Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2012, 09:44 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(18-05-2012 09:37 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(18-05-2012 04:23 PM)kim Wrote:  Oh you Erxy - that almost made milk come out my nose... and I wasn't even drinking any!! Big Grin
Hm...Kim you have my curiosity piqued now. You're not drinking milk, yet, you being a woman have milk that almost came out your nose. You must be quite the contortionist.

Sexy. Big Grin

I declare Kim Sexy and Ghost the winner of this debate.
I declare Erxy incapable of impartial judgement. Now go recuse yourself!

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeepThought's post
18-05-2012, 09:46 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(18-05-2012 09:44 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  
(18-05-2012 09:37 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Hm...Kim you have my curiosity piqued now. You're not drinking milk, yet, you being a woman have milk that almost came out your nose. You must be quite the contortionist.

Sexy. Big Grin

I declare Kim Sexy and Ghost the winner of this debate.
I declare Erxy incapable of impartial judgement. Now go recuse yourself!
But Deep, I just cleaned up from my last recusing. Do I have to do it again???

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
18-05-2012, 11:12 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(18-05-2012 09:46 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  But Deep, I just cleaned up from my last recusing. Do I have to do it again???
Ewwww...

If I ever meet you, we aren't shaking hands!

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeepThought's post
18-05-2012, 11:18 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Word to the wise...good idea. Hobo

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
19-05-2012, 08:04 AM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Hey, Truly.

Quote:The thing is that Huxley might have been the first to use the term
widely, and he might have had an ideology similar to yours, but that
doesn't make the ideology existent within the term itself.

That's patently ridiculous. The ideology is the signified, the word Agnostic is the signifier and the combination of both, the meaning + the symbol is the sign.

Quote:...No one is able to separate the 'word' from its meaning except by recourse to the metalanguage of a definition.
-Roland Barthes

Huxley coined the term for no other reason than to signify the ideology he was describing. The word means someone who vigorously applies his single principle.

That being said, the word Agnostic is polysemous. If you have an issue with polysemy, your issue is with the English language, not the word Agnostic.

Polysemous images and signs have a floating chain of signifieds and the reader is able to chose some and ignore others (Barthes).
Quote:Hence in every society various techniques are developed intended to fix the floating chain of signifieds in such a way as to counter the terror of uncertain signs...
-Roland Barthes, "The Rhetoric of the Image"
Quote:A ritual view of communication is directed not toward the extension of messages in space but toward the maintenance of society in time; not the act of imparting information but the representation of shared beliefs.
-James Carey, "A Cultural Approach to Communication."
Quote:Reality exists outside of language, but it is constantly mediated by and through language: and what we can know and say has to be produced in and through discourse. Discursive 'knowledge' is the product not of the transparent representation of the 'real' in language but if the articulation of language on real relations and conditions. Thus there is no intelligible discourse without the operation of a code...

Certain codes may, of course, be so widely distributed in a specific language community or culture, and be learned at so early an age, that they appear not to be constructed - the effect of an articulation between sign and referent - but to be 'naturally' given. Simple visual signs appear to have achieved a 'near-universality' in this sense: through evidence remains that even apparently 'natural' visual codes are culture-specific. However, this does not mean that no codes have intervened; rather, that the codes have been profoundly naturalized... This has the (ideological) effect of concealing the practices of coding which are present...

The level of connotation of the visual sign, of its contextual reference and positioning in different discursive fields of meaning and association, is the point where already coded signs intersect with the deep semantic codes of a culture and take on additional, more active ideological dimensions... These codes are the means by which power and ideology are made to signify in particular discourses. They refer signs to the 'maps of meaning' into which any culture is classified; and those 'maps of social reality' have the whole range of social meanings, practices, and usages, power and interest 'written in' to them...

