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

The result was keep. alphaChimp ^laudare 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neologism and is subsequently a logical fallicy. Agnostics take no position on religion. it is not cited Somerset219 02:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as a self-labelled agnostic I get irritated when second-year philosophy majors tell me that I'm not "agnostic," I'm either "agnostic theist" or "agnostic atheist," or perhaps "gnostic theist" or "gnostic atheist." Still, I must concede that these terms are all used regularly in religious and philosophical discussions. It's most certainly not a neologism. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not a logical fallacy. Moveover, Google search gives a respectable result [1].__earth ^(Talk) 05:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An agnostic theist is one who disavows knowledge of God's existence but chooses to believe in God in spite of this. However, you need knowledge of him to form a belief. Agnostics ignore the question of theism until there is absolute proof. If you believe, your'e a theist, if you don't, your'e an atheist. If you don't know if god exists, then you don't believe in him. In other words; knowlegde, wether it's accurate or not, dictates belief. Thats why it doesn't make sense/ logical fallicy. Plus, google results wiki sources/ blogs. No credible sources. Somerset219 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days, many believed that the world was flat, despite the fact that they didn't know it for sure. Hence, the page Flat Earth. The point it, while it's logical fallacy, it's a belief and logical fallacy itselt is not a reason fro deletion. __earth ^(Talk) 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need knowledge of the concept of God, which is entirely different to knowledge that God exists. I know about concepts such as God and unicorns, but I don't know that they exist. I might still believe in them, anyway. Also, you are confusing different meanings of "Agnostic" - the sort who withholds belief is only one meaning of the term. Mdwh 11:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment please see belief; if you believe in something then you know it's true. If you don't know they exsist, then you don't believe in them. You are making a state of doubt, then stating that it's a positive assertion; that makes no sense. Somerset219 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's your POV. Many people disagree. Many people have beliefs about things, even though they do not know it is true. Mdwh 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whether the term makes sense or not, it is certainly commonly used. The article could use more citations, but the fact that it's used in George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God, written in 1974 and pretty well known, shows that it's not a neologism. The paperback edition has a sales ranking of 11,150 at Amazon; it's a reasonably common book. AfD is not for debating the validity of a term, it's for debating the viability of an article. Philodespotos 05:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - agreed; for purposes of this AfD, the focus should be on whether or not the term exists, and it seems that it does so verifiably. Debate over any possible inherent fallacies in the term and its use should be saved for philosophy forums. If anything, more sources could be added, but I'd guess that some philosophy-oriented Wikipedians will have a pretty easy time coming up with some print sources. . Also see this Google Book search[2] which has T. H. Huxley attributing the term to first-century Jewish philosopher Philo. -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God, this book is used as a criticism against the term, he actually states the term does not make sense. Somerset219 21:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Philo. Also 470 google hits and 443 Yahoo hts (both set to english only and phrase). That is not bad at all considering that the term is not in popular culture. (just providing this to show that the term does exist).—— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though the article should have more references. -- SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Remember lack of references is not a reason to delete, (unless there are none to be found). Now if there were no references to be found, period, then delete is the correct option. Here, I know that references can be found, the philosophical types on wikipedia will have no problem doing so. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not about agnostics, but about a particular sort of theist. I've encountered several people like this, who believe in God (and are therefore theists) but claim that it is impossible to know anything about God (agnostic). It is a peculiarly irrational viewpoint, but they do exist. --StoatBringer 11:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The issue should not be about whether we think Agnostic theism is a "logical fallacy" or not. That is a POV, and if people nonetheless fit this description, it should not be discounted (I think many religious beliefs are a logical fallacy, but clearly that's not a reason to delete the articles!) The issue is notability and verifiability, of the term and/or the concept. Mdwh 11:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The prohibition on neologisms only applies in cases lacking a credible source, or dictionary definitions. And there are plenty of articles about supposed logical fallacies. Btyner 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment please define agnostic theist on google. all articles of agnostic theist are from blogs and Wikipedia's own sources. This term is used as an accurate philisophical term, and it's not. If its a religion or pop culture thing than it should be defined that way. Somerset219 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, google scholar gives 8 hits for this term, including one from the Journal of Religion. If academia has accepted this concept then who are we to question it? Btyner 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep If we deleted articles on religion because of logical fallacies, we'd have no articles on religion left. Stev0 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to agnosticism: Despite the fact that the term is used, it is used primarily as a species of agnosticism. Further, what it describes is a state of doubt rather than an active and positive philosophy. I think the subject is better understood, better found, and better discussed in the context of agnosticism in the 20th century. Geogre 20:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The issue of whether the term is logically inconsistent or not is totally irrelevant. It's widely used, therefore notable, and it's distinct enough from the beliefs of most people who identify as simply agnostic to deserve a separate article. Penelope D 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I was puzzled enough by the article that I wasn't going to vote until I read User:Stev0's comment above. Some how it reminded me of Halldór Laxness' quote, "All gods are equally good except the god that answers prayers, because he is nowhere." Which convinced me that Agnostic Theism is not an incredible concept (albeat difficult for my weak brain to encompass); if it is not utter nonsense, it warrants discussion. Williamborg (Bill) 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is a long-standing theological position, and no less coherent than gnostic theism. It's also been associated with a wide range of influential thinkers, from Pascal to Maimonides. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is interesting in itself, though somewhat confused in places. Agnostic Theism may or may not be an active and positive(?) philosophy, but it is a philosophical position that is not unsuited to a deeper level of description than might be provided on the Agnosticism article. (Incidentally, agnostic theism is not necessarily a "state of doubt". The two may coincide, but one can be an agnostic theist who is certain of God's existence while recognising that there is insufficient justification - certainty is a psychological state, knowledge is not) --Atob 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article seems to represent a completely valid and existing stance. Star Ghost 04:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not everything in this world is logical, especially not peoples beliefs. This term is far from a neologism --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: article has many editors and adding more sources shouldn't be hard as many more edit it in future. Stephen B Streater 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. But what’s up with User:Somerset219 making major deletions of the article's text while we are still discussing it here? --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 03:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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