Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnostic neutralism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agnostic neutralism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable term already adequately covered in other articles. Eldamorie (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: 5 Google Books hits. Could be notable, but... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't quite get that link to work out for me. :( GManNickG (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki dosen't like some google links. I am afraid you have to do the search yourself, go to print.google.com and search for "Agnostic+neutralism". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GManNickG (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete pseudophilosophical term not used in the literature. The Rhymesmith (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as explained, not a sensible term; no authoritative use.GManNickG (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note I've just added a section to the talk page pointing out where the article doesn't make sense. (Note that every sentence of the introduction has a problem.) GManNickG (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - term is non-notable and concepts are covered (far better) in other articles. Would consider redirect to agnostic atheism, from which it cannot be distinguished unless one holds (wrongly) that atheism means the positive assertion that there are no deities.--JimWae (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is wrong, see below. --SDMade (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't "wrong". Strong Delete Besides being indistinguishable from agnostic atheism, the term does not have contemporary currency. See the 4 hits at http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=1&q=%22agnostic+neutralism%22&btnG=Search+Books
 * Burton 1888 & 1896 - very very old, uses phrase once
 * Broad 1925 - not about religious views
 * French 1961 - not about religious views
 * Re: Cahoone 2002 - does not use term - words are separate
 * Re: Platvoet 1999 - "'methodological agnosticism' or 'metaphysical neutralism'" uses terms synonymously, not one as qualifier of the other--JimWae (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agnostic neutrality has more hits (about 50), but the words are used together as an intensifier - not as a qualifier--JimWae (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Just googling this, excluding Wikipedia, shows that this isn't a term-of-art. Most of the links on the first page of results either trace to here or are search traps. Searching in books returns five hits, and two of them are the same work, a lecture apparently delivered in the 1880s. All the rest of this blather is really beside the point. People may want to make these distinctions, but if the Real World of philosophy/theology doesn't make them and use these words, it's not up to us to create the term for them. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you think "the real world of philosophy and theology" establish the meaning of terms? they study the existing definitions, then debate. What have we done here? --SDMade (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've made up a term and are trying to argue it into existence using Wikipedia to disseminate your invention. The very fact that you rely so heavily on this argument shows that you are so engaged. Mangoe (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All of what you claim is false, however, I would like to help improve wikipedia by distinguishing the meanings of the various religious terms and philosophical positions, and by bringing attention to the position of "agnostic neutralism". --SDMade (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you to make such distinctions. We can report them when they are widely made in the Real World, but it is not for us to define them ourselves. Mangoe (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The position of agnostic neutralism is widely known and accepted in the "real world". --SDMade (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why you've cited so many sources, right? GManNickG (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Please reconsider this deletion, as it seems many websites have embraced this definition already, and this viewpoint accurately describes the stance that many default Agnostics would take. UnReAL13D (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a negative stigma attached to "atheism". Statistics show that there are far less "atheists" in the world, 2.5 %, and being labeled one leads to negative judgment in the eyes of the overwhelming amount of theists. Agnosticism in general is considered to be the "neutral" position someone can take on the matter, as the typical Agnostic would simply answer "I Don't Know" to the question "Do you believe in god?" The typical agnostic wouldn't claim either "atheism" or "theism" as neither side has presented sufficient evidence. Thus taking a "neutral" stance on the matter. We feel the whole concept of "agnostic neutralism" encapsulates the initial default position of "agnosticism" that someone can take on any particular subject. Because when someone says they're "agnostic", the next proceeding question is usually "But are you Theist or Atheist?" This leads to confusion and frustration between the 2 sides if the agnostic is "neutral" towards the Theism/Atheism dichotomy, and eventually arguments over the semantics of the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" will ensue. This happens very frequently around the net, it's not hard to find people debating over the terms. That's basically all I can offer for my rebuttal. UnReAL13D (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Please reconsider this deletion, as it seems many websites have embraced this definition already, and this viewpoint accurately describes the stance that many default Agnostics would take." Many 'agnostics' are wrong. Most agnostics I've met are agnostic atheist's.


 * And negative stigma is both irrelevant and lessening. Negative stigma should be dealt with when it personally arises, Wikipedia is not a platform for removing it, nor is it reason to clutter up the existing terms. There simply isn't a middle stance, you either believe in a god or you don't. And when you don't, you're an atheist. One can go on further to find out that you're a negative (weak) atheist and that you don't assert the god doesn't exist, but that's up to private discourse. GManNickG (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep the philosophical position which the article Agnostic Neutralism serves to describe is NOT currently included in or described by any other article on wikipedia. until someone disproves the validity of the position itself or identifies fallaciousness in the article, the article should stand. if the lack of authoritative recognition is of significant concern, I suggest the article be shortened or edited to reflect that concern. there are numerous other articles on wikipedia which arguably misrepresent the terms and positions in which they attempt to describe, for instance: "ignosticism", "antitheism", "apatheism" "agnostic theism/atheism", all of these terms are highly controversial and their meanings are frequently debated within the realm of philosophy of religion. SDMade December 2010
 * See: (article discussion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Agnostic_neutralism The article has been edited, simplified and reworded to provide a better understanding of and accurately depict the concept/viewpoint of 'agnostic neutralism'. SDMade December 2010


 * "until someone disproves the validity of the position itself..." You have the burden of proof, not us. Things are not to be assumed true until proven false, the one making the claim has to provide the proof for the claim. This is a basic epistemological understanding, and demanding otherwise is so common it's a regular old fallacy. Your lack of understanding in this respect reduces any weight you may have had on any philosophical issue, including this one; I sincerely doubt your experience in philosophy. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "I sincerely doubt your experience in philosophy." yet you claim yourself to be a 21 year old autodidact... interesting. SDMade December 2010


 * It's quite possible to do so, though now off-topic. Why wouldn't I be able to teach myself until after a certain age? And attacking me isn't a response to what I've said above, care to try again? GManNickG (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * you raised the question of "lacking experience", I merely pointed out your own deficiency, which is hardly an attack if you consider yourself a true 'autodidact' in the discipline. as for the burden of proof, I cannot prove something to someone who rejects the facts. --SDMade (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, how about this: I'm a newborn child and by some miracle I can type mostly coherently. I'm the dumbest person to ever exist and shall never ever say anything remotely ground-breaking.


