Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Euler-break-1

The source of the image clearly says Marekich.IIXVXII (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• and you have a source for his theological position?--JimWae (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Marekich clearly said, in this very category, "Agnosticism is not a third position..." And this person edits and offers images to agnosticism? A person that denies agnosticism even exists.IIXVXII (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Actually the maker of the older one (the one that does not even include the word agnostic) -- upon which the newer one was based -- identifies as agnostic.
• What policy or guideline justifies "One cannot have an Euler diagram when the blue region is agnostic the noun and the union is agnostic the adjective"?--JimWae (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe these are your rebuttal arguments. "What policy or guideline justifies "One cannot have an Euler diagram when the blue region is agnostic the noun and the union is agnostic the adjective"?" Clearly, without doubt, WP:POV.

"NPOV means that people should write the things that almost everyone agrees about..." and most people do not agree with the use of logical fallacies as a means of informing people. You cannot have a diagram where agnostic means two different things and portray it as one. This is the fallacy of equivalence and the fallacy of ambiguity. When do you actually offer a rebuttal to my claim that the diagram is fallacious?IIXVXII (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you've ever taken some time to actually read WP:NPOV you'd see that you have not properly characterized NPOV. As WP:NPOV says in the very first paragraph: NPOV means that ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic are to be represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias. There's absolutely nothing about adjectives (nor compound nouns, btw)--JimWae (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously shocked at your behavior. The diagram is a textbook fallacy and you're going to try and hide behind the Wikipedia rules? I have no doubt that they would agree with me, that the use of logical fallacies is not an acceptable means of informing people.IIXVXII (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• It was you who appealed to the WP:NPOV policy to justify a revert. If you better understood NPOV, it would eliminate many of your objections (such as wanting to have everything conform to the "most popular" definition). The wiki policies & guidelines are not things to hide -- nor to hide behind -- nor to ignore -- nor to MISREPRESENT. Your objections keep changing. The caption I rewrote for the better diagram talks about theological positions. The positions that can be taken are those of an agnostic, a theist, an atheist, a gnostic, an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist,... I worked on the wording to deal with your objection. If the 4 circles had been authoritarian, libertarian, capitalist & socialist, then just because the intersections would be authoritarian capitalist, authoritarian socialist, capitalistic libertarian, & socialistic libertarian (note that everything is used as an adjective somewhere [alternatively, they could be seen as compound nouns ]) would not mean that NONE of the nouns "exist". The caption I wrote specifically says that which regions are populated depends on how agnostic & atheism are defined/understood. One could take the position (which seems to be yours) that none of the intersections are populated. I believe all your objections have already been met, that you have NOT properly presented any wiki-guideline to support your bold assertions, that nobody else is supporting what you say, & that it is time to stop your BEHAVIOUR of reverting everyone else here.--JimWae (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The diagram is not in fallacy. The usage is consistent along the same lines as having the circle of all FAT things and intersecting them with FAT PIG, FAT COW and FAT HEAD. In other words agnostic is consistently being used as an adjective to form a compound noun. The noun of Agnostic has the assumed second word god included and by some definitions it is equivalent to agnostic atheist where the atheist is dropped off or possibly the apatheist (agnostic) which just doesn't entertain the concept of deities. JimWae is correct about the NPOV policy. It is about placing all the common POV's into the article at some point but it does not require removal of all but the most common POV (if that can even be proven) or making sure all POV are covered in any one diagram or any one paragraph in the article. Whether you capitalize the word Atheist or Agnostic can have meaning in these discussions. Alatari (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to develop a Eulern diagram which also included ignostic and apatheist along with strong and weak agnostics because I'm a very visual person and it would cement the concepts for me best but I gave up. Alatari (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If a person has never encountered the concept of a deity wouldn't they be a default agnostic to that deity? Some people may have not heard of Amitabha celestial Buddha and so for all of their lives (using algebraic function notation) they would have been agnostic[Amitabha] from lack of knowledge as well as atheist[Amitabha] from lack of belief. Here comes the tricky part. Once someone has had the deities concept described to them and seen the source materials and witness testimony about Amitabha but they lack a personal exposure to the deity (no visions, no voices, etc) what type of agnostic are they at that point? If they consider the source material and the Sutras valid enough evidence for the existence of the deity then they can leave the realm of agnosticism and become gnostic-theist[Amitabha]. If they do not believe there is enough evidence for Amitabha but have a enough belief that they chant his name and wish to enter the Western Paradise someday and continue to seek more knowledge of him then they would be agnostic-theists[Amitabha]. Even after reading the Sutras and evaluating them as inconsistent or insufficient then the person can be gnostic-atheist[Amitabha] or if they are willing to allow that further knowledge may bring the realization that Amitabha is real they would be agnostic-atheist[Amitabha]. There is an underlying belief in sufficiency of the knowledge/evidence that is in play here that I'm not in complete understanding of and what words to use to describe it. Beliefs or faith about what is sufficient evidence or what sources are to be trusted are in play when a person is to cross between the diagram positions. Alatari (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'll play your Wikipedia rules game. I tried to be reasonable with you, but you're clearly not interested in that.

