<p>I’ve never quite understood agnosticism. I’ve always seen it as some nonsense adaptation some atheists use to appeal to their religious compatriots. I’m interested in knowing whether or not it actually works.</p>
<p>To The Religious:
Do you perceive agnostics differently than atheists? This is especially directed toward those who might have answered “Atheists” in the Least Trustworthy Demographic poll.</p>
<p>To Agnostics:
What made you become agnostic? Do you say it as a means to straddle the fence or is it genuine skepticism?</p>
<p>Sometimes people use agnostic as a more socially acceptable word for atheist. I consider their beliefs about the same, but I understand (from my experience) atheists to be more tenacious with their beliefs, or lack thereof. I think agnostics who are still trying to figure things out are a little more open minded.</p>
<p>The author appears to be agnostic himself & presents a valuable POV:</p>
<p>“Having recently spent two weeks in Cambridge (the one in the United Kingdom) on a Templeton-Cambridge Fellowship, being lectured to by believers and nonbelievers, I found myself feeling more than anything unconvinced by certainties on either side. And feeling the need for solidarity and identity with other doubters. Thus my call for a revivified agnosticism. Our T-shirt will read: I just don’t know. (I should probably say here that I still consider myself Jewish in everything but the believing in God part, which, I’ll admit, others may take exception to.)”</p>
<p>“Alas, agnostics still suffer from association with atheists by theists, and with theists by atheists. So let us be more precise about what agnostics are and aren’t. They aren’t disguised creationists. In fact, the term agnostic was coined in 1869 by one of Darwin’s most fervent followers, Thomas Henry Huxley, famously known as “Darwin’s bulldog” for his defense of evolutionary theory. Here’s how he defined his agnosticism:
‘This principle may be stated in various ways but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.’
Huxley originally defined his agnosticism against the claims of religion, but it also applies to the claims of science in its know-it-all mode. I should point out that I accept all that science has proven with evidence and falsifiable hypotheses but don’t believe there is evidence or falsifiable certitude that science can prove or disprove everything. Agnosticism doesn’t contend there are no certainties; it simply resists unwarranted untested or untestable certainties.
Agnosticism doesn’t fear uncertainty. It doesn’t cling like a child in the dark to the dogmas of orthodox religion or atheism. Agnosticism respects and celebrates uncertainty and has been doing so since before quantum physics revealed the uncertainty that lies at the very groundwork of being.”</p>
<p>That’s exactly the problem I’m having with agnosticism. When confronted with the possibility of a god, agnostics dismiss the argument as inherently flawed because it is impossible to prove a deity doesn’t exist when addressing the supernatural qualities attributed to it. This is only valid in an isolated discussion. Let’s introduce fairies and leprechauns into the equation. Now, doing so in past discussions has been deemed offensive and arbitrary. They dismiss the idea as ridiculous and it is, but what separates the validity of theism from fairy-ism or leprechaun-ism? Agnostics will straddle the theist/atheist fence halfway, yet when confronted with other supernatural beings, the range of possibility goes from 50% to 0%. </p>
<p>I’d like then to post another question to agnostics:
Are you agnostic about all manner of supernatural beings?</p>
<p>I’m pretty certain I know more about it than you do. That being said, I think it’s a waste of time saying all rational people are agnostics. That’s a given. No atheist nor theist is going to say the possibility of a god, or lack thereof, is indisputable unless their sanity is severely lacking. The topic is meant to address those who, when introducing themselves, call themselves agnostic as opposed to taking a stance. As Dawkins put it, the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is made when considering how close to zero we are willing to rate the possibility of existence for any given deity and it’s not worth contrasting a zero probability with a probability that is nearly indistinguishable from zero, so all agnostic atheists are de facto atheists and the reverse is true for theists. Those who call themselves agnostic atheists or agnostic theists fail to understand the purpose of the debate and have incorrectly assumed atheists and theists don’t understand agnosticism.</p>
<p>You’re surprised that I think I’m smarter than you after you began your side of the discussion by assuming I didn’t know what agnosticism was?</p>
<p>In what way did I put forth a straw man argument? You have failed to put forth a single original argument and act like quoting Huxley and proceeding with ad hominem is something special, both of which have absolutely nothing to do with the original question. Everyone knows what it means to be an agnostic, the purpose of this thread is to gauge the “why”, the psyche of the agnostic. Is it a philosophical position on par with epistemological nihilism? </p>
