Agnosticism

[goingmeta]

<p>

@you

@me

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?”

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>Your defense: I use words as they’re popularly understood and not as they’re actually defined and then blame others when they don’t understand what I mean.</p>

<p>The irony is killing me.</p>

<p>

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.

1. The first statement was intended to come off as facetious to show you how easily I could “combat” your assertions (with counter-assertions).
2. I understand, if taken literally, it means different things. I also understand–if the reader had any background knowledge on the topic and a comprehension level beyond that of a 10 year old-- that it could also be interpreted in the same way. Do you? Is the reasoning so… unreasonable? HE-HE</p>

<p>

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:

The following statements were generalized to include all agnostics, when in fact you were only referring to some popularized nonsense position of agnosticism. That is a straw man, regardless of whether you claim you knew after it was all said and done. After all, what else am I supposed to base my responses on if not your prior posts? </p>

<p>

@you

I’ve always seen [agnosticism] as some nonsense adaptation some atheists use to appeal to their religious compatriots.

</p>

<h2>

@you

Agnostics will straddle the theist/atheist fence halfway, yet when confronted with other supernatural beings, the range of possibility goes from 50% to 0%.

</h2>

<p>

@you

While I have refined my definition of agnosticism over the course of this debate,

Great. You should’ve shown you understood it from the beginning, then I wouldn’t have been baited into this discussion.</p>

<p>

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.

Look above.</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.

Again, look above.</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”.

Making typos is sooper emberressing, man. Also: the caps lock is to show you that I can use weasel words to make erroneous claims as well. I didn’t link the invalidity of the argument to your intellectual inadequacy or commit an ad hominem as you claim; you’re pressing the issue because my statement is IMPLYING such a link where one doesn’t actually exist. (post 12)</p>

<p>

If not, I would like to know how I have apparently compared you to a “stubborn religious person”.

@you

<a href=“http://cectic.com/comics/069.png”>http://cectic.com/comics/069.png&lt;/a&gt;
Although for our purposes, “believer” will be replaced by “goingmeta”.

Let’s see: an image of a believer who doesn’t know the rules to an activity–or as my first impression of the image suggested, is insisting on not learning the rules (stubborn)-- who attempts to engage in said activity which requires knowing the rules. Could that possibly be your perception of the situation? How would I know unless you made any mention of the believer with regards to me? Oh, you did? Oh, we should replace “the believer” with “goingmeta”? Oh. </p>

<p>Yep, I don’t see any attempt at comparison or analogy either; comprehending stuff is too hard.</p>

<p>

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.

1. We’re taking turns?! Well that settles it! This must be a debate!
2. Did you ignore the part where I said “not where they bicker for hours on end over trivial reasons”?</p>

<p>

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.

YES! Trash talking is my favorite part of debating. This is a debate right? But we’re taking turns!</p>

<p>Oh and stop poisoning the well, man.</p>