1132:
working with your axioms. Your axioms presuppose "there are absolute truths" in the sense there exists A, such that A is true. The skeptic cannot say "suppose the claim were true", because his axioms do not allow such statements. The skeptic can only say "suppose the claim were very likely" and the skeptic will never reach a contradiction. I certainly agree that this is confusing at first, but in time you can figure it out and it will become apparent. So in summary Kaz is right, but this is a stumbling block for many. I don't know where to get good reading material on this, but these ideas date back at least to the early Jain philosophers. Also you cannot prove either logic true, you can only determine self consistence in their own framework. --CHF
396:
different things on the opposite sides of the
Atlantic). Religion is also a subject that naturally turns up in conversation, but ask a Christian, and he has the terms ready, but a non-believer has to qualify his position with an interminable string of adjectives. It's inconvenient. And I've looked at the table you mentioned. I agree, it is strange, and as far as I can see, of limited value. But still, as I can gather, there's no term for any but a very few positions. (Part of my interest in this is, of course, that English is not my native language. If the experts disagree, what are you to do?) Cheers
709:"... an agnostic might demand that religious statements be justified in the same way as scientific statements, perhaps in terms of the scientific method. Since this is adopting an attitude towards the quality of proof required to accept such statements, agnosticism becomes a matter of inclination rather than of logical proof. That is, one need only be willing to accept a different justification of religious statements in order to avoid agnosticism. Perhaps this explains why agnostics do not generally engage in
899:
theist), but (2) you certainly can deny particular concepts which aren't based on any evidence, or might even go agianst available evidence (as does the fundamentalist protestant
Christian god -- one of the entities usually named "God" -- who made the Earth and all existant "kinds" in six days). On (1) a person may describe him/herself as an agnostic-weak atheist; on (2) that same person might describe him/herself as a strong atheist with regards to a particular theological belief.
1153:
Both are self-consistent. The nonskeptical logic is certainly more easy to do calculations with, while the skeptical logic is what a natural scientist actually entertains. Secondly a reduction to absurdity is not the same as arguing from the premise, which is the fallacy you are commiting. None of this matters however as you have decided to be a troll and have delusions of being more knowledgable on the subject than both of my logic professors. Farewell.--CHF
31:
770:
scriptures attribute to it. If this being could suspend the laws of physics, summon angels, show us hell etc. - and if 'we' (the media, the academia, the world) would be allowed to measure / quantify those various actions I think we could logically conclude to call this being God. All the scriptures of all religions 'unfortunately' tie God to objective reality, allowing me to make the above call for 'logical proof'.
686:
not prove anything! I learned about this in a higher level philosophy class as an undergraduate. There is a certain word that pertains to this, but I cannot remember it. It was something like a negative denial or statements that reference their own logical underpinnings or something. This paragraph should be removed unless this mistake is fixed. I will be polite and wait for reply before I delete this. --CHF
879:
article that some people hold that atheism is strictly one interpretation of strong atheism (IMO strong atheism can be more a subtle understanding than most people give it credit), and that everything else is agnosticism. But this is not the only interpretation, so it needs qualifiers, and would do better in the body of the article not in the introduction (which IMO should be as broad as possible).
728:āconvertingā others, and such conversations often look like the agnostic is kicking puppies. In all truth, most of my jokes eventually get stomped by the humourless style Nazis; Iām pleased to see that this one is still here, but now that you have drawn attention to it, I guess someone will remove it in the name of POV or some other deity.
839:(as opposed to theism) which is just one theistic concept that, for historical reasons, has been broadened from the Christian conception of theism to include most other monotheistic deities in the English language. Agnosticism, as far as I know, is a statement made about all theistic beliefs, not just one historical trend.