Any society/culture tends, with varying degrees of closure, to impose its classifications to the social and cultural and political world. These constitute a dominant cultural order. Though it is neither unequivocal nor uncontested. The question of the 'structure of discourses in dominance' is a crucial point. The different areas of social life appear to be mapped out into discursive domanins, hierarchically organised into dominant or preferred meanings. New, problematic or troubing events, which breach our expectancies and run counter to our 'common-sense constructs', to our 'taken-for-granted' knowledge of social structures, must be assigned to their discursive domains before they can be said to 'make sense'. The most common way of 'mapping' them is to assign the new to some domain or other of the existing 'maps of problematic social reality'. We say dominant, not 'determined', because it is always possible to order, classify, assign and decode and event within more than one 'mapping'...

In speaking of dominant meanings, then, we are not talking about a one-sided process which governs how all events will be signified. It consists of the 'work; required to enforce, win plausibility for and command as legitimate a decoding of the event within the limit of dominant definitions in which it has been connotatively signified.
-Stuart Hall, "Encoding-Decoding".

Many Atheists are trying to fix a single meaning to the word Agnostic at the expense of the other signifieds in the floating chain. It is a move of dominance and power. It is an ideological position that, when deconstructed, aggressively tries to reassert itself. It is dominant, not determined. It has been naturalised by hegemony and is viewed as common sense. I am not doing anything new with the word, I'm simply trying to unfix the term.

In the quadratic model, Agnostic, used in that specific form with a fixed meaning, makes sense and helps to convey meaning. The term Agnostic Atheist makes sense. But when that fixed form of the term is used in other models, the models don't work. This is viewed as a triumph. But it isn't a triumph, it is sabotage. In the model that views Agnostics as separate from both Theists and Atheists, Huxley's model, the word, with that specific meaning, makes sense and helps convey meaning. It also raises a very serious question about the use of the worth Atheist; another polysemous word that people are attempting to fix meaning to. But that's another discussion.

What is important is that neither model is correct. As George EP Box quipped, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." The models are not reality but rather mediated visions of reality. My model doesn't have to be wrong for yours to be correct and vice versa.

Quote: The etymology of the term goes back way before Huxley.

That is naked revisionism. The ancient Greek root words go back a long time, but that doesn't mean the combinative word "Agnostic" does. Agnostic, as coined by Huxley in 1869, could not have existed before the advent of the scientific method. The etymology of the word can be traced precisely not only to a man and a year, but to a date and an event; an address to a meeting of the Metaphysical Society.

Quote:Huxley was alive prior to the advances in science that I pointed out
earlier in argument, so there is a chance, if he were alive today, he
wouldn't hold such a philosophical view on the existence of god.

Impossible. Huxley's principle is entirely compatible with science, not the science of a specific era. He actually rejected all spiritual claims back then, so that certainly would not have changed. And the God question remains undemonstrated; therefore, his position there would not change either.

Quote:It was common back then for people to have those types of views, but you
have to keep in mind that today their knowledge would be vastly
expanded, and in practicality, they probably wouldn't identify as
agnostics.

That's preposterous, unsupportable, fanciful and serves only to try to undermine the history of the Agnostic movement.

Quote:I only see problems in the lack of practicality of people who identify
as agnostics and some of the reasons for why people today feel the need
to.

Agnosticism is entirely practical because it is a method. It is a way of approaching things that can be applied to situations.

Thank you for your apology. Accepted and appreciated.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
19-05-2012, 08:24 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2012 09:18 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(19-05-2012 08:04 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Reality exists outside of language, but it is constantly mediated by and through language: ..... that they appear not to be constructed - the effect of an articulation between sign and referent... to our 'taken-for-granted' knowledge of social structures, must be assigned to their discursive domains before they can be said to 'make sense'. The most common way of 'mapping' them is to assign the new to some domain or other of the existing 'maps of problematic social reality'. We say dominant, not 'determined', because it is always possible to order, classify, assign and decode and event within more than one 'mapping' ... when deconstructed, aggressively tries to reassert itself. It is dominant, not determined. It has been naturalised by hegemony and is viewed as common sense. I am not doing anything new with the word, I'm simply trying to unfix the term. ... "All models are wrong, but some are useful." The models are not reality but rather mediated visions of reality. My model doesn't have to be wrong for yours to be correct and vice versa.
Agnosticism is entirely practical because it is a method. It is a way of approaching things that can be applied to situations.