<p>If all you have to offer are Huxley quotes don’t even bother, not to mention they’re completely irrelevant to the purpose of the thread.</p>
I’m not surprised. I just think you’re ignorant and very arrogant.</p>
<p>
You started with a flawed conception of what agnosticism means and began arguing against a position that doesn’t really exist (in the academic setting). Sure, people in society may identify themselves as agnostics as a way to “stay in the middle ground,” but philosophically speaking, that’s not what it means. Agnosticism is a position pertaining to knowledge, not belief.</p>
<p>
No, they don’t. I just told you that agnostics can be theists. You can believe in a god while simultaneously maintain that it may be impossible to know with any certainty.</p>
<p>
No, for reasons I mentioned above.</p>
<p>
Who are you talking about? This is either an over-generalization or a straw man–take your pick.</p>
<p>
Please quote my ad hominem.</p>
<p>
It’s pretty hard to have a discussion about something when both parties don’t agree on the meaning of a relevant word.</p>
<p>
Please, don’t pretend as if there is any burden resting on me. I came here to correct you.</p>
Arrogant I may be, but I’m not ignorant. At the very least I have addressed all of your complaints whereas you have skipped the questions I have posed towards you.</p>
<p>
What is my misconception? I think you’ve failed to understand what I meant as below:</p>
<p>What I said:
Your response:
The quote you examined stated that agnostics choose to not argue in favor of theism or atheism because it is impossible to realistically prove one side or the other. You misinterpreted what I said as if I somehow thought agnostics are inherently atheistic. The “argument” was the subject of “dismiss”, not the possibility of a deity. When you quoted me, you conveniently left out the “doesn’t exist” at the end. So maybe you didn’t misunderstand what I said. Instead, unable to find anything else wrong with my argument, resorted to distortion.</p>
<p>All rational theists and atheists are technically agnostic, that does not prevent us from taking a stance. Does claiming to be atheist mean I’m stating certainty in my beliefs? No. That’s what you fail to understand and fail to correct. The inception of debate is not in certainty but decision. I’ve made a decision on how I perceive the world around me.</p>
<p>
Once again, a failure to comprehend what I’ve said. It’s neither. The subject of the quote was your average agnostic, someone who takes a middle ground on the possibility of a deity yet doesn’t take pause when rejecting the possibility of other supernatural beings like fairies and invisible pink unicorns. </p>
<p>
Your ad hominem was your attempt to undermine my intelligence and ability to form an argument. You falsely claimed I was employing a straw man argument (as in the above quote where you failed to understand what I meant by agnostics dismissing the religious debate) so as to undermine my entire argument.</p>
<p>
Actually we agree on what agnostic means, but you thought I meant something else. </p>
<p>The quote I “examined” states, “When confronted with the possibility of a god, agnostics dismiss the argument as inherently flawed because it is impossible to prove a deity doesn’t exist.” Whether or not “doesn’t exist” was included or not at the end doesn’t make one bit of difference. It wasn’t relevant to what I was addressing either, so I left it out.</p>
<p>But again, that’s not necessarily so. On what basis is the position “agnostic theist” possible if all agnostics “dismiss the argument” and believe it is “inherently flawed”? I anticipate you’re going to claim that I just took your quotes out of context, but I really didn’t; that’s what you claimed agnostics do. The point is that there must be some who see it as a tenable position. And by tenable I mean “worthy of being believed.” Would both sorts of agnostic argue that it’s impossible to know with certainty? Sure. Is that what I’m disputing? No.</p>
<p>
That wasn’t the part I was addressing.</p>
<p>
Please clarify what you mean with “the argument.” I assumed you meant the thesis “god exists” by it. When people say “the argument,” they can also mean “the assertion being put forth,” and not just “the disagreement.” I’m stating the obvious, but you’re most likely going to try and pin this dispute on me instead of your own ambiguous language.</p>
<p>
Me identifying your fallacious reasoning isn’t an ad hominem. “Undermining” your intelligence isn’t an ad hominem either. </p>
<p>Learn. Now. Please.</p>
<p>
You’re right. I address the most important claims first. I’m not going to sit here and go over each sentence in your reply. Though, if you would like me to address something in specific, bring it my attention. Quit acting as though I’m purposely ignoring the content of your posts.</p>
<p>I most likely will not be able to respond until until tomorrow night.</p>
It does make a difference. You had suggested that my understanding (or your perceived lack of) had an atheistic tilt. Adding the phrase “doesn’t exist” negates that tilt.</p>
<p>
Actually it was. The phrase “agnostics choose to not argue in favor of theism or atheism because it is impossible to realistically prove one side or the other” is in reference to the quote labeled “What I said”. If you go to my previous post, you will see that I cited it and in your last post, you quoted it. </p>