Concerning original images, Wikipedia says " Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments..."

There is no source that suggests agnosticism overlaps with theism and atheism, as the diagram had. There is no source that defines gnostic like the diagram had. There is no source that says this unsourced definition of gnostic, then overlaps with theism and atheism. There is no source for anything the diagram represented. The diagram is illustrating unpublished work and is thus, original research.

Further, articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Agnostic atheism, as described by the Smith source, carries with it that agnosticism is not a valid third alternative. The more widely held view is that agnosticism is a valid third alternative, as expressed in the rest of the sources. Yet, the minority view gets the privilege of not only having its own diagram, but to be the only diagram in the entire article. Giving the minority viewpoint such a privilege, gives it undue weight, violating a neutral point of view.

Finally, the diagram and caption suppressed information. No where did the diagram or caption let the reader know, that the term agnostic atheist uses the adjective meaning of agnostic and that it's position carries along with it, as described by the Smith source, that agnosticism the noun, is not a valid third alternative. Suppression of information violates the neutral point of view.IIXVXII (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• You seem to be repeating arguments that have already been answered. The new one is that "there are no sources for the intersections". There clearly are, though more than one needs to be presented.
• Btw, to answer my own Q which seems to have been ignored: what is the 3rd agnostic alternative to 1. believing in the existence of a deity, but not claiming to know such exists & 2. rejecting belief that any deity exists, but not claiming to know if any exist or not? The answer is 3. Not claiming to know whether any deity exists (or not) and SUSPENDING belief (not rejecting it). This may not be your position, but it is a position that has the blue area at the top populated. As such, atheism is defined as rejection of belief - not just absence of belief. The diagram takes no position on any definition or on what regions are populated. It supposes only that the overlaps make sense under some definitions.
• Btw, Rowe has 3 catefories of agnosticism weak, moderate & strong based on different attitudes to belief. What is common to all 3 of his is that agnosticism is differntiated as being about knowledge. His categorization differs from the weak/strong presented in the article & it needs to be added------JimWae (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC) (signed after posting)

Again, the Euler diagram categories are ALL adjectives. The subject modified is PEOPLE. The top circle is the circle of all Agnostic PEOPLE. The intersection is Agnostic AND Atheist PEOPLE. You object strongly that there is a missing Euler for the sources you can always create another diagram. Alatari (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"Not claiming to know whether any deity exists (or not) and SUSPENDING belief (not rejecting it)". What is the difference between "suspending" belief and rejection? "Rejection" - "To refuse to accept, submit to, believe". Suspending belief would fit into rejection because it is someone not accepting something. I "suspend" my acceptance. I "withhold" my acceptance. "Belief" is accepting something as true. You can *only* either accept or reject a proposition. They are the only two options in regard to a single proposition. "Withholding" judgement IS rejection until judgement can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asb0y (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Eulers'

