Talk:Agnosticism: Difference between revisions

Agnosticism in "religion" line of officeholder infobox

So, newly elected president(-elect) of Croatia, Ivo Josipović, when asked about his religion declares to be an agnostic. User:DIREKTOR says we can't put that in infobox since it's not a religion. User:GregorB and me, we thing that if the man chooses to list his religion as "agnostic", that designation should be in his infobox. Full discussion can be found here: [1]. It's not very long and GregorB I feel that this matter should be discussed here, not on Josipović's talk page. So, Agnosticism talkers, what do you think, what should Ivo's infobox "religion" line state? Cheerz, 188.129.65.176 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO agnosticism is indeed not a religion, but my reasoning about it differs from Direktor's. I won't go into details, I've pretty much said what I had to say in the Josipović talk page. Also, let me just note similar subjects have been discussed here before. GregorB (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to be as informative as possible. Please think of this as a kind of informal RfC (for the record, I'm an atheist :)

When Ivo Josipović, the new socialist president of Croatia, was asked about his religious beliefs during his recent election campaign, he stated that he is an "agnostic". Now, in Croatia the socialist left often likes to use the label "agnostic" to avoid the negative "feel" of the word "atheist" (or "agnostic atheist"), denoting an imaginary softer form of atheism. In fact most prominent politicians from the Social Democratic Party of Croatia (Josipović's party) identify as such. What we know about these folks is that they are certainly not religious persons, i.e. they do not belong to any specific religion.

In short, I removed "Religion: agnostic" from the infobox and replaced it with "Religion: None" since a person's agnostic convictions (or lack of them) have virtually nothing to do with religion. As we all know, people can be agnostic atheists, agnostic Christians, agnostic theists, etc. Agnosticism is a separate category from atheism/theism. A politician's elections media ploy to avoid the term "atheist" is good enough for the media, but an encyclopedia should not perpetuate such common misconceptions and misuse terms. Agnosticism is not religion, nor is it atheism. Lets not list it as such in infoboxes simply because people are generally unaware of that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another interesting thought. According to the scientific method (roughly speaking), before anything can be said to exist, its existence has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt via empirical observation. The proponents of atheism affirm that there is no evidence whatsoever that a deity exists, and that therefore we cannot consider such a possibility. Agnostics acknowledge that there is no evidence that a deity exists, and add that such evidence will (most likely) never be found, and that evidence disproving (a) god also cannot be discovered. However, it is not necessary to disprove something which has not been proven in the first place. Therefore, by acknowledging that there is no evidence supporting a deity's existence, and by even adding that none can ever be found, agnostics in the religious sense are more opposed to the possibility of an empirical assertion of (a) god's existence than mere atheists. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard of evidence of jurisprudence, not of the scientific method. Proponents of atheism think we can consider the possibility, and reject it for insufficient evidence. Weak agnostics are agnostic about whether evidence can be found. And all of this is straying off-topic. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Jurisprudence? We do not use the courts or the judicial system to determine facts about the universe. We use the scientific method. A ruling of a judge or justice would have no significance on the validity of someone's paper.

People who are convinced evidence about the existence of a deity cannot be found - are either atheists, or theists who completely reject the concept of objective reasoning (deferring instead to their subjective "feeling" about a deity). This is why I say agnosticism (in its proper sense), is a different category from theism or atheism. However an "Agnostic" in the (modern) colloquial sense (i.e. the non-religious "agnostic") is ironically more of an atheist than the "atheist" in the general sense, even though that is considered a softer term, since he is in fact an agnostic atheist and rejects even the theoretical possibility that empirical evidence might be found indicating the existence of a deity. An atheist can reject the concept of god on the basis of the lack of an objective argument, but need not exclude the possibility, however unlikely, that this might theoretically change. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Schrodingers cat

The definition of agnosticism sounds like somebody s been playing around with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodingers_cat Of course, that statement would be OR. But i thought i d bring it up, maybe someone has seen a scientifically valid publication referencing SC to agnosticism. 88.217.56.141 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fix this page?

"gings gingser alex is fake a gay"

Someone has messed with this page, can any Wikiheads fix it up? "ging gings" seems to have been scattered throughout the article.

Also, the following bit doesn't seem to make sense. Has it been badly edited or am I missing something?

"Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1860. They include Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher,[2] and a creation story in the Rigveda, an ancient Hindu religious text." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.227.241 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I find this page particularly hard to read. I have poor reading comprehension and i would apreciate it if the writing could be made a little simpler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.160.7.222 (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

See http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism for simple wikipedia version JimWae (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Ratzinger's quote

Pope Joseph Ratzinger's quote is incoherent. Could some context or the filling of the ellipses fix that? njaard (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly not. Wrong book in citation, for a start: it's from Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures, ISBN 1586171429, page 96. There, it's discussing the beliefs of Paul of Tarsus, rather than those of Ratzinger, and in the context of atheism, with agnosticism only mentioned as an aside. Shuffling the edit a little gives us: "In [Paul's] eyes [atheism, or agnosticism that is lived out as atheism], is always the fruit of a refusal of that knowledge which is in fact offered to man". Diminishes, but doesn't totally destroy, the relevance. Fix and keep, or delete? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is such a mess, it makes any response virtually unnecessary. The opposing Catholic view did not originate with Ratzinger, and giving him prominence as an originator of arguments against agnosticism is misleading. His statements are a reworking of Paul of Tarsus and a Vatican Council PRONOUNCEMENT from about 1870 by Pope Pius IX and the First Vatican Council. That pope is the same one that decreed Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, and that 1868 council is the one that assented to the doctrine of papal infallibility.

"He blames the exclusion of reasoning from religion and ethics for the dangerous pathologies of religion and science such as human and ecological disasters" -- but there is no dynamic provided that would connect these pathologies to agnosticism any more than to religion.

Ratzinger draws no distinction between scientific truth and philosophical truth. He asserts Kant is wrong, but does not address Kant's arguments. Ratzinger's arguments against Kant rely on a type of consequentialism, judging some non-essential outcomes precipitated by certain people who may (or may not) have held Kantian views, rather than presenting any problem with Kant's intellectual method.--JimWae (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agnostic neutralism

I've started a discussion about its validity and usefulness here. GManNickG (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested revision to redirect page Agnostic

[edit]

In order to keep a neutral point of view, it may be useful to revise the root entry agnostic Vis: Main article: Agnosticism

Agnostic is a word coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869. from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known.

Agnosticism presumes that the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known. It is usually relates to religious doubt, but is also used in engineering and medicine to indicate that a device is not dependent on any particular technology or condition. See, for example:

• Fixed-mobile convergence Timpo (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are predominantly about concepts, rarely about words - which is the role of a dictionary. See WP:NOTDIC. "Agnostic" would either be a noun for a person or an adjective, and would not be about an -ISM. The usage of "agnostic" in technology is usually adjectival. While technological meaning of "agnostic" relates to agnosticism, in the field of technology, "agnostic" is used (perhaps exclusively) rather than "agnosticism". (The technological meaning is indeed already somewhat included by "the view that the truth value of certain claims... is unknown or unknowable" - though it would be "facts" about the operating system rather than "claims".) It would have been more appropriate to find consensus for changing the title to "agnostic" before making drastic changes to the lede AS IF the change in title had already been made. Also, I do not see how this could be a NPOV issue. --JimWae (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is versus are

The introduction should read:

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."

While I understand it's easy to think it should be 'are', that's incorrect. The subject of the sentence is "the truth value". That is, expanding:

• "The truth value is unknown."
• "The truth value of the claim is unknown."
• "The truth value of certain claims is unknown."

That last switch is the critical part, but nonetheless the subject remains "the truth value", so it remains 'is'.

It's easier to see if you put the qualifier in parenthesis: "The truth value (of certain claims) is unknown.", or switch things around: "The truth value is unknown, for certain claims."

Hope that clarifies. GManNickG (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Gman, I guarantee you it's are. I would get a third party opinion before you revert again or I'll have to report you 66.175.200.173 (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the sentence clause is "truth value" - which is singular, not plural. Your resort to name-calling also does nothing for your "case". Unless you can cite a rule or authoritative precedent, your "guarantee" is groundless. --JimWae (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the primary subject of the sentence is "Agnosticism," not "the truth value." Secondly, the (more) correct subject is "the truth value of certain claims" because the sentence is nonsense without that qualifier: "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value is unknown or unknowable." Because "the truth value" does not make sense when used independently, the whole phrase comprises the correct subject and is thus plural, not singular. The best way to resolve this is to appreciate that we're talking not just about multiple claims but also multiple truth values, so here is what I am reverting this to: "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims... are unknown or unknowable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.200.10 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Atheistic Critique

