JoeMorgue, I see that you’re either unable or unwilling to engage with my
post #99. Perhaps that is wise. When one has nothing to say, when one has no reasonable argument to offer, then it might be better to say nothing. An even better course of action might be to directly accept that one was wrong when the discussion clearly shows this -- at least if one’s intention is a straightforward examination of ideas, as opposed to the closed-minded furthering of some pre-conceived conclusions and biases -- but if one is unable to do bring oneself to admit to having been wrong, then simply retreating from the discussion may be the next best option.
Since you’ve shown yourself unable to answer my very reasonable questions -- which I have now asked you twice, and which you’ve declined to answer both times (the first time by side-stepping it, and the second time by simply abandoning the discussion) -- let’s now turn to your post #97 addressed to me, and the inconsistencies and inaccuracies galore within that post.
I still don't think you get that I see being forced to define my stance to some exacting degree is the problem.
You’re right, I don’t. First of all, it isn’t your particular stance, your personal beliefs, that I am interested in at all (unless that is what we happen to be discussing -- which is not the case at this time). All I am saying is that when two people speak of Agnosticism and Atheism, and both seem to be using the words in different senses, then instead of continuing to talk past each other, it makes sense to clearly recognize this semantic disagreement for what it is, and to put it to rest by agreeing to use one common definition for these terms at least for the space of the discussion -- and failing even that, to simply speak of the underlying concepts directly when they happen to come up in the course of the discussion, instead of stubbornly continuing to use the words in different senses, and therefore getting nowhere at all in the actual discussion on the underlying conepts.
Do explain why you see that as “the problem”.
I'm saying the hand wringing over exact terminology has an ulterior motive that clarifying the terminology won't actually help.
Instead of these repeated hints and innuendos, do come out and clearly explain what you believe this “ulterior motive” is. Who is it who harbors this “ulterior motive”, and how are they furthering this nefarious agenda of theirs? Go on, explain that to us, clearly please. And don’t forget that the man who actually coined the term Agnositicism was no theist himself, and therefore can hardly be accused of furthering some theists’ plot to sow confusion and disarray within the non-theists’ camp.
Also : who do you think is doing the “hand wringing” here? It is you (and a few others here who seem to think like you) who keep insisting that the words Agnostic and Atheist are to mean what you/they happen to believe they
should mean. When that absurd demand to straitjacket the meaning of real-life words is challenged, then you/they go down a linguistic rabbit hole -- I'm referring to these two threads specifically about the meaning of the words 'Atheism" and "Agnosticism' -- to try to try and somehow make your point. When your way within the rabbit hole you have yourselves dug is blocked with clear and cogent argument, you then turn around and accuse your interlocutors of “hand wringing over exact terminology”.
This is an open discussion forum, where everything everyone is saying is clearly visible. How can you possibly expect to get away with this sleight of hand?
If you believe that “hand-wringing over exact terminology” won’t actually help, then why get into it yourselves by starting as well as extensively participating in threads specifically about the meanings of those two words? (To be fair, you personally have only done the latter, not the former.) Surely you see the irony, the hypocrisy, in getting upset over this alleged hand-wringing only when you find yourself at a loss for words with which to respond to the legitimate questions raised?
I thank you for the 5 paragraph long linguistic lecture, but it wasn't necessary
Wasn’t it? You could see my point only after I presented that “lecture”, that explanation, to you. Prior to that you were busy hacking away at a strawman version of my argument, unable to comprehend my actual point at all, despite my repeatedly redirecting you to my original post. I would say that that “lecture” was very necessary. (Provided you’ve finally understood, now, finally, at long last, why I’m saying that what I believe was Huxley’s intention is a perfectly valid interpretation of the term Agnostic, the etymology of the word notwithstanding -- albeit you do not yourself necessarily have to subscribe to it.)