1435:
It's clear from the
Shorter Oxford that Gnosis in English is used to refer to spiritual knowledge, but that it derives from the Greek word Ī³Ī½ĻĻĪ¹Ļ, investigation or knowledge. I have never seen a source that stated that the Greek word refers exclusively to spiritual knowledge. If there is one, cite it
1109:
they are in danger of contradicting themselves." The purpose of the paragraph is to show that agnosticism is a form of scepticism; it does this by giving an example of fallacious sceptical reasoning that might be common to both. The argument derives from arguments against Ayers "all utterances about
892:
For one, being logical is not the same thing as being rational. For example, one only has to understand the "invisible pink unicorn" or "teapot in orbit around pluto" analogies -- which I have never heard anyone call themsleves an "agnostic" over, and yet currently, it would be just as impossible to
685:
This paragraph has a very common epistomological mistake in it. There is a contradiction that if "there is no absolute truth" were "true", but that is not the end of the story. In "proving" that the statement is contradictory you have already assumed that it is false in your axioms. Therefore you did
607:
of any sort. Someone can claim to be skeptical without believeing or disbelieving in any sort of absolute truth (physical, moral, etc.). The two are distinct philosophical questions. So unless you are claiming that there exist some agnostics that base their "agnosticism" on a total rejection of any
135:
Feel free to make the change, but I will say the rewording seems awkward. Could you perhaps phrase it more eloquently whilst preserving your meaning? I had a rather different tract before, leading one to believe agnostics were relativist/possibly postmodernist, which you are clearly moving away from,
1412:
To center around "the existence of god(s)" is a very simplistic approach. It's certainly what someone thinking solely about their own
Christian upbringing might think first, but is really irrelevent to the whole definition. Again I cite Buddhism as an example of a spiritual stance that need not even
961:
In attempting to "prove" that agnosticism is a form of skepticism, you attempt to disprove any other form of agnosticism, and you present a fallaceous statement in the stead of a valid form of the same argument. Agnosticism can be based on the premise that spiritual truth cannot be known, regardless
920:
is not possible and does not restrict the scope of that claim, they are indeed in danger of contradicting themselves. I note that the sentence is couched in a conditional (the "if...then..." bit), and so is not a straw man - which would require something like "all agnostics think that..." so who was
743:
a spiritual Truth, only that they, or perhaps humanity in general, cannot know with absolute certainty what any such Truth is. This does not eliminate the possibility that someone out there is correct, it only means that anyone who hits on the Truth is doing so at least somewhat by accident. Even if
671:
One could reasonably argue, from an agnostic point of view, that "absolute truth does not seem possible to confirm". Probably anyone actually trying to state that absolute truth cannot be known is simply committing the sin of sloppy phrasing, not actually adamant about their perfect certainty of the
1347:
Where did I assert this? I did indeed say: "The central claim of agnosticism is that knowledge of God is inherently unachievable or must always remain uncertain," pointing to both weak and strong agnosticism indirectly in the same sentence (rather neat, I thought). Indeed, if you care to examin the
1335:
Additionally, you are insisting on defining agnosticism exclusively as the denial that absolute knowledge of gods is impossible, when in fact it can be any system of decision which brings one, even temporarily, to the conclusion that one doesn't know what the spiritual Truth is. Not to mention that
1152:
Yes, Prepositional logic. You know the basic If P then Q stuff you learn in Logic 101. I suppose I should have said prepositional boolean logic or something. As for progress, I do not care, they are just different frameworks with different axioms. (Are you aware that there are many kinds of logic?)
1138:
logic? This is presumably some new form that allows you to take "knowing the truth is impossible" and replace it with "knowing the truth is unlikely" and think that you have made progress? The ideas you posit here are common in philosophical neophytes. Yes, this argument form does assume what it is
775:
On the other hand, it's logically impossible to disprove the existance of a God, since if God is a physical being, or, a measurable being, there will be no way to simultaniously search through ALL places of the universe. You'd only be possible to do that if the laws of physics were suspended - thus
1282:
knowledge is possible, which we seem to agree is what an agnostic does, then one is a spiritual sceptic. You seem to associate something very negative with scepticism; but what is actually presented is a defence of agnosticism in the face of the commonest critique of scepticism: that it leads to a
1035:
Yes, but this isn't the college classroom where you were programmed in philosophy, this is an encyclopedia entry. It's supposed to explain what agnosticism is, not play silly little head games of misdefining the word and then complaining about it. I don't see how you could be unaware of what we're
898:
Secondly, you can't be exact with inexact wording, the word god/God is ambigous (ever heard of the "god of the gaps"?), and theism itself is an extremely broad umbrella covering different religious beliefs. (1) You might not be able to deny theism as a whole (as it is literally redefined by every
878:
And the representation of agnosticism as being a middle ground is largely held and promoted by theists (although there are some people calling themselves agnostics who also hold this view). It's perfectly ok to say something like this about agnostics, just like it must be explained in the atheism
817:
between them, because there simply isn't a middle ground between them. Atheism is the state of being without theism, so you're either an atheist or you're a theist. It's like trying to find a middle ground between "round" and "not-round"; those two groupings include all possible states, there's no
797:
I know I will probably be reverted again, but to claim that agnosticism represents some "logical" middle ground between atheism and theism is false. Atheism is specifically a "lack of theism" (you're either a theist, or you're not). It seems that the people who understand this are more likely to
1578:
Looks to me like the first statement is saying "I can't know for certain that this is true, ie, it is impossible for me to ever know this under any circumstances", and the second statement is saying "I don't know for certain that this is true" without the categorical denial that it is possible to
1367:
perpetually uncertain. One can believe that people simply have not yet discovered a means of determining such knowledge, or that they, personally, are unable at this time to decide for themselves. There's no need for the grant-grubbing claims of extremes and absolutes of your academic experience.
