Jess

And I believe you when you say that you can find numerous scholarly works where ‘agnostic’ is defined according to your preference. But this is neither a philosophical nor a theological venue. As such, we’re entitled to use the plain meaning of words as they are used in common conversation. An agnostic is “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; ‘one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god (Merriam-Webster). I think Omega’s use of the term is perfectly acceptable in common parlance. I think you are being overly critical.

And that’s the point, really. I’m forced to the conclusion that you have an axe to grind. You have completely ignored the thrust of Omega’s post — that she shouldn’t be forced to conform to other’s religious holdings — in order to pick at her use of the term ‘agnostic’. And more telling than this, of all the things you could call yourself, you have adopted the nom de plume “non-agnostic”. From all appearances, you seem to think it is VERY important that people be educated as to what it means to be agnostic, particularly when they are so clearly wrong.

As long as you are trotting out your lexicographic authorities, why don’t you look up ‘pedant’.

And now I must apologize to Omegamom for cluttering up her blog and being contentious. I will henceforth leave this thread well enough alone.

Anyway - more than I intended to write. All I came to say was “great job.”

Also vis-a-vis labels and forcing ideas, Who says I am “one of those people” as someone says (meaning a hyper-religious sort, I guess)? I said nothing about my own beliefs, rather you have “forced” some category on me. In fact, I like atheists who know what they’re dealing with in thought and have a clear notion of things; my point is not about whether there is a god, it’s about knowing what you’re talking about (like some atheists and theists both do but not all of either camp) vs. treating the question lightly and mishmashing together contradictory ideas to suit one’s own fancy.

“Non-agnostic”: label shmabel. it’s just a word. Your ‘correction’ is irrelevant to the point of the post.

Ironic, is it not?

But you can’t blame them. After all it is MUCH easier to denigrate someone else’s beliefs when you are allowed to define them as you wish.

Nevertheless, now that you have been given the official lecture on what IS and IS NOT agnosticism, perhaps you should reconsider your position, missy.

Or, just possibly, you could find a way to make peace with the fact that you disagree with the characterization of your own philosophical outlook by an anonymous and agenda-driven commenter, regardless of how qualified they feel they are to define your existence for you.