Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 4

Apathetic Agnosticism
I just wonder what the thoughts are attached to this. Trying to pinpoint my Agnostic beliefs, this seems to be the closest. I just don't think the wording does it right. Or another branch needs defined. Thoughts on: "The view that there is no proof either of God's existence or nonexistence, but since a creator(if there is one) is only observing the system, he is meaningless to our existence."

Taking reasonable exception to the blatant bias in the statement, "Agnosticism differs from atheism in that (strong) atheists claim there is no God"
"There is no God" is not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof), it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one. -- 207.200.116.204 17:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved from the article: "There is no God" is not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof), it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one. -- 207.200.116.204 17:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

One point of view has it that "Theists and strong atheists make statements about the world: the theist, that 'God exists', the strong atheist, that 'God does not exist'. Agnostics make the statement about these statements, 'one cannot know whether or not God exists'."

Two objections to the above point of view are:

1. How could anyone possibly know that it is impossible to know it if some hypothetical thing were to exist and interact with the world? Any such interaction would leave some kind of trail of evidence that could be demonstrated, wouldn't it?

And 2. The argument that there might actually BE (exist) an invisible deity is what is known as an EXISTENTIAL statement, not a "statement about the world" (universal statement) as the writer of the above paragraph asserts. The null, 'There is no invisible deity in evidence in the universe' is a universal statement (statement about the universe).

Thanks for your input, .204. In my dictionary, to make a claim is to make an assertion or to state something one takes to be true, ...


 * ... which stand in need of proof.

not to make a statement that is in need of proof.


 * Any existential statement like, "There might be an invisible God" is an assertion that stands in need of proof. The denial is not an assertion, it is the denial of one, so it does not stand in need of proof. Look up fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof to the non-believers.

But perhaps you would accept the wording "Agnosticism differs from atheism in that (strong) atheists assert that there is no God"? Banno 21:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * "There is no God" is not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), it is the denial (negation) of one.

Your (1) may indeed be correct, but nevertheless, it is what agnostics claim.


 * I am agnostic, and I do not claim any such thing, since it is nonsense. See Thomas Huxley's excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism vs. Christianity." There you will find that agnosticism is not about knowledge at all, it is about the folly of believing things without evidence. Huxley says, and I agree, that the reasonable course is to unabashedly deny and repudiate any religious doctrine like Christianity or Islam for example, that there are existential propositions that people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence. Have you read it?


 * Yes, I have read it. Knowledge is belief that is both true and justified - see epistemology. Huxley was certainly aware of Plato, and was making use of the Theaetetus account. Huxley is advocating justified beliefs over unjustified - and so knowledge over belief. In other words, he is talking about knowledge. Banno 09:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your equivocation, "Knowledge is belief" is sophistry, a standard obscurantist attempted conflation of scientific knowledge and religius belief, two entirely different things. That will fool only the most gullible. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. --207.200.116.204 22:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why "Dogs exist" is not a statement about the world - that it contains dogs. That is, not all statements about the world are universals. Also you might be aware that U(x)f(x) is equivalent to ~E(x)~f(x) - that is, all universal statements can be re-parsed as existential statements.


 * Only if you are trying to sell sophistry. Existential statements and universal statements are two different things. And why are you trying to change the subject to dogs? Dogs are known to exist. Look up 'conjecture' to learn about what we are discussing here. -- 207.200.116.204 07:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a general policy on the Wiki of assuming good faith. Please do not accuse me of sophistry - I find it offensives.

I am not accusing you of anything, I am discussing content, not contributor, as per WikiPolicy No personal attacks.

"Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users."

I am taking exception to the content you are contributing because an attempted conflation of knowledge based on proof and religious belief without evidence, which are two entirely different things, fits the definition of sophistry. It doesn't stand up to critical thinking.


 * I am afraid you are mistaken, unless you are using unusual quantifiers. Check any introductory text on predicate calculus for confirmation.
 * A claim is not a conjecture. Banno 09:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

There you go again, trying to change the subject, first to dogs, whinc are known to exist, now to math, which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. We are not discussing math, we are discussing the logic of plain language statements, informal logic

Any statement like, 'There might be an invisible God' remains conjecture until proof is produced, where proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. --207.200.116.204 21:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Others will fix the problems you have introduced into the article. Some arguments are not worth the trouble, and I think this is one of them. Banno 00:06, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Translation: "Banno cannot come up with any reasonable objection to what was said, so Banno will just declare victory by the popularity of his bias and run like a scared rabit away from any reasonable discussion he cannot handle." -- 67.182.157.6
 * Yep. Or that Banno has more productive things to do. Banno 05:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Allright, how about we say "Agnosticism differs from atheism in that (strong) atheists say there is no God". Athiests say there is no god. The purpose of this article is not discuss whether god has any way of being said to exist. see Existance of God. correct me if I'm wrong but say doesn't imply anything about whether or not what is being said could be true. I am changing the article as above, however if someone reverses this I won't fight over it. Please considder whether these small semantic bias' can be fixed simply before engaging in a edit war. Olleicua 21:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That just isn't true. All atheists do not assert that there is no god. Only strong atheists assert that there is no god. Weak atheists that are not strong atheists make no such assertion. Because theism is such a well definied category, not theism (atheism or more correctly weak atheism (the more general category)) is a very broad and general category. Babies, vegetables, and non-believers all fall into the category of atheist. And unless you make agnosticism a very quirky definition, not A or B is a subset of not A and agnostics are a subset of weak atheist. If you are going to say anything related to that at all it should be something to the tune of "Agnostics do not deny the existence of god and are not (strong) atheists". Your statement has misleading wording and the first clause is incorrect.(CHF 10:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC))


 * That is incorrect wording, which I find almost everywhere. The correct wording is, "Not all atheists assert that there is no god," unless you mean that no atheists assert that, which is entirely untrue.  See my post below. --Rovenhot 19:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Strong atheists deny the presence of a god and all meaning that may derive from this. Agnostics deny meaning in general. These are two different things. Atheists can believe in philosphies of fellow humans, that doesn't mean they don't believe in an afterlife. There is no reason to differ over weak and strong atheists, the ideal is the same, that a god does not exist. Atheists deny the presence of god. Agnostics deny the presence of morals, values and philosophies.


