Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, words evolve, that’s how slang is developed. Eventually, some of those words even appear in the dictionary. But that doesn’t change the standard, universal dictionary definition of the word (especially how it pertains in this forum). And in this particular case, the definition a few people wish to ascribe the word, completely conflicts with its universally recognized definition. For what purpose? So someone can ask if my agnosticism applies to his ‘gold plated Porsche’?
If you, or a few people on this forum, wish to alter the word’s meaning (without Merriam Webster), then no one can stop you. But definitions (unlike philosophy or even the law at times) are not open to interpretation - that’s why we have a universally accepted resource like the dictionary. If we all could just decide on our own what words meant (so that it fits our argument) - what a chaotic world it would be! We would never understand each other - we’d all be speaking a different language! To relate it back to this thread - why do some atheists seem to have such a problem with agnostics?
The purpose is so that one can state they do not claim to have absolute-knowledge, all the while posturing as if they do; it's a sweet spot for perpetual "debaters".
The purpose is so that one can state they do not claim to have absolute-knowledge, all the while posturing as if they do; it's a sweet spot for perpetual "debaters".
Not at all true. Of course most atheists claim not to have absolute knowledge. That is simply honest. However, based on the knowledge I do have, I am fairly confident there is no god. If you wish to convince me otherwise, you will need to provide me with additional knowledge that will sway my opinion.
Not at all true. Of course most atheists claim not to have absolute knowledge. That is simply honest. However, based on the knowledge I do have, I am fairly confident there is no god. If you wish to convince me otherwise, you will need to provide me with additional knowledge that will sway my opinion.
Why would anyone outside clergy want to convince another adult about anything religious? Everyone needs to study for their own approval. I'm certainly not going to try to prove anything to someone in order to discuss various topics on a religious forum.
Why would anyone outside clergy want to convince another adult about anything religious? Everyone needs to study for their own approval. I'm certainly not going to try to prove anything to someone in order to discuss various topics on a religious forum.
Well, we are on a forum for discussing such matters, so there is that. I also have a few friends who are quite distressed that I am a non-believer and take a stab at preaching at me upon occasion. The JWs and LDS stop by the house every couple of weeks when the weather is nice, and there is often a street corner preacher around the corner from my favorite pub.
Aside from that, your post that I was replying to implied some sort of misdirection or lack of honesty in claiming the adjective “agnostic†as a descriptor. I was simply po8nting out that I had no such intent, and used the word, clarifying as necessary, to honestly and clearly describe my viewpoint.
Words cannot have different meanings when it’s in complete conflict with the original meaning.
Particularly when it conflicts with the definition provided by Huxley, who invented the term roughly a century ago. I think he gets to say what it means, not me.
Regrettably, words evolve, sometimes to completely different meanings, given enough time. For example, in terms of KJV Elizabethan (17th century) English, "convenient" meant "appropriate and fitting" and over the centuries it has come to mean "congruent with one's plans, needs and activities". Bible students like to make bad jokes about a NT Bible verse that decries "doers of that which is not convenient", pretending the Bible means it's a sin to be inconvenienced, when what the verse really says is that one should not do things that are unseemly and inappropriate.
If this is evolving to be the fate of the word "agnostic" ... if it is inexplicably coming to mean "indecisive" when we have a perfectly serviceable word for that ("indecisive"), then maybe we need a new term for what agnostic used to, and was intended to, mean.
I guess I'm just not quite ready to ditch the word, because correcting its misuse represents a teachable moment (in theory at least). It someone wants to confuse indecision with not taking a knowledge position where no knowledge claim is possible, they are welcome to knock themselves out, but they should not hijack a word that doesn't mean "indecisive" to do it.
Particularly when it conflicts with the definition provided by Huxley, who invented the term roughly a century ago. I think he gets to say what it means, not me.
I guess I'm just not quite ready to ditch the word, because correcting its misuse represents a teachable moment (in theory at least). It someone wants to confuse indecision with not taking a knowledge position where no knowledge claim is possible, they are welcome to knock themselves out, but they should not hijack a word that doesn't mean "indecisive" to do it.
Why would anyone outside clergy want to convince another adult about anything religious? Everyone needs to study for their own approval. I'm certainly not going to try to prove anything to someone in order to discuss various topics on a religious forum.
To take it a step further - why would anyone (from either side) wish to convince another adult of a belief (or non belief) in God?
The only time I feel the need is when using it as a teachable moment about forming a belief. or how to comapre two opposing statements of beliefs. about anything really.
The four horsemen "explaianation, mechanism, repeatable, predictions" and if a belief hold up under more conditional changes.
when comparing claims those five help the more valid claims fit like a glove. More importantly, to me anyway, is that those five allow for self correction.
I must put a warning label on them ...
use at your own risk.
that method really PO's people that are pushing less valid claims, or personal emotional beliefs, as reality. and those that think its "us vs them" will hurt you if they can.
Sure, but one evidenceless belief is not equal to another, unless you subscribe to evidentialism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
