<p>Oh sorry, I guess I misread. But I'm still a little confused by your statements. I agree with your two most recent posts, that we aren't born with a specific religion but we're born uncertain. Doesn't that necessarily mean that we're born agnostic, since, by definition, agnostics just aren't sure? But then, in post 37 you said that we aren't born tabula rasa so there is no default. Couldn't you mean that the default is agnosticism, since we start out not really believing anything specific? I never said that anyone was born atheist; that's exactly what I've been arguing against.</p>
<p>I don’t know if we should consider Agnosticism as a belief stance then. Agnostics say they are “undecided” about religions and sometimes claim that they don’t have enough information to decide. They wait passively, for some basis to settle. They often say, “I don’t know.” So then Agnosticism would not be a position at all but a method for arriving at a position in the future. Agreed?</p>
<p>We used dictionary definition in the beginning of the debate. This as we know can often be worse than useless and tend to depict that certain things like gods are unknown/ ultimately unknowable. So let’s go back to the founder of Agnosticism Thomas Huxley, the famous friend and advocate of Darwin, to figure out what he really meant by agnosticism. </p>
<p>“Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence, which logically justifies that certainty.” He then goes on to say that it is a method in regard to knowledge, not a stance or frozen belief, a method for separating out what we can justifiably say we know from what we cannot justifiably say we know.</p>
<p>This sounds somewhat familiar doesn’t it? The definition of agnosticism sounds exactly like the definition of “reasoning.” Now, considering dictionary.com’s definition of agnosticism (which says it is the ‘belief’ of uncertainty), I would like to say that Agnosticism is rather an ongoing process of logic after floodgate of religious doctrines. So then we are neither born with agnostic mind or uncertainty, are we? –Since we haven’t had any contact with religion whatsoever.</p>
<p>When we are born, we are born with a reasoning ability—and following Huxley’s definition of agnostics you could say we are born with agnostic method—but a human being prima facie does not appear to have dictionary.com’s definition of agnosticism.</p>
<p>+Yes, I know you've been arguing against "born atheist" the last paragraph was directed towards post #28. btw, your opinion is one that I agree the most</p>
<p>Yay, I think I like that definition better. Agreed :-D</p>
<p>Good luck with Brown PLME. I think I'm going to do Brown ED too.</p>
<p>BTW, amor, look at the URL at the top of your screen. If it doesn't say 'dailyjolt' anywhere up there, then try to keep down the desire to provoke with one-sentence replys. Not because it's really wrong of you, but because people here don't know better, and seem to be spending a bit too much time thinking though responses that are just going to get them another one-sentence reply from you :-P</p>
<p>well that's their own fault if they want to type out responses i won't even read :O</p>