Agnosticism

[heampopy]

<p>

@goingmeta

Your defense: I use words as they’re popularly understood…

Yes. I do try my best to use words as people understand them. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

…not as they’re actually defined and then blame others when they don’t understand what I mean.

If it was wrong for me to apply the term “agnostic” as it is used colloquially, then I’d apologize. Unfortunately, I’d like to direct your attention to the argument posted by self-proclaimed “agnostic” Oneguy21:

@Oneguy21

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.

Oneguy21 took the bait regarding the reconciliation question because it was clear to him how I was using the term “agnostic” at that point in the discussion.</p>

<p>It’s interesting that you are the only one who has posted in this thread that has failed to understand my intended usage of the term.</p>

<p>Reconcile your tirade against ambiguous language starting around post #11 with your recent defense of ambiguity. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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.

I’m glad you mentioned that because it happens to take the comprehension level of roughly a ten-year-old to think that quoting “It’s impossible to prove a deity” would constitute a complete thought. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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?

Using the second quote you provided, refer back to Oneguy21.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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

Starting at post #6, the inception of the debate, I did. You were baited because I disputed your dogmatic approach to the discussion. Sadly, you’re still being baited considering I have already clarified what my definitions of agnosticism are and you’re sitting here disputing whether or not adding a negative changes a sentence’s meaning.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Look above.

I did. I just assumed you were aware that by the time I got to this part of your post I would have already refuted your defense regarding straw man arguments (which you somehow consider to be of equal value against the accusation of ad hominem). By post #19 it was clear you were running out of ways to defend yourself from the allegation of using ad hominem. This is just circling the drain.</p>

<p>

@heampopy

I would like to know how I have apparently compared you to a “stubborn religious person”.

I’d appreciate it if you didn’t make accusations without justification so for the second time address the above quote.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Making typos is sooper emberressing, man.

It is actually pretty embarrassing seeing you fall apart. I find that when people start to resort to sarcasm, they’ve begun to run out of ways to logically defend themselves. For the sake of arguing, make as many typos as you want. You’ll gain nothing and look dumber in the process.</p>

<p>

@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.

I wasn’t comparing you to the believer, but the rest of the script fit if I replaced him with you. For your comprehension, I’ll ask you to ignore what the original comic says and I’ll rewrite the comic to make my point:
Arguing with goingmeta about logical fallacies is like playing chess;
I carefully craft my case, watch for traps, set my own,
Maintaining a delicate interplay of threats and counter-threats.
And though I might have a strong material advantage…
I can’t win against someone who doesn’t understand the rules.
The point being made: Asserting “No it’s not” is not a valid argument.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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”?

1. I used your definition for your benefit. If you find it inadequate, supply a better definition and I’ll prove it using that one.
2. I didn’t. Number 3 on my list addressed that clearly. “False accusations” clearly stands for your false accusations of a straw man argument and your extensive disputation of your use of ad hominem.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Trash talking is my favorite part of debating.

1. You admit it’s a debate for the second time.
2. I’m only using what is given to me. If you’re going to take a holier-than-thou approach, you’d best be off not using trash talk and condescension. </p>

<p>That was easy.</p>