 * Now, how does this strengthen your position? It doesn't. Once again, you're attacking me instead of my points. That's fine if you don't want to actually defend the article, but if you don't want it to get deleted then you better start replying to the objections to it rather than to the person objecting.


 * In any case, now we're just talking about each other, instead of the article. The reason I brought up your experience in the first place is because you're the person saying the term is valid. I'm just doubting the grounds you have to show that. But that's fine, this isn't the main problem anyway, I just wanted to address your argument from ignorance. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fortunately for you, this discussion is about deletion of the article, not your understanding of reasoning. That said, I have already explained why this stance is meaningless, but I'll do so again anyway. First understand beliefs, certainty, and what the stances and terms mean. Then acknowledge that theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are jointly exhaustive. There exists terms for each sub-category of these as well, and agnostics neutralism simply has no place to insert itself in to. That's it. It's up to you to argue that it does add something that isn't already covered; please do so. And no, citing the article won't help because as it stands it's incoherent and just throws words around. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * an agnostic who is not an atheist or theist, is a neutral-agnostic. a neutral agnostic can be a weak or strong agnostic, ignostic agnostic neutralist, or even an ignostic apathetic agnostic neutralist. fortunately for you, you are not required to comprehend this. SDMade December 2010


 * "an agnostic who is not an atheist or theist" Wrong, this is not possible; your premise is false. You either believe in a god or you don't, there is no between. GManNickG (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "You either believe in a god or you don't, there is no between." the absurdity of this is laughable. --SDMade (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you could demonstrate the absurdity, then perhaps you'd have a real argument we could laugh along with you. But this is just a claim, anyone can do that. Watch this: the absurdity of your comment is laughable. If you think your argument is sound, then so is mine. But thankfully it's not, so go ahead and try again. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "if the lack of authoritative recognition is of significant concern, I suggest the article be shortened or edited to reflect that concern." Or, per policy of Wikipedia, non-existent. If it doesn't exist as a real, authoritatively-defined word, then to Wikipedia it doesn't exist. And again, the burden is on you to cite these resources, not for us to (somehow) prove they don't exist. Wikipedia isn't for blog posts; if you personally feel the term is justified in its existence that's fine, but that doesn't belong here. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * like i've pointed out before, there are plenty other articles lacking "authoritative" recognition, perhaps I should open a proposal for deletion on those. SDMade December 2010


 * Yes you should, because it has nothing to do with this article. GManNickG (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * it has everything to do with this article, and in fact, its your entire argument for why it should be deleted. perhaps you should consider rethinking your respones... --SDMade (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with the validity of this article. It arguably has to do with my argument, except that the terms I'm using aren't in your list, save the last one. And those are supported by references that you can find on the articles themselves.


 * Again, if you've got a problem with the other articles, bring it up on those articles. If you've got a problem with my argument, then please address my argument directly. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "there are numerous other articles on wikipedia which arguably misrepresent the terms and positions in which they attempt to describe, for instance: "ignosticism", "antitheism", "apatheism" "agnostic theism/atheism"" The wrongness of other terms has no bearing on the correctness of this term, this is a red herring. Even if they were indeed wrong, which they aren't, that makes no case for your own position. I think instead of being closed-minded and saying "My terms are definitely right, everyone else must be wrong", you reconsider your understanding and experience in philosophy and religion, and perhaps contemplate the possibility you may need to succumb to more authoritative sources. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * agnostic neutralism is not "my term", and it's well established online. SDMade December 2010


 * Then provide links to those well-established resources. GManNickG (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * it's not my job to convince you to accept the facts, however, that being said I will add any resources I happen to stumble upon. --SDMade (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "it's not my job to convince you to accept the facts" Actually, if you don't want people to say your article should be deleted, it is.


 * And if it's "well established online" then you should have no problem getting those resources for us - let alone have to stumble upon them. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "all of these terms are highly controversial and their meanings are frequently debated within the realm of philosophy of religion." Simply false; unless your definition of "realm of philosophy of religion" is "laymen talking about religion". I find it rare to encounter a philosopher, intellectual, or theologian who doesn't understand the basics of belief and certainty, and the meaning of the terms. GManNickG (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * again, if I am to believe your user page, you're a 21 year old who thinks access to the internet makes you a seasoned philosopher and prized intellectual. SDMade December 2010


 * Funny, I don't see that anywhere on my user page. Anyway, care to respond to what I've said instead of who I am again? GManNickG (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * it's actually quite astounding to read your responses, you seem to disregard what you have previously written in almost all of them. "Anyway, care to respond to what I've said instead of who I am again?"... did you not say "(I) find it rare" in your original response? read: "I find it rare to encounter a philosopher, intellectual, or theologian who doesn't understand the basics of belief and certainty, and the meaning of the terms. GManNickG" this is a personal account of your own experiences which I responded to. --SDMade (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am part of the argument by virtue then I gave you my reasons to objecting to a point. What you're apparently missing is that one of your claims is being objected to, namely "all of these terms are highly controversial and their meanings are frequently debated within the realm of philosophy of religion.", and that since that's your claim it's your responsibility to defend it. Next time I'll omit my reasons for objection, and simply ask the claim be supported: Where is all the controversy in the field?


 * And you can doubt my experience, that's fine, but recognize the difference between supporting your claim (what you need to do if you don't want this article deleted) and rejecting my reasons for the objection (which could be completely valid but not save your support for the article, because it's irrelevant). But if you're going to make an ad hominem attack anyway, don't do so by making straw man arguments. I again invite you to locate where on my user page it says I think I'm "a 21 year old who thinks access to the internet makes you a seasoned philosopher and prized intellectual". Can you locate this for me? No? That's because it's a completely exageratted fabrication you put up in place of a real response. Now stop talking about who I am and start defending your article. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the last entry I will make in this debate.

If my understanding of your position is clear, You(GManNickG, others in favor deletion) are arguing that one can only ever choose to 'agree' or 'disagree' with any claim, concept, theory or conclusion. I am arguing that one has three options, to agree, to disagree, or neither, which is to suspend judgement. In other words, you believe the claim of "god's" existence can only be believed-in(agreed with) which is the position of theism, or disbelieved-in/"not-believed"/"lacking belief in"(disagreed with, "not agreed with", "lacking agreement/agreeance with") which is the position of atheism. I am proposing that one can take a middle position in the form of suspended judgement(neither "agree" nor "disagree"/ neither "believe" nor "disbelieve"), which is essentially a "neutral" position, meaning "agnostic neutralism"("agnostic-knowledge"-"neutral-belief") is basically the thought that "theism" and "atheism" are both premature judgements.


