(January 30, 2015 at 9:12 pm)YGninja Wrote:(January 30, 2015 at 8:55 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: They're not mutually exclusive, one can fairly day "I don't know if X exists, but I don't believe it does".
No, you could say "i don't know if x exists, therefore i do not actively believe it does", which is an extraneous statement but atleast coherent.
When you say you "don't believe", what you are actually saying is you believe it doesn't (exist). Like if someone says they "don't believe" you are telling the truth what they are actually saying is that they believe you are lying. This is just mis-use of a colloquialism. You are also missing the meaning of the word agnosticism, which is a lack of knowledge precluding the ability to form an opinion. Agnosticism has never pertaining to knowing with certainty, this is why i warded you off defining by etymology. No-one can ever really say they *know* anything, which is why such a definition of agnosticism would be meaningless. Everyone would be agnostic about everything.
It's like buying speakers, if you can't hear a difference it doesn't make a difference - for you. But just because you can't hear a difference doesn't mean there isn't a difference.
Do you actually want to insist that every nonsense entity that anyone ever claims exists deserves an active counter claim of non-existence? You obviously have more time on your hands than I do. And different interests. I just don't care all that much what crazy shit people believe.
Not agreeing with someone, in spite of your inability to hear a difference, does not mean you believe they are lying. You can believe they don't have all the facts. You can believe they are sincere in their assertions even while believing they are mistaken. Or you can simply believe they are tone deaf to nuance.