858:
With what? I would use the words "some agnostics", but then Banno complained about my previous usage of weasel words (see above). Personally I don't think I'm using weasel words if we can explain what is meant by the word "some" in the article body. Giving a specific citation might be good. I
1267:, since you seem not to understand that I said you put a fallaceous statement in the article. You deny it, and then go on to say that's precisely what you did. There's no need for you to set up hypothetical situations in order to knock down straw man fallacies uttered by some imaginary agnostic.
1131:
This is precisely where you are tripping up. There is a contradiction between the claim "there is no absolute truth" and your axioms (which is the standard for prepositional logic). But that only shows contradiction between the you and the skeptic. By saying "suppose the claim were true" you are
941:
This is a first. I have often been described as agnostic and occasionally describe my self in that way. What fun, to be accused of attempting to disprove agnosticism! Kaz, I throw my hands up in despair. The point of the paragraph is to show that agnosticism is a form of scepticism - do you deny
456:
It needs to be more clear that atheism and agnosticism do not belong in the same catagory. Everyone fits into one of the catagories strong/weak atheism or theism; Everyone fits into one of the catagories strong/weak agnostic or not agnostic. Everyone who is agnostic is also either atheistic or
427:
It seems to me that agnostic has ben used by different people for both reasons and it occurred to me that
English is not such a limited language so as not to be able to distinguish between the two. 1 is not a belief system because the only faith involved is in tangible knowledge though admitting
395:
No offence taken. The quest for labels is, I believe, a characteristic of being human. After all, if someone asks where you're from, you mention the country and possibly the city. If someone asks about politics, you have a label handy (although apparently terms like liberal and conservative mean
769:
I don't agree with that assessment. This is not a question of truth or not, but of scientific proof, based on logic (yes, logic) and ie. science theory akin Karl Popper. Ie. If there is a being describing him/her/itself to be God, you could scientifically verify the various 'divine' powers the
651:
If absolute truth is not possible, then wouldn't binary logic not apply, and hence logical contradiction would not be an absolutly true law? Using binary logic, which supposes that things are either unambiguously true or false, to disprove the supposition that things are never absolutely true
984:
philosophical poorly enough that it becomes flawed. That says nothing about the actual philosophy. One can say of solipsism that "it's impossible to know what exists, therefore nothing does", which is nonsense, but this is just poor phrasing, again. One can more appropriately say "there is no
744:
the
Christian god exists, and imparts some message upon some guy, that guy cannot truly know that he's not hallucinated it, he must simply assume that he did not, that the visitation was real. Conversely, the agnostic realizes one cannot know which of the crazy prophet-wannabes out there is a
1093:
You are insisting on putting a fallaceous statement in the article; "absolute truth is not possible", and then complaining that it's a fallaceous statement. But there's no reason to do this in an article defining agnosticism, however exciting your teachers found it to catch you up in logical
929:
The article is not supposed to be a forum for your own effort to refute agnosticism. The argument you present is fallaceous on its face, nit-picking phrasing by assuming an interpretation which obviously would not be intended by the speaker. To make a negative statement about absolutes is to
727:
This quip has a grain of truth, I think. If religious belief (as in membership of a community) where an important aspect of the agnosticās life, they might better adopt either an atheist or a theist position, depending on their disposition. There is also little advantage to an agnostic in
646:
For example if an agnostic claims that absolute truth is not possible and does not restrict the scope of that claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then this individual would be obliged to hold that the statement there are no absolute truths is itself an absolute
1310:
An encyclopedia definition of a single word is not a place for such schoolboy exercises. It would be more appropriate for you to refer to the relevent logical positivism entry, or write a more specific one under the appropriate name, than to march readers through it here.
1058:
Ah, no, the problem is that guys like me don't fail classes, but we also don't get sucked into the head games of the teachers' efforts to define our world by their criteria, either. Immitating your college courses in the real world is not going to pan out very well for
915:
Revision as at 05:17, Feb 9, 2005: Removing the example to a new paragraph, removing the phrase "for example" and then excusing the result as "sloppy phrasing" detracts so much from the point that it is really not worth publishing the result. if an agnostic claims that
631:
Without anyone to whom we can attribute a reference, the weasel terms are needed. Your version seems to make the blatantly POV claim that its just "obvious" what agnostics should believe. My point is that not all agnostics follow the "logic" presented in the example.
1322:? as it stands, you still haven't said what the problem is with the article - beyond the repeated accusation that I have asserted something that a "schoolboy" would see I have not. As such, your comments, amusing as they are, do nothing to help improve the article.)
664:..." if agnostics claim that absolute knowledge of truth is not possible and do not restrict the scope of this claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then the statement there are no absolute truths would appear itself to be an absolute truth."
1406:
The word "god" is not appropriate in the most direct part of the definition, because that's not what agnosticism is about, except as a side-effect or symptom. It would make more sense for it to say "spiritual truth (including the existence of any God or gods) is
247:
that was actually a particularly agreeable compromise. The only trouble is their all the same link. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are. Shouldn't the final two be delinked? Should we illustrate the distinctions/distinguishing traits of these alternate terms?