 * Suspension of judgement: Suspension of judgment is a cognitive process and a rational state of mind in which one withholds judgments, particularly on the drawing of moral or ethical conclusions. The opposite of suspension of judgment is premature judgment, usually shortened to prejudice. Whereas prejudgment involves drawing a conclusion or making a judgment before having the information relevant to such a judgment, suspension of judgment involves waiting for all the facts before making a decision. Suspension of judgment is a cornerstone of good research methodology. Much of the scientific method is designed to encourage the suspension of judgments until observations can be made, tested, and verified through peer review. In socio-political situations the suspension of judgment is the cornerstone of a civil society. Rather than prejudging people based on generalizations, preconceptions, or other forms of incomplete information, we should judge individuals only when we have adequate information about that individual. Within philosophy, the suspension of judgment is typically associated with skepticism and positivism, but it is not limited to these areas. The 17th century rationalist René Descartes, for example, used it as the cornerstone of his epistemology. In a process that he called methodological skepticism, he asserted that in order to gain a solid foundation when building one's system of knowledge and belief, one must first doubt everything. Only by eliminating preconceptions and prejudgments can one come to know what is true. Suspension of judgment is also a term used in civil law to indicate a courts decision to nullify a civil judgment.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_judgment

If you understand and agree with this position, I encourage you to build upon the article to include "skepticism" and "suspension of judgment" and how they relate to agnostic neutralism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDMade (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You said "You(GManNickG, others in favor deletion) are arguing that one can only ever choose to 'agree' or 'disagree' with any claim, concept, theory or conclusion." As far as I can tell, GManNickG is the only person making this argument. If it's not clear from what I mentioned above and elsewhere, my nomination for deletion is not at all about this issue. I actually agree with you on this issue. That being said, my reasoning for thinking this should be deleted is because the term agnostic neutralism is not used in any reliable sources, so to create the article under this title falls under WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. As far as I'm concerned, the argument about whether or not it is possible to neither agree nor disagree with a proposition has occluded this issue.Eldamorie (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * my response to "my reasoning for thinking this should be deleted is because the term agnostic neutralism is not used in any reliable sources" has been that this is false (there are reliable sources), and further my response to "so to create the article under this title falls under WP:OR/WP:SYNTH" is that many other articles fall under "WP:OR/WP:SYNTH", yet are allowed to remain available; such as the articles for "Weak agnosticism" and "Strong agnosticism" which both make note of these concerns. Why aren't these articles being "considered for deletion"? --SDMade (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "this is false (there are reliable sources)" Then link to the "reliable sources" already! You keep saying "they're there, they're there, I swear!" and then doing nothing. And for the last time, two wrongs don't make a right. If every article on Wikipedia was original research, that still has no bearing on whether this one is too.


 * If you think they should be considered for deletion, bring it up on those pages. They aren't the issue here, the issue is nobody has linked to a reliable source for this article. This one. GManNickG (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Eldamorie, I've never made such an argument, and have put quite some effort into explaining a person can agree, disagree, or withhold judgment. If theism is an agreement, than atheism is not-agreement: withholding judgment or disagreeing. GManNickG (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish you hadn't dismissed yourself from the discussion. It took me quite some time thinking out my responses to you on the talk page and here, and it's extremely offsetting to have you simply ignore them. But instead you've merely re-stated your position; that's intellectually dishonest, and for the good of your article you'd do well to come back and reply to my points.


 * It's also clear you never really read anything I wrote to you in honest light, because if you had you'd either have agreed with my lesson and we'd be done, or you'd have replied to the error in my lesson on my talk page; neither have occurred. Had you actually read what I took the time to write for you, you'd see that I exactly argue "that one has three options, to agree, to disagree, or neither". Thanks for wasting my time.


 * So I already have no reason to reply to you: you wouldn't read it, if you did you'd just run away, and it isn't worth my effort. If you want to put the same effort into this as I have, feel free to address my points and I'll be happy to care again.


 * In closing I'll say this: if atheism is "not-believed"/"lacking belief in"(disagreed with, "not agreed with", "lacking agreement/agreeance with" the claim of god's existence, and someone is withholding judgment (the "middle" position), have they formed a belief in a god? Of course not, they're withholding judgment. That is to say, they are lacking a belief in god.


