<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Redefinition of words.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/11/redefinition-of-words/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/11/redefinition-of-words/</link>
	<description>A sanctuary for young free-thinkers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:04:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Hughes</title>
		<link>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/11/redefinition-of-words/comment-page-1/#comment-9131</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Hughes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=5037#comment-9131</guid>
		<description>Dictionaries: Not actually the final say on matters of linguistics. Shocking revelation I know.

The problem with the term &#039;agnostic&#039; as it is commonly used is that, quite frankly, it&#039;s a nonsense word. Many people, including quite a number in the skeptical community, have become so enamored with the fallacy of excluding the middle that they forget that there are situations where you really do have a bivalent choice. Combine that with the demonisation of the word &#039;atheist&#039; and the desire to appear open minded, and, BAM! -- You&#039;ve got the rise of &#039;agnostic&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dictionaries: Not actually the final say on matters of linguistics. Shocking revelation I know.</p>
<p>The problem with the term ‘agnostic’ as it is commonly used is that, quite frankly, it’s a nonsense word. Many people, including quite a number in the skeptical community, have become so enamored with the fallacy of excluding the middle that they forget that there are situations where you really do have a bivalent choice. Combine that with the demonisation of the word ‘atheist’ and the desire to appear open minded, and, BAM! — You’ve got the rise of ‘agnostic’.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smellygirl</title>
		<link>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/11/redefinition-of-words/comment-page-1/#comment-9127</link>
		<dc:creator>smellygirl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=5037#comment-9127</guid>
		<description>&quot;Agnostic&quot; and &quot;gnostic&quot; are not adverbs, they are adjectives. Adjectives describe nouns (AGNOSTIC atheist), adverbs describe verbs or adjectives (VERY tall). 

And as much as you may dislike it, &quot;agnostic&quot; and &quot;gnostic&quot; are nouns also. In fact, most dictionaries list the noun definition first. Before writing a post complaining about the incorrect use of words, you really should have consulted a dictionary!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Agnostic” and “gnostic” are not adverbs, they are adjectives. Adjectives describe nouns (AGNOSTIC atheist), adverbs describe verbs or adjectives (VERY tall). </p>
<p>And as much as you may dislike it, “agnostic” and “gnostic” are nouns also. In fact, most dictionaries list the noun definition first. Before writing a post complaining about the incorrect use of words, you really should have consulted a dictionary!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