Pure genius.
(forgive my snipping, please).
The labeling of little boxes ain't gonna cut the grass.
No matter how "close" you come, I can always find a better ruler, and find some space between your definition,, and another. Useless enterprise, (except for education). It's all about Linguistics. Very little else.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-05-2012, 09:38 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2012 09:45 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Quote: Huxley coined the term for no other reason than to signify the ideology
he was describing. The word means someone who vigorously applies his
single principle.

That being said, the word Agnostic is polysemous. If you have an issue
with polysemy, your issue is with the English language, not the word
Agnostic.

You're just begging the question. You still haven't explained why it is that the word means something other than what it indicates by the etymology and definition of the word.

We are trying to fix a single meaning to a word that already has a single meaning?

Language is supposed to have words with single meanings. I've already pointed out why, and you can't claim to be right on stupidity. I know ignorance is bliss, but you can't claim correctness on lack of understanding. It is independent of English, it is philosophical/fundamental usage of language. You can't make an argument that states: because English screwed up at being unambiguous/equivalence, that is what is correct.

Quote: that doesn't mean the combinative word "Agnostic" does. Agnostic, as
coined by Huxley in 1869, could not have existed before the advent of
the scientific method. The etymology of the word can be traced precisely
not only to a man and a year, but to a date and an event; an address to
a meeting of the Metaphysical Society.

You are just arguing in circles, and making claim to fall in line with you way of thinking. I've already pointed out why, just because a word was coined in a circumstance, it doesn't have to have that ideological meaning. (refer back to my example of Newton vs Einstein and Gravity).

Quote: Impossible. Huxley's principle is entirely compatible with science, not
the science of a specific era. He actually rejected all spiritual claims
back then, so that certainly would not have changed. And the God
question remains undemonstrated; therefore, his position there would not
change either

That's preposterous, unsupportable, fanciful and serves only to try to undermine the history of the Agnostic movement.

You're arguing that he was aware of Quantum Physics, General/Special Relativity, String Theory, Hubble telescope images/discoveries, Big Bang Theory, etc, etc.

Great argument, I'm pretty sure an agnostic would have also accepting knowing all future scientific study, theory, and discovery.

You didn't understand what I was getting at. He might have philosophically held the same view, but he would have definitely had a larger understanding of the universe with modern science. You can't argue that would have not changed his view scientifically and practically in the real world.

Quote:Agnosticism is entirely practical because it is a method. It is a way of approaching things that can be applied to situations.
Again, thanks for begging the question. You can't keep arguing in circles. The etymology is clear cut; the word by it's roots has a specific and unequivocal meaning. If you want to add something that is not self-evident in the word, you're an idiot and I already accept you as being one.

I already stated that I know why you are identifying as agnostic (as oppose to other terms).

There doesn't have to be an ideology that is self-evident within term for me to understand, by your self-identification as agnostic (as oppose to other terms i.e. what Huxley did), what your ideology is, but there is a new word or an addition to the old word needed to make it self-evident.

I really could care less if you don't understand science, philosophy, logic, or argument, but you can't claim correctness on that ignorance.

It's like arguing with a fucking rock.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 09:56 AM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
"Language is supposed to have words with single meanings"

Since when ? Now there's a new one.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 09:59 AM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Wow, Truly. Just wow.

That was the most laughable response to a post that I've ever read.

Thank you for illiciting my last post. I had a good time writing it and it helped me understand things on a deeper level; organising thoughts usually does that. But I cannot continue this conversation with you because reading your posts is just painful. Like nut surgery painful. I hope that attacking my intellectual abilities makes you feel like more of a man. You need all the help you can get. I'm done with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 10:10 AM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(18-05-2012 09:37 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  I declare Kim Sexy and Ghost the winner of this debate.

Yea to the first, nay to the second. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: