Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, but for more fun check out the history of the word belief, for what its worth. Khirad 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "Belief" as applied to Agnosticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Whither Robert G. Ingersoll?

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality tag

message: 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)
replies: text: You forgot to move it. I just did it for you, okay?--Adrigo 21:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:129.24.95.224|129.24.95.224]]'s view on agnosticism

message: "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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Beliefs as possibilities 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Philosophical opinions: Huxley, Darwin, Russell

message: 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)
thread_title:  A message for Donald 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Fix my joke please 

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

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

message: The article currently states agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism yet compatible with weak atheism. I agree with the second part. But Strong atheism#Statements of nonexistence merit positive claims 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#Table from talk:Agnosticism, has a box labeled "strong agnostic, strong atheist".)
— Elembis 08:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (In)compatibility with strong atheism 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Indifinied Agnosticism. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Agnostic' as the indicator of uncatalogued behavior patterns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Death 

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

message: I've just added a sub-section on the Talk:Major_world_religions#Speculative_.22Secular.2FNonreligious.2Fetc.22_categorization
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)
thread_title: Interpretation of statistics

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

message: In this edit many changes were made - many not yet reverted. The following sentences are among those removed:
*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—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.
- 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)
thread_title:  Massive edit "in honor of dot six" - mostly unreverted 

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed "Rowanism"

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is the difference btw. atheisim and agnosticism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of agnostic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protagoras 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Neither Confirm Nor Deny The Existence Of God(s) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Citecheck template 

message: 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)
thread_title: Agnostic conciliation