 * I agree completely. A "weak" atheist, that is, one who does not entirely deny the existence of gods, is not an atheist.  Atheism is only the complete denial of any gods' existence.  It is perfectly acceptable that they claim there is no god, because it is more specific than simply not being a theist.  If one simply does not believe in the existence of gods, but does not necessarily assert that there are none, that is not atheism.  Although the word "atheist" implies only that he/she is not a theist ("without theism"), atheism is the word placed on the belief that gods are entirely inexistent.  Atheism is not only the denial of the claim of the existence of gods, it is the denial of the existence of gods itself, and so it is its own claim.  I find considerable discrimination in saying that it is not a claim in its own right (to say nothing of my belief; I am not atheist).  --Rovenhot 19:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Before I begin, this discussion thread is a huge mess and nearly impossible to follow in its current state. Can one of the original authors please clean it up?


 * Now, I would like to (as concisely as possible) input my two cents on this issue. I believe that the statement that "Agnostics deny the presence of morals, values and philosophies." is wholly untrue. Yes, perhaps there are certain agnostics who feel that way, but that is certainly not the definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism is simply the belief that it is impossible to claim knowledge either way of god's existence or non-existence. This is in opposition to the both the theists who claim "I know god exists" and the athiests who claim "I know god does not exist". The claim that it is impossible to know whether god exists, however, does not imply the denial of morals, values and philosophies in any way whatsoever, and I have no idea where you got this from. An agnostic may hold any system of morals, values and philosophy which he pleases. Furthermore, there is nothing preventing an agnostic from having leanings toward either theism or atheism: In this case, they simply hold a belief, while also claiming that even they cannot know whether that particular belief is true. This may be considered to be irrational, however whether or not it is rational is irrelevant to the fact that it is possible, and does happen. Agnosticism is not a code of ethics, morals, values, beliefs or philosophies, nor it is a lack of any of those things. It is simply the belief that it is impossible to claim knowledge of god's existence, or lack thereof.

List latest issue on top
cf Requests for comment
 * This is not the RfC page, which is a special case.

There shouldn't be any 'special cases', WikiPolicy should be universally consistent, don't you think, so things are done the same way on all pages?. --207.200.116.204 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The convention is that new issues are added to the bottom of the page.

From my point of view, the sensible thing to do is to put the latest hot topic at the top so it is easier to find without having to wade through reams of stale issues; but you don't see it that way? Are you accustomed to getting your way on everything? --207.200.116.204 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Check out the order of the dates of the first entry of each section on this page - they progress from oldest at the top to youngest at the bottom. I will leave it to some else to re-move this to the bottom of the page, were it should be. Banno 08:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ha! Some sections of this article do not conform to this convention - I should have checked first. But you will find in Talk page guidelines: "Proceed vertically: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the later it was made."

Yeah, WITHIN each topic, that makes sense, just like we are doing right here, but the latest hot topic should be added at the top instead of buried under reams of stale issues, don't u stink? --207.200.116.204 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, you might note that the "Post a comment" feature places comments new sections at the end of the discussion, not at the top. Banno 09:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Then it's broken and needs to be fixed. How do I do that? Do I have to put in a Request For Change to the software? --207.200.116.204 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Try it, and let us know what response you get... Banno 23:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please discuss any proposals to change the guideline on having new sections at the top at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, not here. &mdash; Jeandré, 2005-07-24t22:48z

Removed Large Section
Here is the section I removed: One point of view has it that "Theists and strong atheists make statements about the world, the theist that 'God exists', the strong atheist that 'God does not exist'. Agnostics make the statement about these statements, 'one cannot know whether or not God exists'."

Two objections to the above point of view are:

1. How could anyone possibly know that it is impossible to know it if some hypothetical thing were to exist and interact with the world? Any such interaction would leave some kind of trail of evidence that could be demonstrated, wouldn't it?

And 2. The argument that there might actually BE (exist) an invisible deity is what is known as an EXISTENTIAL statement, not a "statement about the world" (universal statement) as the writer of the above paragraph asserts. The null, 'There is no invisible deity in evidence in the universe' is a universal statement (statement about the universe).

Agnosticism has suffered more than most expressions of philosophical position from terminological vagaries. Examples come from attempts to associate agnosticism with atheism. The "freethinking" tradition of atheism calls a lack of belief in the existence of any deities, "weak atheism" (or "negative atheism"). However, one can still draw a distinction between weak atheism and agnosticism by drawing a distinction between belief and knowledge, leading those who believe knowledge of God is not possible to claim agnosticism is about knowledge, while atheism/theism is about the lack of belief. Agnostic atheism is a combination of both.

I removed that section because:
 * it is badly written (lots of questions)
 * it is pretty blatant POV (assertions not attributed to any source)

I know we don't all agree on the definition of agnosticism, but the Variations subcategory should not have back and forth fighting. The part about "as the writer of the above paragraph asserts" is just unprofessional and silly. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. Let each section say what it wants to say, and discuss your disagreement with "the writer of the above paragraph" here on the Talk page. Miketwo 22:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Belief system
Agnosticism is a philosophic position - that knowledge is not possible. Some agnostics believe in god & some do not. To say agnosticism is a belief system is to fly in the face of the meaning of the word to put forth a POV agenda. --JimWae 01:06, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

To what proposition do you claim agnostics assent? You are pushing an agenda & a POV. The vandalism is all yours. Your comments below are non-responsive, saying only to look elsewhere - --JimWae 01:15, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Definition of "Belief" as applied to Agnosticism
Misconstruing the meaning of "belief" is the core of the tug-of-war content confusion here. Wikipedia has a fine definition of belief, and we should agree to abide by its very reasonable content.

There is otherwise a glaring lack of clear thinking here regarding what a "belief" (or ethereal "lack of belief") is. Also, see Merriam-Webster's definition of "belief". It is otherwise 'dancing on air' to not ground this discussion in commonly accepted definitions of words.--66.69.219.9 01:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but for more fun check out the history of the word belief, for what its worth. Khirad 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Whither Robert G. Ingersoll?
Before anything anybody want me to write agnostic in Greek ? I don't know if its been seen as unecessary, or if nobody else wanted to do it? Well, I think this is it nonetheless: ἄγνωστος.

