Post reply

Reply to the message by 3DJ

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> Those dictionary definitions, are based on the a-theist redefinition movement. In the 1970s, you can find the likes of George H Smith butchering the definition of Agnosticism, making it relate only to knowledge, making it compatible with Theism, and not a position of no belief. Then, based on that butchery, claiming non-Theists have no sufficient label, as the word Atheist, most commonly meant Athe-ist (what he later calls strong atheism). He then pushes redefining the word Atheist, to mean a-theist, instead. Along with redefining Atheism, came his numerous pointless adjectives, that are now needed to describe individual a-theists positions properly. the a-theist labelling system is a convoluted, incomplete, illogical, mess.-A-theists have had to constantly redefine Agnosticism, as well, to try and claim it isn&apos;t a position of belief. The only reason the unknown and unknowable definitions have made it into dictionaries, is because a-theists have written so much about it, making some dictionaries accept it as common usage. Most people, out in the world, still seem to consider Agnosticism the "fence sitter", or middle position.-Huxley&apos;s definition was always basically a one word label for religious scepticism, and directed at the evidence stage before belief. This is 10 years before coining the term "Agnostic"...-"I warn you solemnly against both of these evils. Despise both bigotry and scoffing doubt, and regard those who encourage you in either, whether they wear the tonsure of a priest, or the peruke of a Voltaire, as your worst enemies. And if you seek a preservative against these snares, I say, strive earnestly to learn something, not only of the results, but of the methods of science, and then apply those methods to all statements which offer themselves for your belief. If they will not stand that test, they are nought, let them come with what authority they may.", 1959-...basically the same thing as 15 years after coining the term...-"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.", 1984-I just call myself an Agnostic, and totally base my definition of "Agnostic" on Huxley&apos;s definition. It is a position of no belief, due to lack of evidence, and not compatible with Athe-ism (belief Gods don&apos;t exist) or Theism (belief Gods exist).