Talk:Agnosticism

Controversy, Terminology, and Atheistic Propaganda

I want to make a major change to this and several other related articles. I think that this and other related pages do not promote a Neutral point of view, but rather a biased one intended as atheist apologetic propaganda. There is much controversy between the atheistic and theistic camps on whether or not atheists bear a "burden of proof" just as the theists do. Because of this controversy, so-called "strong" atheists are attempting to annex Agnosticism by broadly defining atheism to include agnosticism. There are three benefits that "strong" atheists get from this: credibility stolen from agnostics, shelter from the burden of proof, and inclusiveness used to bolster numbers. The main one I'm concerned with, however, is shelter from the burden of proof. Allow me to explain:

Traditionally, there were three basic theological positions.

1. Theism - "I believe that there is a/are god(s)".
2. Atheism - "I don't believe that there is a god".
3. Agnosticism - "I neither belief there is or is not a/many god(s)".

Atheist propagandists have redefined No. 2, however, by reducing it into two different positions while annexing No. 3. So the new positions are as such:

1. Theism - "I believe that there is a/are god(s)".
2. Gnostic Atheism - "I believe there is/are no god(s)".
3. Agnostic Atheism - "I lack the belief that there is a/many god(s)".

See? They simply added the negative so as to not disclose their position. This way, a "strong" atheist can masquerade as a "weak" atheist. Thus, the burden of proof ends up only on the theist because the atheist has simply refused to state a position. It's a clever little trick.

belief: any cognitive content held as true.
Princeton University "About WordNet." WordNet. Princeton University. 2010. <http://wordnet.princeton.edu>

The same thing can be do with the theist definition as well. So, "agnostic theist" can mean "I lack the belief that there is/are no god(s)". So, in the proper context, this can mean the same as "agnostic atheist" since the "lack of belief" doesn't necessarily imply any other belief. In a separate context: the atheist and theist definitions are used.

Unfortunately, propagandists (particularly, Austin Cline) have taken over this area as well. Agnostic theist is made to mean "The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence" even though this can clearly be applied to agnostic atheist as well. Here, I do it now: "The view of those who do not claim to know of the non-existence of any deity, but still believe that there are none anyway". By the way, this definition was taken from the current agnosticism wiki article. The source cited is one from Austine Cline, it's a biased source (atheism on about.com) and should thus be removed or noted with the opposing side posted.

Read this from the PositiveAtheism.org FAQ Page, you'll find clear admittance of propaganda: "With the weak definition, the strong-position atheist can participate in a lengthy debate with a theistic apologist without ever disclosing his or her wholesale dismissal of the entire god question, and without once ever being called upon to prove anything. (A careless presentation of the strong position could open itself to the Burden of Proof.)"

Rather than masquerading as agnostics, they should admit themselves as agnostics. Though I'd prefer not to... I'm willing to compensate that the propaganda be left on the Wikipedia page, but with certain conditions. That is, that the opposing side be presented to neutralize the propaganda with a neutral voice as a backbone, NOT the current propaganda.

AVanover5 (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Weak atheists have been called “atheists” since at least the 1700s, over a century before Huxley coined the term agnostic. Your theism/atheism/agnosticism trichotomy is the “new” position. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Atheism is solely the lack of belief in deities. It is not a belief. And atheist who believs dieties don't exist are the exact same type of atheist as a baby who has no concept of deities and therefore lacks belief in them. Crying that the definition of atheism is "atheist propaganda" is hilariously ignorant. Agnosticism is not some magical middle-ground between theism and atheism. Only when you provide an example of an atheist who doesn't lack belief in deities will your ridiculous ignorance ever hold any weight. 124.169.44.127 (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Your "traditional theological positions" do not make sense, agnosticism has nothing to do with belief which invalidates #3. Atheism is commonly defined as the disbelief in the existence of god(s), this has an active and passive sense, an atheist could be someone who asserts no god exists, they could also be someone who merely rejects theistic claims (but does not assert the opposite). There is a need to further clarify atheistic positions since both "weak" and "strong" atheists both fit the traditional definition. When you consider (a)gnosticism along side (a)theism you clarify this position, with an agnostic atheist being a "weak" atheist and a gnostic atheist being a "strong" atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessfrosty (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I smell bollocks. ---There cannot be a third position between belief and lack of belief, any more than there can be a third position between red, and anything that isn't red.--- Red is a known quality, of course there is no 3rd position possible given it's KNOWN existence. Using the example of something known to make a point about something unknown, is sheer bollocks.--203.79.96.4 (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually kind of agree with the first poster. I also do feel many Atheists try to use Agnosticism to their advantage and give the impression that actually, Agnosticism and Atheism are very close or are the same thing. Specially when it comes to the topic of this discussion. The idea that an Atheist can be an "weak" Atheist or a "strong" Atheist are incorrect, because they presupposes that an Atheist can Disbelief and be Uncertain at the same time, which is incorrect. This is why:

