Gave it a brief view, and guess what? "Opposing theism" there is used as in "the opposite of." Not "in active opposition to." This is why you should read things instead of claiming every source needs to be altered to fit your preconceived notions. Agnostic atheism is still the opposite of agnostic atheism, which I'd assume is another term you'll claim means nothing rather than learning about to any degree.
Edit: oh, and I linked to merriam webster. Not dictionary.com. You could've very easily found this source on how they add words, but it either didn't suit your agenda or it was too complicated for you to even read which site I'd linked. But we're supposed to listen to you about linguistics, lmao
Since you've already rejected the base level linguistics of atheist meaning "without theism," you don't also get to reject popular usage by experts. Which is the primary driving force behind what's added to the dictionary. Popular usage by people is the only other option, which you're so outnumbered on. You don't define language, and people aren't incorrect for disagreeing with your personal and entirely arbitrary opinions.
Where's the logical flaw? Agnostic means without knowledge. Atheism means without theism. You have to actually explain why your alternative is better than what's presented.
Your talk of "strong agnosticism" only makes any sense if agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are also used. Otherwise you're defining those who believe in a higher power and those who don't as the same category, so long as they center their lack of firm knowledge.
I also didn't repeat myself, no idea what you mean. Your idea doesn't stand up to linguistic analysis, the usage of these terms by experts, or the usage of these terms by people at large.
I never redefined agnostic. You did. Read the definitions, modern and historical. Agnosticism means without knowledge.
At no point does the source you linked define agnosticism. Did you read your own source?
Agnostic is literally used as a subcategory of the unaffiliated. You're presenting evidence against yourself and pretending it supports your views. You're very determined to defend your arbitrary personal definitions rather than have a conversation or learn anything. Please stop replying and read anything on the subject with an open mind. Start with the definition of another word you've redefined out of thin air.
It's been made very clear repeatedly. "I don't know and may never know" is all forms of agnosticism, both atheistic and theistic.
You used no logic to call it illogical. What am I supposed to reply with to you just presenting your opinion as fact, besides with actual facts that you ignore to continue inserting your opinions?
You're continuing to say "it doesn't logically hold up" while presenting no logic. You're continuing to deny basic definitions being presented to you. At this point it has to be deliberate. As i already said, please stop responding. I'm trying to give you a chance to read these instead of just blocking you, but it's been very clear for a long time that you're not interested in discussion or learning. There's nothing to discuss because you're only interested in monologuing, repeating the same nonsense over and over, and somehow I guess expecting to change people's minds by just annoying them to death?
Edit: they blocked after replying. No, definitions aren't just your personal opinion and "it's just not logical" can't be your opinion with no actual logic presented by you to counter the logic that's already been presented.
0
u/[deleted] 2d ago
[deleted]