 * Like I've been saying, you either have a belief in a god, or you don't (lack). It's not logically possible to fall anywhere else. GManNickG (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read the "lesson" on your page (twice and then a third time), and I simply disagree with it. Your logic is false because it assumes the argument is over "theism" itself, when the true argument is over a claim(the claim that "god exists") of which 'theism' merely establishes an opinion of, i.e. one side of the argument, read:
 * Claim: "God" exists.
 * (responses)
 * Agnostic Theist: "I have faith in 'god'", "I think 'god' exists", "I believe, despite a lack of knowledge", conclusion: "Yes"
 * Agnostic Atheist: "I have faith in no 'god'", "I think 'god' does not exist", "I object, because a lack of knowledge", conclusion: "No"
 * Neutral-Agnostic: "I don't have faith", "I don't have thoughts(or can't decide)", "I neither believe nor object, I lack knowledge", conclusion: "Possibly"
 * because "God exists" is an unsubstantiated claim which, for all intents and purposes, is also a learned concept, "belief" itself is required to have an opinion or come to a conclusion. In other words, it is required that you believe the claim is true, believe the claim is false, or simply "lack belief" which is to suspend judgement. If you acknowledge this truth, you must see the positions regarding the claim, "God exists", as such:
 * Agnostic Theist: "I believe this claim is true, but I lack knowledge"
 * Agnostic Atheist: "I believe this claim is false, but I lack knowledge"
 * Agnostic Neutralist: "I suspend any judgement on whether the claim is true or false, due to a lack of knowledge"
 * you cannot "lack a belief" in the truth of a claim and still "have a belief" that the claim is false, this is a logical fallacy. the only way one could "lack a belief" in the existence of god and still be considered "atheist" is if they were ignorant to the concept of "god's existence" to begin with.
 * SDMade (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak atheists don't assert falsehood. --Modocc (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the real distinction between the varying forms of "atheism" and how they would respond to the question "Do you believe in god?"
 * Gnostic Atheist -- "I know there are no gods"
 * Strong Atheist -- "I believe there are no gods"
 * Weak Atheist -- "I don't believe in any gods"
 * Agnostic Atheist -- "I have no knowledge of any gods, therefore I don't believe in any gods"
 * -- A weak atheist would be basing their disbelief of gods on the lack of knowledge for any claims, which is why many atheists find that the last 2 categories aren't mutually exclusive. But to be labeled a "Weak Atheist" doesn't necessarily imply that they're "without knowledge", only that they're "without belief". An Agnostic Neutralist would reply "I have no knowledge of any gods, therefore I suspend judgment. I believe that the chances a god does or doesn't exist is equal in likelihood." Technically the Neutralist has a "belief" that either side of the Atheism/Theism dichotomy could be true.UnReAL13D (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Weak"/"Negative" atheist's are actually agnostic-atheists. what's written under the wikipedia page for "Weak"/"Strong" atheism is completely false, if you would like my to elaborate, reply and I'll get back to you. --SDMade (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think is false about the article, positive/negative or strong/weak atheism is reliably sourced, whether or not the concept is called agnostic atheism, defacto atheism (see Richard Dawkins' Spectrum of theistic probability) or weak atheism (and weak atheism is considerably broader in scope than either agnostic or defacto atheism). --Modocc (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many things can qualify as a so-called "reliable source", that doesn't make it accurate OR even that the source is correct. Briefly scanning over the sources listed on the article I can only find one semi-reliable source ^ Flew, Antony (1976). "The Presumption of Atheism" in this essay the author uses the terms "negative" and "positive" atheism only to temporarily label the two different concepts which he attempts to explain, otherwise these terms are not well known or widely accepted within the "real world" of philosophy. --SDMade (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Agnostic Theist: "I have faith in 'god'", "I think 'god' exists", "I believe, despite a lack of knowledge", conclusion: "Yes"" You're wrong here. "Believing X" and "having faith in X" are not the same thing. I can believe in X, and may or may not cite faith as my reason for this belief. Faith can be cited as a justification for a belief, it's not the same as a belief. (In other words, it's sufficient but not necessary for belief.)
 * How did you get the idea that I was comparing the words "faith" and "belief"?- but more important, even if that were the case - "Faith" is the only reason an "Agnostic Theist"(they're without knowledge, remember?) would "believe" in god, therefore the word faith can be used interchangeably with the word belief, but again, your rant was pointless from the start. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're also wrong here: "Agnostic Atheist: "I have faith in no 'god'", "I think 'god' does not exist", "I object, because a lack of knowledge"". Namely, "I think 'god' does not exist" and "I object, because a lack of knowledge" are not the same thing. The second one can be a suspension of judgment, the thing you keep saying. If I object your claim, that just means I don't believe it's true. I could either cite my reasons for the objection as "I believe it's false" or "I'm suspending judgment."
 * And again, pointless rant. the individual (mini)quoted responses(note: commas after each) aren't supposed have the same meanings, they're supposed to represent the train of thought each experience while responding to the claim "god exists". "If I object your claim, that just means I don't believe it's true.", "not believing it's true" is the same as "believing it's false", if you lacked a "belief" in the truth of the claim, then you would be suspending judgment. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "I don't have faith" So you're not a theist (because you don't have a belief/"faith" in a god), ergo you're an atheist. . The prefix 'a-' means 'not'. Atheist: not theist. Agnostic: not gnostic. Asexual: not sexual. This is the major point you're missing.
 * This would be true, if "atheist" was acting as an adjective, but because the word "atheist" is being used as a noun it describes a person who believes the contrary of the original "person" i.e. the "theist", its the same with the words "agnostic" and "gnostic" when used as a noun. this may be why you thought they were comparable to the words "asexual" and "sexual", which are in fact, adjectives. This is the major point you're missing. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "you cannot "lack a belief" in the truth of a claim and still "have a belief" that the claim is false, this is a logical fallacy" It's a contradiction, not a fallacy. A fallacy is an error in reasoning, an invalid step. There's no steps here, just two contradicting statements. That's just an aside, though, we agree it's meaningless; I just don't think anyone said it.
 * Well... I'll give you this one, my mistake - sue me. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Important, feel free to ignore anything else, but please reply to this section.
 * You're in luck, I've written responses to everything. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this: I'm going to make an semi-formal argument, and you tell me which part you disagree with, so everyone can stop all this guesswork and re-explaining, and pin-point the cause.


 * (Classical logic.)


 * Definition: G is the proposition 'a god exists'.


 * Definition: Belief is when a person holds a proposition to be true.


 * Premise B: For a proposition X, a person is free to believe X, or not believe X.
 * "or not believe X." -which is to believe that X is false if X is a claim, then "believing X" means "believing X is true", if one "has a belief" with regard to the "truth" of a claim, they're only options are to believe the claim is true or the contrary - false. suspending judgement would be to refrain from "having a belief". --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, and I'm extremely surprised you're missing this, as you're the one so adamantly repeating the possibility to suspend belief. Please answer these two questions directly: (1) Do we agree "He believes X." is the same as "He believes X is true."? and (2) If someone suspends judgment on X, do they believe X? GManNickG (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Premise N: For a proposition X, a belief that X is false is the same as a belief that not-X is true.


 * Theorem T: For a proposition X, a person is free to believe one of the following: X, not-X, or neither. (Premise B & N)
 * Believing "neither" is a contradiction, one cannot logically believe something is "neither true nor false", they can only believe it is true, believe it is false, or suspend belief as to whether "it" is true or false. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Theorem S: A person may either believe G, believe not-G, or neither. (Theorem T)
 * Contradiction, see above. "believe (a god exists)", "believe not(a god exists)", or "a god exists and not a god exists"? you may want to rethink your theorem. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Theorem K: A person who does not believe G believes one of the following: not-G, or neither. (Theorem S)
 * Wrong. not-G is not-'a god exists' i.e. 'no god exists', "neither" would be a god exists and not a god exists- contradiction. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Premise T: A theist is a person who believes G.