Between Belief and Disbelief we have what is called Doubt(Uncertainty). Now Atheism is not the doubt about the existence of God. It's the disbelief (refusal, rejection) of God - "There is no God", this is the concept of Atheism. A doubter is someone that do not refuse the existence of God, but rather claim not to be certain that God exist. This means that:

Theist - God exist (out of believing not of knowing). I do not know if God exist, but i hold as truth he does (belief). - Claim of truth and not a claim of knowledge

Atheist - God doesn't exist (out of disbelief in God not of knowing). I don't know if God exist, but i hold as truth that he doesn't (disbelief). - Claim of truth and not a claim of knowledge

Doubter - God may or may not exist. I don't know if God exist and so i'm uncertain of his existence (doubt). - Not a claim of truth nor a claim of knowledge.

Note: that both in Atheism and in Theism also exist people that claim knowledge (related to Fundamentalism), but since the existence of God is not known, a claim of knowledge is an unfounded claim - which make it a belief, even though they personally don't understand it as such

If you refuse to hold as truth that God exist then you hold as truth it's opposite, that God doesn't exist. A doubter in the other hand do not refuse it , but rather question it (uncertainty). It's a contradiction to claim you're an Atheist and a Doubter 'cause they are not the same thing. An Agnostic in the other hand is a natural doubter. And that is one of the difference between Agnosticism and Atheism. Tacv (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. If you believe that at least one god exist, you're a theist. Anything else - you are an atheist, including "I don't know". The word a-theist means the one who is not a theist. Therefor there is no middle ground. There is no place to stick a "doubter" between theist and atheist. Even if you claim "God may or may not exist. I don't know if God exist and so i'm uncertain of his existence (doubt). - Not a claim of truth nor a claim of knowledge.", that does not mean that you are not either a theist or an atheist, because even if you claim that (that you don't know), you are acting as if one or the other is true, you are acting as if god exists or does not exist. You can say that you are a "doubter" and that can be true, but if you don't pray to the deity, if you don't "feel Him", if you don't talk to Him, if you don't follow religious teachings, you are also an atheist. If you pray to the deity and do other religious stuff, you are a theist, whether you (think you) know your deity exists or not. It's that simple.

By forcing "agnosticism" as a viable alternative to a/theism people are doing one of two things:

• Ateists (the ones that do not hold a belief in a deity): they distance themselves from orthodox view of atheists and atheism where atheists are hated because they supposedly "hate god", where they are immoral etc. Also, they distance themselves from political activism in atheism (this is something what Neil deGrasse Tyson did - it is clear he is not a theist - therefor he is by definition an atheist - but he sees atheism as some kind of activism, and because of that he insists on label agnostic - even though it is obvious he is an atheist at the same time).
• Theists (the ones that hold a belief in at least one deity): they need to have somebody to hate, or at least to criticize. Religions must have some group to criticize (atheists, homosexuals, scientists that do "ungodly work"...), they must have an enemy, because fear (and hatred, many times caused by artificial disgust) is the best motivator. If atheism is just a "lack of belief", it is hard to criticize the whole group, especially as there is no real evidence that would support the belief! Therefor they invent an agnostic as a middle ground, so they define agnostic as the one who lacks a belief because he/she doesn't know that god exists (ignoring the fact that nobody really knows whether some god exists - neither atheists who claim they believe that no god exists - they act as if no gods exist, they claim no god exists, but they don't actually know, because you cannot prove /that kind of/ an absolute negative - you can only prove that god exists). That leaves a room to identify the agnostic as a good guy. So if you subtract "agnostics" from atheists, you get explicit atheists - those (angry, militant, those who hate god) atheists that claim no god exist (but they hate Him! LOL). And this is the group that was in the past known just as atheists, because theists would not accept "lack of belief" as a real option.

