What do religious people have in common with atheists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP

I have no doubt that god does not exist. Label me whatever you want.

Can we get back to laughing at the irrational religious posters?

OK, cool. Some people like to fight, about anything, especially with strangers on the internet.

Even when presented with clear facts.

Oppositional twats gonna twat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

^^^^
Lying, oppositional twat insists her definition is the only correct one. STFU.

- I am not insisting anything of the sort, please read it again
- I am not a her
- Please note a DP also suggestion you not resort to name calling
- Despite that it is my turn to name call: you are a sexist pig.

Lying, oppositional twats like to play games because they are trolling.

There are multiple definitions/usages of “agnostic”. Period. Anyone who has an issue with that can fck off and go argue with Merriam and Webster.

Again:

NOBODY CLAIMS THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINTION.

That's you being dishonest and straw-manning.

What's being claimed is that an atheist can also be agnostic.

That's it. Period. You're fighting a fight by yourself.

Again, that is true for only one of the definitions of the word “agnostic”.

Again, there is another valid, commonly-used definition/usage of it.

Again, oppositional trolls want to ignore dictionaries.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

“Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god.”

Holy crap, am I being gaslighted?

Again, that is true for only one of the definitions of the word “agnostic”.

Did you see where I typed: "NOBODY CLAIMS THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINTION." and "You're fighting a fight by yourself. "?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP

I have no doubt that god does not exist. Label me whatever you want.

Can we get back to laughing at the irrational religious posters?

OK, cool. Some people like to fight, about anything, especially with strangers on the internet.

Even when presented with clear facts.

Oppositional twats gonna twat.

And this guy wants to be taken seriously here. Well, if your objective was to behave so ridiculously I tired of you and gave up, congrats, you win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP

I have no doubt that god does not exist. Label me whatever you want.

Can we get back to laughing at the irrational religious posters?

OK, cool. Some people like to fight, about anything, especially with strangers on the internet.

Even when presented with clear facts.

Oppositional twats gonna twat.

And this guy wants to be taken seriously here. Well, if your objective was to behave so ridiculously I tired of you and gave up, congrats, you win.

The poster does not want to be taken seriously -- just wants to argue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

^^^^
Lying, oppositional twat insists her definition is the only correct one. STFU.

- I am not insisting anything of the sort, please read it again
- I am not a her
- Please note a DP also suggestion you not resort to name calling
- Despite that it is my turn to name call: you are a sexist pig.

Lying, oppositional twats like to play games because they are trolling.

There are multiple definitions/usages of “agnostic”. Period. Anyone who has an issue with that can fck off and go argue with Merriam and Webster.

Again:

NOBODY CLAIMS THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINTION.

That's you being dishonest and straw-manning.

What's being claimed is that an atheist can also be agnostic.

That's it. Period. You're fighting a fight by yourself.

Again, that is true for only one of the definitions of the word “agnostic”.

Again, there is another valid, commonly-used definition/usage of it.

Again, oppositional trolls want to ignore dictionaries.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

“Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god.”

Holy crap, am I being gaslighted?

Again, that is true for only one of the definitions of the word “agnostic”.

Did you see where I typed: "NOBODY CLAIMS THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINTION." and "You're fighting a fight by yourself. "?

Great. So then if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP

I have no doubt that god does not exist. Label me whatever you want.

Can we get back to laughing at the irrational religious posters?

OK, cool. Some people like to fight, about anything, especially with strangers on the internet.

Even when presented with clear facts.

Oppositional twats gonna twat.

And this guy wants to be taken seriously here. Well, if your objective was to behave so ridiculously I tired of you and gave up, congrats, you win.

The poster does not want to be taken seriously -- just wants to argue

That's cute when the oppositional trolls play victim.

There is more than one correct definition/usage. Which means that people (or Pew) are correct when they use the terms in a mutually exclusive manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

^^^^
Lying, oppositional twat insists her definition is the only correct one. STFU.

- I am not insisting anything of the sort, please read it again
- I am not a her
- Please note a DP also suggestion you not resort to name calling
- Despite that it is my turn to name call: you are a sexist pig.

Lying, oppositional twats like to play games because they are trolling.

There are multiple definitions/usages of “agnostic”. Period. Anyone who has an issue with that can fck off and go argue with Merriam and Webster.

Again:

NOBODY CLAIMS THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINTION.

That's you being dishonest and straw-manning.

What's being claimed is that an atheist can also be agnostic.

That's it. Period. You're fighting a fight by yourself.

Again, that is true for only one of the definitions of the word “agnostic”.

Again, there is another valid, commonly-used definition/usage of it.

Again, oppositional trolls want to ignore dictionaries.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

“Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god.”

Holy crap, am I being gaslighted?

Again, that is true for only one of the definitions of the word “agnostic”.

Did you see where I typed: "NOBODY CLAIMS THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINTION." and "You're fighting a fight by yourself. "?

Great. So then if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive.

Are you asking that if a word has more than one definition, that those definitions are mutually exclusive of each other?

