Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 11

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)

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)

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)

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</b><b style="color:#722">☯</b><b style="color:#622">m</b><b style="color:#522">i</b></i> 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. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#549">u</b><b style="color:#448">n</b><b style="color:#348">☯</b><b style="color:#248">m</b><b style="color:#148">i</b></i> 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. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#537">u</b><b style="color:#436">n</b><b style="color:#336">☯</b><b style="color:#236">m</b><b style="color:#136">i</b></i> 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)


 * I'm glad someone else brought this up as I was about to create a new section to discuss just this. I agree with Tacv's suggestion. These definitions are highly debatable, are poorly sourced, and largely misplaced or irrelevant. The terms Agnostic Atheist and Agnostic Theist belong to their parent sections and not in an article where the subject is being used as an adjective to describe those root terms. I support removal. -Percelle (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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 <sup style="color:#CC9900;">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  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">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)
 * If you can find a reliable source that says everything that you're saying, then feel free to cite it in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for ceasing to defend such a contradictory statement. I hadn't noticed the statement in question had been changed, but the citation does not support the change. The citation states "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities" (a contradiction), that does not in anyway mean "an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities" As it stands now the statement isn't properly cited. (and the statement still makes no sense) But the statement had been changed to more clearly reflect what you people mean by PSA, I see no problem in doing that, I think PSA should be changed so that it actually makes sense. You all seem to think PSA means "rejecting the belief there is a god and rejecting the belief there is no god." That's fine since it actually makes sense, I would support a change to that statement, but as it stands now the statement presented in the article now cannot and is not supported by William Rowe's Citation.96.231.157.26 (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks for limiting yourself to one paragraph this time. We people will more easily understand concise arguments. This is particularly true with the invention of new terms like "rejecting acceptance of X". I propose we fall back to the dictionary when we seem to disagree about what a word like disbelief means. In common speech (or popular sense), disbelief implies belief in the claim's negation since untrue is different than unknown. Please substitute your word 'unconvinced' for my word 'undecided' earlier if you like (I'm baffled that you didn't understand that). I'm for keeping the original wording since it was already established as a reliable source. Spacexplosion[talk] 17:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, in favor of restoring original wording of source. --JimWae (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@JimWae: As long as you realize you're "reliably sourcing" a contradiction and you're okay with that.

@Spacexplosion: NO, there is no dictionary that defines disbelief as "belief in the negation of a claim" that's absurd and silly, and your citation to merriam-webster doesn't even support that definition, it confusingly defines disbelief as rejecting that a belief is false, which I'm not even going to attempt to get into especially since they have a much better definition of disbelief right in the same sentence which is "the act of disbelieving", and they define disbelieving as "rejecting a belief or simply not believing". which perfectly coincides with the already well established definition of disbelief we've been using, i.e. to simply reject/not accept a belief, which necessarily means to reject accepting a belief, this is not a "new term" I came up with, as rejecting belief and rejecting accepting belief mean exactly the same thing.

I'm sorry that you can't keep up (in more ways then one). But most of my arguments are one paragraph long, it's just that I make multiple arguments in a single post. I'm sorry it's hard for you to understand arguments that are a few short paragraphs rather than one short paragraph, I can imagine how illiterate you must be with that kind of handicap.

As for replacing my "unconvinced" with your "undecided", you're ignoring the context in which I used unconvinced and you used undecided. I was saying that "rejection of belief" means to be unconvinced that the belief is true, it doesn't in any way imply that you believe the belief is false. You were saying that "to not believe and to not disbelieve in god" means to simply be undecided about god, even if I replaced your word with "unconvinced" or replaced mine with "undecided" that would still in no way change the fact that your statement made no sense, and that "to not believe and to not disbelieve in god" is a contradiction, and doesn't and cannot mean "undecided about god". (I'm baffled that you can come up with the most silliest and absurd of arguments.)

