(July 20, 2022 at 12:00 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(July 19, 2022 at 11:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That's your opinion, buddy. Not a fact. The fact is that they have told you..many times..and you were aware of that when you posed the question..and this is all performative. You actually do understand that there's a difference between an agnostic atheist, which the boards are filthy with..and a gnostic atheist...which are thin on the ground here and everywhere else. Which is to say, that not only is this all performative, you knew beforehand that your comments and declarations themselves were complete and utter bullshit.
I want you to consider the idiocy of complaining to me..an actual living breathing gnostic atheist...about agnostic atheists redefining common words to avoid criticism? What criticism you fucking loon, I keep asking. I'm the guy you're looking for, they're not. If agnostics are the ones redefining these words for some Very Not Good purpose...then wtf has that got to do with me? I can acknowledge it. What's your deal?
An agnostic atheist is an oxymoron just like a Christian atheist. Semantic games to blur essential distictions.
It is only through using the colloquial definition of agnostic, instead of the formal definition that would have one thinking they are oxymorons.
Agnosticism is a position that concerns knowledge. Atheism is a position that concerns belief, or lack there of.
As long as one understands the difference between knowledge and belief, then it should be pretty easy to understand how agnostic-atheism is not an oxymoron.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
