Agnostics

[bennyboy]

I don't set new definitions to words, I use those already in usage. A word doesn't have as many definitions as there are people in the world unwilling to use the already established definitions or making their own up for various reasons. For a conversation to accept esoteric definitions to words, both parts would have to agree to use said definitions(something that never happened here).

This is a false description of the current problem. The problem is that you and I both know all the definitions of these words, and apply different definitions. I do NOT apply the weak definition of atheism, since I think it's not worth mentioning what ideas someone lacks. I'm not saying nobody else can do this, or even that they can't describe me as an atheist if that's how they see it. However, since I do not use these words as you use them, I will describe how I apply the words, and why I prefer my way of looking at them.

This bullshit about esoteric definitions is really a weak strawman. My definitions of atheism and agnosticism are clear and mainstream-- I'd say my definition is objectively more mainstream than the term "agnostic atheist," actually-- and I've clearly outlined my reason for choosing one word over the other. You can say you choose not to use the definitions I choose to use, and that's fine. What you CAN'T do is say I'm making shit up, because 10 seconds of linking google or Wikipedia or any online dictionary will instantly prove you wrong. Do you really want to go there? With me linking about 50 definitions that match mine, and several philosophical articles in which this same debate has been fought, but with more originality and greater authority than you and I have managed?

Fine. 1. . . 2. . . 3. . . 4. . . I declare a link war!

You are simply uneducated about this and are constrained by a misuse of the consistency principle to wallow in your own continual ignorance on the matter. My advice to you is to value truth above all else, it will do you much better in the long run, I assure you.

Hubris much? One of the most commonly used arguments on the internet is "You'd agree with me if you were smarter / more educated." However, this argument is usually used by those lacking the insight or originality to express themselves in a more convincing way. If I were smarter, I would have walked away about 20 pages ago when I realized you had no new angle or new ideas to contribute, and would just keep parroting the same objections and tired old arguments over and over. So yes, maybe there's evidence that I'm resistant to learning-- but it's not about the words "agnostic" or "atheist."