And about your sarcastic reference to my explanation, I mean your use of the term “lecture” to refer to it : Is this brief foray into linguistics unwelcome to you? Don’t you see the irony in your rehashing your own unexamined linguistic stance over and over, and then finding it unwelcome when others get into linguistics in order to correct your own mistaken linguistic position? Why should you be surprised to come across a discussion on linguistics in a thread that is, after all, literally about the meaning of the word Agnostic?
but I'm not arguing the linguistic. I'm arguing the need for the linguistics.
Ha, yes, I see that. You’d like us to accept, without question, your assertion that the word Agnostic should be taken to mean what you believe is the one and only meaning it can possibly have, and therefore we must not use it in the way we are actually using it. Further, you’d like us to accept, without question, your assertion that the word Atheist means what you would like it to mean, that and nothing else. (Am I right? That *is* your meaning, isn’t it? Please correct me if I’m strawmanning you, by clearly showing what your actual meaning was.)
True, if we were to do that, if we were to accept your bald assertion without question, then there would be no need for discussion, linguistic or otherwise.
But no, we’re not doing that, thank you very much. At least I most assuredly am not.
Do you not see that laying down two set-in-stone definitions for these two words (Agnostic and Atheist) is, in itself, an exercise in linguistics? Not so much arguments as pronouncements, but linguistic pronouncements? Starting two whole threads to specifically discuss the meanings of these two words, and then participating extensively in those threads, what on earth is that if not an exercise in linguistics?
How long will you continue to attempt to defend the clearly indefensible?
(Oh right, you did stop doing that. You did retreat from the discussion. I understand.)
Yes you and I could very well spend the next 10 pages refining and defining and clarifying our position until all nuance is lost and all the rough edges are gone but... to what end and to what purpose?
Do you even understand what it is I am saying? Even now?
I’m saying when you have a discussion that involves the concepts and ideas that are broadly described by the words Agnostic and Atheist, then we try at the outset to arrive at common terms of reference at least for the space of the discussion, and, failing this, we speak directly about the underlying terms and concepts instead of fixating over (and quarreling about) the terms themselves.
That seems a simple and straightforward position, a perfectly simple and obvious proposal! Why is it that you are seemingly unable to comprehend this, despite my explaining this to you repeatedly? (You may well disagree, and if you wish present reasons for so disagreeing, that is a different matter : but you seem unable to even comprehend this simple point.)
Why on earth would what I’m suggesting require us to “spend the next 10 pages refining and defining and clarifying our position”? On the contrary, that is exactly what I’m asking you *not* to do! That is what I have observed people do in discussions here, and that is what I am suggesting they stop doing! This discussion (that is, this portion of the discussion that I am part of here) is specifically about how one can very easily stop wasting time and energy doing that -- as people demonstrably do here, in other threads -- when one is discussing the actual underlying concepts. I am actually arguing *against* the constant linguistic disagreements that keep on derailing discussions about and around the concepts and ideas of atheism and agnosticism.
Or perhaps your objection is more specific? Perhaps you’re objecting my taking up space within this thread itself, here, now, with a discussion on linguistics? Here and now, as opposed to generally speaking? Is that it? If that is the case, then what would you like to fill the pages of this thread with then, instead, this thread that is about the meanings of the word Agnostic? An echo chamber resonating with unquestioning acceptance of your not-very-clearly-thought-out ideas about what the words Agnostic and Atheist
should mean in the world of your dreams and aspirations? You are unlikely to find that kind of unquestioning acquiescence in a skeptics’ forum.
In other words asking me to clarify in detail why I think an argument is being too pedantic is pretty much asking me to lose.
First of all, this thread is about the meaning of the word Agnostic (and, indirectly, it also involves the meaning of the word Atheist, although the thread is not directly about that word). You seem happy enough to embark on this discussion, that is, you don’t seem to find this topic itself “pedantic”.
However, when you are asked to clearly and cogently defend what you are saying, suddenly the argument is too “pedantic”? Methinks your use of the word “pedantic” here is no more than an attempted put-down. Nothing more than that. And not even that, really, because as you can see, your attempted put-down is lying there, its nose bloodied, right there at our feet.
Do explain two things to me :
- What part of this discussion is too “pedantic” for you? How would you have liked it to progress, this discussion specifically about the meaning of the word Agnostic?
