This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Do people take agnosticism to be a middle ground between atheism and theism?

#61AynRandySavagePosted 9/19/2013 11:41:00 AM(edited)
hunter_gohan posted...
If I remember correctly you found one single dictionary vs all the others.


Websters, Cambridge, vocubulary.com, macmillan, wordsymth. etc(you can just go down the list at onelook) In addition, Nearly every single one of the ones that you've used to support your definition all list my definition as well. "belief that there is no god" is represented almost 100 percent of time even if we completely disregard the very likely possibility that those definitions were employing neg-raising. When we accept neg-raising, it's 100 percent.



You can also google yourself up some "lack toast and tolerant recipes".


Yeah, because it's a goofy meme based on what was likely a joke. You can see "neither agree nor disagree" right on the lickert scale. And "neither believe nor disbelieve" in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Agnosticism.
#62hunter_gohanPosted 9/19/2013 1:04:56 PM
AynRandySavage posted...
In addition, Nearly every single one of the ones that you've used to support your definition all list my definition as well.


Websters did not solely have yours. I never denied and have said this multiple, multiple times. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Both not believing in gods and believing no gods exist fall under atheism. It is you attempting to claim that only the latter does.

Yeah, because it's a goofy meme based on what was likely a joke. You can see "neither agree nor disagree" right on the lickert scale. And "neither believe nor disbelieve" in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Agnosticism.


Google it. Two of the things that pop up on auto-complete are "lack toast and tolerant symptoms" and "lack toast and tolerant recipes". It became a meme cause quite frankly people are stupid. Same reason it's Britney Spears instead of Brittany Spears.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#63AynRandySavagePosted 9/19/2013 1:28:49 PM
hunter_gohan posted...

Websters did not solely have yours.


In it's definition of "atheist" it only had mine. And that's actually more important. Not to mention the fact that you'd have to argue that Webster's being inconsistent in its definitions if you're correct in your interpretation of its definition of "atheism"

Both not believing in gods and believing no gods exist fall under atheism. It is you attempting to claim that only the latter does.


I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that words mean whatever the speaker intends to mean and the listener interprets them to mean. Atheism can mean "pineapple" the question is which definition is most conducive to communication. Since Wikipedia, Neil deGrasse Tyson, a large number of dictionaries and every encyclopedia of philosophy I've read explicitly say "denial of the existence of god" is the most common definition, then I suggest that that particular definition is the most conducive definition for being understand.

Yeah, because it's a goofy meme based on what was likely a joke. You can see "neither agree nor disagree" right on the lickert scale. And "neither believe nor disbelieve" in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Agnosticism.


Google it. Two of the things that pop up on auto-complete are "lack toast and tolerant symptoms" and "lack toast and tolerant recipes". It became a meme cause quite frankly people are stupid. Same reason it's Britney Spears instead of Brittany Spears.


Yeah, two links out of dozens of ones about memes(and I'm not so sure those you posted weren't jokes either) And are you saying that T. H. Huxley, the Routledge Encyclopedia of philosophy and W.V.O Quine were all stupid for using the phrase "neither believe nor disbelieve?"
#64cyclonekrusePosted 9/19/2013 2:57:03 PM
AynRandySavage posted...
I never said it necessitated it, so it's an irrelevant question.

No but your case depends on it being true. So it's not an irrelevant question at all. You just don't want to answer it.

And it's not a fallacious one.

So you're claiming to be an expert on English dialects? How about Indian English? Is it a common phrase there?

You made a claim that I ought to justify my belief, by your own logic, you have to defend it.

You're just proving my point. You have a weird aversion to defending your claims and just deflect instead. Sad, really.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#65AynRandySavagePosted 9/19/2013 3:54:37 PM
cyclonekruse posted...

No but your case depends on it being true. So it's not an irrelevant question at all. You just don't want to answer it.


No, you're setting an unreasonably high bar. Why are you talking about "necessity" here?





So you're claiming to be an expert on English dialects? How about Indian English? Is it a common phrase there?


No idea, since I have no experience with Indian English, why would that be important?



You're just proving my point. You have a weird aversion to defending your claims and just deflect instead. Sad, really.


What makes it sad?
#66cyclonekrusePosted 9/19/2013 7:21:18 PM
AynRandySavage posted...
No, you're setting an unreasonably high bar. Why are you talking about "necessity" here?

This is your case thus far:

X phrase is common in my personal experience.
I am fluent in English.
Therefore, my personal experience is generalizable to all of English.
Therefore X is common to all of English.

That doesn't follow. And I've given counterexamples of phrases/words that might be common to fluent speaker of English but fail to generalize to all of English. So it demonstrably does not follow. The only way it would follow is if it were necessarily true that being fluent in English and encountering a phrase often implies that phrase is common throughout all of English.

No idea, since I have no experience with Indian English, why would that be important?

Speakers of Indian English represent a rather sizable portion of all English speakers. If you have no experience with it, then how are you claiming that a certain phrase is one of the most common in English in general? It might not be so bad if that were the only dialect (though it might be more appropriate to say that "Indian English" represents several dialects) you were unfamiliar with . However, I am going to hazard a guess that you're not familiar with various British English dialects and many African English dialects among many other dialects. To the point where I'd claim you probably have no experience with the dialects of a majority of English speakers.

What makes it sad?

One-trick ponies are sad beasts.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#67AynRandySavagePosted 9/19/2013 9:40:36 PM
cyclonekruse posted...

Therefore, my personal experience is generalizable to all of English.
Therefore X is common to all of English.


I'd agree up until this point. Where did I say that the terminology I was talking about was generalizable to all of English?





Speakers of Indian English represent a rather sizable portion of all English speakers. If you have no experience with it, then how are you claiming that a certain phrase is one of the most common in English in general?


Well I'm not. Maybe you misunderstood me.



One-trick ponies are sad beasts.


What do you mean?
#68cyclonekrusePosted 9/19/2013 10:11:05 PM
AynRandySavage posted...
I'd agree up until this point. Where did I say that the terminology I was talking about was generalizable to all of English?

"(one of the most common phrases in English)"

You didn't qualify that as "American English" or "British English" or "Southern English." You just said "English" which implies English generally.

Well I'm not. Maybe you misunderstood me.

See above. I think I understood you just fine and you're just backpedaling now. Especially considering the fact that I have made reference to you claiming the phrase applied to English in general no less than three times and you're just now deciding that's not the case.

What do you mean?

I mean you're a one-trick pony. And that you're sad. Not a difficult code to crack.

Just look here. You're again deflecting rather than defending your statement. It appears to be about the only thing you're capable of doing.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#69Moorish_IdolPosted 9/19/2013 11:02:42 PM
Where there's ARS, there's a semantics debate.
#70kozlo100Posted 9/19/2013 11:24:37 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
Where there's ARS, there's a semantics debate.


Sure, but it takes two to tango.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.