Jump to content


Photo

Hey All


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#41 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:25 PM

Absolutely Spectre. The "truth" in "love". Where we have two points to consider as well:

1- Every person here, Christian AND non-Christian alike, agreed to abide by the forum rules PRIOR to being accepted. An honest conversation is all we can ask of our members. No one said we would all agree on any or all of the subjects here. But, as you'll notice, the rule are "strictly enforced" for a reason.

2- Sometimes love is "tough" love. If one of my children smoked, I would still love them, but I'd do everything within my ability to get them to quit.

View Post

Okay, point taken. :P

#42 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 February 2011 - 06:45 AM

Equivocate really is your favourite word isn't it, an accusation that you level at others and yet something I think you are guilty of constantly employing. This thread is a perfect example. You're keen to project your own misunderstanding onto me in an attempt to ignore the rest of the information I posted in this thread, a purposeful attempt at obfuscation?

View Post

Attempting to run from the actual definition, in order to retain your misunderstanding of the definitional properties of a word “AND” it’s contextual meaning, is a less than honest stance to approach from. You actually can misrepresent the word, to make it mean what you want it to mean, but that is the definition of “equivocation”. And that is why I bring it up; to expose it for what it is; to bring it into the light so everyone else can see what is happening and recognize it for what it is.

If you continue to hear the word “equivocation” from me, it is because YOU continue to equivocate! And, I will “constantly employ” it, until you stop attempting it.
This forum is about honest debate, not:

Using evasive or deliberately vague language
Straying from truthfulness or sincerity in order to deceive, mislead, hedge, etc.; be deliberately ambiguous

Lets note something. The labels we apply don't matter if we define our position. Since I have done so more than once the fact that you continue to push this definition issue tells me something. It tells me that you would rather not address the rest of the information posted.

View Post

If you “define” your position by misrepresenting the original definitions with prevarications, you have done nothing more than posted a dishonest opinion here.
If you build your foundation of definition upon misrepresentation, the rest of the conversation (i.e. information) is fallacious at best, and not worth the sand it is built upon.

#43 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 February 2011 - 06:46 AM

But I digress, so lets rehash.
Ignorance - lacking knowledge
Agnostic - The inability to attain knowledge

View Post

Again, you prevaricate… BOTH of the above semi-definitions are descriptive of the word “Agnostic”. And both are stances from IGNORANCE (Ignorance = “lack of knowledge”… “A” = No… Gnostic = Knowledge. Therefore “Agnostic = NO KNOWLEDGE… Please see “ignorance above^^^).

“An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist.” Why, because Agnostic translated means “NO KNOWLEDGE” prefix “A”-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun “Gnostic” meaning "knowledge," http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/agnostic

When applied to a deity
Ignorance - Not knowing if a god exists
Agnostic - The inability to know if a god exists

View Post

And, as I provided above, both are stances from a “lack of knowledge” or “ignorance”.

Agnostic - Agnostos

“The English term "agnostic" is derived from the Greek "agnostos," which means, "to not know." An agnostic is one who admits, "I don't know." The term is applied specifically to those who don't know for certain whether or not God exists. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover.”

http://www.allaboutp...rg/agnostic.htm

Those are not equivalent.

View Post


They ARE equivalent, regardless of your denial of the evidence against your misguided stance.

The word comes from greek, as you point out. What you failed to point out is that it can mean either unknown, or unknowable. Given that we already have the word ignorant, and given my previous postings in this thread, it should be clear what the meaning is.
Granted it's a fine distinction, so how about another example.

View Post


I pointed out the etymology of “Agnosticism” earlier (in this post, and further up in the thread), so your attempt to misrepresent it here will be exposed over-and-over.
Unknown: not forming part of somebody's knowledge or of knowledge in general (ignorance)

Unknowable: impossible to know, often because of being beyond human experience or understanding (ignorance).

ag•nos•tic [ ag nóstik ] (plural ag•nos•tics)
noun
Definition:
1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
http://encarta.msn.c...7/agnostic.html


As you can see in the above definition, BOTH of your definitions (“unknown” AND “Unknowable”) are agnostic terms! BOTH distinctions are agnostic distinctions.
Therefore the balance (or the rest) of your post is moot, because your foundations assertion is flawed and incorrect.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users