Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then you shouldn´t have any problem comparing my original statement to your paraphrasing and find out that the missing word is "inherent".I said: "If words have no meanings,"
How is that incorrect, incomplete paraphrasing, and missing the keyword? What is the keyword? I teach language, so consider me interested.
You are correct, and we are in agreement. An agnostic would reply "I do not know."
"According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively."
Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People who say they do not know are agnostic.
As interesting as word meaning may be, perhaps we can move along to some issue of substance?
Eudaimonist said:The "popular sense" presumably refers mainly to Christian views.
As interesting as word meaning may be, perhaps we can move along to some issue of substance?
Eight Foot said:If you don't know, you cannot possibly possess a positive belief, and you are necessarily an atheist.
Note that my position is actually reasoned out, while yours is not.
I believe I suggested that several pages ago, but I'm happy to keep correcting people for as long as they insist on being wrong.
Note that I'm now citing the person who invented the word.
Darn that Lightning guy for quoting the man who invented the #### word. Let's move on.
Yes, immediately after I contrasted my notion with the notion that words have inherent meaning.You said:
Eudaimonist said:Invented what word? Are you referring to William Rowe? I'm not aware that he has invented any words.
I'm not trying to silence any masterstroke on your part, as you evidently think. I don't see debate over terms as serving any useful purpose any longer. I'd like a discussion of greater substance now that we've established our use of the terms.
quatona said:Yes, immediately after I contrasted my notion with the notion that words have inherent meaning.
I think CF should have a dedicated Semantics Forum for those people who now keep hijacking threads with their tiresome insistence on what other persons should call themselves.
Thomas Henry Huxley invented the word "agnostic" in the 1800's. Here's a quote from him that I think sheds light on the actual meaning of the word:
"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ...
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took."
If the originator of the word felt atheism was a gnostic position and created the term in contrast to positions such as theism and atheism, then that should certainly be acknowledged.
We all learned something here, huh?
You stated that words have no inherent meaning, then again said they have no meaning (unqualified). My point was that if words have no inherent meaning, and are given meaning by us, then they are subjective and you have had absolutely no reason to debate subjective meanings. I disagree with you that words have no inherent meaning (words evolve, but they do so with shared acceptance of meaning). Words such as "and" have inherent meaning... it is accepted by all as a conjunction of additive function.
ana the 1st said:I'll go around correcting everyone who uses it contrarily to how it was meant to be used. Wonderful. Oh wait...you're already doing that. Nevermind.
Shall we be seeing this discussion of definitions in the very next thread on atheism when you realize that no one has changed their usage of the term?
So you're mad that I'm right... oookay. No, I think the logical next step would be to wonder why agnostics are drawn to the word "atheist" so that they are frustrated that it might not accurately describe them. Is there a pride in being atheist? The people who don't think there is a god are definitely atheists, but the people who aren't sure and yet use the term atheist for their belief seem to be doing so out of something other than accuracy.
People who say they do not know are agnostic.
"According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively."
Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:
Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.[21][22][23]
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[21]
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[24][25]
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."[26][27][28]
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."[26][27][28]
Thomas Henry Huxley invented the word "agnostic" in the 1800's.
We all learned something here, huh?
Yes, I've known that for decades.
I don't see this fact as particularly important, since words such as "agnostic" and "atheist" have a life of their own as people tease out their logical implications and form better boundaries for their concepts. Why do you think that Wikipedia talks about "types" of agnosticism? As quatona had pointed out, there is no intrinsic meaning to the word.
Words have the meanings that people agree upon. In ideal cases, the meanings are sensible and aid discussion because they are well formed and logical. Consistency with etymology is a plus. This is why I tend to use the definitions I do. We are having a problem agreeing on the meaning of these words, so we just need to move on.
If you are trying to get me to agree with you that only the author of a word can determine its meaning, you're fighting an uphill battle. I don't see word meanings in that way. Words do not have fixed meanings. If I had really thought that, I would use the word "atheist" in the precise way it was used in classical times, which wouldn't match anyone's usage today.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Picturing how people would talk should language not change over time
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?