Agnostic: a pointless term?

[wiploc]

No-one calls themselves gnostic, apart from the Gnostics, ie the religion of Gnosticism.

When it comes to the standard Christian god, I am a gnostic strong atheist.

Really, so you know with certainty? Lets hear an argument vindicating such assuredness then.

Changing the subject? Even if you didn't agree that the PoE (problem of evil) proves the nonexistence of a god who would prevent all evil if he had the power, and who has the power, but who doesn't prevent all evil, it remains the case that many of us are certain that particular gods don't exist.

And many of those of us who are thus certain self-identify as gnostics.

The word isn't very old, it was first used by Thomas Huxley in 1869 colloquially to describe his position on God - that there was for him inadequate data to form an opinion. This is the real meaning of agnosticism and you shouldn't get caught up relying on etymology to translate meaning.

Who's people?

If you don't know what people are, you need to be in a more simple level of debate.

and which people get to define the 'real' meaning?

Words mean what people mean by them. If any large group of people agree on a meaning, then that is a meaning.

Most people use what I call the "old nomenclature":
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Atheists believe gods do not exist.
- Agnostics include everyone else.

That gives us what is called a "normalized database": Everybody fits into a category, and nobody fits into more than one category.

That is the meaning, and there is no good reason to change it, other than social engineering as it attempts to fool every neutral into associating themselves with atheism

That is a meaning. It is one meaning. It is not the only meaning.

I'm not trying to change a meaning. (Actually, you are, trying to get people to change back to the old nomenclature).

I don't like (yes, that's litotes) you fictionalizing our motivation for preferring the new nomenclature. I take offense. Feel free to tell us about your own motives, but don't invent ours.

The second most common usage is what I call the "new nomenclature":
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists include everyone else.

... you are just cynically trying to make everyone associate with atheism by default.

If you continue lying about me, I will quit giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, number 2 is only used by atheists ... who don't know the real definitions

What would make your definitions more real than ours? Many people use ours, and the dictionaries acknowledge them. What's left?

There are no grounds for these definitions.

What would you accept as grounds aside from common usage and dictionary support?

You won't find a dictionary prior to the last 10-15 years with any kind of "lack of belief" definition,

I doubt that I've looked it up in fifteen years. When I did look it up, I went first to Websters Unabridged and Oxford English Dictionary, second edition. I did find some little pocket or desk sized dictionaries that agree with you, but no big ones.

and even today such resources are vastly outnumbered by more accurate ones.

What makes your definition "more accurate" than a definition in common usage and recognized by dictionaries?

Same is the case with 'agnostic' which was never the literal antithesis of the word 'gnostic'. It was originally and always traditionally used in matters pertaining to belief in God.

Your use of "never" and "always" is either figurative or in error.

Theists believe gods exist. Atheists are those who don't happen to have that belief. That's perfectly clear, not nonsense at all.

No, you are flogging an ungrounded and invalid definition of atheism.

If common usage and the authority of dictionaries doesn't ground a definition, what does?

Atheists believe there is no God,

So you keep saying. But you can't justify that claim with anything other than dictionaries and common usage and irrelevant misrepresentations of history.

agnostics don't have any belief, as they claim ignorance.

Again, if you restrict that label to that subcategory, then you'll need other labels for the other agnostics.

It is currently one of the two most common meanings. I suspect that among self-identified atheists, at least in America, it is the most common meaning. Your claim that it has never been the meaning is fantastical, wishful thinking.

Only for the reason that the wrong definition has been fed to a generation of young, impressionable kids

So you concede my claim that this is common usage. I don't see what that leaves you.

as they react against 9/11 and Islamic terrorism, with no real grounding or knowledge of the history of religion, and with no prior familiarity with the terminology. Again, show me a dictionary older than 10-15 years with this definition. What we're seeing is social engineering capitalizing on the terrorist events of recent years.

It's been a lot more than fifteen years since this usage started. This is the first time I've heard the claim that 9/11 and the definition of "atheist" were somehow related. Frankly, I don't see the claim as plausible.

Perhaps that is the point of the terrorists events? ...

Atheists blew up the towers so they'd be able to change a definition? That's crazy talk.

I've spoken with a linguist who disagrees. I've looked in dictionaries that disagree. I think your claim is hokum.

But, if your claim were true, it wouldn't matter. The current meaning of words depends entirely by what people mean by them now.

Give an argument then.

- According to common usage, "atheist" can refer to anyone who is not a theist. It is a synonym for "non-theist."

You base your own argument on common usage (paraphrase: "Nobody has ever used the word that way") so you are estopped from denying the power of this argument.

- According to large, old, venerated-for-over-fifteen-years dictionaries, I am right and you are wrong.

Again, because you use the authority of dictionaries yourself, you are estopped from denying the power of this argument.

Those are my arguments. I understand that there are also arguments based on history and etymology, but I regard those as largely irrelevant. "Inflammable" used to mean that something wouldn't burn, but now it means that it will. "Deist" used to mean theist, and "theist" used to mean deist. History puts no shackles on the current usage of other words, why should it rule over the meaning of this one?

The essence of your historical argument is misrepresentation, but even if you were right, I would reject the historical argument as irrelevant to current usage.

Show me a historical definition supporting your claim. Show me a reason to believe you. If we define a word by whatever we think people mean, we're in hot water, dogface.

You make it hard for me to take you seriously.


.