"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

[Peh]

WolfpackN64 said:

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.

There is no middle position between believing in a deity and not believing in one, arf. That would be an illogical impossibility, arf. It's the same as playing videogames and not playing videogames, arf. There is no middle position, arf. Agnosticism challenges a different question, arf. But as long as an agnostic doesn't actively believe in a god, he will also be labeled as an atheist, 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.

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.