:
|
I think you are looking at the case wrong. Sure some people may use some terms wrong, but terms are bound to get lost in the masses. Terms change meanings all the time, and at the moment a lot of people seem to believe that agnostics means you don't take a stance.
But I'm sure if you actually took the time to discuss with a self-professed agnostic about why they feel like they feel, you will get something totally different than you initially thought. It's not like they are lower than you for thinking the way they do.
|
I don't judge people for their ignorance until after the missing information is made available. I'm always explaining what these terms mean. I know there are different meanings for words, and when enough people use them the wrong way for long enough they end up in the dictionary and become right. But for the purpose of expressing ideas I need to end everyone in the discussion on to the same page on
language, at the very least. Then we can actually have the damn discussion. They're probably still agnostic then, but they also know whether they are theist or atheist, or pantheist and the other nonsense. Some of them might even be persuaded to admit it. I know those who write columns and blogs and so forth who have made this precise transformation, and I think their work on this particular topic has improved as a result. For starters, I get to agree or disagree instead of just being annoyed.
:
I can understand the whole "I dont wanna discuss with noncommital people" which seems to be what you complain about. Because discussing with a person who doesn't even commit to the subject at hand will most likely lead to nowhere and be a waste of time. But why on earth do you need to make it an issue about respect. Some people simply don't care about religion, and maybe that is 'not knowing one's mind'... But there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with admitting that one does not have enough knowledge to even make a stance on the subject.
And there is nothing wrong in not taking an interest in the subject either.
|
Lots of people have not even thought about it, which makes these discussions the start of that thought and conversation. I don't get shrill, strident, rude and whatever else we're accused of until they come back and say "I've given it a lot of thought and have concluded that I don't know what I think". They can get in the fecking sack, where they'll be beaten with sticks.
:
|
I just think you shouldn't be so harsh about this, and just let people be. If they think they are atheists and they aren't, you can always just correct them without judging them for it. Today, most people refer to agnostics as indecisiveness about religion, so can you really blame them for taking that meaning to heart?
|
I can when they stick with it after beings asked "how would you describe yourself under these particular definitions?"
:
Also why is the issue boolean? Saying that you know for sure IS arrogant because science doesn't cover everything and neither does religion.
There is a slight chance that somewhere in the future someone will have discovered something so totally foreign and strange that some would call it supernatural.
I mean, based on the current knowledge we have, there isn't really any proof of a god(as far as I know)... But who knows... Maybe there will be. Who can say for sure. That's why i think it's important to keep an open mind both ways.
|
Er, check again? That was the one I specifically laid out as being about belief, not knowledge.
:
Im sorry if I sound angry, but I just feel disheartened seeing you being so harsh. I didn't think it was actually possible to see you this way x_x
Maybe I just also totally misunderstood what you were trying to say in which case Im sorry and nvm 
|
I'll take door number two please.
:
|
Yea... Anyway sorry for this outburst. This is probably going to backlash at me somehow.
|
Lash back! BOOM!