Now, forgive me for interrupting the discussions on the finer points of style and the minutiæ of logic, but I am wondering about a question of simple content. Most namely, why isn't Robert Ingersoll mentioned? I checked the talk archives and didn't see him. If I missed him, I apologize. If there's a good reason he's not here I also apologize. His Why I am Agnostic is brilliant in the way he is able to communicate the loftiest ideas in the plainest of speech. When people want to know what I 'believe' I have them read that speech. Perhaps, a noteworthy counterpoint to the scientific oriented Agnostic thinkers already mentioned in the article for his unpretentious, "folksy" style alone. His ability to see things abstractly, offers a different perspective from the hyperfocused Huxley (whom I admire for that ability). For those not familiar with him (I'm not implying any of you do or don't) -in addition to the wiki article - there is a good, brief column on the contemporary views of him here. If he has been left out for reasons of modern influence (and lack thereof), his indirect influence, is perhaps, at least worthy of a footnote. For those with some time on their hands there is his complete works at infidels.org.

I'm not saying I don't like what is in the article at all! I just thought it was odd not to find Ingersoll here in addition to the other great Agnostic thinkers. I might also suggest, though he was more famous as a lawyer, Clarence Darrow's Why I Am An Agnostic. I realize what I've written is preaching to the choir and bordering on chutzpah, so thank you for being patient with me! Khirad 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ingersoll was both known as "The Great Agnostic" as well as one of the best known men in his day - far better known than we can well comprehend today. I cannot agree more that a large section of this article ought to adress Ingersoll - does anyone have any explanation or reason for his absence? KillerChihuahua 19:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ingersoll should most definitely be added to this article. Highlighting the famous agnostics is incomplete without him. Ffuege 12:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
This is my first attempt to contribute to a talk page, so I hope I'm not screwing up. How long does a warning remain when there is a dispute about neutrality? I'd have thought that the complaint has been sufficiently answered, so the warning could be removed, or a vote could be taken, etc. Should I RTFM? Where is the Manual? Are these questions inappropriate here? Rats 21:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

These questions are perfectly legitimate on the talk page. Only they should go to the end of the page, like any new discussion. Here you are :) You can either be bold and remove the tag yourself or, if you think some people would object, start a vote Jules LT 14:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did it... anyone feel free to put back so we can know why... I think the standard NPOV tag shouldn't be used at all, in fact. Jules LT 15:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

129.24.95.224's view on agnosticism
My point is this: if you are going to do away with something (some long-established convention, such as God, or the monarchy, that has been accepted as a cornerstone of life for centuries, and has been guiding things), you had better think about it first. ...


 * Wikipedia is not a forum. This page is for discussion of specific edits to the article, not a place for evangelism. Banno 00:38, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I got a bit carried out. I moved my "contribution" to my talk page. Jules LT 04:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You forgot to move it. I just did it for you, okay?--Adrigo 21:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Beliefs as possibilities
"Some Agnostics embrace all beliefs as possibilities, albeit of variable likeliness; they do not confirm or reject any belief, and assert only their own unability to know for sure."

I know from personal experience that this view is shared by some agnostics, at least. If you're tempted to rv, please comment beforehand. Jules LT 18:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Some Agnostics embrace all beliefs as possibilities". Maybe.  But who?  And where? And what exactly did they say? We need some actual citations from actual Agnostics.  Huxley was certainly willing to reject some beliefs, as an acquaintance with what he actually wrote would soon reveal.  And that's what this article needs in order to avoid all the POV squabbling.  It's obvious that the word agnostic has been used in divergent ways: the entry just needs to tell the reader how these ways have been characterised, by who, and where and when. --Dannyno 20:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know of a precise author who said it, but then again I'm not that familiar with that kind of litterature. You can say it's unsourced, but certainly not that it's nonsense. The argument goes thus:

Any belief can actually be accurate, as contradictory as it may seem, because the contradictions may only be misconceptions on our part, be it from misjudgement or from lack of appropriate data (see Descartes's "evil demon" hypothesis or the "brain in a jar" hypothesis). This is only a recognition of one's unability to know anything for sure. Un-knowledge; A-gnosticism; it's only an extension of that principle.

But since, to live, we must act as if some specific set of facts are true. We use our experience and confront it to the facts to deem many things to be less likely. It doesn't make them impossible, but we have to act as if they were because one can't remain in doubt and inactive forever (David Hume, somewhere).

One example I really like is how a turkey, from experience, knows that whenever the farmer comes out every morning he's going to give it grain. In the same way, we know that the sun will come up, the experiment will work again, such behaviour will have such consequences... Only one day the farmer might be coming with an axe. If someone had told you otherwise, you wouldn't have believed him. And you would have been right, because you simply can't believe whatever you're told. Especially when that's against all experience (Bertrand Russell's inductivist turkey)

Oops. look at what I found:

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

— Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91

There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."

— Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind, 1921, pp. 159–60; cf. Philosophy, Norton, 1927, p. 7 Jules LT 16:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Various meanings" top section
As I suggested on the Atheism page, I think that here too we need to insert a typology of the different kinds of atheism that exist (before the views of precise philosophers). I think that we can distinguish 3 kinds: those who considerthat the answer to the question "Does God exist?" is unknowable, those who consider that we just don't know and the solution might, in principle, be known at some point, and those who consider that the question itself is incoherent (I think only logical positivists qualify for the last one, though).

Thus, we would be able to explicit what these views mean and imply, and give the result of the above discussion which will then hopefully never happen again.

Jules LT 08:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

((The discussion in question was enterely reverted, as it had been stirred up by a sockpuppet of an injoined user, which I am grateful for, because during this "discussion" I was found extremely guilty of copiously feeding the troll, as it has been pointed out to me)) - Jules LT 04:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be careful with the logical positivists. Language Truth and Logic not only rejected theism and (strong) atheism, but also agnosticism, on the grounds they all thought the topic was meaningful. And the point is, it's "meaningfulness" in a very particular sense, not as might be generally understood. --Dannyno 12:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wasn't sure about that point either.. Jules LT 19:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, there was already such a section in the article, only it was strangely located at the very end of it. I moved it to the top of the article, after editing it, moving a large bit that was unnecessarily developed here into where it belonged (namely, agnostic theism) and cleaned up the receiving article entirely and developed it as I went through. Jules LT 23:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Does anyone disagree with having the variations section at the top and why? Please comment before re-reverting. Jules LT 20:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

October 19 Edits

I changed a little of the wording in the Variations section for a couple different reasons.
 * First, I added mini-definitions to epistemology and metaphysics. I changed "ontology" to "metaphysics" because the latter contrasts better with epistemology.  Ontology is really a subset of metaphysics, and so for the initial definition, I think we should stick to the biggest categories that we have names for in order to highlight the fundamental difference.  I added a sentence right afterwords to try to keep the ontology word in there (because it is technically more correct), but it reads kinda awkward.  Not quite sure how to accomplish both (the better contrast of metaphysics with epistemology and the technical accuracy of ontology).
 * Second, I rewrote the examples to be a little more encyclopedia-like (as a math-nerd, I preferred the equals sign actually, but it's probably better to put it in prose)
 * Third, I added the bit about George Smith back in (I had last written about him way back before Variations was moved to the top -- and he remains in the Books Cited block even though he was actually removed from the text). I wanted to balance his mockery of the agnostic position with a similar mockery from a theist (something akin to "you can't disprove god, and the burden of proof is on the atheist, so even if you're agnostic you can legitimately believe).  I know theists have said this, but I don't know of any famous theist writers who've written it, so I left it out.  If you know a theist writer who says something along those lines, please do add it right after the Smith section.

