What's up with the idea of "no cussing?"

When overused, or used in an incorrect manner, people will be ignorant of the original meanings of a certain word. For example, we all know that the word "fuck" can be used in any sentence in any placement, right? *cough* Not really. The original meaning of the word is "to damage" or "have sexual intercourse", not something you'd wanna say in every sentence right? It's commonly being misused.

Then another words like "slut" also has its original definition: a woman who has many casual sexual partners. It may sound pretty normal to you to call a person that word, without the intention of the actual meaning of the word, but in reality you're describing that person as another thing in a way that's probably not what you really mean. Yes, I agree that language is all just a series of sounds in a certain pattern that we can perceive with our senses, but you gotta use appropriate words that mean the appropriate things.

I don't think it's the words themselves that are portrayed as "bad" in regards to religion, but the meaning behind them. It's not the most morally right thing to do to call someone a woman with lots of sex partners (by that I mean "slut") and therefore, "slut" is not the best word that you should be saying. If we make the word "man" have the definition of "whore", then the word "man" will be the so-called dirty word not because of the word itself, but the definition.

 

So if I say I am neither a dog nor a cat...this means that maybe I am a dog or a cat? Does this seem logical to you?

 

As long as you have to be either a cat or a dog, yes it does.

 

But I said...as long as I am neither a cat nor a dog!

 

Let's bring up wikipedia again
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable." - Wikipedia.
Basically maybe it can be known, maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't, therefore there is a possibility that they/they don't believe in God

 

Agnostics suspend judgement they are neither believing nor disbelieving in God/gods...
Let me give you an example...a man is sent to trial because he has been accused of murder.
When that man walks into the room the judge is not yet having any beliefs about him, he neither believes that the guy committed the murder nor does he believe that he is innocent...he was not yet presented with any evidence pro or against so he is suspending his judgement...he DOES NOT have any kind of belief yet. After the evidence accumulates the judge's mind starts going towards the most plausible possibility, he start either believing that the man is innocent or that he is guilty. So before the evidence was presented the judge did not believe anything about his culpability.



The agnostic is the judge's mind before he was presented evidence. He is in a position of neutrality when it comes to belief...he neither believes nor he disbelieves...he just waits for the evidence.


I think I get your position now...so you basically say this:
Atheist - I don't believe in God.
Theist - I believe in God
Agnostic - I might/ might not believe in God.

My position is this:
Atheist - I don't believe in God
Theist - I believe in God
Agnostic - I nor believe nor disbelieve in God.

My point was that as soon as the agnostic starts to believe/disbelieve in the existence of God he automatically turns into an atheist or a theist...

The Wikipedia definition of agnosticism says nothing about the belief system of an agnostic because that definition strictly concerns itself with the knowledge problem not the belief problem.

Rob believes in God.
Bob believes in God.
Which one of them is an agnostic and which one is a theist? Can you answer? If you say that Rob is a theist and say that Bob is an agnostic is not the word agnostic redundant? Why would we have different words for the exact same thing?

We cannot have 2 different words for the exact same thing otherwise every word would lose its meaning.

 

It's just silly.

 

I agree with what you say about some people just not liking swearing irrespective of possible religious reasons. I am familiar with "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain" and I accept that, as a Christian. I am not sure, however, that the Bible condemns swearing as such. Is the form of the commandment governing cheating on your spouse, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" intrinsically better than "Thou shalt not fuck another person's spouse"? Why should either form be superior to the other? Would it be wrong to use the second form in a new translation of the Bible, for example? It is the meaning that matters. Maybe the second form would, in fact, be more effective, making sense to a wider audience.