Do any of these appear to fit your concept of this topic better than the one currently in the article? I suspect there exists an actual philosophy text book used for a college course from the last decade with a prepared Euler diagram but I can not find one sourced. These are grabbed off the web and ownership is unknown:

• Single axis belief tri circle: [1]
• quadrant with gnostic/theism axis [2]
• another quadrant: [3]
• tri-circle in implicit non-believer (babies, and lower intelligence like I described above in levels of belief) universe each intersection explained: [4]
• similar to above with complete explanations: [5]
• an odd one: [6]
• An attempt at a much more complete overall Euler: [7]
• I wish we could use this one: [8] Alatari (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

So none of my objections were answered, nor has anyone named any source for the diagram. It's pointless debating theology with you people, because you're only concerned with what the rules allow. And the rules do not allow you to generate images that have no source. The rules do not allow you to give undue weight to the minority view by giving it the only diagram in the entire article. Nor do the rules allow you to suppress the information about the agnostic atheist position being one of denying the agnostic position. If these objections are not taken more seriously than I will put a NPOV:Dispute on this page.IIXVXII (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• The last diagram that was in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Theological_positions.svg is better than any of the above - and quite adequate. It does indeed have a region of agnostics that are neither agnostic theists nor agnostic atheists - and thus is already NPOV.

As the Smith source clearly states, agnosticism is not a valid third position. Creating a diagram that has agnosticism as a third position means, you cannot use the Smith source. The diagram is original research, it suppresses information and gives undue weight to the minority viewpoint by being the only diagram in the entire article, putting forth the agnostic atheist position and not the traditionally accepted academic definition.IIXVXII (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• IIXVXII, you have violated WP:3RR and are liable to a 24 hour block. If you revert yourself you might be OK...--JimWae (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh, I'm so scared.IIXVXII (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You are under the burden to provide a diagram that you feel support the majority POV since you are the one pushing for it. I placed a series of various diagrams above for you to critique and suggest if any are closer to your position if you do not wish to create a diagram. We can get permission from an author or recreate our own if any are suitable.

You are the one putting up the diagram, it is your burden of proof.IIXVXII (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have already countered your objection that the diagram is a logical fallacy because all the words are adjectives in the Euler diagram. It is unclear where we are suppressing the agnostic atheist position since we are just discussing this one diagram and the two positions are distinct on the diagram. Each person that takes a position in the diagram is capable of denying the other positions. Denying is an action verb which is is hard to represent in a 2 dimensional non-moving diagram.

I'm sure this diagram has been debated many times before on this talk page and I'll dig up the archives. Alatari (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, it looks like you came in about a year ago with this same exact dispute and was opposed by several editors and the diagram was retained. Has some thing changed in the last year? Alatari (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one that fixed the Huxley quote from the standard misquote found on atheist websites.IIXVXII (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this the position you are pushing? Agnosticism of Rowe that is a distinct position. Would it help if the agnostic area was a single color? It seems you did not even take the time to review the alternate Euler's I posted. This Euler diagram curerently used in the article does have a distinct area of a single color for agnostic people and it could be labeled as the Rowe area. I do not sense a spirit of cooperation from you as an editor on this article. Alatari (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There is one thing missing from the current diagram Venn diagram and that is the position of babies, animals, rocks as this one does (except it spells belive lol). They can not have knowledge nor belief in a deity and a good comparison baseline for someone trying to learn these concepts. Alatari (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Babies & rocks cannot be agnostics, since they cannot take a position (btw, I (& others) contend atheism is also a position - i.e. rejection of belief). Since this is the agnostic article, not the atheism article, the diagram should focus on agnosticism (as the latest does) & not on extraneous topics. XVIIVXXIIXXIIVV has violated WP:3RR & can be blocked if he continues to revert.--JimWae (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the objections of IIXVXII could be ameliorated by labeling the diagram Agnostic section with a label to the Rowe source. Alternately an Euler diagram with a single horizontal axis belief and three circles could be used to present the Rowe view. It would take minutes to create. Alatari (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see, so now you're going to mock my name and you think that makes you look intelligent? That tells me I'm dealing with the mentality of a child.IIXVXII (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If stating that mocking my name while trying to have an intelligent discussion is childish, is some emotional outburst to you, then how do you feel about my saying, telling a story that doesn't fit the facts gives reason to, not believe you?