What you have tried to do here is sickening and disingenuous, you've become so desperate to try and justify that contradictory statement that you've actually tried to define "disbelieving" as "believing", to twist "not accepting a belief as true" into "accepting that a belief is false". I don't think I need say more, your statements speak for themselves. 96.231.157.26 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I take offense at you calling me an illiterate simpleton who is sickening and disingenuous. Please try to remain civil; Wikipedia has policies against abusive language. Most of your response is irrelevant because you went wrong in the very beginning. It wastes both of our time when you start with a flawed premise and expound upon it for paragraphs. The definition I linked to actually says "rejection of something as untrue" not "rejecting that a belief is false". We both already realize that if disbelief means labeling as untrue, then 'unconvinced' is between belief and disbelief. You're just arguing that you don't like that definition, which is fine. Just don't tell everyone else what they mean by it. Spacexplosion[talk] 00:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source that says everything that you're saying, then feel free to cite it in this article. See WP:Verifiability. DonQuixote (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: Yes i've already responded to that statement, I'm glad you stopped defending that contradictory statement. It seems though that you all would rather "reliably source" a contradiction rather than not sourcing it at all, as I said to JimWae as long as you realize you're sourcing a contradiction and you're fine with that then there's nothing I can really do to stop you. Though if I ever find a source that critiques William Rowes "popular sense of agnosticism" I will bring it back, but that seems unlikely since it's simply too specific to find. I'm saddened that we have to use a contradictory statement in this article because of policy, overall that policy probably works to improve articles for the better, but in specific cases like these I think it works to the detriment of the article.

@Spacexplosion: The premise I started off on was completely accurate, you said disbelief is "believing the negation is true", which in this case would mean "accepting that god does not exist", the dictionary you cite defines disbelief as "rejecting a "belief" (since we're only concerned with belief here that is the word I used) is/as fasle" which means exactly the same thing as "rejecting a belief (again I used belief since that is the only "something" relevant to our discussion) is/as untrue." Thus the dictionary you cited in no way whatsoever supports your statement that disbelief means "believing the negation is true", so my premise that your reference doesn't support your definition is completely accurate, I know you must feel silly for citing something as supporting your statements when in fact they don't but no matter what, that is the case here, get over it.

Further in the very same sentence of that definition of disbelief in YOUR reference, disbelief is defined as "the act of disbelieving" and disbelieving is defined in YOUR reference as "to reject or not believe." So I was being perfectly consistent in using that definition later. But I didn't even have to use your dictionary, there are plenty of other reliable dictionaries that define disbelief as simply "rejection of belief", http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief.

Rejecting a belief (something) AS false/untrue is NOT the same as "labeling as false/untrue", you see! You're doing it again! You're again trying to define disbelief as the belief something is false! When not a single dictionary defines it that way! Yes definitions are arbitrary, but as you said, here we should use dictionary definitions, and you're not doing that! Find me a SINGLE, just ONE reliable dictionary that defines disbelief as the "belief something is untrue". (Hint: You can't! There is none!)

In fact here's what atheism means according to your references "to not accept the belief that god exists as false" which funny enough means atheists simply reject the belief god does not exist. And even MORE hilarious, here's what "to not believe and not disbelieve" means using your dictionary definitions. "To not accept the belief god exists, and to 'not not accept' (which basically means to accept) the belief god exists as false." So basically an agnostic is someone who believes there is no god (since they accept that the belief there is a god is untrue), and an atheist is someone who rejects that! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED! Thank you, this has been the most fun I've had at a circus. It's true we can use any definition we want, the dictionary definition you used though, seems to have turned this entire discussion in a completely ridiculous charade where agnosticism is "EXTREME atheism" and an atheist could possibly be a theist. (if we use the definition "disbelief that god exists" to define atheism & of course your funny and overly complicated dictionary definition of disbelief).

That was really fun actually, I didn't think you would shoot yourself in the foot so badly.96.231.157.26 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, please see WP:OR and WP:FORUM. DonQuixote (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, DonQuixote, I've already admitted that I can't stop you guys from reliably sourcing a contradiction, did you not read what I said? "If I ever find a source that critiques William Rowes "popular sense of agnosticism" I will bring it back, but that seems unlikely since it's simply too specific to find. I'm saddened that we have to use a contradictory statement in this article because of policy, overall that policy probably works to improve articles for the better, but in specific cases like these I think it works to the detriment of the article." The Source which you would like me to find is a some kind of critique of William Rowe's popular sense of agnosticism, perferrably in some kind of philosophical academic journal, but do you really think such a specific article could be found, I doubt any Philosopher of religion much cares about William Rowe's crude wording of agnosticism in the "popular sense", thus it's unlikely there exists such a specific critique, of course this doesn't mean that PSA is not a nonsensical position. (indeed it isn't a position at all) But Of course you can go ahead and cite William Rowe, he's a reliable source overall, but that doesn't make it any less the fact that you're citing a contradiction and keeping it in the article, which is a very sad thing indeed.96.231.157.26 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your observation. Please publish it in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing man, I'll publish it in Linguistics and Philosophy right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.157.26 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Similarites
To read in this page is like to swim in lies, they are so dense that you could swim through it. High level satanists (by definition) bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.91.21 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Adherents of any religion are welcome to be editors here, including Satanists. If you can cite reliable sources to correct any factual inaccuracies here, then do so. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Rowe vs. Smith
While some here believe Rowe's statement to be contradictory, I do not. But there is a clear difference in positions between Rowe and Smith in defining agnosticism. Rowe is advancing the position that agnosticism is a third alternative to theism and atheism, while Smith is advancing the position that agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism.

These opposing positions are muddled together as one in the "Types of agnosticism" section. Strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism contradict agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. The former has agnosticism as a third alternative, while the latter does not. Yet, this contradiction is never mentioned, even though the Smith source directly states that agnosticism is not a third alternative and the Rowe source indirectly states agnosticism is a third alternative.

The norm in society is that agnosticism is a third alternative. This can be found in polls, from credible news, polling sources, even the scientific journal Nature. Wikipedia also follows this norm by having a list of agnostics, a list of atheists, but not a list of agnostic atheists. And the reason this is the norm is most likely due to the fact that the first person credited with coining the term "agnostic", Thomas Huxley, rejected theism and atheism and was looking for an alternative.

It's not controversial that agnosticism is a third alternative, it is the norm. What's controversial is those claiming agnosticism is not a third alternative. Such statements belong in the criticism section as they are critical of the normally accepted definition that agnosticism is a third alternative.

Terms involving agnostic theism and agnostic atheism belong in the criticism section, as well as the Euler diagram as they are criticizing the normally accepted definition of agnosticism as a third alternative.IIXVXII (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NPV doesn't mean coming to a consensus on which bias to take, it's about removing all bias. I see no reason why we can't discuss the varying definition of agnosticism, but everything that isn't "mainstream" opinion shouldn't be shoved into the Criticism section. Also note that this is an old argument for this article. Please read the previous discussions on this page to get an idea of the current state of the article regarding this point. Spacexplosion[talk] 17:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is already established. It's whether or not this Wikipedia page will recognize it.

No agnostic accepts the definition that agnosticism is not a third alternative. No agnostic accepts the definition of Smith. No agnostic would allow the defining of agnostic atheist in agnosticism when such a term derives from the very negation of their position. Cleary, non-agnostics and their motives are contributing to this page. This continual disruption from atheists.

Take for instance the quote from Huxley, where's the source? And how come readbookonline states the quote differently?

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/30261/

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good;" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

This is how atheist Wikipedia editors state it, "Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term: Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

And is it really any coincidence that this exact error is also found on an atheist website?

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/huxley.htm

Which also has no source for the quote.

If this is how one defends a Neutral Point of View, then they are wrong. There is nothing neutral about deception.

A better quote for Huxley, that is a neutral point of view, meaning, this is what Huxley stated,

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/30257/

Establishing the principle: "This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts..."

Application of the principle: "Still speaking for myself, I add, that though Agnosticism is not, and cannot be, a creed, except in so far as its general principle is concerned; yet that the application of that principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty."

Huxley rejected atheism and characterized a "new" position that rejects atheism.

The History part of this page has all supporters of the accepted definition established by Huxley. No where on the page actually, is there ever any mention that a small group of people claim agnosticism is not a legitimate alternative. That part is buried in a quote by Smith, while it's implications are allowed to creep into the accepted definition of agnosticism. As if it fits perfectly, when Smith denies the very existence of the agnostic position.

If terms like agnostic atheism are not removed from the context of the accepted definition of agnosticism, then agnostic atheism is being misrepresented. The Euler Diagram is also being misrepresented. They do not fit into the context of this page, where everywhere the context is, that agnosticism is an alternative.

The proper place, where they can establish their context, is in Criticisms.

WP:NPV Due and undue weight "...it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." IIXVXII (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I have been afflicted by a case of WP:TLDR here, but that hasn't prevented me from answering one point from the above: the full text of Huxley's essay is available at Wikisource:Essays upon some Controverted Questions/IX. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is irrelevant when you cannot even acknowledge the obvious fact that the quote is incorrectly stated. Your opinion is irrelevant when you endorse deception.IIXVXII (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion that I "endorse deception" is unwarranted and needlessly offensive; please remain on the polite side of the WP:NPA policy.


 * Attaching a reference giving the source of the quote seems a good way to confront deception (had there been any). Did you use the source I supplied when you reviewed the earlier transcription,  did you perhaps use the wikilink to the online text I attached, or was it from somewhere you found for yourself?