1418:
But practical example is irrelevent...if one is expressing uncertainty as to any way to determine spiritual Truth at all, then the infinite possibilities in which there's something spiritual, but not a deity, are of equal value to the ones in which there is.
364:
It's hardly an obsession. It's just that I have followed discussions on the subject, on and off, and got the impression that there are as many interpretations of labels as there are debaters. It was more of a linguistic question than anything else. Cheers
187:
sounds good. Since no one has yet complained I think I will place it in the article. There might be postmodernists who call themselves agnostics, but I don't think postmodernists make up a substantial subset of agnostics, as might be implied by the word
1398:
I'm partially reverting them. This makes for a difficult and long construct, but gives Kaz the chance to state his preferred definition. The sentence could be split into two, but I think that would render the definition ambiguous. Any one got an idea?
485:
Neither involved a POV, since the āoughtā was couched inside a conditional statement. . But I changed it anyway. A bit of a shame, I think, because I like the word āoughtā. It is a word we donāt to use enough these days, obligation being out of
1489:
Hell, it would make no sense your way...agnostic means "knowing nothing"? No, it means "without spiritual knowledge". It was not used for people in the Know-Nothing party in the middle of the 19th century, but for people denying spiritual
1298:
But you are an example of how summarising a common argument in an encyclopedia can lead to misunderstanding given the readership. When I have time, I will introduce Ayer's argument, which is still fairly common, and the counters to it.
619:
The two sentences were written as an example of how the difficulties of scepticism would permeate agnosticism. Your present version does not perform this function. As it is, it seems pointless. It also includes a couple of weasels.
266:, which I think is a reasonable way of indicating that Agnosticism is referring to "all of the above" rather than any one specific deity. The two links to god look hard to avoid due to Knowledge's handling of capitalization.
930:
inherently imply that the statement itself isn't meant to be absolute. Your little argument is meaningless, not addressing any serious agnostic stance at all. This makes it a straw man, and it shall not stand as you had it.
1497:
Yes, it does - "agnostic" means without spiritual knowledge. No doubt about it. You are right. well done. Very clever of you. BUT the word was invented as an amalgam of the Greek "a" and "Gnosis", and IN GREEK Gnosis means
718:
Out of interest, can someone elaborate on this statement for me? (I'm interested because I consider myself agnostic and I do tend not to care much what others believe, but I've never really considered why this might be).
122:
There is a huge difference between these two statements. I don't think I have ever heard any self described agnostics make a statement like the first; however, I have heard many agnostics say something like the second.
832:(has no positive belief), thus would be considered an atheist by most people; however, he is agnostic because he has no infallable proof that God does not exist (and also no proof that the "Homeric gods" do not exist).
818:
such thing as "not round, but also not not-round." Unless we want to get into fuzzy logic and quantum computation, which is probably beyond the scope of what most people are thinking when discussing these matters.Ā :)
757:
Therefore agnostics have no incentive to attempt to convert other people to agnosticism. They're aware, on some level, that it's possible that any one person they might try to convert might, accidentally, be correct.
979:
But, ultimately, the problem with your argument is simply that you're presenting an inherently contradictory statement and acting as if it proved something more than poor phrasing. One can phrase the presentation of
594:
Can't see the point? Absolute truth (absolutism)Ā != absolute knowledge of truth (a sort of anti-skepticism). I can't make that much clearer. Its not just easier to remove knowledge, because skepticism is about
551:
I changed this sentance once before (see above), and someone else came along and changed it to something which doesn't make sense to me. The second sentence doesn't follow from the first. The first talks about
1274:
You greatly misunderstand what was written there. But I suspect that your problem is with your understanding of scepticism - you seem to think that saying that agnosticism is a form of scepticism is a
1101:
One area you didn't do very well at is logic; nowhere in the article was it asserted that "absolute truth is not possible". The assertion was, as I have said several times, couched in conditional: "
946:
about what agnostics actually believe. I've no idea what "To make a negative statement about absolutes is to inherently imply that the statement itself isn't meant to be absolute" might mean.
428:
limitation in personal knowledge. 2 is a belief system with a pillar of faith i.e. to believe in the ultimate limitation of knowledge in a specific regard. Hope someone can help me out here.
521:
Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Agnosticism}} to this page. ā
1478:
that it has taken on the spiritual emphasis; But in the etymology the Greek meaning is the relevant one! This is certainly one of the silliest arguments in which I've been involved!
859:
don't know of any, and a quick search on Google didn't find any. I'll keep looking, and if you're that concerned about the statement then maybe you might consider looking too?
1145:. As for proof of logic - well, log into any philosophy forum and look at the old posts and you will find plenty of discussion in which such things are suggested by the naive.