 * Theorem N: A person who does not believe G is not a theist. (Premise T)
 * "A person who does not believe G" is "A person who believes G is false", because "G" is a claim. --SDMade (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Theorem I: A person who believes not-G or neither is not a theist. (Theorem K & N)
 * "Neither" isn't an option, see above. --SDMade (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Premise A: The prefix 'a-' means "not" [etymologically].


 * (Example Theorem: A person who is not sexual is asexual [etymologically]. (Premise A))
 * this is comparing an adjective to a noun, "sexual" to "a theist" - fallacy. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean I'm making a false analogy. (It's not helpful to simply state a fact then claim fallacy, you need to explain what fallacy. Otherwise we could just say "circles are round, you're committing a fallacy" all day.) In any case, you're not correct. My examples are to demonstrate that the prefix 'a-' can be taken to mean 'not', which is independent of the category of the base word to which you attach it. In other words, you're right in the basic sense, not in full: I'm using an adjective and a noun, yes, but I'm not comparing them; I'm comparing uses of 'a-'. If you want to explain why using an adjective versus a noun makes a difference to the prefix 'a-', that would invalidate my argument. So I ask: how does this noted difference change the meaning of 'a-' with respect to 'not'?


 * Theorem A: A person who is not a theist is an atheist [etymologically]. (Premise T & A)
 * Debunked, see above. --SDMade (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Conclusion B: A person who believes not-G or neither is an atheist. (Theorem I & A)
 * A person who believes "not-G" or "not-'a god exists" is an atheist, but "neither" is not an option, see above. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Conclusion E: A person is either a theist or an atheist. (Theorem K & Premise T & Conclusion B)
 * Wrong. A person is either a theist(one who believes 'a god exists'), an atheist(one who believes not-'a god exists'), or neither a 'theist' nor an 'atheist', in this case the person could be a number of things- one being an 'agnostic neutralist'. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you may either say which premise you disagree with, or where a fallacy occurred. GManNickG (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're in luck again, I've spotted quite a few fallacies- which I tend to disagree with rather routinely.
 * --SDMade (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for deleting your "implication" responses, I didn't think you'd mind. I'm not sure how familiar you are with an argument, but if you disagree with a premise it's unnecessary and redundant to deny the theorems that rely on the premise. That's the entire purpose of presenting it in this format: if you disagree with a premise or deduction, you don't need to go on. GManNickG (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Blogs are not reliable sources and finding the terms used together occasionally is not adequate either. I read a review about someone who happened to propose agnostic neutralism, but otherwise I've yet to see any reference work or third-party reliable source that takes note of it, and probably because most self-described agnostics are already understood to be "agnostic neutral" in most cases, so the additional term is simply verbose. --Modocc (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Eh, not the place to debate it, but I'll say Conservapedia's value as a reliable source is close to zero. Obviously this depends on your ideology and how much bias you're willing to ignore, but no, that's not going to cut it, sorry." -- So would you mind explaining to me why Conservapedia isn't a reliable source? If the term "Neutralism" is real, which it is and primarily used in a political context, then why won't you accept the source citing the origin of the terminology? To conjoin Agnosticism with Neutralism is no different than conjoining Gnosticism with Theism, or any other combination of philosophical positions that one could take in regards to knowledge and/or belief. What your entire argument is hinging on is that there is no middle ground, no position of neutrality, in theological discussions. This is a Dualistic approach to theology if I've ever seen one. As SDMade had pointed out, the only way one could "lack a belief" and still be considered "atheist" is if they simply didn't understand the concept of "god's existence". They would have to be Ignostic Atheists.


 * Agnostic Neutralism is a concept being widely discussed and I've found some of the sources for the info on the original article:
 * "William and Mabel Sahakian say that agnosticism "refers to a neutralist view on the question of the existence of God"
 * http://www.greatcom.org/resources/handbook_of_todays_religions/04chap01/default.htm
 * "into four camps: optimists, pessimists, neutralists, and agnostics. The neutralists and agnostics dominate right now, though I will argue that their ..."
 * http://www.nber.org/papers/w9749.pdf
 * ""Naturalism" has been associated with agnosticism and a spirit of compromise. ... from skepticism to absolutism, or a convenient but sterile "neutralism. .."
 * http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/toward-a-naturalistic-philosophy-of-experience-ukdOqiAPFl
 * "The agnostic is the attitude of those who do not have a clear opinion as to ...... reflect a lack of mindfulness, ardent determinism or ardent neutralism ..."
 * http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=elea&vol=2&issue=2&year=2005&article=6_Aviram_ELEA_2_2_web
 * "does not hark back to the 'cultural agnosticism' of neutralist liberalism."
 * https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1009975614456
 * "'active neutralism' are quite vague: but the first is definitely a common .... Kant and other agnostics do, that this suprasensible world is unknowable. .."
 * http://www.jstor.org/pss/25000185


 * After doing some brief research it's becoming abundantly clear that "neutralism" is an accepted position, and in many cases is being used to modify or accentuate "agnosticism", or vice versa. Just as someone can be a Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Deist, Ignostic Atheist, Apathetic Ietsist, etc.... from the virtually endless series of philosophical positions that one take, Agnostic Neutralism is simply yet another position within the entire spectrum of belief. I apologize for any formatting errors. Please forgive me as I'm a relatively new "wikipedian". UnReAL13D (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * None of those sources uses the phrase "agnostic neutralism" - the first one describes vanilla agnosticism using the term neutralism. The second, third and fourth are not even about agnosticism. None of them describe a position called agnostic neutralism. No wiki is ever ever ever a reliable source. Period. Unless you are writing an article on that wiki and are citing policies, or whatever. But saying "X wiki has an article that kind of relates to this one" is totally not the case. To conjoin these terms is WP:OR unless you can find reliable sources that have already done so. Eldamorie (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Agnostics themselves, the neutralists looked askance at the born-again, indelicately reminding
 * America of its long history as a ..."
 * http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tEy9EeDHcOcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=agnostic+neutralism&ots=rWLDrLRknu&sig=1HxVycMAjiZWShBhYp7GEIkemso
 * "Rather, liberalism denotes an officially agnostic or "neutral ..."
 * https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF02693332
 * "... a level playing field where the structures of the system are somehow neutral or agnostic, allowing
 * all ..."
 * http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GlJEzBwM6e4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=agnostic+neutralism&ots=dhhQKFzgJK&sig=XxNk3p1GJ41HDLH_4736TsVDpQA
 * "Only the agnostic is truly neutral"
 * http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/nkq005v1
 * "... Neither benevolent neutralists nor secular neutralists rely on preference-free legal argu- ments
 * to arrive at their respective definitions, but rather ."
 * http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/45/3/499.pdf


