Agnostics

[account_inactive]

Same.

[Excited Penguin]

Learn to accept language for what it is, don't try and reinvent the wheel.

The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. words can and do have connotations as well as denotations; they can also have shades of meaning that are dependent upon context.

If I'm understanding Benny correctly, he's agnostic in the sense that those times he might believe in god(s) and those times he doesn't are close enough in frequency that he can't really decide for himself. (If I've misstated your position, Benny, please accept my apologies).

Badgering someone to change the way they think of themselves on the basis of your definition of them is not likely to do much more than set his heels in, in my experience.

I really detest the antipathy some atheists display regarding agnostics. Agnosticism is simply someone following the reasoning they find more compelling than yours. If the only case you can make for your point is linguistic, I think that shows less about the person under discussion and more about the limitations of language, which does not -- and cannot -- describe most things even close to perfectly. When the thing being described is as complex as a person's view on deity, the language is truly beggared. This tail-chasing seems to me to be strong evidence of that.

While it is true that words have connotations, people generally prefer their denotations in a conversational or argumentative context, and for a good reason too - clarity. So, it is the norm that unless otherwise specified, one should always use the established definitions of words to express ideas, lest the other parties get confused and don't understand the message being conveyed. Going outside the norm on this is not a good idea. Meaning will be lost and nothing at all will have been gained.

Connotation has its place, though. In poetry for example. Or in philosophy, if I'm not mistaken. Notice that in both cases the medium itself alerts the consumer of the information as to the possibly connotative nature of the words being used. Change the medium, though, and the same cannot always be said to hold true.

I'm not really interested in debating any of your points any further. I believe you are emotionally compromised and so that much more illogical and, consequently, harder to debate. I will summarise my disagreement, nevertheless, thusly:

This is a dick move. Only a person who knows is losing the argument would ever resort to such low tactics as to attack the practice of using perfectly good and established definitions of words. Only someone who is either uneducated, dishonest or both would do this. For obvious reasons, such a discussion is childish and pointless, and can never lead to anything but a continual sabotage of itself by the party guilty of doing this.

I'm not interested. Both of you - grow up and learn to be wrong(in public).

[bennyboy]

I don't set new definitions to words, I use those already in usage. A word doesn't have as many definitions as there are people in the world unwilling to use the already established definitions or making their own up for various reasons. For a conversation to accept esoteric definitions to words, both parts would have to agree to use said definitions(something that never happened here).

This is a false description of the current problem. The problem is that you and I both know all the definitions of these words, and apply different definitions. I do NOT apply the weak definition of atheism, since I think it's not worth mentioning what ideas someone lacks. I'm not saying nobody else can do this, or even that they can't describe me as an atheist if that's how they see it. However, since I do not use these words as you use them, I will describe how I apply the words, and why I prefer my way of looking at them.

This bullshit about esoteric definitions is really a weak strawman. My definitions of atheism and agnosticism are clear and mainstream-- I'd say my definition is objectively more mainstream than the term "agnostic atheist," actually-- and I've clearly outlined my reason for choosing one word over the other. You can say you choose not to use the definitions I choose to use, and that's fine. What you CAN'T do is say I'm making shit up, because 10 seconds of linking google or Wikipedia or any online dictionary will instantly prove you wrong. Do you really want to go there? With me linking about 50 definitions that match mine, and several philosophical articles in which this same debate has been fought, but with more originality and greater authority than you and I have managed?

Fine. 1. . . 2. . . 3. . . 4. . . I declare a link war!

You are simply uneducated about this and are constrained by a misuse of the consistency principle to wallow in your own continual ignorance on the matter. My advice to you is to value truth above all else, it will do you much better in the long run, I assure you.

Hubris much? One of the most commonly used arguments on the internet is "You'd agree with me if you were smarter / more educated." However, this argument is usually used by those lacking the insight or originality to express themselves in a more convincing way. If I were smarter, I would have walked away about 20 pages ago when I realized you had no new angle or new ideas to contribute, and would just keep parroting the same objections and tired old arguments over and over. So yes, maybe there's evidence that I'm resistant to learning-- but it's not about the words "agnostic" or "atheist."

[bennyboy]

This is a dick move. Only a person who knows is losing the argument would ever resort to such low tactics as to attack the practice of using perfectly good and established definitions of words. Only someone who is either uneducated, dishonest or both would do this

. . . said the black pot.

Dude, are you serious? I keep telling you you're fine using your definitions, but I prefer to use other definitions. I've said why I prefer those definitions, and why I choose to identify by one, while you prefer to label me by another. You keep telling me what the words mean, as though they have only one definition, and trying to railroad me into following your preferred definitions.

Like I said, you're not even wrong in your etymology, and you have every right to think of me as an agnostic atheist if you want. You do NOT, however, have a right to tell me what definitions of words I must use, and what I must therefore identify as.