<p>
I did not address “agnostic theists” nor “agnostic atheists” in that quote. They are fundamentally different from pure agnostics. When posed the question “Is there a god?” the classic agnostic reply, and I’m referencing the Slate Article, is “I just don’t know.” The agnostic theist’s reply is “I believe there is but I cannot prove it.” To make it clear I am specifically addressing pure agnostics. If, as you put it, agnosticism within the context of this discussion is purely a position on knowledge then address the question I posed toward you several times: Are you an agnostic about all manner of supernatural beings ie. the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster?</p>
<p>
By argument I meant “the disagreement”, the debate over god’s existence, which should be obvious given the context of this discussion and what we have agreed agnosticism means. </p>
<p>
Ad Hominem- A fallacy in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. </p>
<p>You stated “I think that’s expecting too much from you. Keep beating that straw man!” You are expressing that my arguments are invalid by implying I’m intellectually inadequate and suggesting that I am incapable of forming an argument devoid of fallacy. The obvious connotation of “keep” is to suggest consistency of so-and-so action. If you’re going to attempt to correct me on the terminology, I suggest you learn in yourself. Not every fallacy is made in the exact condition you find when you muse through Wikipedia seeking help with your rudimentary debate skills.</p>
<p>You never correctly identified my “fallacious reasoning”. When I asked you what it was you stated “You started with a flawed conception of what agnosticism means and began arguing against a position that doesn’t really exist (in the academic setting).” I did not start with a flawed conception of what agnosticism means. I made a point to suggest I linked agnosticism with epistemological nihilism. </p>
<p>
Actually you are ignoring the content of my posts. Should I assume you are incapable of refuting the parts you have not addressed? </p>
<p>Nice thread. I don’t think you should dismiss agnosticism as a way to straddle the fence. It’s a valid position, and in my opinion, the most rational one. How can you be completely certain that no deity exists? Perhaps a God existing in a realm of infinite dimensions unbounded by the parameters of space and time is laughing at human inquiries into his existence/nonexistence. </p>
<p>Agnosticism, according to Wikipedia, “is the view that the truth value of certain claimsespecially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsis unknown or unknowable.”</p>
<p>I’m sure many agnostics also take a neutral stance on the existence of ghosts, demons, angels, and other supernatural beings.</p>
<p>That said, agnostics, like most people, dismiss the possibility of werewolves, leprechauns, fairies, and other fantasy characters, because these things are universally understood as products of folklore/myth.</p>
<p>I think you misunderstand my approach to agnosticism as well as that of most theists and atheists. I am not certain that there is no deity, so if we want to get technical I’m a “tooth-fairy agnostic”. I understand that it is not possible to disprove the existence of a god in the same sense that it’s impossible for me to disprove the invisible pink unicorn. Who are you, or anyone for that matter, to deem one supernatural being more realistic than the other? The possibility of a leprechaun existing is the same as that of a deity, though their respective existences are not mutually inclusive. </p>
<p>For the third time (or fourth) I will reiterate that this thread is meant to address pure agnostics. Every rational theist and atheist is an agnostic in the sense that they acknowledge the epistemological dilemma of the debate. Unlike pure agnostics, who claim a neutral stance in all matters theological, theists and atheists will take a side when asked “Is there a god?”. It sounds like I’m stating the obvious, yet this basic separation between theories of knowledge versus belief does not seem to be getting through.</p>
<p>What is your position on Xenu? Do you consider him as viable a deity as the those of the other major religions? Consider the fact that he was contrived less than 60 years ago. If someone makes up a new deity tomorrow out of the blue, is that deity equally as viable? If your answer would be yes, then you’re probably a pure agnostic with absolutely no beliefs within the confines of this debate, which is puzzling to me. If you have some doubt and are inclined to think that neither Xenu nor the other contrived deity are as realistic as other deities, you are a de facto atheist, a tooth fairy agnostic. </p>
<p>I don’t think you understand what it means to be an atheist, and maybe I’m wrong about that. The post you made however leads me to believe you have the false assumption that rational atheists and theists alike claim to know with certainty whether or not god(s) exist.</p>
<p>
If you choose to be agnostic about all manner of supernatural beings, you have to acknowledge the ontological dilemma of that position. Your given definition of agnosticism states you would have to accept the unknowable nature of all metaphysical beings, not merely the religious figures. Your rejection of the possibility of werewolves and fairies contradicts your position on agnosticism.</p>
