(July 11, 2012 at 8:45 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 8:41 pm)jonb Wrote: Doesn't believe he doesn't?

Yeah if you are without belief with regards to God (commonly referred to as "Agnosticism" but now has be reclassified as "Soft/Weak Atheism")...

1) You don't believe he exists.
2) You don't believe he doesn't exist.

It's very simple.

is that either or both at the same time?

(July 11, 2012 at 8:53 pm)jonb Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 8:45 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Yeah if you are without belief with regards to God (commonly referred to as "Agnosticism" but now has be reclassified as "Soft/Weak Atheism")...

1) You don't believe he exists.
2) You don't believe he doesn't exist.

It's very simple.

is that either or both at the same time?

both at the same time.

(July 11, 2012 at 8:51 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Again this is war of semantics. Commonly, people referred to the position as being agnostic. Now there is a war going on about the usage of atheism and agnosticism.

It's used in both ways, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can't just say a word means what I want it to mean only but it's used in a way ( and has been used for a long time) that opposes your desire of how the word is to be used.

Here's the thing, we're here on an atheist website in hopes of having discussions based on logic, critical thinking and evidence.

The use of colloquial meanings of words, which you're applying to agnostic, just muddies up the discussion. If we all agree to use formal definitions, these debates will be so much more productive.

Words have meanings. Gnostic is a word referring to knowledge. Theist is a word referring to the existence of gods. Atheist and Agnostic are unrelated except in how they can both describe the same person.

(July 11, 2012 at 8:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: both at the same time.

Not possible.

Belief is a binary mental state.

(July 11, 2012 at 8:56 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 8:51 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Again this is war of semantics. Commonly, people referred to the position as being agnostic. Now there is a war going on about the usage of atheism and agnosticism.

It's used in both ways, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can't just say a word means what I want it to mean only but it's used in a way ( and has been used for a long time) that opposes your desire of how the word is to be used.

Here's the thing, we're here on an atheist website in hopes of having discussions based on logic, critical thinking and evidence.

The use of colloquial meanings of words, which you're applying to agnostic, just muddies up the discussion. If we all agree to use formal definitions, these debates will be so much more productive.

But it's the formal definitions. If you mean the rooted word, look at the word for "disbelief" in Arabic. It means "to cover". But it's usage is that refusal or inability to believe in something most of the time and it's the common usage of it. Now Muslims are trying to redefine it as to mean "cover" everywhere being embarrassed by the condemnation of all non-believers.

I understand agnosticism root words comes "without knowledge", but it's common usage is "without belief something is either false or true".

(July 11, 2012 at 8:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 8:53 pm)jonb Wrote: is that either or both at the same time?

both at the same time.

Wow!
Is your day job writing instructions for Chinese exported products?

(July 11, 2012 at 8:59 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I understand agnosticism root words comes "without knowledge", but it's common usage is "without belief something is either false or true".

As I said, using colloquial (common) meanings does not help these discussions.

You do understand that people can be agnostic about other claims than the existence of gods, right?

(July 11, 2012 at 9:03 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 8:59 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I understand agnosticism root words comes "without knowledge", but it's common usage is "without belief something is either false or true".

As I said, using colloquial (common) meanings does not help these discussions.

You do understand that people can be agnostic about other claims than the existence of gods, right?

If you look at the words in the dictionary, Atheism is given:

1) The belief there is no God or gods
2) The disbelief in God or gods.

Which one came first? From what I know, 1) was the usage of people, 2) came after.

But this doesn't make 2 illegitimate.

Agnosticism originally meant to be without knowledge, but now it has a different usage as well. It refers to being without a stance towards God as well.

I know in Arabic, there are words that have different meanings given different context.

What you would be doing is a kin to saying "kaffer" doesn't mean disbeliever, it means "coverer", because original root words were "to cover".

Even though the most common usages for thousands and thousands of years is that it's "disbelief", we are going to ignore that, and say it means "coverer" because of root meaning.

It absolutely makes no sense.

(July 11, 2012 at 9:13 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It absolutely makes no sense.

It's not just the words, it's your grammar, This is your second or third language isn't it. Brilliant your languages are a lot better than mine. But at the moment this topic requires more precision than you have to hand.
well done though.
I wish you well