 * --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I clearly stated my source, which you claim you don't know about now, but how long has this obvious error been here? What am I suppose to believe about the people editing this page, to allow such an obvious flaw? The exact flaw perpetuated by atheist websites.IIXVXII (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And of course, the atheist websites must be wrong... because they're run by atheists, right? Please stop being so confrontational. Multiple sources have been presented to you which are being cited on these pages, both here and at Talk:Theism. You need to either demonstrate that your preferred sources are in the significant majority and these ones are a significant minority, or present new sources which are of higher quality, or drop the stick, please. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you even read what you are commenting on? The text of the wikisource essay and the 'readbookonline' version is identical.  It is the same in all both sources and it is apparently misquoted. I can see it with my own eyes. That's why it's obvious.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.55.245 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IIXVXII makes the sweeping generalization, "No agnostic accepts the definition that agnosticism is not a third alternative." In five seconds, I found . ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rowes definition of Agnosticism in the popular sense is undeniably a contradiction, simply because it does not make sense for someone to not accept (reject belief) and at the same time accept (reject disbelief) a belief. I agree that most people feel that agnosticism is a third alternative, if it is then it means the same thing as weak atheism, but if you mean something like what Rowe was saying then it doesn't matter how you feel, or if that feeling is the norm, because what you mean simply makes no sense either to us or to you, it's kind of like saying you're a married bachelor, sure you can say the words, but it doesn't mean they genuinely mean anything. This is because married and bachelor are mutually exclusive, much like Rowes agnosticism in the popular sense. In fact, maybe the genius of Rowe was to point out how the meaning of agnosticism to the masses is exactly this contradictory feeling, perhaps Rowe was a greater social critic than I thought. It's certainly the case that regular people don't want to be apart of the polarizing and vitriolic arena between atheism and theism, no one likes a dichotomy, especially true ones, and though it's a contradiction to do so, the masses who don't wish to be apart of or associated with this arena, or who want to look like the reasonable middle ground, will say they reject both even if it doesn't mean anything at all. 96.255.36.154 (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2012 (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)


 * Actually, that's not true. If you believe that at least one god exist, you're a theist. Anything else - you are an atheist, including "I don't know". The word a-theist means the one who is not a theist. Therefor there is no middle ground. There is no place to stick a "doubter" between theist and atheist. Even if you claim "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.", that does not mean that you are not either a theist or an atheist, because even if you claim that (that you don't know), you are acting as if one or the other is true, you are acting as if god exists or does not exist. You can say that you are a "doubter" and that can be true, but if you don't pray to the deity, if you don't "feel Him", if you don't talk to Him, if you don't follow religious teachings, you are also an atheist. If you pray to the deity and do other religious stuff, you are a theist, whether you (think you) know your deity exists or not. It's that simple.


 * By forcing "agnosticism" as a viable alternative to a/theism people are doing one of two things:
 * Ateists (the ones that do not hold a belief in a deity): they distance themselves from orthodox view of atheists and atheism where atheists are hated because they supposedly "hate god", where they are immoral etc. Also, they distance themselves from political activism in atheism (this is something what Neil deGrasse Tyson did - it is clear he is not a theist - therefor he is by definition an atheist - but he sees atheism as some kind of activism, and because of that he insists on label agnostic - even though it is obvious he is an atheist at the same time).
 * Theists (the ones that hold a belief in at least one deity): they need to have somebody to hate, or at least to criticize. Religions must have some group to criticize (atheists, homosexuals, scientists that do "ungodly work"...), they must have an enemy, because fear (and hatred, many times caused by artificial disgust) is the best motivator. If atheism is just a "lack of belief", it is hard to criticize the whole group, especially as there is no real evidence that would support the belief! Therefor they invent an agnostic as a middle ground, so they define agnostic as the one who lacks a belief because he/she doesn't know that god exists (ignoring the fact that nobody really knows whether some god exists - neither atheists who claim they believe that no god exists - they act as if no gods exist, they claim no god exists, but they don't actually know, because you cannot prove /that kind of/ an absolute negative - you can only prove that god exists). That leaves a room to identify the agnostic as a good guy. So if you subtract "agnostics" from atheists, you get explicit atheists - those (angry, militant, those who hate god) atheists that claim no god exist (but they hate Him! LOL). And this is the group that was in the past known just as atheists, because theists would not accept "lack of belief" as a real option.
 * This is why people in recent years reinvented the term agnostic - so that they can distance themselves from or have a reason to attack those who dare to say no gods exist or who publicly criticize religions. Agnostics are reinvented as good, neutral guys, but I agree with Dawkins on this one - they are doing "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice." They (if they are not agnostic theists) act as if no gods exists, but won't admit that. They are answering a question nobody asked them - they are answering a question "Do you know if god exists?" or "Do you think is the existence of god knowable?", when they are asked a question "Do you BELIEVE that at least one god exist?" or "Do you act as if god exists?". --Marekich (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2012 (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)