This is why people in recent years reinvented the term agnostic - so that they can distance themselves from or have a reason to attack those who dare to say no gods exist or who publicly criticize religions. Agnostics are reinvented as good, neutral guys, but I agree with Dawkins on this one - they are doing "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice." They (if they are not agnostic theists) act as if no gods exists, but won't admit that. They are answering a question nobody asked them - they are answering a question "Do you know if god exists?" or "Do you think is the existence of god knowable?", when they are asked a question "Do you BELIEVE that at least one god exist?" or "Do you act as if god exists?". --Marekich (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"If you refuse to hold as truth that God exist (sic) then you hold as truth it's(sic) opposite, that God doesn't exist." This is false. Consider a scientist who hears an explanation for a phenomenon and does not have any idea whether the explanation is correct. He would say he is "agnostic" on the issue. He does not believe that the explanation is wrong, but by the same token doesn't automatically hold it to be true. What if the scientist thought the explanation was unlikely to be correct? Again, he doesn't automatically believe it to be untrue, he just thinks it is likely that it is untrue. He might even state that he thinks the explanation is likely untrue. He puts forth an opinion, something an agnostic doesn't. This is essentially the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. However, functionally they are quite similar, and where people are ignorant of the concept of deities one could convincingly argue in favour of either or both labels. However, many people want to inject the concept of "belief" into the definitions, because that allows criticisms that atheists must possess faith to hold their positions. This is false, of course. The difference is one of either holding a position or not. Both are atheistic in function, for different reasons. Hence the overlap. As for propaganda... such words possess an unpleasant aroma, and the smell most often is left on the hand of the person who flings them around.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is absolute silliness, Atheism has meant lack of belief in god since d'Holbach's "Good Sense", it's nothing new. Agnosticism meant we can't have any knowledge about God until very recently. Rather what's going on is that those people who call themselves agnostics are looking for a word to identify themselves with that has less stigma and polarization attached to it than the word "atheism", and that's all. 96.255.36.154 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You cannot define Atheism for what it's not. Many Atheists seem to try to force the idea that Atheism is an umbrella term. Unfortunately when you define Atheism as "lack of belief" you are saying that every position that lacks the belief in God is Atheism. So what you're really saying is that positions like Pantheism or Agnosticism or even positions of "ignorance" toward God (babies, rocks, trees, indigenous people, etc) are all Atheists since they all lack the belief in God. This is simply absurd. in fact, there is an umbrella term for this, but it's not Atheism, but Nontheism. Atheism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, etc. all lack the belief in God because all are Nontheist positions. Many Atheists incorrectly define Atheism as simply the lack of belief in God, not understanding that doing so they are only defining the group that Atheism belongs to, but not the actual position Atheism defend. SO:

• Atheism - I lack the belief in God (define a Nontheist position), since i believe God does not exist (define an Atheist position);
• Agnosticism - I lack the belief in God (define a Nontheist position), since the existence of God is unknown and as such uncertain (define an Agnostic position).

Atheism is a position of belief, opposite to Theism, as such it is the position of belief that God does not exist (from a+theos, meaning NO GODS and not NO BELIEF)

You can clearly see that the lack of belief define a group of position where Atheism is also included, but do not define what Atheism is in itself. Tacv (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the other way around; atheism has had an "absence of belief" meaning since before the word agnostic existed, but theists have tried to "force the idea" that atheism is a positive belief (likely because reserving judgment until theists meet their burden of proof is rationally unassailable).