This is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In my oppinion - it is not justified to define "some" with only one atheistic critique (namely mr. Dawkins) who shows clear signs not to be able to define agnosticism to himself (hence the criticism). I propose to either rename "some" to "Richard Dawkins" or removing the sentence entirely since his "critique" is biased and unjustified. Reason - he is in fact a agnostic himself but can't admit it either to public or to himself what he stands for, and is locked in the mindset of "imago" rather than principles (i don't know, maybe being atheist sounds more popular than agnostic). Quoting quotes: "I know there is no God..." and then "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, ...". There, he is both atheist, agnostic, agnostic atheist or he doesn't know himself. Once he have decided or accepted his identity, his critique can be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.145.77 (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC) The attitude of science (and hence scientific skeptics like Dawkins) towards the concept of a sentient being creating matter/energy is very simple: "there is no evidence to support the hypothesis, hence it cannot be treated as a valid theory". Its a very basic attitude: no concept exists until proven otherwise ("proof positive"). Science therefore, can conclusively say that (a) "god" does not exist. This confuses some people. Some cannot understand that the only way to determine facts is very high standards of proof, this exactly is the incomparable genius in the concept of the scientific method which has taken us so long to develop and which has brought us so much, lifting us, in spite of our flawed nature, to heights unimaginable to our ancestors. Example: if you stood outside a locked room you never saw before, an average person would say "I do not know what is inside that room", a scientist on the other hand, would say "there is nothing inside that room until proven otherwise". A primitive and untrained human mind spontaneously starts speculating on the contents of that locked dark room (perhaps inventing legends, religions and myths) while a scientist, through considerable training of the mind - refrains from it. The fact is that the only method we have that comes anywhere near determining the real truth about he world we live in - is the scientific method. It also makes a lot more sense that real facts about our universe can only stem from painstaking, meticulously checked, labor of our best minds - rather than a mob of ridiculous robed old men memorizing words from books written when we were little more than animals eating grass, living in huts, and wasting the short decades of our lives in misery, disease, and filth. But I digress.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC) In the end it is irrelevant how philosophy decides to call this view. Is it "atheism"? Indubitably, since the science does actively deny the existence of "god". Is it agnosticism? Doubtful, no scientist including Dawkins can ever claim something is "unknowable" - since it is in fact impossible to ever know whether something is "unknowable" or not. By definition, since it is an absolute statement that would require an infinite amount of time and effort to prove. Leading us to conclude that in general, people who say "this or that is unknowable" cannot possibly have any idea what they are talking about. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC) What are you talking about? Both an "average" person and scientist should say "I don't know what's in that room.", because that is in fact true; you would be incorrect in concluding nothing is in the room. Indeed, this is preposterous: walk to someones home and find a closed front door. Are you really suggesting we state "you have nothing in that house!"? I think you can see how ridiculous this is. And then you go on to pose a libel against those who speculate. How exactly would any science progress if not for speculation? Again, are we simply to shut our minds and dismiss the issue forever? Please make the distinction between ideas, beliefs, and knowledge, because apparently you aren't. No, the reasonable stance is "I don't know what's in that room, and I don't have any reason to believe any thing is contained in that room." And even this is impractical. If you walk up to a house with a closed door, you have plenty reason to *believe* it contains a kitchen, a bathroom, etc. That's extraordinarily far from "this house is empty!". Again, make the distinction: I can believe something without claiming to know it. I can even say "what if there's a unicorn in there?" without believing it is so. "The fact is that the only method we have that comes anywhere near determining the real truth about he world we live in - is the scientific method." Paradoxically, I ask: how do you know this? If that were the only method, you do not. (Unless you want to argue in favor of circular reasoning; do you?) Do not make such self-defeating claims. " since it is in fact impossible to ever know whether something is "unknowable" or not." Surely you might have come across Gödel's incompleteness theorems? Do you have the audacity to claim the field of mathematical logic is completely undermined? "people who say "this or that is unknowable" cannot possibly have any idea what they are talking about." I'm afraid the person who doesn't know is you. What is your background in epistemology? On what grounds do you state these ideas? GManNickG (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Please calm down. We have a misunderstanding on our hands. Quickly looking through your userpage I cannot help but notice we agree on a large number of major issues (I especially love the quotes). Frankly I'm surprised we're in conflict at all. :) A scientist does indeed not wildly "speculate", he hypothesizes. There is a difference, as I'm sure you know. A hypothesis would be based on available evidence (e.g. "the room might have a wardrobe inside, as opposed to an elephant because the door is too small"). My meaning was that a scientist would not take as fact that anything existed in the room without proof positive. A scientist is, of course, free to hypothesize, and that is indeed as you say the very basis of scientific advancement, but science does not accept the existence of anything without empirical, falsifiable, positive evidence to that effect (i.e. neither science nor logic itself accept an argumentum ad ignorantiam). "The fact is that the only method we have that comes anywhere near determining the real truth about he world we live in - is the scientific method." How do I know this? Ha, only a philosopher would ask such questions. The scientific method does not exist separately from the world we live in. It is a method to determine facts/truth, and its quality is determined by how well the facts we derive correspond with the natural world. In other words, the natural world itself is the measure by which the method's quality is determined. Or in simpler terms: if it did not work, then the jet airplane you flew in would not have flown. The car you drive would not start, your house and world would be a dark cold place, you would die of disease by the age of 50, after a lifetime of working the fields with your hands. "...it is in fact impossible to ever know whether something is 'unknowable' or not." Perhaps I should've elaborated on that, my apologies, it was getting rather late. Science progresses through time. Science is not immutable, but continuous and fluid. Science never deals in absolutes. In order to be able to determine whether something is "unknowable" (an absolute statement), one would require evidence that would be impossible to attain. Hence considering anything to be "unknowable" is an uneducated statement. Hypothetical example. How could you (or Gödel) possibly know what knowledge would be attainable 10,000 years from now? How about a 1,000,000? A hundred million? One can only say "This/That is 'unknowable' for the foreseeable future." And even there he/she is making a rather wild claim. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry for starting this but the discussion is going rather off topic. I'm quite happy with the rest of the article, only thing bothering me was the "atheistic critique". And what goes about science, then of course empirical evidence is the only real thing we can rely on. It's true that many "scientists" have hard time admiting that there are things that we/they don't know about (yet) fearing that it makes them and science seem weak, but it does not mean that atheism is science. I don't mind hypotheses nor theories but before any proof/conclusions it remains unproven/unknown. Of course many theistic gods have been proven nonexistent (or existing only as mental concepts) and with time we can discard more god hypotheses. It doesn't mean, however, that any believer is forced to renounce their faith/religion. The situation with deistic god is bit different though. But once the meaningful (something that interacts with physical world) definition of (deistic) god have been manifested, it would make the discussion possible, till then it remains unknowable (i would add that rather pointless too). I myself don't believe in anything "unknowable" - if something exists (or if it doesn't), it is possible to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longisle (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Atheism is not science, but science is atheism. Or to put it more accurately and "colorfully", science simply requires evidence and does not really care how philosophers define the view that is based on it. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Now this is where you are wrong, my friend. Science does care how things are defined and does it itself. The word that requires evidence is "agnosticism" and NOT "atheism". Atheism is a view (a faith of no evidence) but agnosticism is not. Another expression for it is being objective and it is very important view indeed. No atheist will ever discover anything, only people with curiosity and hunger for knowledge (people who want to know the answers and not making them up), despite of all the naysayers. Science is driven by evidence and not by the lack of it.--Longisle (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Atheism is not necessarily a view, and I certainly don't know of any who claim to have a "faith in no evidence". Please read on atheism and find out what it is. In its broadest sense, it's just a lack of a view, nothing more. A baby is an implicit negative atheist, for example, while some are explicit positive atheists. A blanket statement about why people may or may not be atheists will not go unchallenged, especially one as senseless as claiming it requires "faith". It's a tired, old, broken argument that tries to move the burden of proof onto the atheist so that the theist can critique his position in equal light. However, the atheistic position requires no proof, so there is nothing to have faith in. This is all horribly off-topic though, but just so you know: your views on atheism are wrong. GManNickG (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC) For an atheist to be able to say that "no gods exist", some degree of faith must be exercised in this type of assumption. There is no totally incontrovertible evidence to suggest the absence of any deity. You must be confident that the assertion "no gods exist" is a true statement, without any evidence to support the notion. Everyone is definitely born Agnostic, and Ignostic on top of that. Not only do people not have any knowledge of these claimed truths to begin with, but the "god concept" has no meaning to them until it's been properly defined. Atheism is the belief that no gods exist, or the disbelief in the existence of any god. This modern interpretation "lack of belief" blurs the line between Atheism and Agnosticism a little too much. This is where we get all of these sub-categories such as "weak atheist", "agnostic atheist", etc. It gets to the point where the lack of knowledge is being equated as the lack of belief, which isn't necessarily true either. Somebody can feasibly "hold" many beliefs as "possible", without truly denying the truth behind the claims. A typical Agnostic generally holds every belief as "possible", or contingent following modal logic. The Agnostic would not say that any claim is either true or false, while an Atheist would basically see most claims of deity as being "false". UnReAL13D (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, atheism is a view (actually belief). I do know what atheism is. I have read about it, spoken with atheists and talked about it for years. The lack of view again, i must repeat myself, is agnosticism. A baby is not an atheist, since he/she have never heard of god nor anything else, therefore he/she is an agnostic. The child remains agnostic for quite some time untill he/she still have curiosity to find out everything he/she doesn't know about. The curiosity starts to fade once he/she either have found the truth or starts to make up the answers (or even starts believing something someone else have made up). Claiming that atheism requires faith is not actually theistic argument, it was in fact an agnostic argument that theists have hijacked. The utmost error that people can do, is placing agnosticism in between atheism and theism, when in fact agnosticism is on one end and theism and atheism are on the other. Why, because agnosticism doesn't care about beliefs (or faith) and cares only about the truth/knowledge - that requires proof. You say it is an old and broken argument and then state "the atheistic position requires no proof" - that's called faith, my friend, the very same thing that many fundamental theists say. And my views on atheism, theism, agnosticism and many other things are correct. I propably know about the issue more than you and your family combined.--Longisle (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Atheism can be a view, it isn't necessarily one. And no, agnosticism is about belief versus knowledge. I mean we're on the page, just read it. A baby is an implicit negative agnostic atheist. Agnostic because the child cannot possibly hold the belief it's knowable or unknowable, and an atheist because it cannot hold a belief in god (cannot be a theist). I'm sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time talking to someone who cannot even read the information their typing next to. Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect, you're under it. Refusal to accept the definitions and ideas of almost every educated philosopher and intellectual is extremely arrogant, and you'd be better of listening to their results; exactly the same idea that unless you were an evolutionary biologist you shouldn't be trying to push your own ideas in evolutionary biology. GManNickG (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "agnosticism is about belief versus knowledge" - exactly, so what are you arguing about ? Maybe if you would actually read yourself you wouldn't be arguing with yourself.--Longisle (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC) I don't feel my points were addressed as directly as I'd liked, so I'll try to make more clear what I'm after. Also, I apologize in advance to others at the amount of off-topic discussion going on, but I feel it's important to reply. "A hypothesis would be based on available evidence" Strictly speaking, this would be a conjecture. A hypothesis, while indeed maintaining criteria, does not need any evidence. (After all, it's purpose is to provide a starting point to look for evidence that confirms or falsifies it.) I think what you're confusing is that one might rank hypothesis a priori with the reasoning you say. "He probably doesn't have an elephant in that room, but I shall not believe it to be so or not so." We agree here. However the point I was after was your claim that "an average person would say 'I do not know what is inside that room', a scientist on the other hand, would say 'there is nothing inside that room until proven otherwise'". How do you reconcile this point with the example I gave, of the house? Do you believe a scientist should and does believe the room is empty, or did you speak in error? "How do I know this? Ha, only a philosopher would ask such questions." Is this meant as a retort? Sorry, it's hard to portray online. You do have philosophy to thank for progress in scientific ideologies, and would probably do well to take the time to understand the history. You fail to answer the question, instead dodging it by restating your views on the scientific method and what it accomplishes. But I ask my point again: how do you know the scientific method is the only way to determine truth? Stating "the jet airplane you flew in would not have flown" is actually false. Regardless of scientific knowledge and method, if I somehow ended up in a plane it would fly fine; my car would start, as well. What you mean to say is we wouldn't know how to achieve these things. Here, again, we agree. But note stating that we have things doesn't answer my question: How do you know? My reason for asking this is simple: it's wrong. If it is indeed the case the only way to determine if a claim X is true is via the scientific method, then let X be "the scientific method is the only way of determining truth." You either shrug and say "I don't know that, I guess I was wrong." or you argue in favor of circular reasoning. I ask you address this, please. "Science never deals in absolutes" Is this an absolute? Given that science is the only way to know truth (according to your belief), and you claim the previous to be true, you contradict yourself. In any case, before I continue I want you to notice a trend in your responses: they start more often than not as red herrings. You start your reply by stating "Science progresses through time. Science is not immutable, but continuous and fluid." I ask: who said otherwise? I think you're simply trying to bolster up the oncoming argument with less disputable facts, in hopes that people will attribute the truth of these to the weight of your argument. Ironically, if you trim all the extraneous information you can strengthen your argument by removing the need for the listener to wade through the irrelevant material. Simply trimming these sentences does not affect the rest of your argument; you should do so. "In order to be able to determine whether something is "unknowable" (an absolute statement), one would require evidence that would be impossible to attain." Please substantiate this claim. I also ask: Is it then not impossible to know something? What of mathematics? Please address the points I've brought up. Thanks. GManNickG (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC) I try to depict the views with the room behind door example: There is a door and something behind it. An theist comes along and say; "There is an elephant in the room". An atheist hears this and say: "No, there is no elephant". Then another theist comes and say: "You are right, there is no elephant, in fact, there is a very poor man in there, so please give me your money". Another theist comes and say: "No the man is suffering and want us to suffer aswell". A deist comes and say: "There is man in the room behind the door, but he want's nothing to do with us". Then atheist makes himself clear: "No, there is absolutely nothing in the room". Then ignostic comes and say: "There is no point arguing if you don't define elephant, man, money, suffering and room in a meaningful way in the first place". Then agnostic comes and say: "I honestly don't know what's behind the door". And finally a scientist comes and say: "I don't know either, but i want to find out" and opens the door. Now whatever is behind the door, only one who will find out, is the scientist, who in fact have agnostic views. I made the story so simple that even children would understand, i hope it helps.--Longisle (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "I made the story so simple that even children would understand" Wow, that was arrogant. Even more so since you're wrong. You were fine until you said "No, there is no elephant" as the only option for an atheist. While this would indeed be a positive atheist, you forget negative atheist which would be "I don't believe there is an elephant". An theist is one who believes in a god, an atheist is one who does not. That's it. An atheist may go further and say "Not only do I lack the belief, but I believe the contrary", but not necessarily. And yes, an agnostic says "I don't know" but it sounds like you're incorrectly trying to wedge that between atheism and theism, which is wrong. Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge versus belief, not on what those beliefs are. A theist may believe there's an elephant, but not claim to know: that's an agnostic theist. I think you need to take the time to actually read about these terms before you try to make things "simple" for others to understand. Every person in your story could be an agnostic, not just one. It's not possible to simply be "an agnostic", you are either a theist or an atheist, pick one. You either believe or you don't. GManNickG (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "it sounds like you're incorrectly trying to wedge that between atheism and theism, which is wrong" - i cite myself sine you don't even bother to read it: "The utmost error that people can do, is placing agnosticism in between atheism and theism, when in fact agnosticism is on one end and theism and atheism are on the other". The argument is faith against knowledge - my original point actually when starting this discussion - how can man of faith criticise knowledge ? My suggestion was to find some actual scientists to do the criticism or to erase that nonsense. I don't mind theistic "critique" since they already look stupid and anyone with any rational thinking will automatically discard it. But atheism is cool rebel movement and i try to help them not to look too stupid. "pick one. You either believe or you don't" - i pick knowledge over faith, i am convinced empirical agnostic !--Longisle (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Atheism is about belief, but it need not be a belief. Atheism is reliably defined as the rejection of belief that any deities exist. It is quite consistent to be both an atheist and an agnostic. Agnosticism is the claim that we do not (or, according to some, cannot) know whether any deities exist. Some agnostics, such as Huxley, make the (quaint) jump from lack of knowledge to the claim that unless one can know, one is not justified in believing.--JimWae (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC) ""pick one. You either believe or you don't" - i pick knowledge over faith, i am convinced empirical agnostic" This is exactly the stubbornness that makes your reasoning fail you. Answer this extremely simple question: do you believe in any gods? It's really a simple question, yes or no. You don't need to make any proclamations or anything, just a yes or no. GManNickG (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC) There is absolutely no point to cite anything to me if i have already read it. Actually not only read, but analysed and discussed it with others. And by the way - defining it "weak" or empirical is the same. Empirical would be more correct, but since you are the one who "defines" things around here, i see not much point trying to educate you. You can read books but you can't understand them, other ways you woulnd't ask such "simple" questions and wouldn't mix up knowledge with faith. You made me wonder now to find out if any of my old students have turned up to be such book readers, even though they were tought to think critically. I was hoping to get to some reasonable outcome, but mind aswell delete it, it doesn't lead to anywhere. I should speak to Richard directly because he is the only one who can persuade you, or so it seems.--Longisle (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Look at that, an entire paragraph for a yes or no question, and it wasn't even answered. Good work. Please refrain from editing articles until you're capable of answering a yes or no question with the word 'yes' or 'no', thanks. GManNickG (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Gods are defined by man. You can tell by how ideas of gods have developed over the many centuries. Acknowledging the possibility of a god is different than not believing in the god, since "believing in a god" is often defined as abiding by the rules of such deity. If atheism is not believing in god, then by the definition of not abiding the rules of an alleged god, agnosticism is a part of athiesm. But athiesm differs because it completely denounces (or absolutely does not believe) in any possibility of a deity's existence. This has become a sort of debate in this discussion, eh? --132.241.189.251 (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Closing forum discussion. GManNickG (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agnostic neutralism again

