WolfpackN64 said:
You guys can debate linguistics all you want, but it's clear everyone needs some Wittgenstein here. Clearly you don't agree on the theoretical definition of agnosticism. Understandable since some religious and atheist people think it's a weak middle position. As Wittgenstein would put it: "If you want to know the meaning of a term, look at it's use". Clearly, when people self define as agnostic, they clearly mean they're not atheist, nor beling to any particular religion. So an agnostic can be quasi religious or just fully unknowing (or, depending on his/her interpretation: open toeverything). Clearly, the way the word is used for people self-describing as agnostic makes it a term seperate fro; atheism, while and at the same time not defining agnostics as being necessarily religious. Clearly, jelling at people for not agreeing with a definition you gave, which is clearly not beased on real-world usage, is disingenuous. You could say I'm being irrational, but then I'd have to remind you one of the great minds of our times, Bertrand Russel, zho gave many a critique on various topics considering religion and who was specialised in mathematics and logic, self-defined as agnostic. Clearly, agnosticism and atheism are tzo not fully overlapping terms. |
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.
Last edited by Nem - on 13 January 2018