813:
He didn't say anything about agnosticism being the "logical answer" to both theism and atheism, and I'm not sure what that actually means. What he did say is that it's not a
1259:
Yes, the purpose is for you to needlessly show that it's "a form of skepticism", as if that's the only thing it can be, when that's not the case. And it's apparent that
828:
In
Bertrand Russell's essay "Am I Agnostic or Atheist" he explains that his belief in God amounts to the same as most people's belief in the "Homeric gods". That is he
802:
I completely disagree with your comment on agnosticism not being the logical answer to both theism and atheism. Could you please further elaborate your argumentation? --
1348:
history of the articel, I have been at pains to generalise the definition beyond the mere existence of god. So the points you attempt to make here are entierly hollow.
1227:
Yes my bad english proves my argument is bad. Nice ad hominem there. I'd like to see you continue this argument
Cantonese. You obviously knew what I was talking about.
380:. It attempts to label the range of possible beliefs with regard to faith and the existence of god. It seems that seeking a label is a common approach to the topic.
576:(that's for the epistomology article), but I think I'm going to change the sentance into something that makes sense to me. If anyone disagrees we can discuss...
608:
sort of absolute truth (in which case their "agnosticism" wouldn't be a form of skepticism, contradicting the article) then the "example" itself is non-sensical.
1230:
My apologies. But if you use a patronising tone, expect to be patronised in return. Perhaps your time would be better employed in working on the
Cantonese Wiki.
776:
invoking the direct existance of a superior, metaphysical force itself. And, if God is not a member of the objective reality, you cannot disprove him anyways. --
1036:
discussing...perhaps you should refer back to previous paragraphs, and the edit's you've been reverting, since this isn't a test being given by your professor.
869:
On one, not uncommon representation of agnosticism, it is precisely a mid-point between atheism and theism. Provided one denies a rule of consistency, Bp : -->
347:
PS: Summing up, I think I could say: "Define god, then I'll tell you, whether I could accept him/her/it." That would qualify as weak agnosticism, wouldn't it?
1570:
So, in what way does not being certain that some idea is true differ from thinking that they are uncertain or doubtful? What is this sentence supposed to say?
870:~B~p, which is a common positioning Deontic logic, it is also easy enough to prove ā see the archives for this site. But the present wording seems OK.
301:
It seems to me that this position does not fall under the heading of either atheism nor agnosticism. So what is the word for this position? Cheers
281:
A question for those versed in the semantics of the above words. What do you call a person whose philosohical outlook encompasses the following?
1522:
Yes, it does, and that's because in ENGLISH it has that meaning. But not in Greek. See how, about six lines down, the reference you cite says:
1094:
fallacies in order to teach you they were wrong. Readers want to get the definition, not be taken on a little dance of mistake and correction.
542:
is not possible and do not restrict the scope of this claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then the statement there are
667:
I say 'there is no absolute truth' and do not see a problem. making that statement as an agnostic, i am 99% sure that statement is correct.
1278:
thing. I suppose, given that you misunderstand so badly, it needs a re-write. Sceptics deny that knowledge is possible. If one denies that
1105:
an agnostic claims, as might a sceptic, that absolute truth is not possible, and therefore that knowing the truth about god is impossible,
513:
498:
376:
Forgive me if the question sounded a bit rude. I was actually still thinking of the strange table that used to be here, and is now over at
470:
The second paragraph of the intro seems vaguely POV, talking about how one "ought to" react to certain claims. Not sure how to fix it.
321:, with respect to the unknown-but-not-necessarily-unknowable aspect of gods not possessing omnipotence, omnipresence or omniscience.
584:
I canāt really see the point of your objection. But perhaps it would be simpler just to remove āknowledgeā from the first sentence?
1283:
complete denial of knowledge. Take care before you delete it, since you may be leaving the article open for more strident critics.
1019:
Kaz, you've lost me completely - so please, take me through, step by step, and say what is wrong with what I've written. Which
1078:
It's well over twenty years since I went to college: using what I learned hasn't turned out too bad, thanks for asking...Ā ;-)
231:. Iāve linked it. Iāve used a lower case g, despite my better judgment. If you can think of a way of linking the article to
798:
call themselves atheists rather than agnostics, but that doesn't mean that all atheists reject the label of agnosticism.
942:
this? All I can do is repeat that the statement you think is an criticism is a conditional, and therefore does not say
136:
and perhaps rightly so. Citations/verifiability would be great, but regardless preserving prose is likewise necessary.
89:
998:
Why would one seriously present a poorly phrased argument when attempting to define a philosophical position which
331:
Thanks for your reply. So all taken together I'm a middling atheagnostic? There has to be a better word for it.Ā :-)
81:
76:
64:
59:
38:
966:
the belief that absolute knowledge seems impossible, which is indeed possible without any inherent contradiction.
604:
1192:? I think it best if I discontinue this discussion, since arguing with you is too much like kicking a puppy.
