>>14139614>Then it's the wrong definition if it does not mention God.How so? You still haven't explained this non sequitur. Do you actually think a dictionary needs to list every specific use of a word?
>Is "general definition" still a made up phrase since the last time?What exactly don't you understand about the phrase?
>Hell you can't even understand the difference between general statements and specific statements after I gave you a childrens tutorial explaining them.But you're the only one who seems to have trouble understanding the difference.
>You are saying you know what a word means even if you are using it differently than dictionaries explain it.How am I using it differently? I'm using it exactly as the definition I gave you explains it.
>Dictionaries don't do that for your lunatic meaning you ascribe to "gnostic" and that is why the word "gnostic" has nothing to do with God outside of your delusions.Doesn't follow. Do you think a dictionary needs to list every specific use of a word? If yes, you're mentally ill, if no, your argument fails. Which is it?
>"Agnostic" definitions mention God because dictionaries recognizes english speakers acknowledge this is the correct way to use the word.But agnostic is used outside of the context of God, and has definitions that don't mention God. So you're saying that since the dictionary doesn't mention any other specific use, agnostic only applies to the context of God? You're mentally ill.
>Seriously. If you had friends and they were not atheistcucks like you then you could ask them what "gnostic" means and they'd never think it related to GodWhy would they if I didn't say gnostic theist or gnostic atheist?
>yet everybody knows what agnostic means and that it directly relates to God.But it's not directly related. It's just commonly used that way. Moron.
>I don't care to corect your misunderstanding about "generality"Not an argument. Thanks for admitting you fail at basic logic.