[Thumpalumpacus]

While it is true that words have connotations, people generally prefer their denotations in a conversational or argumentative context, and for a good reason too - clarity. So, it is the norm that unless otherwise specified, one should always use the established definitions of words to express ideas, lest the other parties get confused and don't understand the message being conveyed. Going outside the norm on this is not a good idea. Meaning will be lost and nothing at all will have been gained.

Your problem with this line of reasoning is that your interlocutor has already explained his usage, and you, instead of listening (surprise, surprise!) prefer pedantry to discussion. You'd rather cleave to a book than to a human being.

Hey-ho, it's all good, but that means that you own at least some of this burden, despite your attempt to shift blame. He's made it pretty goddamned clear what he means, "established definitions" notwithstanding. You simply refuse to talk to him unless he uses words in the way you prefer. You're not listening.

Connotation has its place, though. In poetry for example. Or in philosophy, if I'm not mistaken. Notice that in both cases the medium itself alerts the consumer of the information as to the possibly connotative nature of the words being used. Change the medium, though, and the same cannot always be said to hold true.

Connotation also has a place in conversation.

I'm not really interested in debating any of your points any further. I believe you are emotionally compromised and so that much more illogical and, consequently, harder to debate.

You can believe what you will about me, it's of no consequence. The fact that you're wrong about me won't change anything in your mind, and that's cool, because I don't give two shits rubbed together about your opinion of me.

But I do take note of the fact that you will shy away from difficult debate, and do so under a smoke-screen of personal attacks. For all your flaunting of Penguin 2.0, not much has changed, now has it?

I will summarise my disagreement, nevertheless, thusly:

This is a dick move. Only a person who knows is losing the argument would ever resort to such low tactics as to attack the practice of using perfectly good and established definitions of words. Only someone who is either uneducated, dishonest or both would do this. For obvious reasons, such a discussion is childish and pointless, and can never lead to anything but a continual sabotage of itself by the party guilty of doing this.

Clinging to bookish definitions which only trail current usage rather than direct them is the hobgoblin of a restricted mind which cannot and usually will not allow itself the flexibility to actually communicate with others on a meaningful level, and is the hallmark of a person who should stick to books, which of course cannot talk back to the genius reading them. Furthermore, the retreat into personal attack which you've engaged in throughout our conversation here is the flag of someone wielding a vapid argument.

I'm not interested. Both of you - grow up and learn to be wrong(in public).

You're not even intelligent enough to understand that this is not about right or wrong, but about exchanging ideas in the hope of growth. I, in my own place, was dumb enough to hope that we could have an enriching conversation. I sure am enjoying reading the input of others here ... but you add more heat than light.

I won't make that mistake any more. Your inability to entertain differing views without resorting to insult, condescension, and rudeness marks you as unworthy of significant interaction. You can expect the occasional headshot, but I won't waste any more time on you, rigid of mind, convinced of your own superiority, and unwilling to look outside your own little bubble.

For all your breast-beating about changing, you're very much the same, you've only learnt some new words. You're still as transparent as ever, and it ain't a pretty sight, kid.

[Excited Penguin]

This is a dick move. Only a person who knows is losing the argument would ever resort to such low tactics as to attack the practice of using perfectly good and established definitions of words. Only someone who is either uneducated, dishonest or both would do this

. . . said the black pot.

Dude, are you serious?  I keep telling you you're fine using your definitions, but I prefer to use other definitions.  I've said why I prefer those definitions, and why I choose to identify by one, while you prefer to label me by another.  You keep telling me what the words mean, as though they have only one definition, and trying to railroad me into following your preferred definitions.

Like I said, you're not even wrong in your etymology, and you have every right to think of me as an agnostic atheist if you want.  You do NOT, however, have a right to tell me what definitions of words I must use, and what I must therefore identify as.

Let's start over.

Can you please explain to me, how come I agree with you so much yet we disagree about a bunch of definitions?

Why do you not agree with soft atheism?

I'm sorry if I appeared condescending. I'll really make an effort now to have a conversation, no matter what it takes. Just fair warning for anyone else reading this, I'm disregarding what I know on the matter as of this point forward and will probably do some logic-bending efforts to attempt to reach some middle ground here, 'cause apparently being honest and sincere about what you know is being an asshole. But that's enough about that.

[Athene]

I'd have to say I agree with benny on this matter...yikes!..Yowsa!
I think it's quite possible that a person could be uncertain as to whether he or she actually believes or not.

No, it's quite simple, really.

---

For  1234 = God(s), the following is true:


A believes 1234 (more than A doubts 1234).
A is theist.

A1 doesn't completely believe 1234.
A1 is agnostic theist.

