Agnosticism

[heampopy]

<p>

@goingmeta

With appropriate context and background knowledge, the reader could very easily come to the conclusion that the first statement doesn’t actually mean what it says.

Your defense is: “We shouldn’t have to mean what we say.” Clearly the throes of desperation have set in to your ability to form rational arguments.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

My assertion: it doesn’t alter the intent of the individual.

@goingmeta

If taken literally, then these two statements <em>do</em> mean different things.

Did you actually think I would have forgotten the conflicting statement you made merely 2 posts ago? It’s a shame you addressed the statement literally first.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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.

@goingmeta

It’s also actually quite common for people to mean different things than what they explicitly write.

I’m familiar with the concept of ambiguity. Do you recall post #11? It’s when you first began your tirade against ambiguous language.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Actually, I think I’ve told you numerous times what I believed to be your strawman fallacy (your flawed conception of what it means to be agnostic). In each time, you ended up just agreeing with me which is why I think this “debate” is at a moot point.

You never correctly identified any straw man argument, at least none of my own. If I have a flawed conception of what agnosticism means, refute the following defenses I have made:</p>

<p>Regarding agnosticism as a position on knowledge:

@heampopy

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>Regarding the term “Agnostic” as it has entered into the popular lexicon:

@heampopy

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 [Views]” to understand the scope of this term’s misuse.

</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

But thanks, I think my understanding of the ad hominem fallacy is good enough not to need reinforcement from random sites. I could probably argue that you’re attempting to poison the well at the moment seeing as how you’re ATTEMPTING to COMPARE me to a stubborn religious person. By doing that, you could POTENTIALLY be attempting to undermine my legitimacy. I COULD argue it in the same way you HAVE been arguing that I committed an ad hominem fallacy–but I won’t. Do you see how frivolous this side-discussion has been? Probably not.

No, clearly your understanding is still flawed considering you still fail to acknowledge the fact that you utilized one. I am undermining your legitimacy, but my justification isn’t simply “You’re an idiot” unless you consider proving you wrong equivalent. </p>

<p>Once again, as you’re clearly still incapable of understanding this simple concept, you used an ad hominem because your sole justification for how I used a fallacy was a personal attack. </p>

<p>Also, some solid use of caps lock. If you’re trying to bring to my attention that you are no longer misspelling words like “embarrassing”, you have succeeded. If not, I would like to know how I have apparently compared you to a “stubborn religious person”.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Ok–bad choice of words on my part. I should have said, “you really don’t understand any of the nuance of the types of discussion where two people are trying to be precise with their language, do you?” I’m sure you prefer that, right?

Yes, actually. I would prefer you use words correctly. This isn’t Fox News and I hope you’re not Sarah Palin.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

A debate is where two parties address a single question and where they take turns rebutting each others’ claims, not where they bicker for hours on end over trivial reasons. Also: try starting a debate with “I’ve always seen [agnosticism] as some nonsense adaptation some atheists use to appeal to their religious compatriots.” You’ll get laughed out of the room. Some of it is probably my fault, but really, I have no reason to take you seriously when you begin your threads with such glaringly obnoxious statements. Oh, and I <em>really</em> could cite other reasons for why this isn’t a debate.

1. We have been taking turns.
2. The question at hand is the appropriate use of the term “agnostic”.
3. If someone throws one or several red herrings into a debate, that doesn’t make it any less of a debate. For example: If John McCain started making false accusations (this is nothing against McCain, we all get senile) against Obama during the presidential debates and Obama had to spend half of his time defending such allegations, the fact remains that they’re in a debate.
4. The OP addressed an uncertainty and was not the inception of this debate. That honor lies with post #6.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

When prior to my mention, you never actually made the distinction. So should we all just assume you meant “the popularized version of what it means to be agnostic” instead of “agnostic” in every instance of your usage?

Translation: “Why would you expect me to assume you’re using the more common usage of a word?”</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Actually, I’m pretty sure I made that distinction before you.

Agreed. Unfortunately the matter being discussed is whether or not you corrected me. I had never claimed an impossibility in being simultaneously theist/atheist and agnostic, which makes the above quote a rather pointless statement. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Yes, I know. Discussions are all about who wins and not about any sort of necessity to clear up an issue or idea.

Oh, I’m plenty clear. Your apparent lack of awareness of this game of one-up would explain why you’re getting thrown around like a rag doll.</p>