Hope these edits are received well. --Michael 01:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, most of the top of the section made no sense because it assumed that some people think knowledge and belief are the same thing. No one thinks that. --Nate Ladd 07:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. The problem with belief is that any belief can be wrong, there is no way for us mere mortals to know without someone producing logically satisfactory evidence, as Huxley explains in "Agnosticism and Christianity" (1899). --172.190.210.25 17:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "No one thinks that"??? That's a strange claim to make, because:
 * a) I cited a book in which the author thinks that. --Michael


 * I didn't find your paraphrase of Smith very clear. Could you provide some quotations that show he thinks belief = knowledge (and a full citation of the work, too)? --Nate Ladd 03:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. I do suck as a writer -- I guess that's why I'm an engineer. I'll edit the section (but in the agnostic theism article, where I do think it fits better anyway).  In fact, you made me refine my statement - upon re-reading it, I found that Smith doesn't claim belief and knowledge are the same thing, but that early on he defines belief as justified, rationally demonstrable knowledge, and then uses it in that context throughout (so I was led to believe (hah) that he thought them the same). Full citation is at the bottom of the article (Books Cited) from the last time I tried to paraphrase Smith... Pg 103: To rationally demonstrate a belief is to show that it warrants acceptance according to the epistemological standards of human knowledge.  To accept a belief as true on the basis of reason is to accept it because it is capable of rational demonstration.--Michael 11:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * b) That section of the Variations has been there since June, 2004, and you've made many edits in the 16 months between then and now, without removing the "bogus material". --Michael


 * I never noticed it before. My interest in the article is mainly in protecting it from a certain vandal. --Nate Ladd 03:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I ran into your "friend" too. Interesting guy -- he's on the very extremity of hypocrisy.--Michael 11:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * c) I think the vast majority of people without a background in philosophy do not make a distintion between beliefs and knowledge claims (Why would you believe something you didn't think was true?). --Michael


 * We'll have to agree to disagree about that. I think everyone understands that we know only a subset of what we believe. Also, your rhetorical question in parentheses isn't relevant. A "knowledge claim" and a "truth claim" are not the same thing. I agree that to believe X is to believe that X is true. But I don't think anyone claims that to believe X is to know X. --Nate Ladd 03:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed to disagree then. While in a general sense you may be correct, I think that in matters of religion, when someone says "I believe in God", that is equivalent (to them) of saying "I am claiming both the knowledge and the truth of God's existence." In other areas they may make the distinction, but I think in the vast majority of religious discussions, people's beliefs are not stated as opinions, they are stated as facts. --Michael 11:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * d) Google "belief" and "knowledge" simultaneously, and you'll get a ton of articles discussing the relationship between the two -- some of which say they are the same thing. --Michael


 * If you can cite published scholarly work that says belief = knowledge, then by all means put such works in a References section at the end of the article and add a discussion of them to the article. I don't mind being proved wrong if you can provide the evidence. --Nate Ladd 03:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. My point here was to agrue against a literal interpretation of "(absolutely) no one thinks that" by demonstrating people out there that do. Even if they are unpublished non-scholars, they're still people, and they still think that. --Michael 11:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Belief and knowledge as the same thing? Makes me think of the electronic monk from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. How many of the hits on Google thought that?


 * e) Even in wikipedia, check out the Belief & Knowledge article. By emphasizing the distinction between the two, the assumption is made that the reader sees them as one and the same. If it was so blatantly clear that NO ONE ON THE PLANET ever equated the two, that section would be superflous. --Michael


 * That's not correct. There is no such assumption implied. Discussing the relationship between the two in detail does not imply that the authors of that article think that most people don't distinguish them. It only shows that the authors believe that many readers need a discussion of exactly why and how they are distinct. Just as my kids once knew that monkeys and apes are distinct but did not know why and how. --Nate Ladd 03:50, 21


 * Ok. --Michael 11:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * October 2005 (UTC) P.S. Part of the emphasis that you see in that article was a(n) (over)reaction to a nut who was vandalizing that article last summer. He was claiming among other things that knowledge and belief are disjoint sets, so others responded by emphasizing what the relation between knowledge and belief actually is.


 * Yes, I had the pleasure of meeting him too... I understand. The other part of the emphasis is because I generally suck at writing, and I've accepted that as true and justified self-knowledge. :-p  (Overall I appreciate the criticism, it makes me a more careful writer.)--Michael 11:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * However, all that being said, your removal of the section was appropriate, as it is better suited to (and is already included in) the agnostic theism article (which I hadn't noticed before). --Michael 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Adrigo (injoined user) is back (?)
I increasingly believe that User:Ehrlich is a sockpuppet of Adrigo/DotSix (Requests for arbitration/DotSix). Yesterday, I asked User:Theresa knott for IP check (an arbitrator on the case; not sure she can actually do the check) and warned Banno (seems to me, the most active witness in the case). I didn't get any answer yet.
 * He has the same peculiar theses (See what he says on Talk:Atheism:; my explanations:)
 * He is a very recent user who nevertheless knows wikipedia policies well
 * He edits the same pages as the injoined user did (contributions)

additional evidence here that made me write this in the first place:
 * : recent radical edit by User:Ehrlich. Note the Huxley quote made prominent.
 * Repeated use of this Huxley misquotation (See why it is one: ) in Adrigo's "rethoric":

Ehrlich's edit is at the moment reverted (by User:Nathan Ladd, not me), and I would encourage anyone who saw a controversial edit by User:Ehrlich (contributions) to revert it immediately with the edit summary simply stating "rv: injoined user". I'll post all of this and more in the case's page as soon as possible.