Almost no one besides strawmanning theists suggest that inanimate objects like rocks are atheists. Capacity for thought goes without saying. An atheist is one who has no belief in deities, not something which has no belief in deities.

However, one could reasonably argue for preferring nontheist on occasions where atheist would be ambiguous. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the term Nontheist. Thanks Tacv, for the highly logical organization of these terms. It doesn't change the fact, however, that definitions aren't dictated like standards. The metric for defining a word is its use in the wild. A disagreement on definitions can lead to argument in conversation but is solved by each party understanding the difference in definitions being used. Arguing that someone else can't use a word the way they understand it is ridiculous. Discussion here pertains to what content the article should contain, and policy dictates that we not create our own definitions but use ones from reliable sources and not give undue preference to those we agree with. Spacexplosion^[talk] 22:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you said definitions aren't dictated like standards and Arguing that someone else can't use a word the way they understand it is ridiculous. i couldn't disagree more with this, and it's also easily proven wrong. The very reason people can communicate with each other, is based in the fact that there are mutual understanding of words, and that's were encyclopedias and dictionaries come in. Fortunately there are indeed standards and rules to lexicon. You are entitled to understand a word as you want, but you cannot use it as a universal meaning of it, specially because you should consider the world universal inclusive of all languages besides English. If not you would be creating diverse meaning for the same Atheism view, an Atheism view in English Language and a different Atheism view in the rest of the world. I think this can be hard to a native English speaking person to understand since English is the only big language i know of that don't have a language authority or regulator, like a Language Academia, that regulates norms, standards and meanings of the language, and maybe because of that you may feel that you have (illusory) freedom with language. One is free to understand what they want from a word, but that doesn't change all the meaning and baggage of the word itself. You are not asked what to believe, but if you state to belong to a group people are expecting you to believe in what that group defends. Tacv (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Similarites

To read in this page is like to swim in lies, they are so dense that you could swim through it. High level satanists (by definition) bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.91.21 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Adherents of any religion are welcome to be editors here, including Satanists. If you can cite reliable sources to correct any factual inaccuracies here, then do so. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Rowe vs. Smith

While some here believe Rowe's statement to be contradictory, I do not. But there is a clear difference in positions between Rowe and Smith in defining agnosticism. Rowe is advancing the position that agnosticism is a third alternative to theism and atheism, while Smith is advancing the position that agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism.

These opposing positions are muddled together as one in the "Types of agnosticism" section. Strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism contradict agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. The former has agnosticism as a third alternative, while the latter does not. Yet, this contradiction is never mentioned, even though the Smith source directly states that agnosticism is not a third alternative and the Rowe source indirectly states agnosticism is a third alternative.

The norm in society is that agnosticism is a third alternative. This can be found in polls, from credible news, polling sources, even the scientific journal Nature. Wikipedia also follows this norm by having a list of agnostics, a list of atheists, but not a list of agnostic atheists. And the reason this is the norm is most likely due to the fact that the first person credited with coining the term "agnostic", Thomas Huxley, rejected theism and atheism and was looking for an alternative.

It's not controversial that agnosticism is a third alternative, it is the norm. What's controversial is those claiming agnosticism is not a third alternative. Such statements belong in the criticism section as they are critical of the normally accepted definition that agnosticism is a third alternative.

Terms involving agnostic theism and agnostic atheism belong in the criticism section, as well as the Euler diagram as they are criticizing the normally accepted definition of agnosticism as a third alternative.IIXVXII (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPV doesn't mean coming to a consensus on which bias to take, it's about removing all bias. I see no reason why we can't discuss the varying definition of agnosticism, but everything that isn't "mainstream" opinion shouldn't be shoved into the Criticism section. Also note that this is an old argument for this article. Please read the previous discussions on this page to get an idea of the current state of the article regarding this point. Spacexplosion^[talk] 17:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is already established. It's whether or not this Wikipedia page will recognize it.

