reply to post by SaturnFX
Indeed, all along in this thread, I have been talking about the noun version of "agnostic" (the form that the word originated in), and have been
disregarding the adjective form, because yes, as an adjective, it could be attached to anything at all and made to be part of that word.
I also meant the term "agnostic" in the sense relating to theology. Once again, it may be used in other senses, but the common usage of the term (and
again, the meaning that the word originated with) is the one I meant.
You may believe agnostics to be "invalid", but I'd put forward that that is due to your incorrect base assumptions. It doesn't necessitate any
supernatural knowledge, it is just an opinion, born out from a train of thought followed logically through (although perhaps the original base thought
may be wrong, depending on whether or not you are an agnostic
Whatever your opinion of them may be, such people do exist. Wikipedia has an article "List of Agnostics", and there are several on that list who would
come under the term "strong agnostic", who on many occasions proclaimed themselves to be agnostics differentiated from atheists (and theists, of
PS: It's Gandhi, not Ghandi. I regularly point this out not only because so many people get it wrong, but because "ghandi" sounds very similar to a
hindi language cuss, so it's a bit funny when people misspell it like that.
edit on 13-5-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)