Jules LT 19:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Repeated use of this Huxley misquotation (See why it is one: )

What do you mean, 'misquotation'? Do you have a reading problem? Huxley definitely says in "Agnosticism and Christianity" (1899) that agnostics rightly deny and repudiate, as immoral, any religious doctrine like Christianity for example, that there are statements like the tenets of Christianity for example, that people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence? What is there about this simple statement of one of the most basic principles there is that you are not able to grasp? --Ehrlich 22:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with the word "injoined"  , it means  partially and temporarily banned? &mdash; Jeandré, 2005-09-29t22:22z
 * It means being the subject of an injunction by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. In this case, this one:    --Nate Ladd 23:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I am not a party to that request for arbitration. Why are you all ignoring Assume good faith? --Ehrlich 22:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was assuming good faith until you proved that I should not do so with the above comment and your disingenous edit summaries. Welcome back, Donald.--chris.lawson 02:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Philosophical opinions: Huxley, Darwin, Russell
I have major problems with this section. For one, Darwin called himself an agnostic but did not actually make any philosophical contributions to agnosticism. Russell is absolutely not an agnostic "in the original sense", as the article currently claims. This ought to be obvious from the quotes that are actually in the article. Basically, Russell didn't know what to call himself, was willing to say that the traditional anthropomorphic god could be disproved (how many agnostics "in the original sense" would say that?), and doesn't actually seem to have contributed much to agnostic thought. Where is Leslie Stephen? Where is WK Clifford?

This article really really needs rewriting, no? --Dannyno 14:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The Darwin passage is just an anecdote that does add any information about agnosticism, so I agree that it should be deleted. --Nate Ladd 18:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As for Russell, I think that all the open agnostics would agree that "God's existence is not necessarily unknowable"; the traditional anthropomorphic God can be disproved in the sense that any alleged occurence in the physical word can, in principle, be disproved. For deities that are said not to intervene, that's not possible. He seems every bit of an agnostic to me, as is anyone who would say "I don't know whether God exists"... What would that agnostic "in the original sense" be, to you? (In fact, my personal stance is closest to Russell, so I'm really interested). Jules LT 23:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Assuming "in the original sense" means "as Huxley defined it", it could mean at least two things (Huxley used it in different ways). As he first used the word, it meant that he "didn't know" all the things that others claimed to know.  As he subsequently explained it in print, it meant "methodological agnosticism" - i.e. knowledge claims must be supported by evidence: a synonym for rationalism, really.  Other people then got hold of it and it came to mean "suspension of judgement" or "don't know either way".  As is quite obvious, Russell was a victim of the usual confusions and called himself an agnostic or an atheist inconsistently.  If he was so confused himself, it seems extremely highhanded of us to try to resolve it for him.

--Dannyno 08:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Jules LT 16:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * IMHO, "methodological agnosticism" is pretty obviously a subset of agnosticism, not all of it. The one thing that defines an agnostic is saying "I don't know". Saying "I don't know either way" doesn't look that different to me. I agree that the "suspension of judgement" might slightly differ but even then, not that much. The essential distinctions inside agnosticism are only among those who believe the proof to be impossible, those who state they don't know and those who think it makes no sense.
 * Russel wasn't inconsistent: he was an atheist (in the sense "not a theist") and an agnostic (meaning "I don't know"). Btw, he was very keen on using evidence to support claims, to the point that he often changed opinions whenever new information was available; this might be why he seemed "confused" or "inconsistent" to some.
 * Back to the original point, I don't think that Huxley would state that "God is unprovable either way": the "proof of God" and "proof that there is no God" are things which existence or inexistence are as unknown as that of God himself. Rationality would mean that one shouldn't say "The proof does not exist" without sufficient supporting evidence (what sufficient is varies from one person to the other, of course).
 * What Russell said was only that, in principle, it could be showed that the interventionnist anthropomorphic God of the scriptures didn't exist as described, even if a proof wasn't readily available at the moment. Or it might be impossible to prove: we don't know. He personally thought that such a God could be disproved rather than proved. People often mix up his personal opinions and philosophical statements.

A message for Donald
Hey, Donald, here's a concept for you. Those of us who keep reverting your edits will start following the policy of commenting on the content rather than the contributor about the time you start following similar Wikipedia policies.

Got that?

Good.--chris.lawson 04:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Fix my joke please
I told my parents this joke that I found to be funny: Pity the poor dyslexic agnostic insomniac: he stays up all night wondering if there really is a Dog. My parents pointed out that agnostics don't care about whether God exists or not. Can someone give me a term that indicates that this person doesn't know whether God exists and is trying to find out? --Iopq 01:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think your joke is fine as it is. Agnostics are unsure whether there us a God or not, but an agnostic might well CARE very much about whether there is or not. (I've heard the term "Indifferentist" used to label those who simply don't care.) --Nate Ladd 01:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's how I've always heard the joke told as well. Your parents seem to have confused the term "agnostic" with the term "atheist." The two aren't mutually inclusive, nor are they mutually exclusive, although in casual use, it's easy to see how the two have become confused.--chris.lawson 02:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I noticed in the new version of the article it says (some agnostics may go as far to say). Good call. -Iopq 03:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There are flaws in the joke that is not so easily fixed: theists make claims that god(s) exists(-s); atheists make claims that god(s) does(do) not exist; the agnostics do not know either to be true. His parents are not in confusion: without subdividing the agnosticism into a spectrum of varying beliefs, agnosticism at the surface is simply without knowing and cannot be known.  I believe that an agnostic in the simplest definition might care about existence of god(s), but not for its inherent truth, but for the impact on and secondary impact through other people -i.e., the atheists and theists- who care.  It seems pointless to wonder about things that cannot be known, so it is probably more likely that the insomniac agnostic is worrying/contemplating over other psychological and physiological issues that led to his insomnia, rather than the issue of divinity.  That being said, there are three issues here: 1) this joke cannot be easily fixed without turning it into a verbose paragraph (much like what I am doing :> ) full of quantifiers and thus defeating the brevity that is this one-liner; 2) I do realize most jokes are not so funny when examined with a microscope for political/cultural/definitive/etc. correctness; 3) I also realize that humans often illogically worry about things beyond their control, and so it is not surprising that an agnostic might wonder all night if there is really a dgo.  It just seems pointless.  Any other agnostics feel as I do? (Cymbol 02:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Pronunciation?
Anosticism or agnosticism?--220.238.155.150 10:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone?--58.104.16.105 07:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone at all?--Greasysteve13 03:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The g is not silent. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just thought it was opposite of gnosticism--Greasysteve13 02:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No settled issues
I removed the following section The term agnosticism and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869. As Huxley explains it, agnosticism is not about knowledge at all, because nobody can convince the world that he knows there is a god without producing logically satisfactory evidence of a god; agnostics are simply those who deny and repudiate any doctrine that there are propositions people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence.