IMHO, no, definitions don't have to be mutually exclusive, it's all about context in how the word is used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

WRONG. PP’s definition, which is very commonly used, is just as valid as yours.

Except it is not “very commonly used” by actual atheists.. It is used by many theists to try and apply the burden of proof gotcha I mentioned above. It intentionally misrepresents the position of most atheists. That’s what makes it “wrong”.

Hey, I have a great idea. Instead of arguing the definition of words, why don’t we ask people what they think? Why don’t we ask atheists if they are also agnostic or not? And then decide if it is possible to be both.

Sound like a plan?

I'll start. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't BELIEVE there is a god (Atheist), and live my life as if there isn't one, and I also don't KNOW if there is a god (Agnostic), as no one can really know.

Then you are agnostic, not athiest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

You cannot be both as it contradicts. Athiests don't beleive there is a god. Its cut and dry. If you aren't sure, you are an agnostic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

WRONG. PP’s definition, which is very commonly used, is just as valid as yours.

Except it is not “very commonly used” by actual atheists.. It is used by many theists to try and apply the burden of proof gotcha I mentioned above. It intentionally misrepresents the position of most atheists. That’s what makes it “wrong”.

Hey, I have a great idea. Instead of arguing the definition of words, why don’t we ask people what they think? Why don’t we ask atheists if they are also agnostic or not? And then decide if it is possible to be both.

Sound like a plan?

Wrong. It’s very commonly used by everyone, including actual atheists such as myself.

You can work off of your own definitions but don’t act like they are the only ones that are correct.

So you claim there is no god?

Great.

Prove it.

Athiests don't need to prove it as the don't care. Why don't you prove there is a god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

WRONG. PP’s definition, which is very commonly used, is just as valid as yours.

Except it is not “very commonly used” by actual atheists.. It is used by many theists to try and apply the burden of proof gotcha I mentioned above. It intentionally misrepresents the position of most atheists. That’s what makes it “wrong”.

Hey, I have a great idea. Instead of arguing the definition of words, why don’t we ask people what they think? Why don’t we ask atheists if they are also agnostic or not? And then decide if it is possible to be both.

Sound like a plan?

Wrong. It’s very commonly used by everyone, including actual atheists such as myself.

You can work off of your own definitions but don’t act like they are the only ones that are correct.

So you claim there is no god?

Great.

Prove it.

Athiests don't need to prove it as the don't care. Why don't you prove there is a god?

Also, please prove there are no fairies. And prove that the Lock Ness Monster does not exist and the Hindu gods don't exist.

Or prove that the Hindu god DO exist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

You cannot be both as it contradicts. Athiests don't beleive there is a god. Its cut and dry. If you aren't sure, you are an agnostic.

I thought your claimed there were two definitions of atheist. Make up your mind, it is tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

^^^^
Lying, oppositional twat insists her definition is the only correct one. STFU.

- I am not insisting anything of the sort, please read it again
- I am not a her
- Please note a DP also suggestion you not resort to name calling
- Despite that it is my turn to name call: you are a sexist pig.

Lying, oppositional twats like to play games because they are trolling.

There are multiple definitions/usages of “agnostic”. Period. Anyone who has an issue with that can fck off and go argue with Merriam and Webster.

Again:

NOBODY CLAIMS THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINTION.

That's you being dishonest and straw-manning.

What's being claimed is that an atheist can also be agnostic.

That's it. Period. You're fighting a fight by yourself.

Again, that is true for only one of the definitions of the word “agnostic”.

Again, there is another valid, commonly-used definition/usage of it.

Again, oppositional trolls want to ignore dictionaries.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

“Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god.”

Holy crap, am I being gaslighted?

Again, that is true for only one of the definitions of the word “agnostic”.

Did you see where I typed: "NOBODY CLAIMS THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINTION." and "You're fighting a fight by yourself. "?

Great. So then if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive.

Are you asking that if a word has more than one definition, that those definitions are mutually exclusive of each other?

IMHO, no, definitions don't have to be mutually exclusive, it's all about context in how the word is used.

There are two definitions of "agnostic". One definition means that a person can be both atheist and agnostic. The other definition means that they are mutually exclusive.

If you acknowledge that there are multiple, correct definitions of the word "agnostic" then you should also acknowledge that the earlier comment "Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it" is, in fact, correct.

You, of course, can always share the definition that you use yourself and discuss that, but your definition isn't the only correct one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

You cannot be both as it contradicts. Athiests don't beleive there is a god. Its cut and dry. If you aren't sure, you are an agnostic.

I thought your claimed there were two definitions of atheist. Make up your mind, it is tiresome.

There are multiple posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

You cannot be both as it contradicts. Athiests don't beleive there is a god. Its cut and dry. If you aren't sure, you are an agnostic.

I thought your claimed there were two definitions of atheist. Make up your mind, it is tiresome.

There are multiple posters.

Well then those two should argue over whether words can have more than one definition or not. Since the adults here do, please do do it in another thread.