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

[WolfpackN64]

Peh said:

WolfpackN64 said:

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 ip 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 or 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 shoe, 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.

 

The definition you linked is quite a good one. It mirrors exactly Bertrand Russels position:

"An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future

life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at

least impossible at the present time."

"Just like the definition you gave, Russel disagrees that agnosticism is the same position as atheism:

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can

know whether or not there is a God.

The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there

is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not suffic

ient grounds

either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the

existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so

improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he

is not far removed

from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards

the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to

prove

that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and

the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss

to find conclusive arguments.

An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case,

he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists"

As we can see, an agnostic can lean close to atheism, but he could just as well lean more towards being a religious person or someone in the middle.

You can't call me intelectually dishonest then, for you misinterpreted the definition you gave. As for me. I'm a practicioning Catholic and I'm certain myself God exists. You can feel otherwise, but that's my position.