Talk:Weak agnosticism

message: Could we add some examples of people who have held to this position (not necessarily under this name)? And references to their writings about it, if any? seglea 08:14, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: This article says, "Weak agnosticism ... is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable and therefore one should withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available."  But this seems to contradict the only source given, which says weak agnosticism is "the view which is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence."  In other words, we're saying that it means, "No one knows now, but someone might know in the future," while our one source seems to say that it means, "I don't know, but other people might, even in the past or present," though I admit I could be reading something wrong.  About.com, The Freethought Zone, and this website also contradict our claim that weak agnosticism claims no one knows whether God exists.  Does anyone have references supporting our article's claim?  If not, I will change the article to reflect these sources.  --Allen (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed article to reflect source.  --Allen (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  article incorrectly defining term? 

message: I propose we merge this with the article on Agnosticism. Anyone else?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerner (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merging with Agnosticism 

message: So I am editing this entry, and thinking, how much should this cover? Should I discuss arguments for and against the existance of god or is that best left to other entries like the one I have linked to? And if not, can the existance of this article seperate from Agnosticism be justifed if a proper disscussion of the issues surrounding it is not present? Thanks Falkon51 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of article 

message: Here is the statement as is:  "One reason why weak agnostics may hold such beliefs is their belief that no irrefutable or sufficiently strong evidence exists proving or disproving the existence of god(s), that is they do not think that the existence or non-existence of god can be logically proved."
The first clause of the statement suggests that weak agnostics believe that evidence of the existence (or inexistence) of god(s) DOES NOT exist.  The second clause of the statement suggests that weak agnostics believe that evidence of the existence (or inexistence) of gods CANNOT exist.  By using "that is" to separate the two clauses, you're suggesting that the former clause implies the latter, and that is simply not the case.  Interestingly, I find that the latter clause would appear to be more in line with the concept of strong agnosticism.  Maybe you can clarify this for me.
Furthermore, as the former clause is a statement that might hold true for any agnostic (weak and strong alike), I feel that it would have a better home on the agnosticism page.  Remember: It is the goal of the broader spectrum of agnosticism to question one's knowledge of the existence (or inexistence) of god(s).  The "weak" category of agnosticism deals specifically with the question of whether that knowledge might be obtainable.  So, although the first clause of the statement might be true of a weak agnostic, it might also be true of any agnostic, and so I do not feel that it is particularly relevant to the article.
Lastly, although I understand the point that you are conveying with the first clause, I feel that it is worded in such a way that it might be interpreted to suggest that ALL weak agnostics share this view, and there is nothing in the definition of weak agnosticism that would specify one's reason for coming to the position.  This would be a misinterpretation on the part of the reader.
Korvayer (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement incorrectly re-defining concept? 

message: I suggest that Weak agnosticism and Strong agnosticism be merged into a single article Strong and weak agnosticism. Each article already must distinguish its topic from the topic of the other. It would be more comprehensive to have a single article that deals with the entire contrast--JimWae (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is a lot of content overlap and they are more notable for their comparative/antonymic relationship.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree. What happened to this idea? GManNickG (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems logical, with no prejudic to splitting again if the article grows in conent to merit non-stub subarticles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  Strong and Weak Agnosticism need to be merged into Agnosticism, and I'm fine with allowing them to split if they get too large.  Ashershow1 (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Strong and weak agnosticism 

message: I have noticed that there is a weak agnosticism article, but there isn't one for strong agnosticism. I see that someone had the idea of merging this article with some information about strong agnosticism to make a "Weak and Strong Agnosticism" article. That is a very good idea. There is barely any information on strong agnostics on Wikipedia, so we need to have a "Weak and Strong Agnosticism" article, or not change this article at all and make Strong Agnosticism its own separate article.
Ncd46 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak, but No Strong?