It does no such thing. Now you’re just grasping at straws. If the reader had any sort of background knowledge on the topic, then your sentence without the last two words can only be interpreted in one way which is identical in meaning to the sentence including those last two words. The addition of “doesn’t exist” doesn’t change the implied noun (the deity’s existence) and it doesn’t add any sort of “atheistic tilt,” chrissake. There’s not much more I can do beyond assert what I believe is a possible interpretation. This is getting tiresome.</p>
<p>
Let’s go back then.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s follow this conversation. The original portion of the quote I addressed was the part where you stated that “agnostics dismiss the argument as inherently flawed.” I took issue with it because, as I stated before, there are some agnostics who find theism a tenable position. Therefore, if you meant the thesis “god exists” by “the argument,” then all agnostics do not “dismiss the argument.” Then in response, you claim that the meaning of your quote was actually that “agnostics choose to not argue in favor of theism or atheism because it is impossible to realistically prove one side or the other.” Although I think this is false as I read it now, I think I made it clear after that point that that wasn’t what I was disputing. AGAIN, I was disputing your usage of the phrase “dismiss the argument.” I had no beef with he second part of what you said, so I didn’t think there was anything to address.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m trying to get you to realize that a “pure agnostic position” is nonsense. One either understands what agnosticism means or one doesn’t. If an individual understands that agnosticism is actually JUST a stance on knowledge, then this conception of it being a middle ground is NONSENSE because a position on knowledge goes hand-in-hand with a position in belief. When you speak of your “typical” or “pure” agnostic, you’re speaking of positions which are, ironically, based in ignorance of the true meaning of the word. </p>
<p>I am agnostic towards all supernatural beings. Philosophically speaking, it’s ridiculous to claim to know with certainty whether something exists or not given that we have reason to believe our universe is the size it is. For the record, there is no such thing as a “scientific proof.” Science is experience based. If you’re trying to convince someone that something exists in the universe, you can provide evidence or proof, but you can’t <em>prove</em> it in any mathematical sense. Though I understand “to prove” may have a less strict colloquial meaning. Which sense of the word are you using? I don’t know.</p>
<p>
It’s <em>so</em> obvious when an expression can mean two different things. For someone who refers to others as having “rudimentary debate skills,” you really don’t understand any of the nuance of debate, do you?</p>
<p>
lol@“Not every fallacy is made in the exact condition you find when you muse through Wikipedia seeking help with your rudimentary debate skills.” Actually, I did check wikipedia to make sure someone of the likes of you-- i.e. someone with an equally poor understanding of the fallacy-- didn’t write something that you would then cite against me.</p>
<p>No, actually, this is common sense. If I called you an imbecile and your “argument” moronic, that still wouldn’t constitute an ad hominem. It’s only when I try and correlate the validity of your argument with my perception of your ineptness (because as we all know, ideas stand on their own regardless of the individual presenting them). In other words: “Your argument is wrong because I percieve you as being a nincompoop.” I haven’t tried to make such a connection which is why I asked you to quote it–because I knew you were full of it. </p>
<p>I haven’t made any ad hominems, I’ve just been condescending–there is a difference. </p>
<p>
I was implying that you were incapable of performing a simple task by stating “I think that’s expecting too much from you.” Was I suggesting that your “argument” is invalid because of this incapability? No. Did I think your “argument” is invalid because of the fallacy I identified? Yes. It’s actually quite embarassing how easily you let your insecurities get in the way of the discussion. </p>
<p>
Does that mean that you do have a fallacy in your reasoning and that I just didn’t correctly identify it? You should get a better grasp of the English language. Either way, address the portion of that post that starts with “I’m trying to get you to realize.”</p>
<p>
I’m not a philosopher, but it’s pretty obvious that they are not the same. One is saying “we should approach grand existential claims with uncertainty” whereas the other is claiming “there is no objective basis for knowledge, period.”</p>
<p>
The “average agnostic” is a nonsense position as I mentioned earlier. You’re making an argument based on what the ignorant interpret agnosticism to mean.</p>
The addition of “doesn’t exist” alters the intent of the individual attempting to “prove” a deity’s existence or lack thereof.
