Thanks--atheists and theists often commit this fallacy labeling the terms: Atheist, theist, and agnostic--https://www.thoughtco.com/etymological-fallacy-words-1690613
(y)(y)

My favorite parts from your source regarding the 'etymological fallacy':
"One thing to remember when you read or hear someone insisting that an English word must have a certain meaning because of its Latin or Greek roots is that these insisters apply their etymologies very selectively. You will find few of them who object to December being used for the twelfth month, when its Latin root means 'ten,' or to manure being used as a noun meaning 'to work (land) by hand.' So when you read, for example, that caption must refer to matter above a picture because it comes from Latin caput 'head,' keep manure in mind."
 
  • Like
Reactions: perplexedzeromass
Break that down for me if you would please.
"As such, I no longer refer to myself as an "Agnostic" because it appears that ship has sailed and flies under the banner of Atheism."

Well, it only falls under that banner of atheism if we take atheism to have one literal meaning from its original etymology as so many of the hard/positive atheists assert.

"Since I am neither theist or atheist, I am identifying my position as "Natural-Neutral" as I am not apposed to Gnosticism [which Agnosticism implies]"

I get what you are saying regarding knowledge asserted or lack of knowledge (or lack of being able to know), with Agnocism versus Gnosticism, but no knowledge exists without some form of belief, so the literal etymological derivations of these two terms and atheism or theism are not absolutes to the epistemology of their meaning or application; in fact, they are often misleading.

This is fundamentalist literalism just as much as literalist fundamentalist religion is.
 
How does the subject of selective etymological defenses relate to my dialogue ?
Because of points like this...

If you look up "atheism" in a dictionary, you will find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly, many people understand "atheism" in this way. Yet this is not what the terms means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not," and "theos" means "god". From this standpoint, an atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist. Still, there is a popular dictionary meaning of "atheism" according to which an atheist is not simple one who holds no belief in the existence of a God or gods but is one who believes that there is no God or gods.
Source: Martin, Michael (editor). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. (2008) pg. 1

So if atheism, at some point, came to be understood as the opposite of theism (a contrary belief and not just a lack of belief), then the point in quotations is simply an etymological fallacy. Our point about agnosticism being separate from atheism is dependent on how one defines atheism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: perplexedzeromass
Break that down for me if you would please.

Going back in time ... Here's a thread providing some history of the term "atheism" from Mithrae responding to Wiploc on DebatingChristianity forum. You also contributed some good posts!
Mithrae [url="https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1012871#p1012871 said:
[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1012846#1012846]wiploc[/url] said:
"Fancy new terminology"? If you look in the OED, you'll find that calling all non-theists "atheists" is an ancient practice.

I don't have the OED handy, but Wikipedia suggests quite the opposite; that its Greek origins were as a pejorative term for rejection of (or by) the 'true' gods, even being applied against Christians. Same with its earliest known usages in the early modern period in French and in English, and the earliest recorded non-pejorative self-applications of the term likewise were cases of active disbelief:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology
    In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". . . .

    The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[134] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[135] and again in 1571.[136] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[137] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme,[138] and appears in English about 1587.[139] . . . .

    Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[16] Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[146] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[45]

Baron d'Holbach's rhetorical point aside, as far as I can find the earliest outline of ideas such as 'implicit' atheism and 'weak' atheism occur in the 1970s from philosophers such as Antony Flew and George H. Smith. The weak/strong distinction seems like a potentially useful one - for use among those who reject belief in gods - to easily clarify whether or not they also express a positive belief that there are no gods. But there seems to be no reason for indulging the invention of 'implicit' atheism, as far as I can tell, besides the tendency noted above of stacking the stats in favour of one's own position. I would find it equally irrational and objectionable to label babies as theists.
 
Last edited:
So it isn't anything I said then?

Going back to original meanings is "the ship that has sailed" I referred to.

This is because that is just the way of the evolution of human language and fighting for something so late in the Game, isn't constructive use of personal energy.

Lets go back a few steps.

I was thanked for a post in another thread. {LINK}
I pointed to this thread as part of my attempt to explain that I no longer saw the diagram as accurate.

I see now that my explanation could have been better, but even so, my argument is still valid re Agnosticism.

So the things I wrote about agnosticism to begin with, I realized at some point I wasn't actually writing about Agnosticism but about something else.

I sought to identify the "something else" and haven't discovered the name for it...so I referred to the position as "Natural-Neutral".
iB5bTru.png

William: The Natural-Neutral Default Position

GM: Sober journey into self-realization

William: Better than trying on the Agnostic label which has been through the mill

GM: A terrible milestone

William: Ground into powder....
{LINK}

Now that we have reached this point together - The GM from yesterday affirms;

A Matter of Knowing Where to Look
GM:
Brother Wolf Sister Moon

William: 289, as with;
The Suppression Matrix
This is how The Mind works...
Within that which is unseen...


GM: Though the Serpent rules the Shadow
Liminal [relating to a transitional or initial stage of a process. occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold.]


William: Like "Natural-Neutral" re theism and atheism...not "Agnostic" because that is a known subset of atheism...

GM: The Spirit of The Earth
Essentially, we are Gaia in Human Form...

William: Such is the nature of consciousness...

GM: Chamber Of Self {LINK}

I am toying with the idea of calling it "Liminalism"
[Search "Liminality"]
a term used to describe the psychological process of transitioning across boundaries and borders. The term “limen” comes from the Latin for threshold; it is literally the threshold separating one space from another. It is the place in the wall where people move from one room to another.

Agnosticism is a form of Liminalism, applicable only to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?" re the theistic and atheistic answers and subsequent arguments re said question.

Liminalism is not limited to pondering questions specific to theistic/atheistic interpretation of the mind in relation to matter. That is a huge advantage.
 
Last edited:
So it isn't anything I said then?

Going back to original meanings is "the ship that has sailed."
This is because that is just the way of human language and fighting for something so late in the Game isn't constructive use of personal energy.

Lets go back a few steps.

I was thanked for a post in another thread. {LINK}
I pointed to this thread as part of my attempt to explain that I no longer saw the diagram as accurate.

I see now that my explanation could have been better, but even so, my argument is still valid re Agnosticism.

So the things I wrote about agnostcism to begin with, I realised at some point I wasn;t actually rtting about Agnosticism but about something else.

I sought to identify the "something else" and haven't discovered the name for it...so I referred to the position as "Natural-Neutral".
iB5bTru.png


{LINK}

Now that we have reached this point together - The GM from yesterday affirms;



I am toying with the idea of calling it "Liminalism"
[Search "Liminality"]


Agnosticism is a form of Liminalism, applicable only to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?" re the theistic and atheistic answers to said question.

Liminalism is not limited to pondering questions specific to theistic/atheistic interpretation of the mind in relation to matter.
I is things you said; it also what others claim that you alluded to.