No agnostic accepts the definition that agnosticism is not a third alternative. No agnostic accepts the definition of Smith. No agnostic would allow the defining of agnostic atheist in agnosticism when such a term derives from the very negation of their position. Cleary, non-agnostics and their motives are contributing to this page. This continual disruption from atheists.

Take for instance the quote from Huxley, where's the source? And how come readbookonline states the quote differently?

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/30261/

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good;" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

This is how atheist Wikipedia editors state it, "Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term: Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

And is it really any coincidence that this exact error is also found on an atheist website?

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/huxley.htm

Which also has no source for the quote.

If this is how one defends a Neutral Point of View, then they are wrong. There is nothing neutral about deception.

A better quote for Huxley, that is a neutral point of view, meaning, this is what Huxley stated,

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/30257/

Establishing the principle: "This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts..."

Application of the principle: "Still speaking for myself, I add, that though Agnosticism is not, and cannot be, a creed, except in so far as its general principle is concerned; yet that the application of that principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty."

Huxley rejected atheism and characterized a "new" position that rejects atheism.

The History part of this page has all supporters of the accepted definition established by Huxley. No where on the page actually, is there ever any mention that a small group of people claim agnosticism is not a legitimate alternative. That part is buried in a quote by Smith, while it's implications are allowed to creep into the accepted definition of agnosticism. As if it fits perfectly, when Smith denies the very existence of the agnostic position.

If terms like agnostic atheism are not removed from the context of the accepted definition of agnosticism, then agnostic atheism is being misrepresented. The Euler Diagram is also being misrepresented. They do not fit into the context of this page, where everywhere the context is, that agnosticism is an alternative.

The proper place, where they can establish their context, is in Criticisms.

WP:NPV Due and undue weight "...it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." IIXVXII (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that I have been afflicted by a case of WP:TLDR here, but that hasn't prevented me from answering one point from the above: the full text of Huxley's essay is available at Wikisource:Essays upon some Controverted Questions/IX. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant when you cannot even acknowledge the obvious fact that the quote is incorrectly stated. Your opinion is irrelevant when you endorse deception.IIXVXII (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I "endorse deception" is unwarranted and needlessly offensive; please remain on the polite side of the WP:NPA policy.

Attaching a reference giving the source of the quote seems a good way to confront deception (had there been any). Did you use the source I supplied when you reviewed the earlier transcription, did you perhaps use the wikilink to the online text I attached, or was it from somewhere you found for yourself?

--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I clearly stated my source, which you claim you don't know about now, but how long has this obvious error been here? What am I suppose to believe about the people editing this page, to allow such an obvious flaw? The exact flaw perpetuated by atheist websites.IIXVXII (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And of course, the atheist websites must be wrong... because they're run by atheists, right? Please stop being so confrontational. Multiple sources have been presented to you which are being cited on these pages, both here and at Talk:Theism. You need to either demonstrate that your preferred sources are in the significant majority and these ones are a significant minority, or present new sources which are of higher quality, or drop the stick, please. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read what you are commenting on? The text of the wikisource essay and the 'readbookonline' version is identical. It is the same in all both sources and it is apparently misquoted. I can see it with my own eyes. That's why it's obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.55.245 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

IIXVXII makes the sweeping generalization, "No agnostic accepts the definition that agnosticism is not a third alternative." In five seconds, I found legions of counterexamples. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rowes definition of Agnosticism in the popular sense is undeniably a contradiction, simply because it does not make sense for someone to not accept (reject belief) and at the same time accept (reject disbelief) a belief. I agree that most people feel that agnosticism is a third alternative, if it is then it means the same thing as weak atheism, but if you mean something like what Rowe was saying then it doesn't matter how you feel, or if that feeling is the norm, because what you mean simply makes no sense either to us or to you, it's kind of like saying you're a married bachelor, sure you can say the words, but it doesn't mean they genuinely mean anything. This is because married and bachelor are mutually exclusive, much like Rowes agnosticism in the popular sense. In fact, maybe the genius of Rowe was to point out how the meaning of agnosticism to the masses is exactly this contradictory feeling, perhaps Rowe was a greater social critic than I thought. It's certainly the case that regular people don't want to be apart of the polarizing and vitriolic arena between atheism and theism, no one likes a dichotomy, especially true ones, and though it's a contradiction to do so, the masses who don't wish to be apart of or associated with this arena, or who want to look like the reasonable middle ground, will say they reject both even if it doesn't mean anything at all. 96.255.36.154 (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignorant Wisdom

