Well thanks for reading first. That's quite commendable.

The easiest answer is to agree on the meaning of the terms with the person you are engaging in the conversation. If you and I look at Van Gogh's 'Sunflowers' and I call the color of the petals yellow, but you call the color of the petals canary then we haven't agreed or disagreed, we have simply failed to disambiguate the terminologies.

I think that part of the FAQ is there to dissuade people from declaring they have THE one and only source of philosophical 'truth'. In order to cause you to think, it has been presented with reasons for the usage of those terms involving the etymological breakdown of the words in context.

Given the fact that some of us can be rather sesquipedalian in nature, the dictionary is merely the starting point for determining an intersubjective meaning.

Quite officiously, Nietzsche said, "The liar uses the valid designations, the words, to make the unreal seem real."

In order to counter that alleged 'truth' about human nature, it seems apparent that the only recourse is the act of agreeing upon the experience behind the word between the individuals communicating.

 

All this quibbling over terminology is a game that I got tired of playing a long time ago. I self-identify as non-religious because i think there are metaphysical problems implied by both the terms "agnostic" and "atheist"

 

atheism, as i understand it, is the position that the propositions regarding the existence of a God or gods are false.

 

agnosticism, as i understand it, is the position that it is not possible to determine the truth value of propositions regarding the existence of a God or gods.

 

both positions, however, admit that there can be meaningful propositions about the existence or non existence of a God or gods. 

 

I don't think that that is at all obvious, and in fact would hold that the opposite is the case and that such propositions are not meaningful at all. It simply doesn't make sense to say "God exists" or "God doesn't exist." I have no idea what either of those sentences mean beyond a relationship to adherence to the articles of faith of a specific religion. Even then, it's confusing about what exactly an individual might mean to say that they believe or don't believe. In any given case that's probably going to be a long conversation, and more likely than not, I'll take issue with something somebody says at some point along the way whether they identify as theistic, atheistic, or agnostic.

 

so I say i'm non-religious. it gets me by.

 

And that is all it does because you've massacred reason and have decided to be intellectually coawrdly.  One question for you, though.  Do you believe in god(s), any god or gods, at all?  And if you fail to answer because you take issue with that question because you don't know what it is to believe something, I recommend checking your pulse for you might make a startling discovery about belief without the need to have it explained to you.

Thanks for the answer darth_josh. I suppose it was wishful thinking that led me to hope for one source containing rigorous definitions for all philosophical terms.