Well, hell Batman, you just made it more complicated than me and Deck, but it makes sense to me, and I completely agree.
I think you have put this very well, Batman. Without proudly accepting the literal definition of the terms (versus their politicization by folks who fear them) there is not space to have a cogent conversation about agnosticism or atheism. The words have been so politicized that folks have to search far and wide for a way to discuss their ideas because the very words that describe them have been damned as some equivalent form of zealotry. Incidentally, I've heard Richard Dawkins put it pretty much the way you did when he was asked how he felt about Buddhism. It was interesting to hear him speak about spirituality, philosophy, and cultural heritage liked to religious tradition.
Fairly certain it was me. Also... "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Batman Jones again."
Excuse me, but I think I know what I am a bit better than you do. From Merriam-Webster: Agnostic - 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. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic?show=0&t=1320891773 Dude, that's like your opinion. You are welcome to it, but don't define for me what I am. I'll do that myself, thank you very much.
Very simple I do not KNOW whether or not god exists = agnostic I do not hold the BELIEF that god exists = atheist The two are completely compatible. Beware mainstream definitions as they have often been modified by those in the majority who are looking to demonize those in the minority.
Some people do not allow that language evolves. The original and technical definitions of atheist and agnostic would be talking about two different axes, one of knowledge and the other of belief, thus you would be either gnostic or agnostic, theist or atheist. Mainstream definitions take into account common usage. They represent the common understanding of the meaning of words today. Whether they are used to demonize or just represent a general lack of understanding of the original terms, there is nothing wrong with using them, nor are they less correct than other terms in their use. When Deckard says he is an agnostic and relies on the dictionary definition, he is right. When you look at his described beliefs and inform him that he meets the definition of an atheist, you are right. When he denies he is an atheist, he is also right, because he is simply relying on a different definition than you. Using the roots of the word, the original definition makes more sense than the common usage (as one would expect) but both uses are legitimate, IMHO.
