Why Agnostics are Uneducated
Gnosis: knowledge, inquiry {gnos}
Before I was distracted by “10 Reason Why My Renders Suck”, I was going to write about agnostics, following on my famous “Why I'm not an Atheist” proposition. So, here I am writing about agnostics.
This argument is not teleological in nature, and is only meant to be an etymological discussion of the word “agnostic”. In fact, this is an ateological argument, thus having no finality in purpose, coherency, nor in any way definitive of anything at all. Furthermore, I'd like to state, this has no meaning whatsoever. Also, any argument stated within this argument will be purely phenomenological, thus making sense only in my bracketed brain. This is my way out in case anyone disproves my proposition.
Gnosis in Greek means knowledge, therefore, Gnostic means knowledgeable. This is true, unless you take the stance that Gnosis is a religious term that defines the belief in a deity via knowledge, in which case you are wrong because that's not my point. It is rumored that the English verb “to know” takes its root from this Greek word “gnos”. It is also true that “gnochi” means eating the truth.
Wikipedia defines education as this:
Education in its broadest sense is any act or experience that has a formative effect on the mind, character or physical ability of an individual. In its technical sense education is the process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills and values from one generation to another.
In accordance with this online Bible called Wikipedia, then the logical conclusion is that education and knowledge are symbiotically entwined. To be educated, one needs knowledge. The union of the prefix “a” and the root “gnostic” defines the word “agnostic” as someone not knowledgeable or without knowledge. Via the discussion of the Greek word “gnosis” and the Wikipedia definition of “education”, it follows that an agnostic person is uneducated because this person is not knowledgeable or without knowledge.
How can you argue against that? So, in conclusion, I have to say that people who label themselves as “agnostic” are only stating that they are uneducated and should not be taken seriously. If there are any agnostic educators, we should get rid of them since they are not educated and don't deserve to be teaching anything. Agnosticism, then, should not be taught, since teaching is education, and education is the transmission of knowledge. Also, if we teach agnosticism, then we are only allowing the education of uneducation, which becomes a paradox, and will only lead to idiocy.
