By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WolfpackN64 on 12 January 2018
Edit Thread
Peh said:
WolfpackN64 said:

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.

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.