This is absolute silliness, Atheism has meant lack of belief in god since d'Holbach's "Good Sense", it's nothing new. Agnosticism meant we can't have any knowledge about God until very recently. Rather what's going on is that those people who call themselves agnostics are looking for a word to identify themselves with that has less stigma and polarization attached to it than the word "atheism", and that's all. 96.255.36.154 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You cannot define Atheism for what it's not. Many Atheists seem to try to force the idea that Atheism is an umbrella term. Unfortunately when you define Atheism as "lack of belief" you are saying that every position that lacks the belief in God is Atheism. So what you're really saying is that positions like Pantheism or Agnosticism or even positions of "ignorance" toward God (babies, rocks, trees, indigenous people, etc) are all Atheists since they all lack the belief in God. This is simply absurd. in fact, there is an umbrella term for this, but it's not Atheism, but Nontheism. Atheism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, etc. all lack the belief in God because all are Nontheist positions. Many Atheists incorrectly define Atheism as simply the lack of belief in God, not understanding that doing so they are only defining the group that Atheism belongs to, but not the actual position Atheism defend. SO:


 * Atheism - I lack the belief in God (define a Nontheist position), since i believe God does not exist (define an Atheist position);
 * Agnosticism - I lack the belief in God (define a Nontheist position), since the existence of God is unknown and as such uncertain (define an Agnostic position).
 * Atheism is a position of belief, opposite to Theism, as such it is the position of belief that God does not exist (from a+theos, meaning NO GODS and not NO BELIEF)
 * You can clearly see that the lack of belief define a group of position where Atheism is also included, but do not define what Atheism is in itself. Tacv (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's the other way around; atheism has had an "absence of belief" meaning since before the word agnostic existed, but theists have tried to "force the idea" that atheism is a positive belief (likely because reserving judgment until theists meet their burden of proof is rationally unassailable).
 * Almost no one besides strawmanning theists suggest that inanimate objects like rocks are atheists. Capacity for thought goes without saying. An atheist is one who has no belief in deities, not something which has no belief in deities.
 * However, one could reasonably argue for preferring nontheist on occasions where atheist would be ambiguous. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the term Nontheist. Thanks Tacv, for the highly logical organization of these terms. It doesn't change the fact, however, that definitions aren't dictated like standards. The metric for defining a word is its use in the wild. A disagreement on definitions can lead to argument in conversation but is solved by each party understanding the difference in definitions being used. Arguing that someone else can't use a word the way they understand it is ridiculous. Discussion here pertains to what content the article should contain, and policy dictates that we not create our own definitions but use ones from reliable sources and not give undue preference to those we agree with. Spacexplosion[talk] 22:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi,you said definitions aren't dictated like standards and Arguing that someone else can't use a word the way they understand it is ridiculous. i couldn't disagree more with this, and it's also easily proven wrong. The very reason people can communicate with each other, is based in the fact that there are mutual understanding of words, and that's were encyclopedias and dictionaries come in, fortunately there are indeed standards and rules to lexicon. You are entitled to understand a word as you want, but you cannot use it as its universal meaning, specially because you should consider the word universal as including all languages besides English. If not you would be creating diverse meaning for the same view|position - Atheism: an Atheist view in English speaking countries and a different Atheist view in the rest of the world. I think this might be hard to understand or take into account to a native English speaking person since English is the only big language i know of that don't have a language authority or regulator, like a Language Academia, that regulates norms, standards and meanings of the language, and maybe because of that you may feel that you have (illusory) freedom with language. In the end, one is free to understand what they want from a word, but that doesn't change the universal meaning and baggage of the word itself. You are not asked what to believe, but if you state to belong to a group people are expecting you to believe in what that group defends. And with all this we are moving away from the subject. I know this will never be consensual here in wikipedia (what is!?), but i couldn't stop myself from completely agree with the original poster. Tacv (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything resembling a proof in your response. From the article you linked: "A language regulator may also be descriptive however, while maintaining (but not imposing) a standard spelling, for example." My point was precisely that dictionaries are descriptive of the usage in English, and I don't see how it's relevant to discuss other languages here, except perhaps for referencing the word's roots. Spacexplosion[talk] 18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Question mark image
This image's generic caption doesn't explain how it is relevant to the article. This revert claims that it is common. Can we get a source that attests to its use? The file description references a T-shirt designer, and it seems to me that this is cleverly disguised advertising. Spacexplosion[talk] 21:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)