What do you conclude from this:Originally posted by: Vinny N
Also nowhere did totalcommand claim everyone is agnostic. You're jumping to conclusions yourself when you don't understand the definition totalcommand is using.
Everyone knows we cannot prove it. Everyone knows it is not even possible for us to know it. Therefore, using that defintion only, everyone is a real agnostic. Totalcommand didn't say that, but his definition can only conclude that.Real agnosticism is that it's not that we don't have enough evidence or knowledge, but that it's not even possible for us to know whether or not God exists. In other words, because the concept of God is what it is, there is no way we can know if he exists, or if he doesn't exist.
Dictionary.com says:The definition of agnosticism posted by totalcommand is one you'd find in a good philosophy or religion textbook or even a common dictionary. Although your "real" definition is also listed, but usually as a second entry as some people commonly used.
Defintion 1a is totalcommand's definition. Definition 1b is mine. We all know it is impossible to know for certain there is a God. Thus, defintion 1a says we are all agnostic.1a One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
1b One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Originally posted by: bluemax
There's the old adage:
"Opinions are like armpits - everyone has them and they usually stink."
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: bluemax
There's the old adage:
"Opinions are like armpits - everyone has them and they usually stink."
That's not how it goes, and it would be nice if people could complete a thought in writing without resorting to a hackneyed saying.
Originally posted by: dullard
Everyone knows we cannot prove it. Everyone knows it is not even possible for us to know it. Therefore, using that defintion only, everyone is a real agnostic. Totalcommand didn't say that, but his definition can only conclude that.
But, that definition gets us nowhere. Using that defintion, there are real agnostics who believe strongly in god and real agnostics who believe strongly that there is not a god. Therefore, that definition doesn't give us any information, it is useless.
A real agnostic is NOT what totalcommand said - it requires MORE than that.
Dictionary.com says:
Defintion 1a is totalcommand's definition. Definition 1b is mine. We all know it is impossible to know for certain there is a God. Thus, defintion 1a says we are all agnostic.1a One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
1b One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Like I said, the narrow definition just isn't useful. It just needs a simple tweak - whether or not they take a stance. I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs here. But in many religion threads the agnostics come in and bash everyone else saything that they are stupid and that since we cannot prove God's existance, we should all be agnostic. That is a very common argument posted repeatedly here and spoken elsewhere. I'm just trying to stop that argument. Agnostic means MORE than just totalcommand's defintion. Not much more, but it does require more.Originally posted by: Vinny N
I'll agree, but it doesn't take much more:
Your version of a "real" agnostic works just fine with totalcommand's definition. They think the truth about the existence/non-existence of God is unknowable and additionally do not take a stance of belief one way or another.
Same exact thing as the dictionary.com definitions. The broadly definition is mine and it is very useful, the other defintion adds nothing to discussions.Try Merriam-Webster.
": a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
The first definition is totalcommand's. Notice that it doesn't commit the person to any particular belief. The "broadly" one is yours and does say something about beliefs.
Originally posted by: dullard
Like I said, the narrow definition just isn't useful. It just needs a simple tweak - whether or not they take a stance. I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs here. But in many religion threads the agnostics come in and bash everyone else saything that they are stupid and that since we cannot prove God's existance, we should all be agnostic. That is a very common argument posted repeatedly here and spoken elsewhere. I'm just trying to stop that argument. Agnostic means MORE than just totalcommand's defintion. Not much more, but it does require more.
Same exact thing as the dictionary.com definitions. The broadly definition is mine and it is very useful, the other defintion adds nothing to discussions.[/quote]The first definition is totalcommand's. Notice that it doesn't commit the person to any particular belief. The "broadly" one is yours and does say something about beliefs.
If you know it, you believe it. Changing that one word does not change my argument or invalidate my argument. Of course, the reverse isn't true - if you believe it you don't necessarily know it. But that difference has no impact on this argument.Originally posted by: Vinny N
I made an edit you might find useful.
Originally posted by: dullard
I like to take arguments out of the context to get emotions out of the way. Try this:
Me: Is that a cat, a dog, or some other creature?
Totalcommand: Its an animal.
Me: Yes, but is it a cat or a dog?
Totalcommand: Its an animal.
Totalcommand in that silly example is correct, but it adds nothing to our discussion.
Originally posted by: dullard
If you know it, you believe it.
There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. But it shows that an overly applicable definition does not help this thread or this discussion.Originally posted by: Vinny N
Sorry but that's not a fitting analogy (and I doubt very much that anyone could think of a really good analogy for this.)
Again, that doesn't help the situation. The definition of animal may be quite important in other threads, you may be very interested in the definition of an animal. But it doesn't help in a cat vs dog thread. The OP wants to choose A or B. Someone comes in and believes the correct answer cannot be known. Of course with current data we cannot know it or prove it. So that statement doesn't help the choice of A vs B. If we had more data, maybe we could know it. But at this point in time, we have to work with what we have.That's not the case. If someone is an agnostic based on that definition, it reveals to us that they think the truth about god's existence is unknowable. Believe it or not, some people are interested in this.
Originally posted by: dullard
There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. But it shows that an overly applicable definition does not help this thread or this discussion.
The OP wants to choose A or B. Someone comes in and believes the correct answer cannot be known. Of course with current data we cannot know it or prove it. So that statement doesn't help the choice of A vs B.