A new definition of Agnosticism...? (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, June 22, 2012, 23:04 (4538 days ago) @ romansh

I must admit, I more or less agree with the commentary.
> Though I don't think this is terribly new.
> 
> Our definitions become our axioms so to speak. 
> 
> I fully understand that as if we use a weak atheist definition, then I am an atheist, by that definition. But a weak atheist also does not disbelieve in god. So saying atheists don't actually disbelieve in god looses it punch somehow. 
> 
> But the commentator does touch on a relevant point for me - agnosticism is how we handle knowing, not just belief. These (and faith) are thought - it's how we handle thought.-What I'm most interested in, is dhw's idea about the fact that one can be a theistic-agnostic or an atheist-agnostic. -He typically challenges agnostic definitions as this, based upon the fact that he prefers to adhere to the dictionary-Huxley definition of agnosticism.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"