 * Once again I've illustrated why several scholars find the concepts of "neutralism" and "agnosticism" to be synonymous and interchangeable. The last source even uses the phrase secular neutralist for which the only logical synonymous phrase would be agnostic neutralist, as "agnostics" are considered to be "secular". UnReAL13D (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Citing sources that argue that neutralist and agnostic are interchangeable serves to emphasize the point that any value from this article should be included in Agnosticism. And why can't secular neutralist just mean secular neutralist? If anything, the most logical synonymous phrase would be "agnostic" Eldamorie (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "secular" implies someone who is without religion. The phrase "atheistic neutralist" is a contradiction of terminology, as you can't be "neutral" to the theism/atheism dichotomy and still remain "atheistic". To say just "agnostic" is synonymous to "secular neutralist" would be dropping the entire emphasis of "neutralism" in regards to atheism and theism. By default, an agnostic SHOULD remain neutral to the argument, but this isn't necessarily implied by simply saying "agnostic". There are still the Atheist/Theist and Weak/Strong divisions to consider, and "neutralism" addresses these arguments as the proper descriptor for one who wishes to maintain a "neutral" stance towards these divisions. "Neutralism" properly characterizes the neutral stance that someone could feasibly have towards the entire scope of belief. UnReAL13D (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As a quick aside to the previous point, I'd like to note that "secular" could also imply a Deist or even Ietsist. It's certainly possible to be a Deistic Neutralist (someone who believes in the equal chances of a "deity" not revealed by religion) or an Ietsistic Neutralist (someone who believes in the equal chances of "something" that exists beyond this world, not necessarily a "deity"). There could also be the Ignostic Neutralist (someone who doesn't understand the concept of a "deity" but thinks there's equal chances that a deity may exist) or even an Apathetic Neutralist (someone who thinks that a deity's existence has little to no impact on our world, has never been proven/dis-proven, but still thinks the chances that one may exist is equal in likelihood). The Apathetic Neutralist differs from the typical Apatheist or Pragmatic Atheist in that they believe in the equal chances of a deities' existence, but still wouldn't care enough about the argument to assert a stance either way. UnReAL13D (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW,GManNickG (talk) is right about not assigning a probability such as "equal chances" to theism/atheism, because believing something is 50% possible is not a "neutral" position. For instance, a judge would be prejudice to think that a defendant has a probability of 50% of being guilty, especially if the prosecutor had lost 99% of his prior cases. A complete suspension of judgment means that one should not prejudice the outcome with any assigned probability, until a judgment of any facts is made. --Modocc (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Probability of guilt is a completely different measurement than the chances of a deity's existence. There are many existing factors to consider in a court trial. There are no apparent factors when "judging" the existence of a deity. This lends equal credence to both sides. There is a 50 % chance of a deity's existence, and a 50 % chance of a deity's non-existence. Thus rendering an equal amount of likelihood that a deity exists or doesn't. If you believe the numbers for this percentage are any other sum of 100 % aside from "0 + 100", then you would be either Agnostic Theist or Agnostic Atheist. UnReAL13D (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay I finally found a source for the phrase agnostic neutralism
 * "However, I do think that there is a certain superficial show of humility in the agnostic neutralism, which makes it taking to some, and helps multiply disciples for it"
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=DstfA4Pq2e8C&pg=PA499&dq=agnostic+neutralism&hl=en&ei=7owOTbuPK4OglAeC49S6BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA
 * "If now neutralist agnosticism is supposed to be a justification for limiting liberty and denying me the ..."
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=M8cmyFUuSrsC&pg=PA52&dq=agnostic+neutralism&hl=en&ei=7owOTbuPK4OglAeC49S6BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ
 * "1960-now) serves mainly to develop critical reflexive methodologies for a secular and agnostic study of the religions ... social history only on the basis of an approach termed 'methodological agnosticism' or 'metaphysical neutralism'."
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=gmcjPkrGTQ8C&pg=PA246&dq=agnostic+neutralism&hl=en&ei=7owOTbuPK4OglAeC49S6BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCA
 * I hope this now clearly illustrates why agnostic neutralism is indeed an existing philosophy. UnReAL13D (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, none of these works are describing anything that is not plain ol' vanilla agnosticism. The Yale lecture is from 1888, is a polemic against agnosticism, and is not using agnostic neutralism to describe a separate philosophy, but just as method of emphasizing the "neutral" part of agnosticism. Please read the whole essay. The Civil Society book is once again a political science text, not a philosophical one, and uses the term agnostic to describe laws that refuse to make value judgments. Once again, the Platvoet work uses the term neutralism as a descriptor for vanilla agnosticism. None of these demonstrate a philosophy in anyway distinct from vanilla agnosticism.Eldamorie (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, am I missing something here? What exactly is "vanilla agnosticism" supposed to be? This is Greek to me. I have NEVER heard that phrase used by a philosopher of any kind. UnReAL13D (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not being more clear. By vanilla agnosticism I mean agnosticism unqualified by atheism or theism. Just plain ol' reg'lar agnosticism, the kind described in the Agnosticism article.Eldamorie (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that Agnostic Neutralism differs in no way from "Vanilla Agnosticism". It's my understanding that the term "Agnosticism" in general encapsulates the entire spectrum including Agnostic Theism, Agnostic Atheism, Strong Agnosticism, Weak Agnosticism, Apathetic Agnosticism and Ignosticism. The emphasis of "Agnostic Neutralism" is to take a "neutral" stance to the "Theism/Atheism" argument as well as the "Weak/Strong" argument. There are many Agnostics who feel entirely "neutral" to the scope of Agnosticism when asked "What type of Agnostic are you?" They would rather not take these particular positions as they feel it's impossible to even ascertain that much. The "Neutralism" aspect of "Agnostic Neutralism" emphasizes the neutrality to all arguments contained within the divisions of Agnosticism.
 * With that being said, I still think that there should at least be a portion on the main Agnosticism page addressing the "neutrality" or "neutralism" to such matters. It's becoming quite obvious to me that the phrase "Agnostic Neutralism" isn't exactly in heavy rotation, but I wouldn't say it was "non-existent" before the publication of this article. Apparently the pastor at Yale was using the phrase in some sort of theological sense, so that suggests to me that the phrase at least existed at the time. UnReAL13D (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "What your entire argument is hinging on is that there is no middle ground, no position of neutrality, in theological discussions. " Once again, you dismiss my desire to care about anything else you've written because you clearly haven't read anything I have. GManNickG (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. This is the same type of argument I have with atheists constantly, which leads me to believe that you actually are an atheist. This is not a black-&-white issue. There are many sides to the argument. Please at least refer to the sources I've provided stating agnostic neutralism as a valid position to take. UnReAL13D (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What is with your obsession with determining what my beliefs are? Do you need to discern them so you know which prejudices and presumptions to apply to me? They're not relevant, pay to attention to what I say, not who I am.