Instead of just admitting you copied the name from JimWae, you're going to give a preposterous excuse that

IIXVXIIIIXVXII

is

XVIIVXXIIXXIIVV

?

Not only does the 'double paste' version have a clear pattern not present in the name you used, it doesn't even have the correct character count. Don't you check these things? You can't even check out your made up story before you tell it?

Welcome back.IIXVXII (talk)

You're the one that told a story that wasn't true. You're the one throwing around accusations of emotion. You're the one that just assumed I choose not to abide by WP:Faith, so that you could accuse me of violating it.IIXVXII (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I corrected my mistaken typing of your name and will not bicker about how it happened. I made a mistake and I apologize. I removed my words and am done with this. Alatari (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You deleted two of your responses and edited another.IIXVXII (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking for a new diagram that can be uploaded.

Some of these are for humors sake others I can not find the source or do not have permission. Do any of them satisfy all the above objections? I know that the objections above by IIXVXII were abbout lacking a source but how are we to get a diagram from a text book or a published reliable source? To satisfy the GNU license an editor will likely have to make it.

• Crude, offensive and humorous but has merits: [9]
• From this discussion of the classic 4 quadrant chart[10] this graph was copied which is trending on Google images and I can't find the original source [11] It still has the colored regions that could be mistaken for possible positions even though they are renamed as more explanations.
• Two redrawn quadrant diagrams without the unsupported areas: [12]
• I believe this one is on Wikipedia already: [13]
• This one shows the old paradigm versus the new: [14]. This is straight forward and includes early and later views. It's a decent choice.

OK, spent several hours reading articles and searching for diagrams. These are the best I can find with a web search. What lies in academia I do not know. Maybe a Google Scholar search? Alatari (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

All are atheist propaganda.

Tell me, how is it that you give six examples and none of them contain strong and weak agnosticism? Six examples and none of them illustrate agnostics that believe the answer is knowable and agnostics that believe the answer will never be known. Yet, all your diagrams do illustrate the average atheist position that agnosticism and atheism can be united. Why would that common factor be there? Why would it be, that all your examples put forth the average atheist position?IIXVXII (talk)

This last one does have a 3 circle diagram to represent to Huxley version [15]. It is why I listed it last because it is the best place to start. A comparative Venn of Huxley and the newer formulations. Alatari (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect no one draws diagrams for that Huxleyan sense of "agnosticism" because hardly anyone uses it that way anymore. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Huxleyan sense of agnosticism? Versus what? The atheist sense of agnosticism?

There is no evidence that the atheist terminology is gaining traction. There is no respected dictionary or encyclopedia that even mentions agnostic atheism under agnosticism. Polls about peoples theological position done by Pew Research, Gallup and even the scientific journal Nature, have categories for agnosticism yet, none for agnostic atheism. Mass media doesn't even recognize the term agnostic atheism. Nor do the academics that review dictionaries and encyclopedias. Not only is your claim baseless, there is an extraordinary amount of evidence against it.

You said in the comments above,

"Theism/atheism has to do with belief, gnosticism/agnosticism has to do with knowledge. If you think you know whether or not a god exists, you're gnostic; if you don't know, you're agnostic. And you either have a belief in deities (theism), or you don't (atheism)."

Which is the average atheist position. Which means, you are yet another denier of the agnostic position that resides in this article.

