RE: Agnostics
August 3, 2016 at 12:56 am
(This post was last modified: August 3, 2016 at 12:56 am by Excited Penguin.)
(August 2, 2016 at 11:42 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(August 2, 2016 at 11:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I have no problem saying "I don't know." I also have no problem saying "I don't believe." I don't see a problem with holding those two views on the same topic concurrently.
Well, I've introduced the idea of conditional belief-- a belief that is ambiguous until a knowledge requirement is resolved. Do you accept this as a valid basis for a pure agnostic position?
An agnostic atheist position, yes.
A pure agnostic position? There is no such thing.
You are the definition of an agnostic atheist, and everything you've described up to this point is agnostic atheism, yet you choose to not use the word for whatever reason and instead look silly trying to divorce an idea of one of it's essential components while purportedly retaining all of its original meaning.
It just doesn't work like that. Learn to accept language for what it is, don't try and reinvent the wheel. I appreciate the effort, but the actual results make you look more than a little stupid(no offense).