This is one of the main issuses that still remain concerning agnosticism. The issue is whether there is anything distinctive in being agnostic. When it comes right down to the facts of the matter theists in general do not generally say that they know that a god exists, only that they believe there might be one, and atheists in general do not say they know there is no god, only that they do not believe there might be one. And, as Huxley points out in "Agnosticism and Christianity", agnosticism, in essence, is not really about knowledge at all, since nobody knows, it is about the denial and repudiation of any doctrine that there are propositions people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence.

I removed it because: --Michael 20:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Radically changing the main definition of an article 2+ years in the making is too bold. The previous definition has been forged of many arguments, and is pretty good at addressing the various interest groups' issues.
 * Even that aside, the new section is badly written. This is an encyclopedia, so conjecture of the form "When it comes right down to the facts of the matter" does not belong.  The use of no less than 6 commas in the last "sentence" is also pretty bad.  And finally, the sentence "The issue is whether there is anything distinctive in being agnostic" is blatant point-of-view.  The issue is actually providing a definition of agnosticism, not analyzing it.


 * You need to read the wikipedia policy that there are no settled issues right away. Will you please let us know if you have any questions on that?


 * Requests for arbitration/DotSix/Proposed decision is binding enough. I've decided to start blocking DotSix from editing articles due to his habitual violations of the injunction. Rhobite 21:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you on about? What we are discussing here is Michael's argument that the lead section of this article has been pretty much the same for 2+ years, so nobody should try to edit it. But the Wikpedia policy is that there are no settled issues. Get it now?


 * Page is protected due to repeated edits by DotSix. Rhobite 22:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to ignore the larger 2nd half of my comment, which discusses the desultory collection of words you're trying to pawn off as literature. You're also ignoring the 3-revert-rule policy, the NPOV policy, and the Nondisruption guideline; and attempting to play stupid when your identity is called out and your scandalous history brought up.  This is not even so much malediction on my part as it is just stating the facts...
 * Here is the malediction: You serve no constructive purpose. Go away.--Michael 00:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of See Also Section
My last edit did a few things, so let me document rationale here.
 * Removed "* Atheism, the Case Against God, George H. Smith, ISBN 0-87975-124-X" from Books Cited, because it's not actually cited anymore in the article.
 * Removed all items except WikiQuote from See Also section, because they are all covered by the new Philosophy tab at the bottom. One exception to this is the item "god", which I think should be added to the Philosophy template under Concepts.
 * Removed some editorial content embedded in the article
 * Relocated a sentence at the top, just because I think it fits better in the new position.
 * Various Minor edits
 * Last, but not least, I came across this table in the Theism talk archives. I think some kind of variation on this table needs to be somewhere (not necessarily in Agnosticism, but somewhere).  Here is the table:

Can I get some feedback on this. General ideas? Should it be included somewhere? Changed? Dropped? --Michael 18:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I want to comment on my own post here. After thinking about it over the weekend, I think the last Column and Row (concerning irrelevancy) doesn't really fit.  The breakdown is between beliefs in Metaphysics (along the top) and beliefs in Epistemology (along the left side).  The irrelevancy column is more like a statement of WHY, and not WHAT.  For example, I could have no beliefs in god BECAUSE I think they are irrelevant -- but I belong in the third column, not the 4th.  Further, the "known" part of the left column is superfluous, because it is a breakdown of epistemology (what is possible to know), not of current knowledge (what is known).  I will change the table to reflect how I think it should look now...
 * I'm not sure about the use of "agnostic" for a lack of belief in the possibility of proof/disproof though. For any proposition, you can either have assent to it, denial of it, or "no comment".  These 3 positions should be fully fleshed out with regards to god's existence and ability to be known. --Michael 15:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I have met people who state they are theists and that proof of their belief is not possible as it is through personal revelation. I don't think they would describe themselves as "strong agnostic theists" nor simply as "agnostic". Best wishes, David Kernow 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

(In)compatibility with strong atheism
The article currently states agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism yet compatible with weak atheism. I agree with the second part. But Strong atheism says one justification for strong atheism, based on Occam's Razor, is that a positive claim of any deity's nonexistence is justified when there is no good evidence for that deity's existence. It seems this justification for strong atheism is, in fact, compatible with strong agnosticism. That is, a person who thinks the existence of deities is neither knowable nor supported by good evidence could call themself a strong agnostic and a strong atheist without contradiction.

I was made aware of this problem when I visited agnosticism from strong agnosticism, which has since 17:48 (UTC) on 10 April 2005 maintained that strong agnosticism and strong atheism may be compatible. It currently says "[strong agnosticism] can even be reconciled with strong atheism if the latter is justified independently of references to a deity's attributes, which strong agnosticism does not allow." I think that's correct, and I recommend we include similar language in this article.

(Note that the table Michael posted above, which was originally posted by Bryan at Talk:Theism/archive 1, has a box labeled "strong agnostic, strong atheist".)

&mdash; Elembis 08:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Indifinied Agnosticism.
"An Agnostic can also be someone who thinks that the Man can't imagine Pefection (God) because he isn't perfect, it's limited. As a consequence, all religions and tentatives to prove that there is no God are seen as "arrogant" . This new point of view has been pointed by someone from Portugal."

I'd like to know why this definition has been deleted at least one time. I think it's completely rational and I agree with her. If someone would prove me that it is nonsense I would agree with its exclusion. 19:46, 13 November 2005 User:85.240.171.48

Nonsense or not, this is an encyclopedia and I'm sorry to tell you that the personal view of a random internet user has no place here. Give a source and we'll be happy to include it where it should be: in the agnostic theism article as a minority view, not close to the top of the main agnosticism article. Then again, thank you for your contribution and I hope you do well on wikipedia. Jules LT 05:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, sorry about that, but it's not from agnostic theism. I typed wrong in "As a consequence, all religions and tentatives to prove that there is no God are seen as "arrogant" " it should be read "As a consequence, all religions and tentatives to prove that there is no God or that there is one, ow two, or whatever, are seen as "arrogant,"

'Agnostic' as the indicator of uncatalogued behavior patterns
As previously described, a tiny oracle bead chronicle contains images of historical behavior patterns. As a tiny archaeo-logical artifact, however, it has not yet been contained and protected within a musuem --  its protected placement beneath a limestone cemetery monument affects the functioning of a variety of creatures which then participate in trajectories of movement and attention, as 'orbits' of creature activity.