1318:
I think agnosticism best defended in the agnosticism article. (Are you aware that your attack is entirely
1027:
statements are fallacious? It's sort of a tradition to do that sort of thing in a philosophical debate.
985:
apparent way to absolutely prove what does or does not exist, so the existence of all is left unproven".
457:
theistic. This point needs to be made more clear imo. About.com explains the definitions very clearly.
1563:
what spiritual ideas or philosophy are true, while for others it is that the such knowledge is either
1110:
god are nonsensical" the agnostics utterances are, too. See for example the article on agnosticism in
1141:
1181:
739:
I have a different analysis of this question. Agnostics do not necessarily claim that there cannot
212:
140:
962:
of the criteria chosen. It can also be a sort of active indifference. What's more, skepticism can
568:
it to be true. Don't really want to get into a discussion about the semantic differences between
1580:
819:
803:
777:
322:
267:
184:
163:
160:
Many agnostics are people who do not believe it is possible to have absolute knowledge of truth
112:
From my understanding of agnosticism, I would think that this statement should be more like:
893:
disprove either statement with evidence, as it would be to disprove a theological construct.
478:
444:
429:
318:
47:
17:
1363:
No, because one can be agnostic without believing such knowledge to be either unachievable
848:
720:
710:
263:
416:
I was wondering what the terms are for distinguishing between these two characteristics.
1512:
1420:
1369:
1337:
1312:
1268:
1060:
1003:
931:
917:
759:
695:
678:
314:
249:
209:
137:
656:
of philosophising always seemed more like a game to me, than anything worth while.Ā :)
288:
Is quite sure that he does not believe in any god as defined by religions known to him
420:
1 non-commital disinterest no claim to have any special knowledge admitting ignorace.
294:
Is willing to accept that there may be more between heaven and earth than we now know
1043:
So the problem here is that you flunked college, and have a chip on your shoulder.
900:
860:
840:
657:
633:
609:
577:
522:
505:
310:
193:
124:
1509:
297:
Does not make any claims about the unknowability or otherwise of any potential god
1189:
1185:
885:
509:
474:
471:
440:
437:
270:
252:
217:
196:
166:
145:
127:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
423:
2 Belief that no-one can know, i.e. rejection of the idea that anyone can know.
1594:
1571:
1545:
1499:
1479:
1448:
1437:
1400:
1376:
1349:
1323:
1300:
1284:
1231:
1193:
1146:
1115:
1079:
1044:
1028:
947:
922:
871:
729:
621:
600:
585:
487:
381:
358:
236:
1510:
Dictionary.com entry for gnosis...verifying the "spiritual knowledge" version
560:. My original change was also about belief, and you can have good reason to
117:
Many agnostics are people who do not believe in absolute knowledge of truth.
436:
AIUI, (1) is called weak agnosticism and (2) is called strong agnosticism.
1542:
The purpose of an etymological entry is to show the origin of the word...
1475:
912:
Revision as of 05:11, Feb 9, 2005: Explaining a joke detracts from it.
397:
366:
348:
335:
302:
1539:
that is, the word comes from the Greek word for "knowledge" - get it?
1467:
1456:
1444:
1002:
a more logical version of that argument available and commonly used?
677:
This makes the statement in question pretty much a straw man argument
377:
227:
It was absurd to have an article on agnosticism that did not link to
1593:
Perhaps - I've re-written it in an attempt to make this explicit.
259:
835:
Also worth mentioning is the increasing focus of this article on
1375:
So just take out the "must always" and replace it with an "is".
107:
Many agnostics are people who do not believe in absolute truth.
1395:
1336:
gods, per se, are not the topic, but spirituality in general.
921:
the straw man to whom you referred? Revert until you explain.
232:
228:
25:
847:
What about qualifying the statement rather than removing it?
793:...and that to deny the existence of God is also untenable
703:"why agnostics do not generally engage in proselytization"
652:
doesn't really seem to work. Not that I really care, but
102:
Does anyone have a reference for the following statement?
1463:
knowledge or enlightenment, not just any information.
291:
Can't accept omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience
1559:"For some, the central claim of agnosticism is that
1184:(note the "o"). I trust that your Professors know a
1023:
statements have I presented that are contradictory?
208:
I think it reads well the way it is now, thank you.
285:
Does not know whether there is a god (in any sense)
1579:know whether it's true given other circumstances.
313:with a few specific classes of god falling under
1459:entries verify the fact that the word refers to
508:has some possible wiki link suggestions for the
1474:! It's in English (or more correctly since the
1466:Oh, for heaven's sake, read the first line of
8:
884:In the archives, are you talking about this
546:would appear itself to be an absolute truth
357:Why be obsessed with self-categorization?
533:I don't think the following makes sense:
258:Actually, they aren't all the same link;
235:without using the word god, be my guest.