Without “doesn’t exist”, the entire statement is false. It is hypothetically possible to prove a deity exists through manifestation and some consider the debate over a god’s existence an entirely empirical question.
Just quote the entire clause next time, it’ll cost you a half-a-second more. Unless you are physically incapable of dragging your mouse an additional centimeter to the right, the only two reasons you could have for not quoting my entire statement are laziness and/or deliberate distortion.</p>
<p>
I never stated that “god exists” was the thesis being dismissed. I took issue with the fact that you attacked my assertion before asking for clarification. If something I say is not crystal clear to you, ask for clarification before you attack the straw man.</p>
<p>
That’s the point. A purely agnostic stance to the question “Do you think there’s a god?” is nonsense. If someone poses a question of belief, the appropriate answer is a stated belief. Claiming agnosticism is not a real answer to the question. If someone answers that question with “I’m agnostic”, they are claiming to be completely devoid of belief in the same vein as someone saying “I don’t know”. You cannot answer a question of belief with a position on knowledge. Now you’ll respond: “Well that’s why there are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists!” Well if someone responds “I’m an agnostic theist”, I will appreciate the offered position on belief, but for the purpose of the question, I don’t care about the added “agnostic” as it is completely irrelevant. That being said, it depends on how the question is formed. My issue with those who claim to be solely agnostic is the use of the term as a cop-out to any religious question, regarding both belief and knowledge. </p>
<p>
Then ask what I mean before preemptively accusing me of making a false claim.</p>
<p>
"Or you could just look at the root words, but I think that’s expecting too much from you. Keep beating that straw man! " Linking your perception of my capabilities to the validity of my argument is an ad hominem. If we reverse the sentence positioning it can be stated “His argument is fallacious. He can’t even read!”</p>
<p>
No, actually. It’s rather stupid to even suggest I am insecure about my abilities to read or research (which is what directly preceded the “I think that’s expecting too much from you”) as my simple presence on this forum would suggest. I simply haven’t had to rely on nearly as many personal insults to try to get my points across. I could copy your format wherein I simply call you an idiot every other paragraph but I think the argument stands for itself. For example, I could point out that you managed to spell “embarrassing” wrong despite the fact that you’ve probably seen the term handed to you on numerous occasions, like this debate for instance, and CC happens to have a spell check but I just assume you thought the red squiggles under your fail were fun little word blankets.</p>
<p>
You accused me of making a straw man argument, so point it out correctly, if there is one. It’s either that or retract the accusation that I’ve made a straw man argument.</p>
<p>
Are you aware of what the terms “on par” or “linked” mean? A comparison between two like terms isn’t equivalent to saying agnosticism = epistemological nihilism. Now that you’ve looked up the term epistemological nihilism it’s worth pointing out that I had pointed out very early on that I considered agnosticism a position on knowledge, a fact that you’ve attempted to “correct” me on numerous times despite my early implication of this awareness.</p>
<p>
It’s an individual who answers a question of belief with a position on knowledge, someone who either doesn’t understand what agnosticism means or simply doesn’t care. “Agnostic” has quickly become a term used by the non-religious who don’t take their lack of beliefs as far as atheists. Before you incorrectly accuse me of it, I’m not saying this represents all people claiming to be agnostic, but all it takes is one look on Facebook to see how many people put “Agnostic” under “Religious BELIEFS” to understand the scope of this term’s misuse.</p>
<p>Just my two cents:
-The term agnostic does seem to be misused by the majority of people calling themselves agnostic
-Reading this debate is like watching a heavyweight battle between trash talkers
-Goingmeta is using a lot of red herrings, but to his credit this debate has become mostly focused on how the other person is arguing incorrectly than the actual purpose of the debate which is to discuss how the term “agnostic” is used
-Heampopy originally posed the question as “Is there a god?” (post #12), to which “agnostic” actually is an appropriate response. The later version “Do you think there’s a god” does disqualify “agnostic” as an appropriate response though.
