"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:

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 up 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 of 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 shoes, arf. Yet, I can't act like that's the definition for them, 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.

 

On a sidenote: I've seen plenty of debates between atheists and theists/apologetics and in most case, if not in all of them, the theists used their own definition for atheists and forming their arguments according to it in order to win the debate, arf. That's more in the direction of making a strawman, arf.

 

Last edited by Peh - on 13 January 2018