Agnostic? Is it I don't know? Or I don't care?

[Sledge]

Again, you guys insist on using the word "agnostic" as an adjective. I use it as a noun.

Oh. My. Non-existant GOD. Please, go over to the debate about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" thread. There's someone there who'd love backup on the idea that words have only meaning, and that the person who shouts loudest gets to choose what it is.

You lose! Good day, sir!

 

[bruto]

So what happens when an atheist agnostic meets an agnostic atheist? Pistols at dawn?

 

[MikeSun5]

Uh, yeah. That's my point. "Atheism" has more than one meaning, both of which are valid and widely accepted. If a person denies that fact, the discussion will necessarily devolve into endless arguments about which kind is the true atheism.

What you overlooked is WHY it has more than one meaning. Again, one of the meanings addresses belief, and one knowledge. The meanings do not differ in concept, only subject matter. Concept: no deity. Subjects: belief and knowledge. The idea that there is no god is still very much present in both definitions. That's why they're definitions for the SAME WORD and not for two different words.

I really don't see how that's not clear...

And I'm not debating about "true atheism." I could really care less. I just object to being called an atheist because I have not made a decision regarding my belief or knowledge about a deity. And making that decision is something you MUST do to be considered an atheist.

..........
You lose! Good day, sir!

 

[Sledge]

So what happens when an atheist agnostic meets an agnostic atheist? Pistols at dawn?

I've checked the Atheist rules on this one and it's, and I quote, "Baked bean orgy."

I love these rules.

No. You lose. You see, I'm here *holds hand at shoulder height*. You... you're down here *holds hand at knee height*.

Maybe more like here *holds hand at ankle height*.

 

[Pup]

What you overlooked is WHY it has more than one meaning. Again, one of the meanings addresses belief, and one knowledge. The meanings do not differ in concept, only subject matter. Concept: no deity. Subjects: belief and knowledge. The idea that there is no god is still very much present in both definitions. That's why they're definitions for the SAME WORD and not for two different words.

I'm going to steal the following from another thread (posts 14 & 15), since it's a clever way of illustrating the problem. Let's assume the reader neither knows nor has any belief about where Ray Brady lives and answers the questions accordingly:

Ray Brady:
Do you believe that I live in Chicago?
Do you believe that I don't live in Chicago?
Or do you have no belief regarding my residence, one way or another?

quixotecoyote
That may or may not overcomplicate things, since the parallel to atheism is fulfilled after the first line. At the moment, I don't have a belief that you live in Chicago because I have no idea where you live.

 

[Trent Wray]

In response to the OP ... I think Sikh's and Muslim chicks are the hottest, then Jews and Atheists. I'm unsure what I think about Agnostics. Xtians remind me of someone perpetually trapped in a mani-pedi salon.

 

[MikeSun5]

I'm going to steal the following from another thread (posts 14 & 15), since it's a clever way of illustrating the problem.

Okay, I guess that's a clever way of illustrating the problem, but we're dealing with something that can't be proven or disproven as of yet. Finding out where the dude lives could answer that question quickly. Not so much in the case of a divine creator. It'd be actually really nice if we could answer the knowledge bit, because then it would make the belief bit way easier, IMO.

No. You lose.

Whatever help you sleep at night, champ. Congrats on the win.