 * "This is not a black-&-white issue." I challenge you to find a purpose in stating this sentence. I mean it surely isn't to object to something I said, because I never said it was a black and white issue.
 * Black and white as in the duality of atheism and theism which you are suggesting. When in reality you must accept the plurality of atheism, neutralism and theism. UnReAL13D (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Identifying a dichotomy doesn't mean I think it's a black and white issue. Is saying you're either a stamp collector or not a stamp collector participating in black and white thinking? See, here's the problem: you've got some definition of atheism we disagree on, so I try to demonstrate why it's wrong via argument, but every time I do that, you ignore it. That's fine, though rude, except that you then go on to recite your definition; ignoring my rebuttal on it's own is one thing, but ignoring it as an objection to the views you espouse is another. Be intellectually honest, and instead of constantly re-stating "it's theism, atheism, and 'neutralism'" over and over, critique my argument; help me hold a reasonable discussion and help me figure out where it is we actually disagree, I've made it extremely simple to do so. I'm not replying to anything but a reply to my argument from this point, you've had plenty of time to do so. Thanks. GManNickG (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, you seem to be identifying me with SDMade, and you continue to assert that the points you made to him are being ignored by me. Stop projecting. Second, you're using the most inclusive definition of atheism "the lack of belief", when atheism in a broader sense is the "rejection or disbelief of all spiritual claims". Nobody can "lack a belief" but still "hold the belief that a claim is false". If everyone simply accepted the definition "lack of belief" then there would be no agnostics to speak of. I'm pretty sure I already went over this anyway, but I'll make sure to "elaborate" well enough for you this time.


 * As far as your stamp collector argument goes, yes there can be someone who is neither a stamp collector nor a non-stamp collector. It would be someone who simply owns a single stamp. This wouldn't be a collection of stamps, nor would it be the acquisition of no stamps at all. If we're to assume that a "non-stamp collector" doesn't possess stamps whatsoever. But I'm sure you'd try to use the term more "inclusively" as you are with atheism, so your interpretation of "non-stamp collector" would probably include people who own stamps but don't "gather" the stamps into an assortment or collection of some kind. This is simply a cop-out to justify labeling everyone who isn't classified as "theist" under the label of "atheist".


 * What you are ignoring about the pluralist aspect of categorization is the "shades of gray" in between the black and white. You simply label everything in dualist terms, this or that: theist, non-theist; car, non-car; human, non-human; etc. When there can be ambiguity among certain categories. What you're willfully ignoring is the aspect of "this, that or the other". Such as -- religion: theist, non-theist, neutralist; object: car, non-car, flying car; species: human, non-human, hybrid. There can certainly be "neutral" categories where the aspects of the opposing sides overlap each other.


 * I'm not sure if I'm replying to the specific "argument" that you wanted me to reply to, but that's my take on the aspect of "neutrality" in general. It's a form of pluralism, which tends to be a little more accurate when assigning categories and labels to such broad terms and idea's. I hope this will help you understand my viewpoint. You keep insinuating "rudeness" from my end, well I'm sorry pal, but sometimes I have better things to do in life than sit here and argue semantics with a 21 year old self-professed "know-it-all". There's a lot of chatter going back and forth here to analyze, so sometimes I overlook a few things every once in a while. MY BAD. UnReAL13D (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're both arguing the same thing, and you freely reference his arguments, so yes, please see my responses to him. I'm not going to waste my time repeating everything I've said, for each person.


 * Yes, I am using the most inclusive definition, and yes I'm completely warranted in doing so. "If everyone simply accepted the definition "lack of belief" then there would be no agnostics to speak of." That's why everyone is saying agnosticism isn't a position of belief! Your argument basically amounts to asserting your position and claiming the opponent wrong, for each response. "That can't be right because I'd be wrong!" Try replying to the argument itself. Try explaining why the broadest definition is invalid.


 * "stamp collector" and "stamp collection" are two different things, you're equivocating. In other words, being a stamp collector is independent from "someone who simply owns a single stamp.", so your retort doesn't apply. And it's not a cop out, it's just deduction. You either believe in god, which just means "god exists" features among the list of things you hold true, or you don't believe in god. It's logically impossible to be in any other category.


 * "Such as -- religion: theist, non-theist, neutralist;" And this is exactly what I mean when I say your argument amounts to nothing more than begging the question. "Neutralism is a position", "No it's not, here's why.", "Your reasoning cannot be valid, because neutralism is a position." That's just begging the question, pure and simple.


