Agnosticism

[goingmeta]

<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?

I’m not surprised. I just think you’re ignorant and very arrogant.</p>

<p>

In what way did I put forth a straw man argument?

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>

When confronted with the possibility of a god, agnostics dismiss the argument as inherently flawed because it is impossible to prove a deity

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>

Agnostics will straddle the theist/atheist fence halfway

No, for reasons I mentioned above.</p>

<p>

yet when confronted with other supernatural beings, the range of possibility goes from 50% to 0%.

Who are you talking about? This is either an over-generalization or a straw man–take your pick.</p>

<p>

You have failed to put forth a single original argument and act like quoting Huxley and proceeding with ad hominem is something special,

Please quote my ad hominem.</p>

<p>

both of which have absolutely nothing to do with the original question.

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>

You have failed to put forth a single original argument

Please, don’t pretend as if there is any burden resting on me. I came here to correct you.</p>