This oracular influence is gnostic, consistently the discrete influence of behavior patterns viewable as preserved within the mucousable oracle bead. All other intra/inter-species behavior patterns which have not been identified and are not preserved within an oracle bead, books, films, scrolls, or computer files can be said to be 'agnostic'. 11/15/2005 20:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)  beadtot

Death
I am new to this type of research and I have a few questions. What is death to an Atheist, Theist, or Agnostic? Is it the end to all existance? Or is it a new begining? I have been pouring over the articles and have not seen the subject of death addressed. Maybe I have overlooked it or am I in the wrong area? JD Pete Nov. 26, 200567.104.220.116 01:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)--67.104.220.116 01:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not exactly the wrong area, but not really the right one either. Atheism, theism adn agnosticism deal specifically with the existence or nonexistence of god(s). The existence and nature of an afterlife is a separate issue. Granted, there is a lot of overlap since people who are skeptical about gods are probably also going to be skeptical about things like souls, ghosts, heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc. - but these things are not necessarily inextricably linked and so it'd be awkward trying to write about "the atheist view on death." It'd be somewhat similar to writing about "the atheist view on cheese" or "the atheist view on country music." You might want to check out articles like afterlife, death, soul, etc. for related material. Bryan 02:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Most agnostics I know agree roughly with me. "Whatever happens (or doesn't happen) when I die will inevitably still happen (or not happen) whether I believe in it or not". :-) (Born-Again Agnostic) 160.84.253.241 15:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for help with Humanism articles
(Request has been deleted by its author. Problem has been mostly resolved.) Rohirok 01:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(response deleted by its author) --Couttsie 00:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of statistics
I've just added a sub-section on the Talk:Major_world_religions

adherants.com like to point that that atheists are a minority (less than 1%), whereas the same figures are used by atheists and interpreted quite differently. My own view is that, regardless of what your interpretation is, our governments should be forced to allow accurate recirding of such data via the census, and then forced to provide the nonreligious amongst us with statistics showing how mant people have our particular nonrelgious affiliation (eg. atheism, agnosticism, rationalism, Humanism (belief system) etc). --Couttsie 23:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is god often Capitalized in the article...
...when agnosticism is independent of the god-figure(s) used (God being the specific christian god)? - G3, 05:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

illogical
ugly having such an illogical statement in the beginning of the article: "atheists in the broader sense do not claim to know there is no God, only to not believe in one". game of words. to a believer, belief is knowledge.

Massive edit "in honor of dot six" - mostly unreverted
In this edit many changes were made - many not yet reverted. The following sentences are among those removed: - also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.182.157.6&diff=prev&oldid=50411552 - --JimWae 04:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist).
 * Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism&mdash;these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.

Removed "Rowanism"
I removed the "Rowanism" variation as a likely hoax. There are no google hits on "Rowanism", or anything I could find in a brief check on "Arthur Rowany", and the addition came from an anon IP address which had made a vandalism edit elsewhere shortly before this one. David Oberst 16:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference btw. atheisim and agnosticism?
I am confused. What is the difference btw. atheisim and agnosticism?


 * Very short answer: Atheism concerns beliefs (or lack of them), particularly belief about whether deities exist; agnosticism concerns what can be known, particularly whether the existence of deities can (ever) be known. It becomes about the difference between knowledge & belief. --JimWae 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Some agnostics make claim of lack of knowledge only for themselves, some make claim that everyone must be agnostic re deities, though they may not all affix that as the primary description of their own stance with respect to deities. Some agnostics have not figured out whether they believe gods exist or not, have not arrived at any practical conclusion on whether or not to plan their lives as if gods existed. Some agnostics decide to live as if gods existed, others decide to live as if they do not. Some have decided that even if gods exist, it would make no difference to their own plans --JimWae 01:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of agnostic?
The article states: "Some claim that there is nothing distinctive in being an agnostic because even theists do not claim to know God exists, only to believe it, and many even agree there is room for doubt; and atheists in the broader sense do not claim to know there is no God, only not to believe in one."

Well, not all theists or atheists would agree that they simply "don't know" (although one would wonder why anyone would make a claim); but there must be a high degree of belief or non-belief, which is what I believe separates them from agnostics; who are not "sure" enough to decide if they believe or do not believe. So while no one can claim to "know" (wiki the theories of knowledge), there is still a distinction. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong though? I'm not sure what defines an agnostic.64.113.106.153 03:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Of course anyone can claim to "know" since such knowledge is difficult to prove or disprove. I find it interesting that the undecided people are often labeled as agnostic by others or even themselves. I don't see how "I'm not sure" exactly equates with the rather positive statement of "I don't know" or a collective "none of us know." In the end agnosticism could also be considered a belief since I've heard believers of a God assert that an agnostic does actually know but does not realize it or will not admit it. So to some of them an agnostic just believes that they do not know and they take on faith that the agnostic position is correct. Agnosticism is continually hard to nail down exactly because of arguments of belief versus knowledge and whether or not these two main topics are mutually exclusive. 68.100.240.18 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Protagoras
I find agnostics quoting Protagoras a lot, since he was a proponent of agnosticism. But isn't there a lot of criticisms against him, since he's considered a "sophist"? It's also odd that while Protagoras, a sophist, believes in agnosticism; Socrates is a theist, who tries to rely on rational thinking and logic. 165.196.149.50 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

agnostics are atheists and theists
''Agnosticism is distinct from, but compatible with, atheism. It is also compatible with theism. This is because agnosticism is a view about knowledge concerning God, whereas theism and atheism are beliefs (or lack thereof) concerning God. For example, it is possible to believe in God but to believe that knowledge about God is not obtainable.''