 * And what's with the attack on me? Please, for the last time, will someone find the quote of me saying I'm a know-it all? And what does my age have to do with anything? Is a 2 year old that says "2 + 2 is 4" wrong because it's two? Are you incapable of supporting your position without insulting those who question it? Is your support for it that flimsy and weak? Cut it out. If you want, we can degrade to me saying "You're an idiot, you're stupid, you obviously never listen to real religious debates by philosophers and intellectuals, you're stupid because you're not me, my position is right because you're stupid and younger than me.", or we could not. I'll freely ignore you as soon as it goes in that direction. GManNickG (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The condescending and somewhat arrogant nature of your responses makes it clear to me that you don't respect my opinion whatsoever. You also infer far too much from some mild internet sarcasm. I won't even bother replying to your exaggerated perspective of my comment. On top of all that, you're apparently ignoring the sources I've provided citing "agnosticism" as essentially a "neutral" position in the scope of belief. And didn't you say that Agnostic Neutralism differs in no way from Vanilla Agnosticism? So you've contradicted your entire argument to begin with. Finally, the definition "the lack of belief in a deity" is somewhat removed from the original meaning of "atheism". The etymological definition of "atheos" from Greek was interpreted as "to deny the gods". Someone who's simply "lacking a belief" isn't actually denying the claim. An obvious contradiction. This why the more common and practical definition, "the rejection of all spiritual claims", is more widely accepted.UnReAL13D (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, did you delete this response earlier? That suggests to me that I've made a valid point which you're attempting to remove.UnReAL13D (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are better ways of dealing with the issue than stooping low enough to attack the person you're talking to. How about "Even if you don't intend it, you're responding seem condescending to me. Can you be careful?" Look how much nicer that is, and how it actually motivates me to care at all. Now, even though I really didn't intend to sound condescending, you're attacks on me removed any incentive I have to care about how the tone of my arguments appears to you.


 * I'm not ignoring your sources, I just feel others are doing a fine enough job talking about them with you. More important to me is finding the underlying cause of our disagreement, which isn't going to be done with you constantly reasserting your position, or me re-presenting the same informal arguments. That's why I suggested you just take a look at the spread-out argument above and you can pick exactly which premise you disagree with.


 * And no, I haven't contradicted myself. Having a strong conviction of your view and then asserting that when I disagree with it I'm actually contradicting myself isn't the same as actually looking at my argument and pointing out where I'm contradicting myself. The latter is much more useful and straightforward, and again is now a simple option above.


 * Unfortunately for you, the understanding and use of terms changes and becomes more coherent over time. Again, if you disagree with the term or reasoning, dissect the argument above. I don't want to have an informal debate and semi-formal debate at the same time about the same thing, sorry.


 * And no, I didn't delete anything of yours. If I did, it was an accident. If anyone makes a sound point, I'll be the first to accept it. But thanks for being presumptuous and calling me dishonest, it really inspires me to care about what you have to say. GManNickG (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep saying "stop ignoring my examples" and "I won't care unless you respond to my argument". Well I can apply what you said in response to my sources, "I just feel others are doing a fine enough job talking about them with you". And actually someone told me I had some nice sources and wants to include the link between Agnosticism and "neutrality" on the main page.


 * The only reason I suspected it was you who deleted my post is because it was a direct response to your argument. And I took a slight jab at you, I confess. But I still feel that you're disregarding some key points, and that your tone is slightly conceited. I don't see the loose definition of "atheism" being accepted so widely as you claim, in fact it appears to be the definition that comes under the most scrutiny.


 * You clearly contradicted yourself by continuing to assert that there is no "middle ground" after initially stating that Agnostic Neutralism doesn't vary from typical Agnosticism. Thus making "Vanilla Agnosticism" an "Agnostic" position position in between "Agnostic Theism" and "Agnostic Atheism", in which "Neutralism" is the correct modifier for. Plus telling someone that you subscribe to "Vanilla Agnosticism" sounds a lot more ridiculous than saying "Agnostic Neutralism". UnReAL13D (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ' being a stamp collector is independent from "someone who simply owns a single stamp.",' -- Yes and someone who owns a single stamp is also independent from a non-stamp collector. Thanks for proving my point. A "stamp user" wouldn't fall under either either category as they are continuously acquiring stamps and getting rid of them.
 * I've also copy and pasted this entire discussion up to this point. I dare you to delete any more of my responses.UnReAL13D (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "There are many sides to the argument." Again, is this an objection? To what? In any case, so what? Two sides, ten sides, infinite sides, what difference does it make? What's your point?


 * "Please at least refer to the sources I've provided stating agnostic neutralism as a valid position to take." I have, and they're all bust. Now you're turn: reply to things I've actually said and I'll pay attention to what you have to say. I refer you to my semi-formal argument above; as someone who disagrees with me, you're obligated to read it and point out where the unsound premise is, or invalid deduction is. Please do so, so we can stop wasting time. GManNickG (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "semi-formal argument" is full of errors, see above. --SDMade (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is that in quotes? And thanks for notifying me to "see above", as if for some reason I had forgotten where I typed it. No need for your comment, just replying on the argument itself is enough for a discussion on the argument itself. Please keep things localized. GManNickG (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one viewing this discussion, nor are you in charge of it, so I will respond to whatever I desire. --SDMade (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, a question and suggestion isn't an assertion of being in charge. Chill. GManNickG (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why none of my sources are valid? Especially the Google books source actually stating the phrase "agnostic neutralism", written by a professor at Yale. Are you saying that Yale isn't credible enough?UnReAL13D (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See my response above. Burton was not a professor at Yale, as far as I can tell. He was a pastor who lectured at Yale as part of the Lyman Beecher lecture series. They are lectures on preaching and pastoral theology, not the philosophy of nonbelief. Eldamorie (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think there is some merit to the topic. Books Ngram Viewer is showing no hits for "agnostic neutralism." However, the usage paths for agnostic neutralism shows some overlap in the 1960s. Perhaps the agnostic neutralism concept was popular in the 1960s but as since lost popularity. That would be interesting to read about. Some usage of the concept: "The agnostic neutrals among us will just hope he comes back for regular visits to Hampden", "Loudeye's platform neutral, format neutral, DRM neutral agnostic approach is important for many of them", "This is not neutral agnosticism, says Holloway, but committed unknowing. Now even writing stuff like that down is", "an ideally rational theist (analogously, Theist) in the hopes of convincing an audience of ideally rational neutral agnostics to their positions, van Inwagen divides", "I have tried to adopt a completely neutral, agnostic stance when citing religious references", " each side tried to present their argument as fact, so I thought I would present an opinion from a neutral agnostic point of view.", "While many books exist that either promote or bash religion, few book explore religion and spirituality from an neutral, agnostic standpoint" Aside: Interestingly, software techies say things like "a neutral, agnostic programming language", "The original Internet was designed to have an agnostic, neutral "core" whose job was", "radically different approach of using vendor neutral, agnostic platforms and enables integration." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Performing this search using GBooks discloses a lot of people saying things like "a neutral, agnostic approach", but the context is as a rule not agnosticism as applied to religious belief. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.