That seems to be a definition at odds with Oxford.
Dictionaries are changed and updated all the time. They are not absolute (and languages are always evolving). And they are not involved in the realm of philosophy, where this discussion actually lies.
Resorting to a dictionary definition to prove an argument is a really weak means of backing up an argument regarding the nature of something.
In your own words, define what the nature of "agnosticism" would be. And don't just tell me it's "somebody who doesn't know what they believe". Describe what agnosticism is.
If that is the case, I wonder why you are focusing on me. Defining agnosticism is what the debate between The_Last_Ride and myself in this thread has mainly been about thus far. Both of us are relying on defining sources to determine what agnostic means and while the definition I listed is related to the religious perspective more so than his philosophical explanation, I believe both are credible in different contexts. Your consideration of agnosticism, like The_Last_Ride's, being a philosophical one rather than religious is valid, but not absolute. The religious perspective deserves credence as well and I already talked about that earlier.
Dictionaries are made to define things and that was partially the point I was making. Saying it is weak is a vague criticism. It does not say my logic is weak, but that the reliance upon this logic is or something.
Log in to comment