This is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Although recently deleted the article is back in new form, and again I still feel it does not belong, either as an article on Wikipedia or as a recognizable term. There is currently a small discussion on its validity, please drop by. Thanks. GManNickG (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC) The page has been deleted, but me and Eudamoire feel that a section addressing the "neutrality" of the so-called "Vanilla Agnosticism" should be included on the main Agnosticism page. Sources seem to indicate that many scholars feel that Agnosticism is an essentially "neutral" position to the scope of belief. Right now the page is unevenly skewed towards history and criticism. I think it's worth a mention. UnReAL13D (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC) The header article seems weaker now that the neutrality article was deleted. I believe it added a crucial alternative to the Agnostic (a)theism types already listed. The faithless perspective is now unexplained in my opinion. I would agree with UnReAL13D in saying that overall the scope of agnosticism is seen as a truly and uniquely neutral perspective by describing the "lack of knowledge" aspect. This term should be at least added to the "Types of agnosticism" subheading in the article to encompass this perspective. I'd also like to add that this needs to be defined beause Agnosticism describes a lack of knowledge but not a lack of faith. Since there are descriptors for the "faithfull" there should also be a descriptor for the "faithless". In fact the Agnostic (a)theism types described could be condensed to one type to help the articles flow. * Agnostic (a)theism The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but have faith in the existence or non existence of that deity. * Faithless Agnostic The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity and do not have faith in the existence or non existence of that deity. Verratic (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC) That doesn't make any sense. Have you read the Atheism article yet? "The faithless perspective is now unexplained " A lack of a belief in God makes you an atheist. It's already completely explained. "there should also be a descriptor for the "faithless"" Yes, that's called atheism. Belief and faith are not the same thing, which you apparently think they are, given your definitions. Given "a theist is a person who believes there is a god", you cannot substitute this with "a theist is a person who has faith there is a god". (Some would claim they don't require faith, but have evidence, for example.) Note having faith entails a belief, but having a belief doesn't entail it's based on faith. I believe my chair supports my weight, but that's not the same as me having faith that it holds my weight; I don't need faith, I have evidence. So your definition "The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but have faith in the existence or non existence of that deity." is already wrong. (Even more so, atheism doesn't require faith or evidence, it's just the absence of a belief.) I'm pretty tired of this discussion, which arises because of this strange unwillingness to accept or understand that theism and atheism are the only two positions one can take on belief, by the mere definition of atheism ("not theism") and the law of the excluded middle. You either believe in a god and are a theist (you reply "yes" to the question "do you believe in a god?"), or you don't believe in a god and are an atheist (you do not reply "yes" to the question "do you believe in a god?"), and by the law of excluded middle there are no more options. Note someone who "doesn't know either way" hasn't said "yes" and is therefore not a theist. (Ergo, they're an atheist.) I'm finished with this discussion, it's repetitive, dull, and a non-issue to anyone willing to do the research. GManNickG (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC) What's this "law of the excluded middle" business? Why is it mandatory for any middle or neutral position to be excluded from this scenario? The basic Agnostic DOES NOT KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE IN. They wouldn't hold either Atheism or Theism as correct. I simply have to disagree as the variety of sources I've provided show a general perspective of "neutrality" on "vanilla agnosticism". UnReAL13D (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC) I said I was done. But what you've written is very lazy; you're on Wikipeda, don't ask me what it is, look it up yourself. It's only the foundation of classical logic, who knows why it's there? Must be my evil plan, right? I'm done. Go away. GManNickG (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC) GManNickG, you're very arrogant for someone who's so conceited in their own opinion. You're proposing a form of classical logic, that's fine. Here's what I'm proposing, a form of Modal Logic. In classical modal logic, a proposition is said to be possible if and only if it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it is actually true or actually false); necessary if and only if it is not possibly false; and contingent if and only if it is not necessarily false and not necessarily true (i.e. possible but not necessarily true). This is taken from the wiki article for Modal logic. The claim "god exists" is neither necessarily false NOR necessarily true. It's a contingent matter. The typical "vanilla agnostic" would hold most claims such as this as contingent. This is the middle ground, the "neutrality" which you are CLAIMING does not exist. Following Modal Logic we can rationally categorize any statement as "possible", "necessary" or "contingent". If you don't admit that the claim "god exists" is either contingent or possible, you are most likely either Theist or Atheist. The true Agnostic would always say that the statement is contingent. It would seem that your opinion is simply that, an opinion. A different viewpoint on the matter. UnReAL13D (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC) "which you are CLAIMING does not exist" This is false, I don't claim this, and you've never quite been able to see that. "It would seem that your opinion is simply that, an opinion. A different viewpoint on the matter." Guess who's saying it? Of course it's my opinion. As is everything you say yours. This isn't a secret or a difficult revelation. Please, I'd like to be done with this, just leave me alone. And stop with the personal attacks for once, please. If you did I might care about what you say, but approaching me after poisoning the well isn't going to make me want to be a part of this. So just please let it die, thanks. And I'm going to delete this section at some point, per WP:FORUM and/or WP:FRINGE. Both you and I were ignoring these policies, but not me now. GManNickG (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Okay, but it's quite obvious that you were displaying a much ruder tone in your response before I simply observed and stated your "arrogance" on the matter. You're the one who's being unwilling to accept anyone else's position. "Go away"? And calling me lazy? A lot of that is just unnecessary. UnReAL13D (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC) "Obvious" is not a form of reasoning (I could just as well say I'm "obviously" not X, where X is any claim you find obvious). There is no objective measure of arrogance, so you cannot claim you were simply pointing out my "observed" arrogance. You may subjectively find me arrogant, that's fine, but I ask you refrain from expressing that sentiment and keep it to yourself. (Even if it were objective, we should still strive to avoid attacks on each other; keep them on the argument.) I'm fine accepting other peoples positions; could I not make the same "objection" to you, as you haven't accepted mine? What's the point of that statement? Yes, it's unnecessary. I freely admit it was a mistake, and will attempt to make it less blunt by saying I had, at the time, been on an extremely long discussion about the very topic elsewhere and was tired of it. Better would have been to leave the conversation, which I didn't do, but am trying to do now. (That is, I still would rather leave it alone.) Cheers. GManNickG (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Let's just put the ad hominems aside and stick to the core discussion. Following Modal Logic, the claim "god exists" is a contingent statement. Thus rendering a neutral position towards the claim. Would you care to object? By the way, the only reason I haven't accepted your opinion is because I see no grounds for it to stand on. The so-called "Law of the Excluded Middle" is not a "law" that has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. It's merely a different route of logic to follow. This course of logic leads to a False dilemma. In other words, it's "black and white thinking" that only allows for 2 potential options. This is a logical fallacy. UnReAL13D (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Remember, we aren't suppose to discuss this here per WP:FORUM. And yes I admit: my objections to the article were violating both WP:FORUM and WP:OR. That is, both of us are trying to justify our claims from personal lines of thought, rather than from sources. I would instead reply to the sources originally given (that I "rejected" with original research) with the policy WP:FRINGE or even WP:NEO. So with that said, I won't reply to your response here. This is not because I don't want to or cannot (in actuality, now that the personal attacks are off the table I'd love to discuss this anew), but because we're polluting the talk page. However, that's only why I won't continue here; I see no reason we cannot talk about it on a subpage somewhere. As such, you can follow me to this subpage if you'd like: User:GManNickG/Neutralism; I'd be happy to carry it on there. After a reply from you (either here, if you don't want to continue the discussion, or there, if you do), I'll be removing this talk page section (with Template:Hat), per WP:FORUM. Hope to see you on the other page. GManNickG (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC) -> GManNickG, are you so immature you can't have a civil discussion about something? You're completely unwilling to understand or accept a simple concept such as neutrality. You don't have to believe or not believe. There is an "i don't know" answer. 21 years old and already pig headed. Oh and according to wikipedia itself faith IS belief. "Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. "--Verratic (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC) You have no idea who I am, on what basis do you judge my character? By a few sentences you read on some website? Quite solid ground you're standing on. I'm absolutely willing, and I don't know if you were around, but I put a substantial amount of effort into not only explaining my side, but also trying to understand the other side and finding where we disagreed. I understand quite well that "neither" is an option, you'd know that if you read any of the past material I wrote on the subject. (And if you haven't, you've done a fantastic job of demonstrating how to make baseless assumptions, bravo!) I don't appreciate the personal attacks, if you could be so kind as to retort my arguments instead, that would not only be more mature but more productive. And yes, faith entails belief, that doesn't mean faith is belief. (A building (belief) being supported by a foundation (faith) doesn't mean a building is a foundation. And in epistemology, "faith" is typically "belief without reason", not the more canonical definition you've looked into.) I'm happy to explain my side if you're willing to listen and not be rude; I'd even prefer we do so outside of Wikipedia so we can take our time and not hinder editors trying to talk about page maintenance. Otherwise don't waste my time, thanks. GManNickG (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC). I'm not attacking you in anyway, in fact you attacked our assertions and statements first i was merely doing the same with your thought process. You have chosen to neither show us courtesy nor consideration, so i have returned the favor. You refuse to make an argument other than simply claiming our statements are incorrect and providing no information. Then when you can no longer provide a counter argument, you say you want nothing more to do with the argument. That's being immature. Faith is belief by any definition and your meandering around the direct definition of the word doesn't make your point more valid than mine. You're trying to simply dismiss my argument by picking apart the language chosen. It is a poor attempt at disproving the point. I have not been an active member of Wikipedia for very long and can already tell that people who bully others on the site often get their way. This won't work on me. Oh and all of your "thought" put into this matter is conveniently missing. If a person chooses to not have a belief or disbelief, that IS possible. Example: 1.)I believe in purple. 2.)I do not believe in purple. 3.)I do not have a belief in purple or disbelief in purple because i choose not to make an assertion without facts. If a person chooses to neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity, that IS an option. Agnosticism itself deals with knowledge and not belief. Agnostic atheism provides there is no knowledge of deities and yet a distinct disbelief in one. Agnostic theism provides there is no knowledge of deities and yet a distinct belief in one. What about those who do not have a belief or disbelief on the subject matter? This is an obvious problem with the article. These definitions should either be placed within their respected pages or there must be a new term created to define the missing variable. Agnostic atheism and Agnostic theism should be moved to the atheism and theism pages as types of theism and atheism and not defined within the spectra of agnosticism. Therefore we must have a separate page dealing with this undefined term. However if we are to assert that these definitions are subsections of agnosticism itself than the absence of belief & disbelief description must also be included on the page with the other two. --Verratic (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC) It's not worth my time to reply to you in detail. This has nothing to do with me not being able to support my arguments, and has nothing to do with the rest of your comment which I haven't and won't read (which I'm sure is a wonderful comment that would have been great to talk about), but if you can't accept that calling me "pig headed" is a personal attack, I'm done. You can always go back and remove the personal attacks, and I'll be happy to return the effort. GManNickG (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Shouldn't there be two separate sections for agnostic strong atheism, and agnostic weak atheism(also what is generally referred to as agnosticism, and agnostic neutralism). Strong and Weak Atheism already are separate terms, so shouldn't there be referred to separately. Furthermore one could argue that weak atheism can not be gnostic, and is by definition agnostic. Overall it seems that agnostic strong atheism refers to a belief that there is no God(s), and agnostic weak atheism refers to a lack of knowledge or belief in the existence of God(s). Believing something is false, and having no belief seems to be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.217.200 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Closing forum discussion. GManNickG (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy, Terminology, and Atheistic Propaganda

I want to make a major change to this and several other related articles. I think that this and other related pages do not promote a Neutral point of view, but rather a biased one intended as atheist apologetic propaganda. There is much controversy between the atheistic and theistic camps on whether or not atheists bear a "burden of proof" just as the theists do. Because of this controversy, so-called "strong" atheists are attempting to annex Agnosticism by broadly defining atheism to include agnosticism. There are three benefits that "strong" atheists get from this: credibility stolen from agnostics, shelter from the burden of proof, and inclusiveness used to bolster numbers. The main one I'm concerned with, however, is shelter from the burden of proof. Allow me to explain:

Traditionally, there were three basic theological positions.

1. Theism - "I believe that there is a/are god(s)".
2. Atheism - "I don't believe that there is a god".
3. Agnosticism - "I neither belief there is or is not a/many god(s)".

Atheist propagandists have redefined No. 2, however, by reducing it into two different positions while annexing No. 3. So the new positions are as such:

1. Theism - "I believe that there is a/are god(s)".
2. Gnostic Atheism - "I believe there is/are no god(s)".
3. Agnostic Atheism - "I lack the belief that there is a/many god(s)".

See? They simply added the negative so as to not disclose their position. This way, a "strong" atheist can masquerade as a "weak" atheist. Thus, the burden of proof ends up only on the theist because the atheist has simply refused to state a position. It's a clever little trick.

belief: any cognitive content held as true.
Princeton University "About WordNet." WordNet. Princeton University. 2010. <http://wordnet.princeton.edu>

The same thing can be do with the theist definition as well. So, "agnostic theist" can mean "I lack the belief that there is/are no god(s)". So, in the proper context, this can mean the same as "agnostic atheist" since the "lack of belief" doesn't necessarily imply any other belief. In a separate context: the atheist and theist definitions are used.

Unfortunately, propagandists (particularly, Austin Cline) have taken over this area as well. Agnostic theist is made to mean "The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence" even though this can clearly be applied to agnostic atheist as well. Here, I do it now: "The view of those who do not claim to know of the non-existence of any deity, but still believe that there are none anyway". By the way, this definition was taken from the current agnosticism wiki article. The source cited is one from Austine Cline, it's a biased source (atheism on about.com) and should thus be removed or noted with the opposing side posted.

Read this from the PositiveAtheism.org FAQ Page, you'll find clear admittance of propaganda: "With the weak definition, the strong-position atheist can participate in a lengthy debate with a theistic apologist without ever disclosing his or her wholesale dismissal of the entire god question, and without once ever being called upon to prove anything. (A careless presentation of the strong position could open itself to the Burden of Proof.)"

Rather than masquerading as agnostics, they should admit themselves as agnostics. Though I'd prefer not to... I'm willing to compensate that the propaganda be left on the Wikipedia page, but with certain conditions. That is, that the opposing side be presented to neutralize the propaganda with a neutral voice as a backbone, NOT the current propaganda.

AVanover5 (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Weak atheists have been called “atheists” since at least the 1700s, over a century before Huxley coined the term agnostic. Your theism/atheism/agnosticism trichotomy is the “new” position. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Atheism is solely the lack of belief in deities. It is not a belief. And atheist who believs dieties don't exist are the exact same type of atheist as a baby who has no concept of deities and therefore lacks belief in them. Crying that the definition of atheism is "atheist propaganda" is hilariously ignorant. Agnosticism is not some magical middle-ground between theism and atheism. Only when you provide an example of an atheist who doesn't lack belief in deities will your ridiculous ignorance ever hold any weight. 124.169.44.127 (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Your "traditional theological positions" do not make sense, agnosticism has nothing to do with belief which invalidates #3. Atheism is commonly defined as the disbelief in the existence of god(s), this has an active and passive sense, an atheist could be someone who asserts no god exists, they could also be someone who merely rejects theistic claims (but does not assert the opposite). There is a need to further clarify atheistic positions since both "weak" and "strong" atheists both fit the traditional definition. When you consider (a)gnosticism along side (a)theism you clarify this position, with an agnostic atheist being a "weak" atheist and a gnostic atheist being a "strong" atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessfrosty (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I smell bollocks. ---There cannot be a third position between belief and lack of belief, any more than there can be a third position between red, and anything that isn't red.--- Red is a known quality, of course there is no 3rd position possible given it's KNOWN existence. Using the example of something known to make a point about something unknown, is sheer bollocks.--203.79.96.4 (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually kind of agree with the first poster. I also do feel many Atheists try to use Agnosticism to their advantage and give the impression that actually, Agnosticism and Atheism are very close or are the same thing. Specially when it comes to the topic of this discussion. The idea that an Atheist can be an "weak" Atheist or a "strong" Atheist are incorrect, because they presupposes that an Atheist can Disbelief and be Uncertain at the same time, which is incorrect. This is why:

Between Belief and Disbelief we have what is called Doubt(Uncertainty). Now Atheism is not the doubt about the existence of God. It's the disbelief (refusal, rejection) of God - "There is no God", this is the concept of Atheism. A doubter is someone that do not refuse the existence of God, but rather claim not to be certain that God exist. This means that:

Theist - God exist (out of believing not of knowing). I do not know if God exist, but i hold as truth he does (belief). - Claim of truth and not a claim of knowledge

Atheist - God doesn't exist (out of disbelief in God not of knowing). I don't know if God exist, but i hold as truth that he doesn't (disbelief). - Claim of truth and not a claim of knowledge

Doubter - God may or may not exist. I don't know if God exist and so i'm uncertain of his existence (doubt). - Not a claim of truth nor a claim of knowledge.

Note: that both in Atheism and in Theism also exist people that claim knowledge (related to Fundamentalism), but since the existence of God is not known, a claim of knowledge is an unfounded claim - which make it a belief, even though they personally don't understand it as such

If you refuse to hold as truth that God exist then you hold as truth it's opposite, that God doesn't exist. A doubter in the other hand do not refuse it , but rather question it (uncertainty). It's a contradiction to claim you're an Atheist and a Doubter 'cause they are not the same thing. An Agnostic in the other hand is a natural doubter. And that is one of the difference between Agnosticism and Atheism. Tacv (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"If you refuse to hold as truth that God exist (sic) then you hold as truth it's(sic) opposite, that God doesn't exist." This is false. Consider a scientist who hears an explanation for a phenomenon and does not have any idea whether the explanation is correct. He would say he is "agnostic" on the issue. He does not believe that the explanation is wrong, but by the same token doesn't automatically hold it to be true. What if the scientist thought the explanation was unlikely to be correct? Again, he doesn't automatically believe it to be untrue, he just thinks it is likely that it is untrue. He might even state that he thinks the explanation is likely untrue. He puts forth an opinion, something an agnostic doesn't. This is essentially the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. However, functionally they are quite similar, and where people are ignorant of the concept of deities one could convincingly argue in favour of either or both labels. However, many people want to inject the concept of "belief" into the definitions, because that allows criticisms that atheists must possess faith to hold their positions. This is false, of course. The difference is one of either holding a position or not. Both are atheistic in function, for different reasons. Hence the overlap. As for propaganda... such words possess an unpleasant aroma, and the smell most often is left on the hand of the person who flings them around.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hume and Kant Citation

The second line in Hume and Kant

"Following the skeptical empiricism of David Hume and the antinomies of Immanuel Kant, most later philosophers abandoned these attempts, regarding it impossible to construct any such unassailable proof."

requires a citation or a removal. It does not appear unbiased - in fact it appear biased towards agnosticism! 130.216.172.67 (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Agnostic Humor

Given that the agnostic stance is one of not being sure:

Question: Do you know who the world's most famous Agnostic was?

Answer: We're not sure either.

Original agnostic humor by Howard W. Johnson, Bridgeport, CA 1959-present —Preceding unsigned comment added by 29Flavors (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Issue with page

There is an issue with this article, it leads with this:

"In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not."

It's not logically coherent to neither believe nor disbelieve in something, agnostic is not a 3rd neutral position when it comes to belief, it doesn't address belief in any way. (a)theism and (a)gnosticism aren't mutually exclusive as the page later goes on to explain, both atheists and theists can be agnostic about gods existence.

This needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessfrosty (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The assertion "It's not logically coherent to neither believe nor disbelieve in something?" is simply incorrect. In fact, this is precisely the position that philosophical skeptics have used/do use to argue that there can be no empirical knowledge at all, or, to differing degrees in doubting the status of any particular subject or bit of claimed knowledge. [see e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism or Nozick: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/nozickphilreading.pdf]

• I think this may just be a conflation of logical contradiction e.g., using ¬ for logical negation and ∧ for conjuction, [z ∧ ¬z] (which is indeed incoherent), with statements about human beliefs (especially in the sense of believing that 'x Exists' [Ǝ(x)], using the existential quantifier from predicate logic), e.g., [where B(Ǝ(A)) = 'Austin Forces Believes A Exists', ¬B(Ǝ(z)) ∧ ¬B(¬Ǝ(z)))] (which is not incoherent, since the two propositions are not logically inconsistent). Although one might be tempted to draw out the inner '¬' in the second half of the statement to come up with [¬¬B(Ǝ(z)) ≡ B(Ǝ(z))], this is not possible, as '¬' does not distribute through the 'Belief' predicate in that manner.
• [edit: it occurs to me that on the surface this also might look like a violation of the law of the excluded middle, but since the predicate variables are not the same (z vs. ¬z), there is no violation of the law.]
• As a fairly standard class of example to demonstrate this: [let SF = a fish with fifteen eyes, two of which are on long stalks ('Simpson's Fish')]. I have neither seen SF, nor seen credible evidence of SF's existence. However, I know that lots of strange fish have been found deep within the sea, and I am, therefore, not certain that SF does not exist. In this example, I believe it is clear that it's not unreasonable (or at least not incoherent) for me to hold no belief whatsoever as to the truth value of Ǝ(SF). In other words: I do not believe that [Ǝ(SF)], and I do not believe that [¬Ǝ(SF)]. So: I do not believe that Simpson's Fish exists, and I also do not believe that Simpson's Fish does not exist.
• I think a fair informal reading statements of this form is simply "I do not know whether X exists," although it is not necessary to accept that reading to understand the rest of the argument. Under this reading, the statement as regards agnosticism becomes clear. When one says something like "An agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists" (slightly modified to make the quantified nature of the statement explicit), it is at least informally equivalent to the idiomatic, but likely more common, phrasing: "An agnostic does not know whether God exists."
• Of course, a statement of the form [¬B(Ǝ(z)) ∧ B(Ǝ(z))] does seem on the surface to be problematic, however, this is not the form of the statement being questioned here, so I shall not address it further.

Shelleybutterfly (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Two-valued logic is preferable wherever it gives useful results, because it is the simplest approach, but it deals poorly with situations that are unknown, partially known, ambiguous, or paradoxical. Such situations require more general techniques, as described in probability interpretations, fuzzy logic, probabilistic logic, and elsewhere. Such techniques can give rigorous mathematical representation to statements ranging from "I neither believe nor disbelieve in a supreme being" through "Six tiny planets orbit Arcturus" to "This statement is false". Such statements are incoherent only when an inappropriate formalism is applied. The trick is to get the right tool for the job. Ornithikos (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We definitely agree about using the right tool for the job, but multivariate logics have their own serious issues and I don't really see them doing much other than making this issue more complex. Tri-value logic seems to me, at best, overkill in this case. Your restatement of the contested proposition "I neither believe nor disbelieve in a supreme being," is covered by the foregoing discussion using binary predicate logic (and is not incoherent). As for 'Six tiny planets ...' and 'This statement is false' (or even [¬B(Ǝ(z)) ∧ B(Ǝ(z))] from above), ah, each could lead to interesting discussions, but don't really seem applicable to this issue, so I will leave it at that. Shelleybutterfly (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no disagreement. I think the agnostic position is reasonable, and thought to toss in what little bit I could. Ornithikos (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agnosticism is an epistemological stance, not an ontological. Agnosticism does not reside in the same realm as theism and its a-counterpart.

The claim that there can be a third position between belief and disbelief, is without relevance as that is not the position in dispute.

Theism - the belief in a supernatural entity, is the -ism. Atheism is, in its general form, simply it's opposite - it is those that are not theists… and the only common characteristic of atheists, is a lack of belief in gods, not a disbelief in gods… within the group of atheists, you will find those that disbelieve the existence of gods, as well as those that simply does not have a belief in gods - a reference to atheism in general, must refer to the common denominator for all forms of atheism - the only one being, a absence of a belief in deities.

There cannot be a third position between having a belief in gods, and not having a belief in gods. There cannot be a third position between belief and lack of belief, any more than there can be a third position between red, and anything that isn't red.

An entry on Agnosticism - the claim that the existence of gods are unknown or unknowable - should not be messed up by talk about theism and atheism, should not be colored by religious people or atheists… The whole idea, of different types of agnosticism is flawed… there are only two types of agnostics, those that say that the existence of deities is unknown, and those that claim such an existence to be unknowable… any other subdivision is arbitrary. You can have agnostic atheist, as well as agnostic theists, as well as agnostic hot-dog vendors and agnostic politicians… it has no relevance to the aspect of their agnosticism.Sorenolin (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Introductory Statement Regarding 'Popular' Understanding of Atheism is Misleading

From the current introduction:

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not.

Because of the qualifier 'in the popular sense', the first part of the quoted section may be technically correct, but it is misleading. I am aware that shortly thereafter is a mention of agnostic atheism, and I am aware there is contention in the talk page as to a definition of 'atheism' in the sense of 'not holding a belief in deities' as opposed to active 'disbelief in God.' However, I have had discussions with those who consider themselves atheists in the weak sense, (also: some who consider themselves weak atheists but NOT agnostic) and I do not think it gives due charity (nor does it accord with the current consensus philosophical definitions) to those considering themselves weak atheists to simply define them out of existence. (see, e.g., introductory remarks in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) To rectify the situation, I believe the statement needs to be re-worked such that it does not exclude this particular type of atheist altogether. I intend to give a day or several for comment since I realize this is a contentious issue, pending my having time to do a proper edit and to hopefully be able to come to some sort of internal consensus prior to editing. There are several actions that I am considering taking:

• I may tag for sourcing of the statement regarding the 'popular' view, since it is not currently sourced and since it does not seem to match the other sourced statements regarding weak atheism on the atheism page, but:
• As indicated, I do realize that there *is* likely a 'popular' view that shades the meaning of the statements following, however, I also am considering whether having this kind of statement in the introduction is giving undue influence to a weasel-worded ('popular' for whom?) and vague idea which, once sourced, could perhaps be covered in specific terms, and perhaps elsewhere in the article (or perhaps in the introduction if there seems to be specific reason to do so.)

• Therefore, I may simply remove the 'popular' qualifier/statments altogether, and instead just attempt to cover the differences as given by sourced consensus definitions of the different terms, especially as regards atheism

• As evidenced by the previous argumentation on this talk page, there seems to be a lot of personal disagreement as to what different terms may mean. However, I do believe that there *are* consensus definitions of the different terms, and that where they can be found, they should be used, and that the personal definitions/beliefs of individuals that disagree (without appropriate credible sources backing up both the positions and the importance of such) certainly should not be a factor in determining the material in the article.

• As previously stated, I believe that including minority disagreements about the terms and how they are used in the introduction gives undue influence to what seem to be non-consensus definitions of terms (especially regarding atheism). However, given reliable sources I do think some sort of discussion of the matter belongs in the body of the article.
• The current "criticism" sections do seem to address this somewhat, but with the "Athiest criticsm" sub-section solely being addressed with Richard Dawkins' POV [which as an aside, likely ought to be expanded with other credible Atheist sources, or the heading re-titled to reflect that it is solely the views of Dawkins], and the "Religious Criticism" section not clearly demarcating issues with definitions as opposed to other criticisms.
• Therefore, I think perhaps a re-work of the Criticism section that incorporates perhaps 'criticism of agnosticism as a religious philosophy' perhaps vs. 'criticism of the concept of agnosticism itself' and perhaps vs. 'criticism of the definition of atheism and agnosticism' (or something along these lines) is warranted, and therefore I will give serious consideration to whether something like this would improve the section, how it could be organized, and also how to address the alternative viewpoints on the various matters (e.g. esp. definitions.)

• Consider these potential actions as my attempt to 'be bold' until such time as I have further input. If there is no objection to the proposed changes I will likely just 'be bold,' decide what I think makes the most sense, and make the changes. [Although, if requested, I am quite happy, once I have had time to work on it some, to give specifics prior to making changes.] Should there be objections, I am more than happy to have adequate discussion to find some internal consensus as to what the changes should be and how they should be implemented.

Shelleybutterfly (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Popular vs. Academic views

Anyone interested in the scant literature on the popular understandings of the terms "agnosticism" and "atheism" should read, Bullivant, Stephen. 2008. "Research Note: Sociology and the Study of Atheism". Journal of Contemporary Religion 23(3):363–368. The sample used isn't exactly representative of the entire English speaking world, but it offers some interesting ideas. The sample tended to believe that atheists are some variety of strong atheists only ("A person who believes that there is no God or gods" - 51.2%, "A person who is convinced that there is no God or gods" - 28.1%), and that agnostics are either taking the philosophical position about not being able to know ("A person who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God - 36.5%), or are fence sitting ("A person who can’t make up his or her mind whether there is a God or not" - 29.4%). Weak atheism doesn't seem to have much room in the popular imagination, though 13.6% did say that an atheist is, "[a] person who lacks a belief in God or gods," and 6.3% said that an agnostic is "[a] person who doesn’t believe in God, but isn’t as convinced as an atheist would be." An citing this study brings me to yet another point ...

There are popular views and then there are different kinds of academic views. Social scientists usually do not recognize "weak atheism" and usually distinguish between agnosticism and atheism based on the basic split between strong atheism and agnosticism as the inability to know. For instance take the belief question in the General Social Survey - "don't believe" (atheist) "no way to find out" (agnostic). However there are some caveats here. Some social scientists are more open to varieties of agnosticism. Take the belief question from the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey - "There is no such thing," (atheist) "There is no way to know," (agnostic) and "I'm not sure" (agnostic). You'll see that Kosmin and Keysar (the study creators) specifically claim that the last two are "hard" and "soft" forms of agnosticism. In a way this mirrors what Bullivant found in the beliefs about the term agnosticism of his British sample. What this also shows is the difference between an active stance about knowledge being impossible and the simple lack of knowledge due to uncertainty. Anyway, I think it is important not to lose sight of the fact that philosophers are not the only scholars treating agnosticism, far from it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Charles Darwin was an Agnostic

See the page on Charles Darwin, perhaps a mention of him is a good addition. Mash ^Talk 17:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Informational considerations

I have added a text under "Types of Agnosticism". It is a small consideration on the categorization of an agnostic point of view under the context of information theory.

In this context, the most qualified agnostic point of view is the one that puts the question under the maximum entropy case, considering a probability of 50% for each proposition to be true.

JulioMarco

Suggestion of elimination of info from this article

I really have a problem with this statement (in the Introduction):

Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that)

Actually i have a problem with the all section that feel the need to subdivide concepts. I will explain my point.

Humanity do not KNOW if God exist. Since the existence of God is not known, we can never make claims of knowledge. This means all of us can never say "God exist because i know it" or "God doesn't exist because i know it". What you can do is saying God does or doesn't exist because you believe/disbelieve in His existence. If you claim to know, you either have access to proofs the world don't know or you are making a foul of yourself.

If the existence of God was known Atheism and Theism would not make sense in existing, because if God was known we would simply have KNOWLEDGE of it and would not have to use a Belief system to explain Him. Since the existence of God is not known, as of today, both Atheism and Theism cannot and do not claim to know that God exist, but rather believe/disbelieve in the existence.

