AGNOSTIC? Answer the following. You might change your mind!

Originally posted by BackFire
Is this your argument? Really?

Well, you could be lying about anything you say about anything. Guess everything you say is bogus.

Quite silly.

And here's another definition from dictionary.com

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Thanks for looking it up man. But just give the underlined parts a thought. YES, God is mentioned in 1., but ALL the other definitions stand true as well, all pertaining to the question of KNOWING and DOUBTING. eg. being the simple question.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Main Entry:
1ag·nos·tic Listen to the pronunciation of 1agnostic
Pronunciation:
\ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date:
1869

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

--

I am not agnostic, btw.

Originally posted by agphoenix
It actually IS my argument. No, not everything anyone answers to that question HAS to be bogus. That's just part of it. Someone saying he is lying could be telling the truth, and a lot more arguments within the same type of question. So yeah...that part is a CRUCIAL part of my argument.

It's a bad argument. You ask a subjective and unprovable question, all you have to go on is the person's word. So to say "well, you could be lying" is silly. Why ask the question if you're going to reject the answer? Also, why would I be lying about my own beliefs? They're my beliefs, I'm the authority on what I believe.

And again, yes, if you are going to use that logic then one must say that everything everyone says could be a lie, and thus can't be taken seriously. Like, what's your name? Let me save you the trouble, it doesn't matter, because you could be lying about your name, so it for all I know, it's not your name. Sounds dumb, huh? Because it is dumb, that logic is monumentally broken.

And what does the possibility of someone lying have to do with agnosticism?

Originally posted by agphoenix
Thanks for looking it up man. But just give the underlined parts a thought. YES, God is mentioned in 1., but ALL the other definitions stand true as well, all pertaining to the question of KNOWING and DOUBTING. eg. being the simple question.

Of course they stand true. The one that mentions god is the first one - the primary one. Why is that? Because the way the word is currently used usually specifically refers to a person's belief in God. Not that they can't have an answer for anything.

Why would I give the underlined parts more thought than the non-underlined parts? They're all part of the definition. What you're doing is attempting to cherry pick wording and fragments that you think support your argument. What needs to be done is going by each definition as a whole, not just fragments.

Originally posted by Peach
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Main Entry:
1ag·nos·tic Listen to the pronunciation of 1agnostic
Pronunciation:
\ag-&#712;näs-tik, &#601;g-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Greek agn&#333;stos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gn&#333;stos known, from gign&#333;skein to know — more at know
Date:
1869

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

--

I am not agnostic, btw.

Again, thank you for looking stuff up. BELIEVE you'd be helping me by looking for more. Yet again though, the underlined part corrupts the one simple answer doesn't it?

AND I believe you when you say you're not agnostic. But are you willing to commit to an opinion other than that? Could/would you be a Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Christian etc.

Originally posted by agphoenix
Again, thank you for looking stuff up. BELIEVE you'd be helping me by looking for more. Yet again though, the underlined part corrupts the one simple answer doesn't it?

AND I believe you when you say you're not agnostic. But are you willing to commit to an opinion other than that? Could/would you be a Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Christian etc.

If you're going to underline that part of the definition to think it proves your point, underline the entire thing - particularly the bit at the end where it says "political agnostics". Meaning that it refers to something very specific and not just 'being indecisive in general'.

Yeah, I am willing to 'commit to an opinion'. I'm not religious at all. I'm just straight-out atheist.

To all the people quoting the Dictionary....

....how do you know the dictionary is not lying?

Aha!

You need a Dictionary to define yourself?

In YO FACE FO ALL U CRAZY MOTHAS!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by BackFire
It's a bad argument. You ask a subjective and unprovable question, all you have to go on is the person's word. So to say "well, you could be lying" is silly. Why ask the question if you're going to reject the answer?

Also, why would I be lying about my own beliefs? They're my beliefs, I'm the authority on what I believe.

