| Peh said: This is really getting boring, arf. Why is it so difficult to accept the official definition of these terms, arf. It's like people saying that a scientific theory is just a theory and unproven, arf. You completely disregard what it means, arf. I don't care what random people think it should mean, arf. It's simply not what it is, arf.
Even an apatheist is still an atheist, arf. Atheist is everyone, every single person who simply doesn't believe in a god or gods, arf. And it was already explained several times why those are defined as they are, arf. |
I made my point, but clearly, I have to elaborate further. Definitions are made to encapsulate how language is used at a given time. Language is not made to fit definitions. Even most definitions of agnosticism encompass the possability that an agnostic thinks the existance of god is a possibility or even a probability (which is the middle ground and is the postion most encountered by agnostics themselves). The strange thing in your reasoning is: "Why don't you stick to definition" only to then immediatly denounce the possibility of agnosticism itself.
An agnostic is someone who leaves things in the middle, with all its possibilities and probabilities. To deny that is to be dogmatic. And frankly, as someone who has studied languages and studies ethics (which includes language philosophy), it's pretty clear there is a dogmatic argument being defended here.
And really, humand aren't computer chips, we don't work in binary.
