If everyone starts to use their own definition of terms like he think it's the right thing to do so, we humans won't be able to communicate with each other, at all, arf. Simply because the meaning of words you use are not the same as I do, arf. Official definitions don't exist for fun, arf. They teach us what the meaning of words are, arf.

And it's not just that, if people start to intepretate words whatever way they feel like, they will bend / change the meaning of the word for their own advantage and use it against you, arf.

Again, just like I said about the meaning of theory in science, arf. Not just ones I had to listen to people who say, that evolution is just a theory on paper and so far of no value, arf. Do you want it to be like that, arf? People disregarding the official meaning, arf?

I am still aware that definitions change over time and so do languages, arf. But we define the words as we do, not just by the broad usage of the word, but also at how much sense their meaning does, arf.

Also, if you position yourself as an agnostic, do you believe in a god or do you not, arf? 

And in regard to the human stuff, we are causal beings, arf. Otherwise we wouldn't work, arf. Complete randomness in a biological lifeform would lead to its destruction, arf.

The problem is that you're making language out to be an exact science. It's not. For one, you hold that you have a "correct definition" of agnosticism. I highly dispute that.

We don't define meaning by how much sense something makes sense at all. Meaning of a term is derived from it's use. Thus the meaning is derived in a rational and scientific matter from how it's used. That's why some terms tend to change or be replaced. But even barring that, your definition of agnosticism is erronous.

I'm Catholic, but I've been agnostic for 7 years. I've someone would have asked me if I believe in God. I'd have said I wouldn't know. I did and I didn't. Many things in live are not binary. Many things are (often scientific), but many societal ways of life aren't, certainly concerning believes. This isn't randomness, this is chosen indiciciveness. If you say such a thing isn't possible, the use case, which concerns millions of people simply makes the impossibility of agnosticism, impossible.

You are being intellectual dishonest, arf. I already linked several times which definition I am using and that this is the official definition of the word, arf. I am not making up the definition, but you do for the sake of your argument, arf. Otherwise post a source, arf.

Again, you can't just hold the position to change words and meaning like you think they would fit your agenda, that's not how it works, arf.

Thus the meaning is derived in a rational and scientific matter from how it's used. That's why some terms tend to change or be replaced. But even barring that, your definition of agnosticism is erronous.

Yes, and today the meaning of this word is the one which is officially defined as, arf. Look it ip please, arf. I already stated which definition they are using, arf.

There are people out there who don't believe in a god, but don't want to be labeled as atheist, because it has a bad connotation for some of them, arf. So they start using different labels for themself just to avoid this one word, arf. Whatever they think they are, they are still atheists by defintion, arf.

If you call yourself a catholic, then I assume that you follow their tradition by todays standards and do believe in God ,but you are uncertain about its existence, arf. You see, according to the definition or agnosticism, those people also hold the view that the existence of God in unknownable, arf. Do you think the same, arf? I know that a lot of people who say they are agnostic ignore this part of the definition, arf. But, I cannot call myself a scientist if I don't do science, arf.

If I see people label themself as christians, but going everday out to the street to scream at gay people, I don't consider them christians but dirt under my shoes, yet you won't find that in a dictionary that they actually are dirt under my shoe, arf.

Again, I can't call myself  a compatibilist and say that Free Will and Determinism are incompatible with each other just because I like to label myself as such, arf. And in all honesty, that's the position you are trying to defend, arf.

The definition you linked is quite a good one. It mirrors exactly Bertrand Russels position:

In bold, it's wrong. It's a million times wrong. There is no belief in something that doesn't exist. It's the default position. 

Do you declare you don't believe the pink space unicorn? Flying pigs? Talking butter? No, because it is obvious they don't exist until proven otherwise.

What is so difficult to understand about this? Seriously... the poison they put in your heads... 

The ones that make the claim that god exists are the ones making a claim. The default position of any claim is to not believe it until proven. Therefore believing in the non-existance is completely redundant and doesn't have a part in this. That does not make sense (how could one even prove something doesn't exist?) and is not the definition of Atheism, no matter how much religious people want to misuse it.

No. Words are not dictated by their misuse. (yes, because these words have a meaning and are used with their correct meaning by everyone except religious people)

You don't get to say Apple now means Orange and people now have to accept that.

Words are already defined. Find a way to say what you mean with the existing ones. I know it's something of a challenge for religious leaders to do, but they have to try a bit harder.

You can twist and turn what I meant all you want. All it goes to show is that you don't really care about the linguistics. That and your definition of agnosticism was largely skewed anyway. So if we can't "make up definitions" as you put it, you'd still be wrong.

And don't bore us with a

Oh you got it wrong. You are the one projecting religious people as the people of the world with the power to make up and change the meaning of words. Religious people are only a sub-set of people. You don't have that power and the atempts just end up as humor to the rest of the civilised world.

I do care about linguistics. But what you are talking about is, as usual for religion, to give special treatment for a few. Wich the rest of us reply with a clear: NO! You are not special cause you are grown people who believe some fairy tail book and you will not receive special treatment. 

No, it's not. It's literally what the name draws from in Latin. Someone who doesn't in believe in a god or multiple gods.

You're the one pushing a wrong interpretation of the word agnosticism. So far, I've only been defending my case through reason and philosophical arguments. You're not made of teflon, you don't get to just assume you're right and ignore my arguments because you feel like it.

You don't get extra powers over language because you're an atheist. Special treatment works both ways. And I'd watch your words or I'm going to stuff the whole Silmarillion where the sun doth not shineth if you'd like a fairy tale book.