Like, what's your name? Let me save you the trouble, it doesn't matter, because you could be lying about your name, so it for all I know, it's not your name. Sounds dumb, huh? Because it is dumb, that logic is monumentally broken.

And what does the possibility of someone lying have to do with agnosticism?

The one that mentions god is the first one - the primary one. Why is that? Because the way the word is currently used usually specifically refers to a person's belief in God. Not that they can't have an answer for anything.

Why would I give the underlined parts more thought than the non-underlined parts? They're all part of the definition.

...I wouldn't be doubting a belief, I'd be doubting my knowledge of your answer. And if I'm doubting it, then I'm doubting that there is any one answer to it.

Okay, question here. Why do you think anyone cares what you think about their beliefs? You can doubt all you wish, but that doesn't make you right or anyone else wrong.

Originally posted by Peach
If you're going to underline that part of the definition to think it proves your point, underline the entire thing - particularly the bit at the end where it says "political agnostics". Meaning that it refers to something very specific and not just 'being indecisive in general'.[quote]
You're right. I apologize.

[quote]Yeah, I am willing to 'commit to an opinion'. I'm not religious at all. I'm just straight-out atheist.

WrathfulDwarf 🙂 Finally, someone who is doubting the possibility that the dictionaries could be incorrect...Wrathful...I'm afraid you're becoming a non-believer of the dictionaries. Someone who does not know the meaning of A definition but is questioning [? at the end of yo' sentence] OUR individual definitions of the meanings.

You don't exist dude. Booyakah! 🙂

Originally posted by agphoenix
But I don't wish to reject it. I would just question it. WHY? Because that's the only way I could get solace to my own dilemma. That would be, doubting that that question has any ONE particular answer. We could reverse it if you wish. You could ask me. If I answer one way, can you not doubt me in two different directions? That's why...

But that question doesn't have more than one answer. There is one answer - that I'm not lying. You don't have to believe me, but again, it is the factual answer, it is the correct answer.

Originally posted by agphoenix
...I wouldn't be doubting a belief, I'd be doubting my knowledge of your answer. And if I'm doubting it, then I'm doubting that there is any one answer to it. Which is the only reason I picked that particular question and not one asking someone's name. Of course you could prove that and I would have no doubt and only have one answer. The question I posed is one that that's asked a gazillion times over, between partners, parents etc. [These lines refer to what you say below too :] Sorry

But you didn't question your own knowledge, you questioned whether or not I'm lying. Which is questioning my motives. At least be consistent. Let's not do this dance where you say something and then pretend you didn't say it, and then I have to sit here and make you look silly.

Originally posted by agphoenix
That's part of the main question bro. If the points and scenarios presented stand true, and they VERY WELL CAN in real life, then it agrees with one of the many quoted definitions.

That's fine, but you're applying the term agnostic in a way that usually isn't specified and acting like the way you're specifying is somehow ALWAYS within the meaning of the word, even though it's not.

Originally posted by agphoenix
I've got to say that the first definition of a word in the dictionary does not nullify the meaning of the others. You're right about the fact that God is mentioned first; in the first definition; at the top of the list. But we can't ignore the other meanings which do not refer to Him.

No, it does not nullify the others. However, it is the primary one. And you seem to make the mistake that the term is always taken to mean ALL of those definitions. You are ignore context of how the word is used. You're using it specifying the last definition, while most would specify the first - the one that specifies God. In short, the definitions are disparate. The definitions are contextual, not global.

Originally posted by agphoenix
Precisely. Why would you? Just like I said just before these 3 lines; they're ALL part of the definition. Just as you say. Therefore the first definition, the one that mentions God, IS part of only one of the definitions, where all the others do not need emphasis, just equal acknowledgment.

Again, they aren't all part of the definition. They are all different definitions depending on the context of the conversation. If someone is talking about their being agnostic in regards to God, and then you reference the definition regarding all things, that doesn't apply, because the context doesn't fit with the definition you are attempting to force into the conversation.