- How is asking you to explain your position, and to answer my reasonable questions, “asking you to lose”? I thought we were simply discussing this topic. What contest do you imagine we are entered upon here, what is it do you think your risk “losing” here, and how?
That's what I keep saying, that the level of exactedness (that needs to be a word) demanding in this discussion has an ulterior motive.
That makes no sense at all.
Who has an ulterior motive? Do explain.
You don’t want to get into a detail and “exacted” discussion over the word Agnostic? Fair enough, no one is forcing you to do that. But as a matter of curiosity, what was your expectation, then, from a thread that is actually and literally about the meaning of the word Agnostic? Do tell.
Now I get that this is the internet and the internet holy stone tablets state that there is no such thing as too much detail, too much nitpicking, too much pedantics, or too much semantics
You’ve lost me here. You’re attempting sarcasm here, I get that much, but could you clearly explain, instead of repeatedly throwing out hint and innuendo, exactly what it is you are trying to say? Your claiming certain rigid unvarying meanings for the words Atheist and Agnostic (words that in real life don’t have those fixed unvarying meanings), that isn’t pedantry according to you, but my objecting to them with clearly formulated arguments is? What a strange POV that is! Your own failed attempt at defending your position linguistically isn’t “too much detail”, but my showing you how your discussion itself is one about semantics, that is suddenly “too much detail”, simply because you have no answer? Fascinating!
but I'm not going to get caught in some Jabbian trap of being forced to word my argument in such a way as to admit my opponent is right before I'm even allowed in the discussion.
Interesting! In what way do you imagine “your opponent” (that’s me, right, this “opponent” you refer to? Or is it Jabba? Or is it this mysterious group of theists who you keep claiming have foisted the word Agnosticism, and its different interpretations, on us to further their ulterior motives? Or who?) … I was saying, in what way do you imagine “your opponent” is forcing you or trapping you to admit they are right before you are even allowed in the discussion? Right in terms of what?
We may perhaps have finally broken through, beyond the smokescreen of words, to your underlying meaning. What is it do you think you’ll lose? What point is this that you risk losing? Do formulate that clearly, and we may, just perhaps, get somewhere yet after all.
"God exists? Y/N" doesn't have to be approached from 90 bazillion different angles to the point that nobody is actually saying anything so the "belief" side can keep winning.
I admire how you’ve so carefully set up this stawman that you so consistently cling on to, but I’m afraid it is time to let it go now. You do see that, don’t you? You do realize, don’t you, that this is just a strawman?
Have you even now not understood what I have said to you thus far? Have you not been able to pick that up from that “lecture” even now?
How many times must I tell you that I am not advocating for equivocation over the God question, and nor am I advocating support for others’ equivocation on the God question. (That is, that particular aspect has not been discussed at all here, at least by me, one way or the other, thus far. I may speak about this yet, going forward, but I haven't, thus far, and not to you.) All I am saying -- and I’m repeating this for the “90 bazillionth time” to you now -- that in the real world, the words Agnostic and Atheist do carry more than one meaning, and people do use them in more than one sense. That is fact. And I have already proposed, myself, one very simple and very obvious and wholly common-sense way of dealing with this fact. And I have asked you if you agree ; and if you don’t, to tell us what you propose instead to deal with that fact when you discuss the underlying concepts with those who use these terms differently than you.
May I request you to stop clinging on to your strawman, and to engage with my actual position and questions instead?
(Unless you choose to disengage entirely from this discussion with me. You can do that, certainly, if that is what you want to do.)
Either way, it was fascinating discussing this with you, and getting to explore your thought processes as revealed in your posts. It was very interesting to observe at first hand how self-declared skeptics aren’t necessarily any more free from closed-mindedness and confused thinking than the Woo-huggers. And instructive as well, because it shows how we’d do well, ourselves, we who like to think we're skeptics, to be on guard against this sort of thing, within ourselves I mean. Thanks for taking the time thus far.
-- you do realize that you'll now have to use a great many more words to express what can now be expressed in short, right? Why do you think this is desirable?