 * This view does not make sense to me, and heres why; if knowledge about God is not obtainable, then knowing or "believing" anything about him is void. God is non exsistant because anything about him is not obtainable, even the conception of a belief in god. You need knowledge of him to form a belief.
 * ex: There is a god but I do not know about what god is. or I think: I do not know about what god is., makes more sense. Agnostics ignore the question of theism until there is absolute proof. If you believe, your'e a theist, if you don't, your'e an atheist. You are stating in the above statement that agnosticism is a cross-roads to atheism or theism, instead of its own stance. Somerset219 01:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See Agnostic theism. Basically someone who says we can't know if God exists, but chooses to believe anyway. Just because someone can't obtain knowledge about something doesn't necessarily stop them believing in it anyway (yes, I think this is a silly thing to do, but nonetheless many people believe in God through faith alone, and the concept of agnostic theism seems to exist). Mdwh 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what your saying, kind of, but I am a bit lost... When you say many people believe in God through faith alone, you are saying that these people were given prior knowlegde of whatever "god" they now believe in. In other words, they just didn't become believers in something they didn't know about. I'm saying that this is a mis-use of agnosticism, because it's a logical fallicy. If you believe in a diety, you're a theist. Agnostics take neither road. They know nothing of the question. The term Agnostic theism is wrong, a term made up because someone didn't do their homework. I would rather not promote this on this article, especially when it's not cited and doesn't make sense. Please reason with me here, if we can't come to a consenses, perhaps others are needed. Thank you for being poilte w/ me, sometimes it can get frusterating dealing with peoples belief systems. Somerset219 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is confusion here between knowing about a concept, and knowing that that thing exists. Surely, there are things we might think could be true, even if we don't know if they are true. Agnosticism is about not knowing in the latter sense - it doesn't we don't even have knowledge of the concept.
 * Some people use agnosticism to mean "taking neither road", other people use it to mean "knowing nothing of the question". But these are all different usages. The definition referred to here isn't about "not ever knowing about God", it's "not knowing that God exists".
 * Are you saying that agnostic theism is a neologism, or just that you think it is absurd/wrong? The former is grounds for getting rid of it, and you should probably try proposing the article for deletion. The latter just means you have a different POV to those who do think it's a valid concept. Mdwh 02:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * hmm, interesting, I never knew about neologisms, guess you learn something new everyday. Actually, I'm saying both, and I stated the logical fallicy of the concept and the lack of citation.(through the links). I'm still confused on your logic, however. If you don't know if god exsists, then you don't believe in him. In other words; knowlegde, wether it's accurate or not, dictates belief.


 * There isn't necessarily a logical fallacy concerning agnostic theism. It makes sense to me that a theist could make the claim that we cannot know the true nature of or proof of existence for the object of their belief.  See below on my argument on why this is a variation of theism and not agnosticism.  If someone tried to define theistic agnosticism then your logical fallacy appears with a definition of a claim of belief in something you do not know about.  Ffuege 19:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely, there are things we might think could be true, even if we don't know if they are true. If you think they could be true, that's wishful thinking, if you know they are, thats believing. On a side note; what is your resolve or comprimise? Somerset219 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agnostic theism has as much bearing on agnosticism itself as an operating system agnostic computer program. In both cases agnostic is used as an adjective which means "doubtful or noncommital".  Actually the computer-related common usage is more like a definition of "not having or needing an understanding of" like in the case of the application not needing to understand or be aware of the operating system it runs on.  This is in contrast to the noun which is defined as "one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God" or variations on that theme in various dictionaries I've checked.  Therefore agnostic theism is a qualification of a type of theism (not nontheism) and is not a legitimate variation of agnosticism.  I would vote for its removal from agnosticism and its reference should instead appear under category 4 on the theism article since it does not obviously belong under the category 1 nontheism family where agnosticism does appear.  Ffuege 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither Confirm Nor Deny The Existence Of God(s)
Unless you are and agnostic atheist, agnostic deist, or agnostic theist; agnostics generally neither confirm nor deny the existence of God(s), correct? (since to agnostics knowledge of things are unknowable) Zachorious 11:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as an agnostic, I indeed do not confirm nor deny the existence of God. I think that agnostics prefer not to care about that issue and follow phylosophical perspectives instead.--Húsönd 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agnostics answer the question of the origin of our existence with "we do not know". It isn't exactly confined to a specific question of just God or any other gods. Ffuege 10:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes any agnostic neither confirms, denies, or takes a belief one way or the other. Hence why any agnostic _______ does not make sense. Because once they make a claim, they are no longer an agnostic. Somerset219 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the section above this I point out the difference in usage of agnostic as an adjective or a noun. I think agnostic _______ does make sense as an "unknowing or unproven believer of ______" but we all need to be clear that it has no bearing on the meaning of agnostic used as a noun meaning "a belief that we do not know". Ffuege 10:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * cite me some sources for those definitions, I figuered you would, with it being controversial and all, but you didn't, which is fine. I'm just curious where you came up with them. considering you are interchanging the noun with the verb at your discretion, rather than being grammatically correct, if those are consistant true definitions. Somerset219 03:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dictionary.com defines the agnostic noun usage as "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience" and the agnostic adjective usage as "of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism" or "asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge." I'm not a linguist by any stretch of the imagination, however I don't see where I or anyone else has used agnostic as a verb and there isn't a usage definition for an agnostic verb.  I'm at a loss to think how one would agnostic something. It is my understanding from those definitions that agnostic as a noun is the viewpoint that ultimate cause is unknown and unknowable, whereas agnostic as an adjective modifies whatever noun it is associated with to qualify it as a viewpoint derived from "asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge." Therefore, an agnostic atheist is still an atheist at their core even though their atheism is qualified by their lack of knowledge.  Also, an agnostic theist is still a theist at their core even though their theism is qualified by a lack of true knowledge for their theism.  I think clarity can come from flipping the adjectives and nouns in these attempts to define compound beliefs.  A theistic agnostic would not be the same as an agnostic theist, would it?  It makes about as much sense to me as a christian atheist.  Ffuege 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Citecheck template
Since there is no discussion on the talk page about the accuracy of the citations already in this article, I am removing the citecheck template. That template is designed for use when an editor has attempted to verify references and finds they disagree with the way a Wikipedia article presents them. Durova 01:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up
Just wanted to say i am very pleased with this particular page and it has been of some use to me. I've just found out that i am classed as a believer in "Agnostic Spiritualism". Keep it up wiki!

Agnostic conciliation
Could someone tackle an article on agnostic conciliation? I don't know if I'm the one to do it, but I'd like to see such an article. Richard Dawkins had an excellent reference to agnostic conciliation in Peter Atkins' "teapot theory", which you can read about here: ... do a search for agnostic conciliation... Porlob 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)