Straight out atheist is synonymous to being agnostic

No, actually, they are not synonymous. An agnostic is someone who is not sure if there is a god or higher power or not. An atheist simply does not believe any such thing does or can exist.

Big difference.

And your 'individual definition' is irrelevant to what a word actually means.

Originally posted by Peach
Okay, question here. Why do you think anyone cares what you think about their beliefs? You can doubt all you wish, but that doesn't make you right or anyone else wrong.

1. I'm feeling hostility. Don't be mad at me...please 🙁
2. In answer to your question; no, no-one could/should care about my opinion. But is answering a very short, very simple yes/no answer a 'belief'? I'm just wondering that IF we/I/you/he/she does not know the answer to, and doubts the answer to someone else's question which can only have two different paths, then we're not sure about understanding or committing to the answer we get.

I know there are oh so many other things in life where we can't/don't know the answer. This is just one, very simple question that has had me going for a long time. And I'm wondering if anyone else can just commit and understand and know the apparently single answer, and therefore the one singular understanding.

P.S. Don't be mad. I'm just discussing, WITH everyone, not TO anyone.

Originally posted by agphoenix

[b]WrathfulDwarf 🙂 Finally, someone who is doubting the possibility that the dictionaries could be incorrect...Wrathful...I'm afraid you're becoming a non-believer of the dictionaries. Someone who does not know the meaning of A definition but is questioning [? at the end of yo' sentence] OUR individual definitions of the meanings.

You don't exist dude. Booyakah! 🙂 [/B]

People have existed before the Dictionary was even compile....A dictionary is just a book that defines a word. It is not intended to provide insight or critical thinking

...Go search the word "Thinker" and tell me if WD is included in definition.

Catching my drift?

Originally posted by Peach
No, actually, they are not synonymous. An agnostic is someone who is not sure if there is a god or higher power or not. An atheist simply does not believe any such thing does or can exist.

Big difference.

And your 'individual definition' is irrelevant to what a word actually means.

Go ahead. IF you believe in dictionaries now, see if they're synonyms and if their meanings overlap. I didn't want to claim that without making sure.

[And it irks me when forms me whether I'm atheist or agnostic because...]

Yes. Also keep in mind that dictionaries can change through time, because the meaning of words change through time.

A dictionary is often based on how people use a word, not vice-versa.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
People have existed before the Dictionary was even compile....A dictionary is just a book that defines a word. It is not intended to provide insight or critical thinking

...Go search the word "Thinker" and tell me if WD is included in definition.

Catching my drift?

Yeah...you're doubting your commitment to the dictionary, which was your sole answer for 'God' being the first definition out of, what 4 or 5 others.

WD didn't say that, I did.

Originally posted by BackFire
A dictionary is often based on how people use a word, not vice-versa.

Sure they were.

That doesn't mean that they can't alter the meaning of a word if people start using it differently.

And when I say alter, I don't mean a big change. I don't mean deleting prior meanings. I mean maybe they add a 5th definition when there was 4, or change the numbering of their definitions based on the context that is most often used.

Originally posted by agphoenix
Go ahead. IF you believe in dictionaries now, see if they're synonyms and if their meanings overlap. I didn't want to claim that without making sure.

[And it irks me when forms me whether I'm atheist or agnostic because...]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

Main Entry:
athe·ist Listen to the pronunciation of atheist
Pronunciation:
\&#712;&#257;-th&#275;-ist\
Function:
noun
Date:
1551

: one who believes that there is no deity

I see no overlap here at all.

Originally posted by BackFire
Sure they were.

That doesn't mean that they can't alter the meaning of a word if people start using it differently.

And when I say alter, I don't mean a big change. I don't mean deleting prior meanings. I mean maybe they add a 5th definition when there was 4, or change the numbering of their definitions based on the context that is most often used.

Yup. Words can change over time. Languages aren't something that's set in stone.