Let me be clear. You can't destroy an idea. You can't destroy a persons ability to choose. You can repeat "one is either theist or atheist" all you want, people can still choose to be agnostic. You can repeat "agnosticism is not a third alternative" all you want, some people will still choose to be agnostic. Whether you like it or not, some people are going to suspend judgment, choose a middle position and agnosticism is the word used to describe this idea, this choice. Your redefining of agnosticism results in a word that no longer reflects the people it is meant to reflect. The ones who...believe....in suspending judgment because of insufficient knowledge. The ones who...believe...theism and atheism are both irrational because they require faith. The ones who...believe...the answer will never be known. None of these things are characteristics of agnostic atheism. Agnostic atheism is exactly atheism with the ridiculous caveat that when one states their belief, they now have to add a label that states their level of knowledge for their belief. No one says they are an agnostic pro-choicer, a gnostic liberal, a gnostic denier of the holocaust, a agnostic flat earther, a agnostic string theory supporter...no one uses this type of terminology, accept atheists. And even atheists only use this ridiculous terminology when the topic is god.

Agnosticism is the word that describes the ones who choose a position of suspending judgment. It's irrelevant what you atheists think agnosticism is, because you can't destroy a persons ability to choose a position of suspending judgment. And the people that choose to do this are known as, agnostics.IIXVXII (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm adamant for suspending judgment. I do deny that there is a "middle position" between belief and nonbelief. If you accept neither the position that gods exist, nor the position that gods don't exist, then you're a nonbeliever: an atheist.

Colloquially, "agnostic" does get used outside of religion. Frex, "climate change agnostic". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that last, contrasting diagram is misleading. It denies the existence of agnostic theists, erroneously equating agnosticism with negative atheism. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Amusing. So denying agnostic theism is misleading, but denying agnosticism is not. Even though, despite all your attempts, some people will still choose to suspend judgment, you will just pretend these people don't exist, because you want agnosticism to mean something different.IIXVXII (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It was listed last because when I found it it seemed to be the best starting point for discussion and I stopped my search after finding it. Alatari (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic. So, where's your discussion?IIXVXII (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See above and below. Alatari (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think if IIXVXII has the sources for his content, he should be allowed to edit this page, the way he wants it to be. So we can know, what he wants. Justicejayant (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. IIXVXII, you have a burden of proof to provide some sourcing and a diagram you find suitable. I spent some time on it now how about you provide some counter diagrams and maybe a reliable source that discusses the New Atheism movement versus the old Atheist/Agnostic/Theist paradigm common in the media? In my experiences with people my age and older they tend to use the Huxley model and so does the media. So I'm not in disagreement about the common usage of agnostic-atheist. Common usage debates in articles are definitely some of the most painful to debate and prove. Alatari (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources for my content? There are 49 sources for this article, where the overwhelming, vast majority express agnosticism as I'm arguing. There is only one source for the atheist position. One. I'm expressing a position that is no different from those sources nor 99% of this article. The atheists are the ones expressing a position different than 99% of this article.IIXVXII (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about a source that studies the usage of the word in the general English-speaking population. The article in Wikipedia is to reflect common usage. Your reference to the Pew and Gallup polling is evidence and a likely place to look. Authors/historians discussing the New Atheism movement is another place to look for sources on word usage. Alatari (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not my burden of proof. I don't have to prove common usage. The burden of proof lies with those that seek to change common usage. Surely, the common usage of my name IIXVXII is Roman Numerals. It's my burden of proof to get you to change that common usage to vector magnitude of XVX.IIXVXII (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional. I was skeptical about the claim that 48 of 49 of the sources use only the Huxley definition and it is a false claim. (Some of the 49 sources are duplicates.) I started at 49 and am working my way back and stopped at 32 for time constraints. So far 6 of 17 allow for Kant or non-Huxley views although only two refer to agnostics as weak-atheist and one uses the term agnostic atheist.:

• 49 - [16] agnostic atheist is weak atheist

• 48 - God Delusion [17]

• 47 - God Delusion [18]

• 46 - Modern Agnosticism differs from its ancient prototype. Its genesis is not due to a reactionary spirit of protest, and a collection of sceptical arguments, against "dogmatic systems" of philosophy in vogue, so much as to an adverse criticism of man's knowing-powers in answer to the fundamental question: What can we know? Kant, who was the first to raise this question, in his memorable reply to Hume, answered it by a distinction between "knowable phenomena" and "unknowable things-in-themselves". Hamilton soon followed with his doctrine that "we know only the relations of things". Modern Agnosticism is thus closely associated with Kant's distinction and Hamilton's principle of relativity. It asserts our inability to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, or religious ideas. [19]

• 45- ditto [20]

• 35 - Not Huxley. person who believes that the existence of God is not provable. [21]Alatari (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"I was skeptical about the claim that 48 of 49 of the sources use only the Huxley definition and it is a false claim."

