet when reason is common to men, religion and belief are put together to please calm and truthful, while at same releases no confort nor condolences to unbelievable berefters, there shall be peace.
My last appeal is: let it be seen peace is way to truth not viceversa.

Answer 8

Agnosticism.

Answer 9

Agnostocism. The others would have to prove their respective positions. Riding the fence never got anyone in any trouble.

Answer 10

agnostocism is the fence strattleing position that is most comfortable for many. But, I prefer atheism. I have no fear of commitment to my beliefs or lack thereof.