That you "do not agree" is also your opinion. I was simply commenting on the discussion, where I have demonstrated that you simply use a completely definition to the one I use in order to "rebut" my points (in other words, strawman argument).
It's all in the semantics. Your arguments are sound if you use your definition (I've even said this in the discussion), and mine are sound if you use my definition. It is only when you impose your definition on my arguments that they fall apart (for obvious reasons).
(July 17, 2009 at 5:24 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: consider it my official retirement from the discussionFair enough, I was getting tired of it too. I have my suspicions that if you actually read about the agnosticism that I follow, actually understood the definition I use, rather than continually using the one that no philosophers have ever used, you would agree with me about it.
It's all in the semantics. Your arguments are sound if you use your definition (I've even said this in the discussion), and mine are sound if you use my definition. It is only when you impose your definition on my arguments that they fall apart (for obvious reasons).