CONCLUSION: We are all Agnostic (do not know). Atheism and Theism presupposes that the existence of God is not known, thus explain it by belief. A person is either:

Theist - God exist (out of believing not of knowing). I do not know if God exist, but i hold as truth he does (belief). - Claim of truth and not a claim of knowledge.

Atheist - God doesn't exist (out of disbelief in God not of knowing). I don't know if God exist, but i hold as truth that he doesn't (disbelief). - Claim of truth and not a claim of knowledge

Doubter - God may or may not exist. I don't know if God exist and so i'm uncertain of his existence (doubt). - Not a claim of truth nor a claim of knowledge.

Note 1: Both in Atheism and in Theism also exist people that claim knowledge (related to Fundamentalism), but since the existence of God is not known, a claim of knowledge is an unfounded claim - which make it a belief, even though they personally don't understand it as such

Note 2: How does Agnosticism separates then from Atheism or Theism, you may ask. Agnostics are Doubters while Atheists and Theist even though do not know if God exist, chose to use the Realm of Belief to take a position/side of Truth, whilst an Agnostic do not understand the validity of truth by usage of a belief and so cannot be anything more than a doubter

Notice that all do not state to know, but rather make a statement of truth by belief. Mixing Agnosticism with Atheism or Theism doesn't make sense because the concepts alone presupposes Agnosticism already. This means that what people call Agnostic-Atheist is actually the same as Atheist. And Agnostic-Theist the same as Theist.

Not only such statements don't make sense, but also should not be present under this article. I think such "concepts" only came to light from people that didn't felt comfortable in the position of an Atheist/Theist/Agnostic or have misconceptions about them and choose to mix it up a bit to better suit his/her views. Atheism article also don't make such claims or references, Agnosticism article should follow it's example. I suggest its elimination. Tacv (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There ARE people who claim to know that God exists. St Paul wrote that, and it is still the position of the Catholic Church that such knowledge is possible. What they mean by "know" I do not know. As agnosticism is defined in the article, it is entirely about knowledge. Saying one is an agnostic in this sense says nothing about whether one believes or not. Kant & Kierkegaard qualify as agnostic theists. --JimWae (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You probably didn't read my whole comment to make such affirmation. I did not said that everyone claim to not know. I said some Atheist and some Theist do claim to know about the existence of God. Both in Atheism and in Theism also exist people that claim knowledge (related to Fundamentalism), but since the existence of God is not known, a claim of knowledge is an unfounded claim - which make it a belief, even though they personally don't understand it as such.

Also from the concept of Theism, we have "BELIEF of the existence of God" and of Atheism "DISBELIEF of the existence of God". No where you see that Theism/Atheism is the KNOWLEDGE about the existence or not existence of God. What i said in my first comment remains correct. Tacv (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your first comment to appear is the title of the section --JimWae (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There are 2 main strains of agnosticism, one is a general form of skepticism towards absolute knowledge, another is the specific usage in the context of religion where it stands apart from both theism and atheism in its lack of dogmatism. un☯mi 02:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes ... I understand where and why i was misunderstood, but i've never said Agnosticism is the same as Atheism or Theism. They are not the same thing. What i said was that concepts of Agnostic-Theist and Agnostic-Atheist don't make sense, since Theism and Atheism only exist because we lack knowledge about the existence of God, and so stating that an Agnostic-Atheist is someone that don't know, but believes is silly, because is OBVIOUS that he doesn't know if God exist or not, nor he claims to know. Adding Agnostic as a prefix to Atheist doesn't change what Atheism is. Maybe this example may help making across what i'm trying to say:

Before we knew the EARTH was round we thought it was flat. So before we got:

• KNOWLEDGE - We don't know if the Earth is flat
• Theist approach - I believe that the Earth is flat
• Atheist approach - I disbelieve that the Earth is flat
• Agnostic approach - I'm uncertain/doubtful that the Earth is flat, because we don't know it

THEN, we discovered that Earth was not flat (is round)

• KNOWLEDGE - The planet Earth is not flat - Truth
• Theist approach - Doesn't make sense anymore cause we now know
• Atheist approach - Doesn't make sense anymore cause we now know
• Agnostic approach - Doesn't make sense anymore cause we now know

The realm of Belief only exist because we lack knowledge. Once we know it, Atheism and Theism (and uncertainty) cease to exist, because one of them becomes Truth and the other disappears. Thus is obvious that an Atheist/Theist doesn't know, making Agnostic-Atheist nothing more than what is an Atheist. Tacv (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I for one agree wholeheartedly - the problem that you might run into is with somewhat specious interpretations of atheism that deny that it constitutes any sort of knowledge claim. As you can see, both agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are very poorly sourced, but that seems to bother True Believers little. un☯mi 06:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@Tacv: Perhaps one could argue along the same lines you are using that this entire article should be eliminated since everyone is an agnostic? --JimWae (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all - There are plenty of atheists, just as there are plenty of theists. un☯mi 08:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That does not seem to be Tacv's point though - though I am still unsure what he proposes with regard to this article.--JimWae (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No no, i do not say that everyone is Agnostic. I said that neither Theism or Atheism make claims of Knowledge, and to that extent a claim that an Agnostic-Atheist or Agnostic-Theism is someone that "don't know but belief/disbelief" don't add nothing new to what is to be a Theist and Atheist. An Agnostic is not only someone that claims not to know, but also a person that do not make a claim of belief/disbelief. Which make an Agnostic someone that don't KNOW and so DOUBT, rather than someone that don't KNOW and so BELIEVE/DISBELIEVE.

What i propose is to only maintain in the article what is strictly a reference to Agnosticism and not other issues like: Agnostic-Theist and Agnostic-Atheist. This expressions are very debatable and should not be present in an article about Agnosticism. If you look at the article about Atheism, those expressions aren't even mentioned. Actually there is an independent article about Agnostic atheism so no need to even speak about it here. This article do need a major "make-over" and lacks information. If i have time i will try to gather a few more information, with reliable sources, to help, and will post them here to get a consensus in the relevance of the information. Hugs to all Tacv (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to disagree - there seems very little in the way of sourcing presented to support that this multitude of delineations holds currency at all, and certainly much more which could be said about the concept, history, reception etc. of the subject matter. un☯mi 21:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a tag of citation needed to the "Types of Agnosticism" content. Since i started this discussion 5 months ago, no one as shared reliable and verifiable sources to support this claims. Also such claims do seem false to me, since i can clearly show how paradoxical they are. I will give it a couple of months more for someone to support it, if not i will eliminate that section from the main article. Tacv (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the "types of agnosticism" section. The point of it is to highlight common & specific positions held in the Theism/Atheism dichotomy. The agnostic-atheist position is like the definition states simply a position that holds no belief in god and also claims to not know whether a god exists. This is needed because some people who hold no belief in god don't necessarily make the claim that they don't know whether a god exists or not, instead some may say that a god in fact doesn't exist. Thus there is good reason to make these delineations within atheism and theism since there are different positions within atheism and theism which need to be pointed out. 71.126.177.145 (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Layman's Terms:

I don't believe in God, but I could be wrong...Agnostic atheism -or- I believe God, but I could be wrong...Agnostic theism

Combine the two and you've got an Agnostic

Also, Agnostic view, stance, and deities? The whole page is intended to confuse in order to place a person as religious or atheist. "In the popular sense" is buried and includes deities.

An Atheist would like to consider themselves as intelligent which I cannot disagree... An Agnostic, the one defined above, would like to consider themselves as wise and spiritual... the best of both worlds. But where are the agnostics, the authorities on the subject?

http://www.swamij.com/theism-atheism-yoga-fear.htm You are extrinsically and subliminally pressured from two directions. One is the Theistic Religionists who say you are evil or damned Atheists, and the other is the Atheistic Secularists who say you are misguided or confused Religionists. You may intuit the all-pervading Reality rather than only some one, single overseer ("God") of the world, contrary to the Religious Theist. You may intuit that matter manifests from consciousness, rather than vice versa as seen by the Secular Atheist. In either case, you may find yourself feeling alone, confused and suffering deeply, or at best, feeling yourself to be in a miniscule minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.122.47 (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Spiritual Agnostic?

I find it kind of amazing that you guys were willing to add this division of Agnosticism, yet not recognize Agnostic Neutralism as a valid concept. Agnostics are not "Spiritual" by the very definition of Agnosticism. A Spiritual Agnostic just sounds like a variation of Agnostic Theism if anything.

Please hear me out, because I'm speaking on behalf of several prominent Agnostics from around the globe. I'm one of the Moderators of a site known as "Agnostics International", which you can find here: http://agnosticsinternational.net/forum/portal.php -- my user name on this site is simply 'UnReAL'. I'm requesting for you to PLEASE reconsider adding a section for Agnostic Neutralism, or at least a section addressing Neutrality in general and how Agnosticism is deeply rooted in the concept. This page still seems extremely biased towards the Atheistic perspective of Agnosticism. UnReAL13D (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been repeated attempts to create an "Agnostic neutralism" article - they have been deleted because the authors have been unable to provide any reliable secondary sources on the topic. If you feel that you have sufficient sources to add a section on agnostic neutralism, go ahead and do so. eldamorie (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is one source using the phrase "Agnostic Neutralism": http://www.ajol.info/index.php/jpc/article/view/71871/60828

Here is another source using the phrase "secular neutralists", which essentially describes the same position: http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/jchs45&section=41

Here is a site describing Agnosticism as a neutral position: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9248.00082/abstract

Here is a site stating the terms "agnostic" and "neutralist" as being synonymous: http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/3/293.short

Even if the phrase Agnostic Neutralism isn't exactly in heavy rotation, I still think that there are enough credible sites that draw the comparison between Agnosticism and Neutrality. I had found several sources for this that I contributed on the "Agnostic Neutralism" talk page which has been closed. UnReAL13D (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, here is a quote from Siddharta Gautama that may show a link between Agnosticism and Buddhism. This may have some relevance towards the category of "Spiritual Agnostic", and would certainly extend the religious history of this philosophy.

• "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnReAL13D (talk • contribs) 08:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the source you cited above (http://www.ajol.info/index.php/jpc/article/view/71871/60828 ):

"But agnostic neutralism suggests that there exists a certain fundamental stuff and that this stuff has a certain structure unknown to us and this stuff manifests its existence to us through mental and physical properties akin to Spinoza’s substance known through its attributes and modes or better still, through the attributes of thought and extension"

Your task would seem to be to show how this relates to agnosticism as presented in the article.--JimWae (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agnosticism is directly related to quotes like these! The possibility of god being a pantheistic or panentheistic being is at the heart of the philosophy I would say. The "fundamental stuff" that he speaks on is perhaps whatever had originated the universe or caused the big bang?

From the very wiki page of Spinoza: "It is a widespread belief that Spinoza equated God with the material universe. However, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg he states that: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[29] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" (God or Nature) Spinoza meant God was Natura naturans not Natura naturata, and Jaspers believed that Spinoza, in his philosophical system, did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God's transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God's immanence.[30] Even God under the attributes of thought and extension cannot be identified strictly with our world. That world is of course "divisible"; it has parts. But Spinoza insists that "no attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided" (Which means that one cannot conceive an attribute in a way that leads to division of substance), and that "a substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible" (Ethics, Part I, Propositions 12 and 13).[31] Following this logic, our world should be considered as a mode under two attributes of thought and extension. Therefore the pantheist formula "One and All" would apply to Spinoza only if the "One" preserves its transcendence and the "All" were not interpreted as the totality of finite things.[30]"

The article I cited was merely describing a form of "agnostic monism", in which a person is agnostic towards the existence of deities, but still believes the universe is composed of one singular and unifying substance. Monism is at the core Buddhism and Pantheism or Panentheism, which is why he draws the comparison between the "fundamental substance" of Monism with the substance that Panentheists such as Spinoza were describing. Spinoza himself was the initial advocate of what later became dubbed "Panentheism".