Yea? Anything else I didn't say that you want to show is false?IIXVXII (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

“ There are 49 sources for this article, where the overwhelming, vast majority express agnosticism as I'm arguing. ”

Well, quantifying overwhelming, vast majority of 49 would be 46, 47 or 48. Something under 5%. Your claim is still false. Alatari (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? I have to explain this to you? If 3 sources support an atheistic interpretation, 5 sources state no position, 7 sources are other and 35 sources support the traditional definition of agnosticism, then the overwhelming, vast majority express agnosticism. It is your simpleton interpretation that majority must mean 90%-100% of the sources.IIXVXII (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So Robin makes a baseless claim that Huxley's agnosticism is hardly used anymore. Clearly implying that the atheist agnosticism is what's now used. I then offer counter examples and you want me to cite my sources? What about Robin? Why is it that my counter examples require a citation but Robins claim does not? Is this bias another mistake of yours or is there another reason on why Robin's original, baseless claim received no challenge from you, but my counter example does?

Well, now that you mention the source (Robin) we know what you are referring to. Alatari (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You said "we"? Who is "we"? Who else here cannot conclude that I responded to Robin Lionheart? Signatures are even in blue.IIXVXII (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This page is an open discussion on improving the article. If you wish to discuss privately with Robin you take it to his talk page and your talk page. Alatari (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is also no requirement that this article must have a diagram. If you want to put up a diagram you find on photobucket, then expect me to take it down for being original research, representing an unpublished idea.IIXVXII (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A diagram is helpful. A diagram that mimics a text book source not something flying about the webs. If it's made by an editor and mimics an academic source then that is how we get around copyright violation and free usage. We can't just copy a text diagram without permission. Just because the diagram is made by an editor to represent faithfully a concept from an academic text does not make it WP:OR. We follow this guideline Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material. for diagrams. The diagram must be in our own "words" or in this case our own drawings. Alatari (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

While substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.IIXVXII (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct. And a diagram of three circles with theist/agnostic/atheist retains the meaning of the source material and you somehow still oppose it. That is baffling. Alatari (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Baffling? You just stated you wanted a circle for agnosticism while citing a source that says agnosticism is not valid. What's baffling is you citing a source to produce an image that the source is clearly denying.IIXVXII (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I spend a couple hours and created [22]. It's a bit detailed, but it seems like it may be appropriate for this page. Let me know what you think and if you want it modified. balljust (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The amount of time you spent is irrelevant. What is relevant is your source, which you do not state.IIXVXII (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Some data on the maps do not match

Some data on both maps do not match: Sweden is shown as having > 70% atheists/agnostics on one of them, and about 30% on the other. The difference is particularly visible (color-wise) as it is one of the largest ones to claim >70%. France is roughly at the same level (the pool questions may have been different but in that case all data should be shifted). I do not have better data, this is just a comment. Wsw70 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that Religion in Sweden can help us:

From the article of Religion in Sweden

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2010, 18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god". 45% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force". 34% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force". According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2012, the religions in Sweden are the following Protestants 41% Orthodox 1% Catholics 2% Other Christian 9% Buddhist 1% Other 3% Atheist 13% Agnostics 30% References

Both of the surveys were conducted by the same research centre of Eurobarometer. I think that the image showing > 70% atheists/agnostics in Sweden should be amended, because according to the 2012 survey, 30% swedish citizens identify themselves as agnostics, and 13% as atheists, the net being 43%. Faizan 09:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Bias

I just removed a sentence which grouped agnosticism with atheism, and inferred that agnosticism is somehow relevant to the "personal" nature of a god. It just isn't good enough without context. ~ R.T.G 00:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)