A2 completely believes 1234.
A2 is gnostic theist.


B doubts 1234 (more than B believes 1234).
B is atheist.

B1 doesn't completely doubt 1234.
B1 is agnostic(weak) atheist. 

B3 completely doubts 1234.
B2 is gnostic(strong) atheist.

B3 thinks 1234 is meaningless.
B3 is ignostic atheist.


A ≠ B.
A1 ≠ B1.
A ∩ B = ∅.

---

I don't need for you to explain any of this shit to me.  I understand the the difference between having a belief (or lack thereof) and claiming knowledge of such belief. I'm not arguing over the proper usage of said terms.

I'm only saying that I see it as being possible for someone to not actually know whether they believe in God or not.

Not referring to the claim of knowledge on the position, but to the position itself:

Do you BELIEVE a God exists? I don't know, I don't know if I believe, or I don't know what to believe, could very well be a person's honest answer. It may not fit the textbook definition of agnostic, but I can see why someone might extend the definition of agnostic to apply to the matter of certainty to their belief/lack of belief  as well. It's the term that would come closest to defining their position.

[Excited Penguin]

Holy mother-post.

[Excited Penguin]

While it is true that words have connotations, people generally prefer their denotations in a conversational or argumentative context, and for a good reason too - clarity. So, it is the norm that unless otherwise specified, one should always use the established definitions of words to express ideas, lest the other parties get confused and don't understand the message being conveyed. Going outside the norm on this is not a good idea. Meaning will be lost and nothing at all will have been gained.

Your problem with this line of reasoning is that your interlocutor has already explained  his usage, and you, instead of listening (surprise, surprise!) prefer pedantry to discussion. You'd rather cleave to a book than to a human being.

Hey-ho, it's all good, but that means that you own at least some of this burden, despite your attempt to shift blame. He's made it pretty goddamned clear what he means, "established definitions" notwithstanding. You simply refuse to talk to him unless he uses words in the way you prefer. You're not listening.

Connotation has its place, though. In poetry for example. Or in philosophy, if I'm not mistaken. Notice that in both cases the medium itself alerts the consumer of the information as to the possibly connotative nature of the words being used. Change the medium, though, and the same cannot always be said to hold true.

Connotation also has a place in conversation.

I'm not really interested in debating any of your points any further. I believe you are emotionally compromised and so that much more illogical and, consequently, harder to debate.

You can believe what you will about me, it's of no consequence. The fact that you're wrong about me won't change anything in your mind, and that's cool, because I don't give two shits rubbed together about your opinion of me.

But I do take note of the fact that you will shy away from difficult debate, and do so under a smoke-screen of personal attacks.  For all your flaunting of Penguin 2.0, not much has changed, now has it?

I will summarise my disagreement, nevertheless, thusly:

This is a dick move. Only a person who knows is losing the argument would ever resort to such low tactics as to attack the practice of using perfectly good and established definitions of words. Only someone who is either uneducated, dishonest or both would do this. For obvious reasons, such a discussion is childish and pointless, and can never lead to anything but a continual sabotage of itself by the party guilty of doing this.

Clinging to bookish definitions which only trail current usage rather than direct them is the hobgoblin of a restricted mind which cannot and usually will not allow itself the flexibility to actually communicate with others on a meaningful level, and is the hallmark of a person who should stick to books, which of course cannot talk back to the genius reading them. Furthermore, the retreat into personal attack which you've engaged in throughout our conversation here is the flag of someone wielding a vapid argument.

I'm not interested. Both of you - grow up and learn to be wrong(in public).

You're not even intelligent enough to understand that this is not about right or wrong, but about exchanging ideas in the hope of growth. I, in my own place, was dumb enough to hope that we could have an enriching conversation. I sure am enjoying reading the input of others here ... but you add more heat than light.

I won't make that mistake any more. Your inability to entertain differing views without resorting to insult, condescension, and rudeness marks you as unworthy of significant interaction. You can expect the occasional headshot, but I won't waste any more time on you, rigid of mind, convinced of your own superiority, and unwilling to look outside your own little bubble.

For all your breast-beating about changing, you're very much the same, you've only learnt some new words. You're still as transparent as ever, and it ain't a pretty sight, kid.

I think you're too fast to make everything so personal. I agree you should just fuck off and mind your own business then, 'cause it's always the same with you. You end up bitching about me by the end of every interaction we have. I'm actually done with you, but I'm sure you'll do it again.

Respectfully, of course.

Have a good day and everything.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] 'cause apparently being honest and sincere about what you know is being an asshole. But that's enough about that.

lol, climb down off'n that cross, dipshit. You're an asshole because you refuse to listen -- it really is that simple.

Of course, you in your infinite wisdom won't listen to this point, coming as it does from a mere mortal.