=== Ignorant Wisdom: The Heart of Agnosticism ===

Socrates said, "True wisdom is knowing you don't know" to which I would add accepting our ignorance is how we really come to know anything. If nothing else we can always be certain of our uncertainty and, therefore, our ignorance. It is the source of whatever humility, creativity, and free will we might possess, but only to the degree we are both aware and accepting of our ignorance. As far as Socrates was concerned this was a simple fact of life. If you are not aware or accepting of the fact that you don't know how to swim, for example, you'll have limited wisdom when it comes to water. This "ignorant wisdom", or knowledge and sagacity acquired by becoming aware and accepting of our ignorance, is the heart of agnosticism.

Agnostics possess the conviction that they don't know whether God exists and some additionally believe it is impossible to prove or disprove whether God exists. Like any stance it is their convictions that define them as something other than being merely ignorant, confused, or uncertain. A newborn infant might not know if God exists, but what distinguishes agnostics is they know they don't know and, therefore, hold the conviction they don't know. The insistence of many atheists and believers that agnosticism be defined as mere ignorance, confusion, or uncertainty (50/50 probability) is an attempt to deny the convictions of agnostics and deny that agnosticism presents a viable alternative.

This is common in ideological disputes where one or both sides will go to extreme lengths to deny any sort of neutrality is feasible because its existence can harm their cause. It is the aggressive group mindset of you are either with us, against us, or undecided and ideologues will sometimes stop at nothing to discourage others from establishing a viable neutral alternative. The implied threat from both believers and disbelievers alike is one reason agnostics are not more often outspoken. For agnostics the unsolicited attacks from both sides can be a poignant reminder of their struggles to cultivate ignorant wisdom in any aspect of their lives.

A cyclone is a common Asian metaphor for this lifelong process of cultivating ignorant wisdom. Around the calm center of the storm swarm all our expectations, preconceptions, and beliefs in a tumultuous cacophony of sight and sound as they collide violently with one another and anything in their path. The deeper into the storm we venture after them the more confused and disoriented we become. Sometimes the storm will throw us back into the calm center and sometimes we deliberately work our way there, but once in the center we can shift our focus back to our awareness of our ignorance. In those moments we are presented with renewed opportunities to accept, ignore, or reject our ignorance.

The only requirement then for ignorant wisdom and agnosticism is accepting our ignorance which requires no beliefs, ideology, or methodology. It can be a completely spontaneous act without regard for how we came to such a decision or any consequences it might entail. An instinctive affirmation of our own awareness that comes straight from the heart and often takes us in surprising directions. Strange as it might sound, as an agnostic myself I am truly grateful for my ignorance and, in fact, I can't imagine a loving God who would want it any other way.

Thus agnosticism is a conviction, a stance, and not merely a description of uncertainty. Some agnostics believe the question of God(s) existence to be utterly meaningless in the first place and along the lines of asking, "What is the sound of one hand clapping". To assert that uncertainty and truth values must apply to everything is to assume a metaphysical stance and demand that we invent a new term for those people who simply hold the conviction they don't know and don't share that metaphysical stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuliheron (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Question mark image

This image's generic caption doesn't explain how it is relevant to the article. This revert claims that it is common. Can we get a source that attests to its use? The file description references a T-shirt designer, and it seems to me that this is cleverly disguised advertising. Spacexplosion^[talk] 21:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)