From my same article: "Absolute neutralism will also fail because it professes total ignorance of any fundamental entity that grounds our experiences (mental or physical).... The strength of agnostic monism lies in the recognition that humans do have some cognitive access to a portion of reality; but it recognises in the same breath that the concepts which we deploy in our understanding are inadequate for delivering a comprehensive picture of reality. (209-210)." -- This is what preceded and followed the quote that you mentioned. I think Prof. Godfrey O. Ozumba was trying to say that Absolute Neutralism is more like Strong Agnosticism, where the Agnostic accepts that the information on a deity is impossible to know, as well as impossible to obtain. While Agnostic Neutralism allows the possibility of discovering any potential deity that might exist beneath the fabric of reality and what we can readily observe. UnReAL13D (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The paper at http://www.ajol.info/index.php/jpc/article/view/71871/60828 is distinguishing agnostic monism, agnostic materialism, agnostic neutralism, idealism, mentalism, and neutral monism as they pertain to the mind-body problem. These are not different kinds of agnosticism with respect to the EXISTENCE of a deity. That paper is about whether there is more than one kind of substance or not. The paper's author does not seem to say anything about agnosticism (it seems agnostocism's only function in the paper is to indicate the claims are fallibilistic). There could also be agnostic dualism (which the paper does not mention for some reason). This WP article, as it stands is only about agnosticism with respect to the EXISTENCE of a deity - not about what substance any deity might consist of.--JimWae (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ignosticism is still an important part of Agnosticism, but I give up on this. I can see that it will be impossible to convince the majority here that even the concept of Neutrality alone is a large aspect of Agnosticism as well. It's sad to see you guys be so dismissive of the general understanding of "Agnosticism", and I can see why Wikipedia is gradually losing more and more credibility as a non-biased reference for theology and philosophy. Have fun with your kindergarten understanding of this philosophy which many of you have unjustifiably labeled as a form of "Atheism". UnReAL13D (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar

The appropriate sidebar for this article is the Irreligion one we currently have. It covers various irreligion topics like agnosticism. I would like the editor who insists on changing it to the atheism sidebar to please explain himself here and not simply keep on reverting to that version. Agnosticism is not part of "atheism" as a parent topic. Either create an agnosticism side bar or use one for an appropriate parent topic. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsensical definition of Agnosticism

This article states "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities"

This statement is a contradiction, for what is it saying? That you don't believe in God or Gods yet also that you don't reject belief in God or Gods. First of all, it's true that you can hold this position, yet the only people who can neither believe or disbelieve in the existence of a deity or deities, are people who do not know what the concept of god is and thus can neither reject or accept it. But if you understand the concept of God then how can you end up not believing in God and at the same time not reject belief in God? How exactly did it come about that you chose to not believe in god? Well, by rejecting the belief of course! So the statement that there is anyone who identifies as agnostic in this sense is nonsensical because it's contradictory, it's literally LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone who holds this position to call themselves an agnostic, because as soon as the person understands what god is, to not reject/disbelieve or accept/believe in god is simply impossible.

I think this popular idea of agnosticism comes out of a desire to refuse to fall into a dichotomy, people like the idea of being a "fence sitter" (even though fence sitting in the way that "agnostics" mean it can still fit under the atheist label), it seems reasonable because so many people associate atheism with "belief in no god, or no afterlife, or no supernatural realm". This is just as extreme of a position as Theism is, thus people with this kind of view of atheism (which I find is a wrong view of atheism) and theism see, and rightly so, that these two positions are actually extreme and there's room in-between them. Yes, according to this view you could reject atheism and theism, since all you're doing is rejecting two mutually exclusive beliefs, it would be like rejecting the belief "only the color blue exists" and the belief "only the color green exists", there's nothing wrong with that. But you STILL wouldn't be able to reject belief and disbelief in god. That position is and always will be nonsensical and contradictory.

I seriously think that this criticism of the "popular sense" of agnosticism should be included next to the statement I highlighted. It's very odd that even though this statement is equivalent to saying there's a "married bachelor", no one has pointed it out in the article. In other words why would anyone overlook a statement, I would say, is objectively nonsensical, contradictory, and meaningless? 71.126.177.145 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats the premise of agnosticism. There is no real belief either way. It may sound as if its an anachronism, but it makes sense if you understand what agnosticism is.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To say "real belief either way" assumes an atheist is holding a "belief" contrary to theism, they don't, at least not all atheists hold a belief no god or gods exist, so your statement already shows you probably don't know much about atheism. Also don't tell me something about agnosticism and say, I can understand it if I understand what agnosticism is, that's a tautology, of course I'll understand something about agnosticism if I understand what agnosticism is, but if you don't explain what agnosticism is then I won't understand that thing about agnosticism so you're doing nothing to explain that thing about agnosticism or what agnosticism is. My god! Is this not completely ridiculous! Because you failed to explain anything whatsoever and made a cute little one line response I'm going to have to assume what you were trying to imply with your statements, and do your work for you.

It seems you're claiming that agnostics believe that people cannot hold a "real belief" in god, despite how vague the term "real" belief is, I'm assuming you mean agnostics believe people just can't hold a belief in god or disbelieve in god. Personally I think that's probably the most unreasonable and most extreme belief I've ever heard, because as long as the idea of god is coherent and valid it can make sense and therefore there's no reason why no one could not be able to hold a belief in something that's meaningful or disbelieve in something that's meaningful. So your agnosticism is assuming there's no possible way the idea of god could ever be an intelligible concept that can either be believed or disbelieved. In fact the very belief that you can't believe in god only makes sense if the idea of god has a meaning, otherwise the statement simply makes no sense as it's centered around a meaningless word. So once an agnostic holds the belief that you cannot believe or disbelieve in god you've pretty much destroyed your own argument. Because you've now assumed a meaning for god and unless you want to make the argument that people can't believe in meaningful concepts then you really have no more grounds to argue that people can't believe or disbelieve in god, as you've made it into a meaningful concept.

For a more pragmatic consideration, is there any reliable source that states agnostics believe that people cannot really believe or disbelieve in god? If not then you have no grounds to make an appeal to such a premise to justify such a nonsensical statement, and even if you do have such a source it does nothing to refute the fact that the argument you're making is self-refuting or that when people understand the concept of god being discussed then they must either believe or disbelieve, and therefore agnosticism in the popular sense is a contradictory position. Also nothing you said called for the use of the word "anachronistic", you used that word completely out of context.71.126.177.145 (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've heard this argument before. You almost got it with "the only people who can neither believe or disbelieve in the existence of a deity or deities, are people who do not know what the concept of god is". But people who make this argument seem to miss one thing: it is possible to be undecided. The "popular sense" statement in question refers to the common definition of the word. Wikipedia talk pages aren't a good place to have philosophical discussions. Go back to reddit. Spacexplosion^[talk] 23:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And if we had written “someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities”, then this paragraph would be fine. But we didn’t, we used Rowe’s confusing wording “someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities”, which seems self-contradictory. 71 was right to point out this problem. I’ve replaced the troublesome phrase with “is undecided about”. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

However, by making that change you have interpreted the source, whereas the source clearly says "neither believes nor disbelieves". --JimWae (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

One can "neither believe nor disbelieve" by suspending belief. "Disbelief" is not the same as "unbelief". "Disbelief" carries the idea of rejecting belief--JimWae (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I took the interpretation of Rowe’s poorly worded sentence which made sense, and paraphrased it unambiguously. Since you seem to agree with my interpretation, and don’t think he meant to break the law of non‐contradiction, what are you complaining about? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@Spacexplosion: What do you mean it's possible to be undecided? That doesn't make any sense to me, if you have not yet decided to believe in god that would still mean you've made a decision to reject accepting belief in god, at least for now. If a person understands the concept of god that's being discussed then they either reject or accept it, not deciding to accept belief would still mean deciding to reject accepting belief, (on the condition of course that you already know what the concept of god is, because as I stated earlier people who don't know about the concept of god wouldn't reject accepting belief just by not deciding to accept belief because to begin with they have no concept of god to either reject or accept) and that is essentially what atheism is (but that's a tangent). So no I don't think saying "it's possible to be undecided" makes any sense whatsoever either. The popular sense of agnosticism makes no sense, period. Also "Go back to reddit" Really? Are you serious?

@JimWae: I don't think suspending belief means you neither believe nor disbelieve, in fact I think it necessarily means you disbelieve. Which I explain above, suspending a belief still means you've decided to reject accepting the belief. To reject accepting a belief is disbelief. Also I never suggested or meant to suggest disbelief was equivalent to unbelief. Again I think it's terrible that we're including a statement that is so contradictory and nonsensical, it's a complete disservice to anyone who reads this article. William Rowe is a far more intelligent and competent person in the philosophy of religion than I could ever be, but for this particular statement he made, I don't think there's any way around it, it makes no sense.96.231.157.26 (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you use "disbelief" in a sentence (one not about relgion) in which it means "rejection of acceptance of belief"?--JimWae (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I "disbelieve" that the universe is open. DonQuixote (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

@JimWae: Of course, why couldn't I? I disbelieve (or I reject accepting the belief that) my friend saw bigfoot last night. I disbelieve/reject accepting the belief that my mother is going to pass away next month. I could go on, and on, and on.96.231.157.26 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

More complete statement: Can you use "disbelief" in a sentence (one not about religion) in which it means "rejection of acceptance of belief" and does not mean (simply) "rejection of belief"? "Rejection of acceptance of belief" just seems to be wordiness to force a point not made in actual usage of the word "disbelieve". --JimWae (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to be wordy like that, the agnostic also "rejects the rejection of belief" and calling that position "disbelief" is stretching the meaning to make it fit a special argument--JimWae (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I "reject the rejection" that the universe is open...and I "reject the acceptance" that the universe is open. Not enough data. DonQuixote (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say to reject a belief would necessarily mean you reject accepting the belief, I'm not doing any word gymnastics to force a point, I'm simply being consistent with the meanings we're using. If by disbelief you mean to reject a belief, then you necessarily imply you reject the position of accepting that belief. If I say I reject the belief that the Earth is flat, at the very least I imply that I've rejected accepting the belief that the earth is flat? It's very simple, you can either reject or accept a concept, you cannot both reject and accept it, and you cannot both reject accepting it and then say you reject rejecting it, that's a contradiction, you've already rejected it! So no, an agnostic cannot "also" (assuming they've already rejected the belief") reject rejecting the belief. (unless they're changing their minds) Instead of taking the time to understand my arguments you've simply accused me of being "too wordy", but I would say every statement I've made necessarily follows from the meanings of the words and sentences we're using, and once you've taken the time to understand the argument it will show that the popular sense of agnosticism makes no sense and really is a contradiction. 96.231.157.26 (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Without any evidence one way or the other, I reject any acceptance that you're male...at the same time I reject any rejection that you're male. That's not a contradiction. DonQuixote (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• The issue is whether this is how "disbelief" is used in English. Do you disbelieve I am male or do you just have no belief one way or the other? There is a difference. Beliefs (and disbeliefs) are dispositional - they imply having a favorable attitude one way or the other.
• Sure, if you reject a belief (RB) you could rephrase that wordily as you reject acceptance of that belief(RAB), and RB implies RAB. However, RAB does not imply RB, for one can still reject rejection of belief (RRB) -- thus reject RB -- thus, NOT reject belief [~RB] .... RAB does not imply RB. < RRB = ~RB >
• I am sure I said - not too far above - that agnostics do NOT, in the popular sense, reject belief [RB]
• I've long maintained "disbelief" was not a good word choice with regard to theism/atheism/agnosticism (because diff people think it means diff things), but with the change, I am not sure we can still use Rowe to support what is there.--JimWae (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: Yes it is a contradiction, if you've decided to reject the position of accepting the belief that I am a male, then saying you reject the position of rejecting the belief that I am a male would contradict your other decision to reject the position to accept the belief. You cannot reject the belief and at the same time say you reject rejecting the belief, if that's so then you no longer reject accepting the belief as you've rejected doing that! What you're trying to say is that you reject the belief that I'm a man, okay, so you aren't convinced I'm a man, that makes sense, but then you go on to say you also reject to rejecting to the belief I'm a man. Wait a minute! Then you can no longer say you reject the belief I'm a man! Thus you've just contradicted yourself. This is what agnostics are saying, (in the popular sense) and this is why the position makes no sense.