-The ad hominem in question is an ad hominem, though it’s a weak one.</p>
<p>It’s difficult not to be condescending when you’re so arrogant. Apparently, every tid-bit of information I decided to include was a result of me looking it up on wikipedia in second prior to posting. Hey thanks!</p>
<p>
Hey, this “debate” is going great. Let’s just keep bouncing back our assertions without any justification. My assertion: it doesn’t alter the intent of the individual.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s take a look at two of your quotes:
“[My] quote [which you] examined stated that agnostics choose to not argue in favor of theism or atheism because it is impossible to realistically prove one side or the other.”
“It is hypothetically possible to prove a deity exists”</p>
<p>How does “realistically [proving]” something differ from just “proving” it? Why qualify that word? I’d like clarification on what you meant. I’m not attempting to pull a red herring like the other user claims. These are just two quotes that stuck out to me.</p>
<p>
Yep, it would be if I actually made any link.</p>
<p>“His argument is fallacious.”
Not an ad hominem.</p>
<p>“He can’t even read!”
Not an ad hominem.</p>
<p>“His argument is fallacious. He can’t even read!”
Not an ad hominem. </p>
<p>This is fun.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I thought they were word blankets. Nevermind the fact that the spelling checker is a result of your browser (edit: not so sure about this anymore) and that I might actually be using a word editor. Anyway, this is becoming stupid. </p>
<p>Also: this isn’t a debate.</p>
<p>If you agree with what I initially wanted to correct you on, then I really have nothing to say. What I will say is that the demeanor in your OP really didn’t suggest you knew what you were talking about (and it really isn’t the same as what you’re saying now).</p>
<p>“I’ve never quite understood agnosticism. I’ve always seen it as some nonsense adaptation some atheists use to appeal to their religious compatriots.”</p>
Hypothetical: A man thinks there’s treasure hidden beneath his porch while his neighbors scoff at the idea. He decides to prove them wrong and dig under his porch.
Question: Is he trying to prove the treasure exists or doesn’t exist?
The inclusion of a negative redefines the intention of the treasure hunter and his perception of reality.</p>
<p>
I added the qualifier “realistically” to the first quote as a means to show that proving a deity’s existence is not something humanity can achieve on it’s own. Given the qualities attributed to any variety of deities, the only way someone can prove a deity’s existence is by that deity’s own will. As such, no person on earth can claim to be able to prove a deity’s existence. The second quote lacks the qualifier because it addresses possibility.</p>
<p>
[Argumentum</a> Ad Hominem](<a href=“http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html]Argumentum”>Ad Hominem)
Informal Structure of Ad Hominem
Person L says argument A.
Person L’s circumstance or character is not satisfactory.
Argument A is not a good argument.
In context:
I made my argument.
You deemed my ability to research my arguments inadequate.
You stated my argument was fallacious without any other justification aside from the preceding judgment.
Our debate over ad hominem closely resembles this:
<a href=“http://cectic.com/comics/069.png[/url]”>http://cectic.com/comics/069.png</a>
Although for our purposes, “believer” will be replaced by “goingmeta”. Your responses to my justification have simply been “No it’s not” without providing justification on your part.</p>
<p>
You acknowledged it yourself in post 15. That was fun. I didn’t even have to meticulously explain how you’re wrong this time. </p>
<p>
Your response to my very first post was essentially “So then learn about it.” I suppose you expected my response to be “Oh, thank you! What a wonderful and insightful answer to my question!” Given that you’ve stated your intent coming into this forum was to “correct” me and your method of doing so, I’m assuming you’re not a teacher. </p>
<p>While I have refined my definition of agnosticism over the course of this debate, it became clear by post #6, in which I differentiated between theists/atheists and those who label themselves solely as agnostics, that the “agnostic” I was referring to was the individual in post #16. My sole mistake has been in using the term “agnosticism” as I had generalized the agnostic population. </p>
<p>Your initial attempt at correction was to point out that “It is possible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist”, however I think you fail to understand that the term “correction” denotes something was wrong in the first place. I never claimed that it was impossible to be an agnostic theist or atheist. As I previously stated, I clearly asserted my awareness in the post immediately after your attempt at “correction” (post #6).</p>
![http://cectic.com/comics/069.png[/url]](http://cectic.com/comics/069.png%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
