RE: What is the right definition of agnostic?
November 7, 2016 at 11:43 pm
(This post was last modified: November 7, 2016 at 11:45 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Yeah let's not commit the etymological fallacy.
Words don't have to be their original meanings. You're right Rhythm.
If words had to be their original meanings then that would be like denying that protons exist because they reside in atoms and atoms originally were supposed to be indivisible so they can't contain protons, and since protons are supposed to reside in atoms they therefore can't exist. The etymological fallacy is a more specific form of the equivocation fallacy.
Words don't have to be their original meanings. You're right Rhythm.
If words had to be their original meanings then that would be like denying that protons exist because they reside in atoms and atoms originally were supposed to be indivisible so they can't contain protons, and since protons are supposed to reside in atoms they therefore can't exist. The etymological fallacy is a more specific form of the equivocation fallacy.