@JimWae: I disbelieve you're male, that's all that's called for till further evidence is presented on whether you're male or female. I could not have "no belief one way or the other." because to disbelieve means to reject a belief, it doesn't mean to believe something. The rejection may be instigated by beliefs, but rejection is not itself a belief. RAB and RB are the same thing, there's no question about that, the only way I can believe in something is if I've accepted the belief, so if I've rejected accepting the belief, then I do not and cannot believe it, thus by rejecting accepting the belief I necessarily reject belief. Also you cannot "still RRB" and it wouldn't follow that RAB does not imply RB. As I explained above to DonQuixote, RRB and RAB/RB (since RAB and RB are same thing, I'm just going to conflate RAB to RB now, the only reason I introduced RAB was to expand on what is meant by us when we RB) at the same time is a contradiction. Disbelief is fine, everyone agrees it means rejecting a belief, agnosticism thus in the popular sense (PSA) means to not accept belief and to not reject belief, which is a contradiction, if "RRB is ~RB" then "not" (which you seem to think is equivalent to "reject" in this case) accepting belief is RAB or RB, therefore PSA means to RB and ~RB. Need I say more? :) (hint: to ~RB and RB is a contradiction. PSA makes no sense.) Q.E.D. 96.231.157.26 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to "Continue" the ongoing non-article improvement debate, but you apparently feel that there are only two categories, either a person believes in God, or they do not believe in God. That argument is a theological one, based on a religious belief. Ive heard these arguments before. Its based on the assumption that God does in fact exist, and anyone who doesn't believe in God 100% based on faith, therefore rejects God entirely. That is not always the case. If one assumes that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, then the statement in the lead (or was in the lead) is true. Its difficult for some people to believe in something that cannot be proven, or at least scientifically explained. On the other hand, the possible existence of God cannot be dismissed, because the same rules apply, it can not be proven that God does not exist. That is the conundrum for the agnostic. Atheists take it on faith that God does not exist. Theologians take it on faith that God does exist. Agnostics have no proof either way. Its sort of living purgatory for those who cannot come to grips with either side of the question. Agnostics live with the idea that if God does exist, then they may not be able to enjoy the afterlife. But if God doesn't exist, then why waste time with religion? Its difficult for people to identify themselves as agnostic. Its easy to place themselves in one of the two "Main" categories. Many people who are agnostic may go to church anyway and may fool themselves into the "feelings" that are associated with organized religion in order to satisfy the need to "cover all their bases". In reality its better to be wrong about whether there is a God than to be wrong about there not being a God. Based on many religious beliefs, those who don't believe in God, usually burn in hell for eternity. Yet if a person goes to church and "worships" God, and it turns out that no God existed, then they would be no worse off than if they hadn't worshiped. If one doesn't go to church and worship God, and they then are wrong, and there is a God, then they are most assuredly going to perish in hell. But going to church doesn't automatically mean that the person believes in God, just like not going to church does not mean that that person does not have a belief in God, or at least the ability to do so. Then there is the problem with which religion to worship in. Dozens of religions with many sects and off shoots, all thinking that all the other religions are wrong. No wonder so many people reject religion.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@96.231.157.26, I reject the acceptance that 2 11 25 44 56 62 will be the winning numbers for tomorrow's lottery. I reject the rejection that those will be the winning numbers for tomorrow's lottery. It's not a contradiction because no one has shown me that they can reliably predict the future. Similarly, rejecting the acceptance that you're male and rejecting the rejection that you're male isn't a contradiction because no one has yet shown me that they know your gender. Etc. The only thing that I'm accepting or rejecting is that I'm accepting that no one has shown that they know anything about [insert topic here]...or I'm rejecting that anyone has shown that they know anything about [insert topic here]. Not a contradiction. DonQuixote (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: Yea, to believe or to not believe is a true dichotomy, they're the only two valid categories as there's nothing that is not included in the two categories, anyways that has nothing to do with what I was saying. Also what would it mean to believe in god "71.84897%" and not believe in god "28.15103%"? Since you seem to think percentages are relevant to the discussion of belief. In fact they're not, you either believe in a statement or you do not, it's not a matter of percentages. That's absurd. And just because atheists have no belief in god does not mean we believe god does not exist, Rejecting to believe in god is not the same thing as believing there is no god. If you don't think god can be proven and therefore you do not believe in god then you've decided to reject accepting belief in god, if you don't think god can be disproven and therefore believe god could still exist then you've rejected accepting the belief that god cannot exist, but you have not rejected the position of rejecting belief in god just by rejecting to accept the belief that god does not exist. Therefore your idea of an agnostic is simply someone who rejects two different kinds of belief about god, not someone who rejects belief and disbelief. That statement in any case is a contradiction as I've explained before. You seem completely new to this to be honest I get the sense that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Also were you trying to make Pascal's Wager? Yea if Christian dogma is true then by not believing in something (in this case god) you will burn in hell, and believing in something (god) then you will be rewarded. But if you're going to admit that you can be punished after you're dead by simply not believing in something then you open yourself up to an infinite of possible outcomes of punishment once you die, because there is an infinite amount of things you don't believe, who's to say you won't be punished for not believing in those, maybe chthulhu will punish you for not believing in him, maybe a jester-type god will punish you for being a christian. And Vice versa, if you can be rewarded after death for believing in something maybe there'll be an anti-christian god who exists and will reward you for rejecting Christianity. Point; Pascal's Wager is absurd because it unjustly assumes the only three things that could possibly happen to you after death is nothing, being rewarded for belief in god, or being punished for no belief god. Also I don't know what "non-article improvement" means, but my suggestion for improvement is to avoid including a contradictory statement, it would be a disservice to everyone to let it remain.

@DonQuixote: No, it's definitely a contradiction and there's no way around that whatsoever. "The rejection that 2 11 25 44 56 62 will be the winning numbers for tomorrow's lottery" is the same thing as "to reject the acceptance that 2 11 25 44 56 62 will be the winning numbers for tomorrow's lottery", by rejecting one and accepting the other you're contradicting yourself. Q.E.D Similarly "rejecting the acceptance that I'm male" and "the rejection that I'm male" are the same thing, by accepting one and rejecting the other you're contradicting yourself, again. If you don't "know" I'm a male, then you can just reject accepting the belief I'm a male, that way you aren't committing to a belief either way. I suggest you read my response to JimWae, as if you see yourself as an agnostic in the popular sense then you're contradicting yourself, because what you're essentially saying is that you reject belief in god and you do not reject belief in god. 96.231.157.26 (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

While "rejection of" implies "rejection of the acceptance", "rejection of the acceptance" does not imply "rejection of". It's not a tautology, it's a one way implication only. Given that, it's not a contradiction. Similarly, I reject that you know what tomorrow's lottery numbers will be and I reject that you know what tomorrow's lottery numbers won't be. It's not a contradiction. Etc.

Finally, what agnostics are saying is that agnostics reject current beliefs in gods and at the same time not rejecting beliefs in the probably of some as yet undefined god. It's like rejecting a belief in Klingons but at the same time not rejecting beliefs in the probability of some as yet undefined alien lifeform. Not a contradiction, and probability plays an important role...Klingons: 0%; Aliens: non-zero percent.

Actually, that crossed out bit is what some agnostics are saying. Got off track there.

Anyway, what agnostics are saying is that they reject believing in god until the certainty is 100% and at the same time they do not reject believing in the possibility of a god until the probability is 0%. DonQuixote (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As I explained before, Rejection of accepting belief and Rejection of belief are the same thing, there's no question about that, the only way I can believe in something is if I've accepted the belief, so if I've rejected accepting the belief, then I do not and cannot believe it, thus by rejecting accepting the belief I must necessarily reject belief at the same time. Rejection of acceptance of belief is just an expansion of what is meant by rejection of belief, nothing more, they both mean exactly the same thing.

Anyways, your statement "I reject that you know what tomorrow's lottery numbers will be and I reject that you know what tomorrow's lottery numbers won't be" is not equivalent to the popular sense of agnosticism (nor is it equivalent to your previous statements I cited in my last post) all you're doing is rejecting two positions of belief, you're not rejecting both a position of belief and a position of disbelief. the position that I know what the lottery numbers tomorrow won't be (e.g. I know they won't be 3 4 54 67 23) is a position of belief not a position of disbelief (which would be e.g. "I reject the belief that the lottery numbers will be 3 4 54 67 23"). So yes, you can reject two different positive beliefs, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the popular sense of agnosticism, which claims to reject belief in god and at the same time not reject belief in god. That is, and will always remain a contradiction, and you've done nothing to prove otherwise.

It also seems to me that you think rejecting belief in god entails that you believe that there is no god, which is absurd, being unconvinced or rejecting belief that a god exists is not the same thing as "believing" god does not exist. If I reject the belief that I know what the lottery numbers will be tomorrow, that in no way means I accept the belief that I know what they won't be. I don't know why you seem to think that. Even your scratched out thoughts imply this, rejecting belief in god in no way implies you reject the belief there is some chance a god could exist, rejecting belief is simply not accepting the belief yet, it's a state of being unconvinced, you seem to think that "to not accept a belief" means "to accept that the belief is false." Not so, to not accept a belief (which is the same thing as to reject a belief) only implies you're unconvinced that the belief is true (at least for now), it doesn't imply you believe the belief is false.

Your last statement also has nothing whatsoever to do with the popular sense of agnosticism. You're basically saying you reject belief in god but you also believe that god could exist, well of course you can do that because rejecting a belief is true doesn't necessarily mean you believe the belief is false, as I just went over. But now your idea of agnosticism is that you disbelieve in god and believe god could exist, that is in no freaking way the same thing as to not disbelieve in god ("to not disbelieve in god" is the same thing as "to believe in god") and to not believe in god. Again, this popular sense of agnosticism is necessarily a contradiction, as what it means is that you believe in god and do not believe in god. (I'm baffled that you've not been able to understand this yet) and as I stated all you did before was show that you can reject two different positions of belief (I reject the belief I know who will win, I reject the belief I know who won't win), you've NOT shown that you can both reject a position of belief in X and reject a position of disbelief in X, you've not shown that you can believe X and disbelieve X. Until you do that, and until you start talking about the popular sense of agnosticism (PSA) presented in this article, you will not have even begun to show how PSA is not a contradiction. As it stands now you've done nothing to help your case at all, nor do I think you ever can because PSA is necessarily and will always be a contradiction because it is simply impossible for a statement (I reject X; ~X) and its negation (I reject rejection of X; ~~X) to be jointly true, because that would be..... (drum roll).... A CONTRADICTION!!!!96.231.157.26 (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)