1139:attempting to disprove - it's called a
789:I removed the following from the page:
642:Just a curiosity... From the article:
512:article, and they have been placed on
277:Atheism vs. agnosticism vs. skepticism
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
538:For instance if agnostics claim that
7:
1394:Since Kaz's edit removed links to
672:inability to be perfectly certain.
506:automated Knowledge link suggester
24:
1472:from the Greek word for knowledge
887:? You're being somewhat cryptic.
1561:it is not possible to be certain
528:
29:
1390:First paragraph and definition
1:
1565:uncertain or subject to doubt
694:, or "begging the question".
564:something to be true without
556:, and the second talks about
1112:the Encyclopedia of Unbelief
540:absolute knowledge of truth
1614:
1574:01:28, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
1451:23:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
1443:See also the Wiki article
1440:22:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
1149:20:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
1031:06:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
785:Again, beliefĀ != knowledge
239:21:09, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
1597:10:34, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
1548:01:20, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
1502:01:20, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
1482:01:20, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
1379:10:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
1372:00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1352:22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
1326:10:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
1315:00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1303:22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
1287:10:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
1271:00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1234:19:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
1196:07:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
1118:22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
1082:10:03, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
1047:22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
950:09:40, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
925:09:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
874:03:37, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
660:21:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
624:00:13, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
580:18:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
525:10:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
490:22:49, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
481:02:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
1583:05:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1515:00:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1423:00:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1340:16:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1063:00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1006:00:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
934:00:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
843:20:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
822:05:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
806:05:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
780:05:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
732:20:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
723:13:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
698:00:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
690:I believe that would be
636:20:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
612:20:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
605:metaphysical objectivism
529:Doesn't quite make sense
447:02:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
432:05:21, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
384:16:54, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
305:14:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
271:05:17, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
253:05:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
183:The sentance written by
1413:include a deity at all.
903:18:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
863:22:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
851:21:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
762:18:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
681:18:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
412:Question on distinction
400:17:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
369:15:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
351:17:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
338:16:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
218:04:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
197:01:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
167:05:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
146:22:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
128:21:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
1265:reading comprehension
907:
516:for your convenience.
42:of past discussions.
1142:reductio ad absurdum
692:circulus in probando
309:Sounds to me like a
1182:propositional logic
554:knowledge of truth
544:no absolute truths
1567:." (my emphasis)
908:Kazvorpal's edits
95:
94:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1605:
499:Link suggestions
452:Knowledge Belief
73:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
18:Talk:Agnosticism
1613:
1612:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1557:
1433:
1392:
1017:
910:
787:
711:proselytization
705:
531:
502:
468:
454:
414:
279:
264:list of deities
245:
225:
100:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1611:
1609:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1587:
1585:
1584:
1556:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1543:
1540:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1517:
1516:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1492:
1491:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1432:
1429:
1427:
1425:
1424:
1415:
1414:
1409:
1408:
1391:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1342:
1341:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1305:
1304:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1096:
1095:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1038:
1037:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
954:
953:
952:
951:
936:
935:
918:absolute truth
909:
906:
905:
904:
895:
894:
889:
888:
881:
880:
867:
866:
865:
864:
853:
852:
826:
825:
824:
823:
808:
807:
786:
783:
782:
781:
772:
771:
766:
765:
764:
763:
752:
751:
750:
749:
734:
733:
717:
707:From article,
704:
701:
700:
699:
683:
682:
674:
673:
663:
640:
639:
638:
637:
626:
625:
616:
615:
614:
613:
589:
588:
558:absolute truth
549:
548:
530:
527:
517:
501:
496:
494:
492:
491:
467:
464:
462:
453:
450:
449:
448:
425:
424:
421:
413:
410:
408:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
388:
387:
386:
385:
371:
370:
355:
354:
353:
352:
342:
341:
340:
339:
332:
326:
325:
315:strong atheism
299:
298:
295:
292:
289:
286:
278:
275:
274:
273:
244:
243:Good job Bryan
241:
224:
221:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
174:
173:
172:
171:
170:
169:
151:
150:
149:
148:
120:
119:
110:
109:
99:
98:Absolute truth
96:
93:
92:
87:
84:
79:
74:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1610:
1596:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1582:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1573:
1568:
1566:
1562:
1554:
1547:
1544:
1541:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1501:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1488:
1487:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1464:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1450:
1446:
1441:
1439:
1430:
1428:
1422:
1417:
1416:
1411:
1410:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1397:
1389:
1378:
1374:
1373:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1351:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1333:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1314:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1297:
1296:
1286:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1151:
1150:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1137:
1136:Prepositional
1134:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1062:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1014:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
983:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
965:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
949:
945:
940:
939:
938:
937:
933:
928:
927:
926:
924:
919:
913:
902:
897:
896:
891:
890:
886:
883:
882:
877:
876:
875:
873:
862:
857:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
845:
844:
842:
838:
833:
831:
821:
816:
815:middle ground
812:
811:
810:
809:
805:
801:
800:
799:
795:
794:
790:
784:
779:
774:
773:
768:
767:
761:
756:
755:
754:
753:
747:
742:
738:
737:
736:
735:
731:
726:
725:
724:
722:
715:
714:
712:
702:
697:
693:
689:
688:
687:
680:
676:
675:
670:
669:
668:
665:
661:
659:
655:
649:
648:
643:
635:
630:
629:
628:
627:
623:
618:
617:
611:
606:
603:), not about
602:
598:
593:
592:
591:
590:
587:
583:
582:
581:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
547:
545:
541:
536:
535:
534:
526:
524:
520:
515:
511:
507:
500:
497:
495:
489:
484:
483:
482:
480:
476:
472:
465:
463:
460:
458:
451:
446:
442:
438:
435:
434:
433:
431:
422:
419:
418:
417:
411:
409:
399:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
372:
368:
363:
362:
361:
360:
350:
346:
345:
344:
343:
337:
333:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
320:
319:weak agnostic
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
304:
296:
293:
290:
287:
284:
283:
282:
276:
272:
269:
265:
262:redirects to
261:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
242:
240:
238:
234:
230:
222:
220:
219:
216:
215:
211:
198:
195:
191:
186:
182:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
168:
165:
161:
157:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
147:
144:
143:
139:
134:
133:
132:
131:
130:
129:
126:
118:
115:
114:
113:
108:
105:
104:
103:
97:
91:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
72:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1586:
1569:
1564:
1560:
1558:
1498:"knowledge"!
1471:
1460:
1442:
1434:
1426:
1393:
1364:
1319:
1279:
1275:
1264:
1260:
1180:It's called
1140:
1135:
1111:
1106:
1102:
1024:
1020:
1018:
999:
981:
963:
943:
914:
911:
868:
836:
834:
829:
827:
814:
796:
792:
791:
788:
745:
740:
716:
708:
706:
691:
684:
666:
662:
653:
650:
645:
644:
641:
596:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
550:
543:
539:
537:
532:
518:
503:
493:
469:
461:
459:
455:
426:
415:
407:
356:
311:weak atheist
300:
280:
246:
226:
213:
207:
189:
159:
141:
121:
116:
111:
106:
101:
70:
43:
37:
1455:All of the
1190:preposition
1186:proposition
1015:Kaz and Uni
830:disbelieves
510:Agnosticism
430:Zestauferov
36:This is an
1490:knowledge.
1407:knowable".
1320:ad hominem
1021:particular
849:Christiaan
721:Christiaan
601:skepticism
158:How about
90:ArchiveĀ 10
1461:spiritual
1280:spiritual
654:this sort
597:knowledge
574:knowledge
514:this page
466:Intro POV
317:. Also a
82:ArchiveĀ 5
77:ArchiveĀ 4
71:ArchiveĀ 3
65:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
1476:Gnostics
944:anything
748:prophet.
486:fashion.
1263:failed
1188:from a
901:millerc
861:millerc
841:millerc
658:millerc
634:millerc
610:millerc
578:millerc
566:knowing
562:believe
523:LinkBot
334:Cheers
194:millerc
125:millerc
39:archive
1468:Gnosis
1457:Gnosis
1445:Gnosis
1436:here.
1431:Gnosis
1059:you...
804:Feisar
778:Feisar
647:truth.
570:belief
475:Gwalla
441:Gwalla
378:theism
1595:Banno
1581:Bryan
1572:Banno
1555:What?
1546:Banno
1500:Banno
1480:Banno
1449:Banno
1438:Banno
1401:Banno
1377:Banno
1350:Banno
1324:Banno
1301:Banno
1285:Banno
1232:Banno
1194:Banno
1147:Banno
1116:Banno
1080:Banno
1045:Banno
1029:Banno
1025:Which
948:Banno
923:Banno
872:Banno
820:Bryan
730:Banno
622:Banno
599:(see
586:Banno
488:Banno
382:Banno
359:Banno
323:Bryan
268:Bryan
260:deity
237:Banno
214:Spade
185:Bryan
164:Bryan
142:Spade
16:<
1107:then
746:real
572:and
519:Tip:
479:Talk
445:Talk
223:gods
190:many
1513:Kaz
1421:Kaz
1396:god
1370:Kaz
1338:Kaz
1313:Kaz
1276:bad
1269:Kaz
1261:you
1061:Kaz
1004:Kaz
1000:has
982:any
932:Kaz
837:God
760:Kaz
696:Kaz
679:Kaz
504:An
250:Sam
233:god
229:god
210:Sam
138:Sam
1470:!
1447:.
1365:or
1103:if
964:be
741:be
713:."
477:|
473:ā
443:|
439:ā
398:Io
367:Io
349:Io
336:Io
303:Io
192:.
162:?
86:ā
1114:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.