What do religious people have in common with atheists?

[Anonymous]

They both drive me nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They both drive me nuts.

So everyone drives you nuts, right?

[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.

Different person. No, there is not two defiinitions of athiests. Athiests do not believe in God. Agnostics lean toward athiesm but aren't fully sure.

[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:

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.

You are either athiest or not. You cannot be both. If you are unsure, you are agnostic. Stop making up stuff. You cannot be athiest and agnostic.

[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:

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.

You are either athiest or not. You cannot be both. If you are unsure, you are agnostic. Stop making up stuff. You cannot be athiest and agnostic.

https://www.stanleycolors.com/2013/12/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnosticism-vs-gnosticism-a-simple-guide-to-know-what-the-hell-you-are/

[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.

Different person. No, there is not two defiinitions of athiests. Athiests do not believe in God. Agnostics lean toward athiesm but aren't fully sure.

As I told the other troll, there are multiple definitions for “agnostic”. Get over it.

[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:

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.

You are either athiest or not. You cannot be both. If you are unsure, you are agnostic. Stop making up stuff. You cannot be athiest and agnostic.

https://www.stanleycolors.com/2013/12/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnosticism-vs-gnosticism-a-simple-guide-to-know-what-the-hell-you-are/

This is the other definition. Both are valid.

[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.

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.

As long as we all agree that 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.

[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:

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.

Get off your high horse, dude. I was a different poster than the others. I was trying to understand the basis of your, "if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive" claim.

I didn't share jack of a definition either way. Try not to be so argumentative and assume intent of posts.

[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:

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.

Get off your high horse, dude. I was a different poster than the others. I was trying to understand the basis of your, "if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive" claim.

I didn't share jack of a definition either way. Try not to be so argumentative and assume intent of posts.

Hey, dude - you get off your high horse. When everyone is anonymous, it's hard to tell one poster from another.

[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:

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.

Get off your high horse, dude. I was a different poster than the others. I was trying to understand the basis of your, "if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive" claim.

I didn't share jack of a definition either way. Try not to be so argumentative and assume intent of posts.

Don't waste your breath on this guy. In his first paragraph he admits that there are at least two definitions of agnostic and that someone can be both, then in his second paragraph he insists we accept his absolute statement which accounts for only one of the definitions. He's either (certainly) a troll or incredibly stupid.

[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:

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.

Get off your high horse, dude. I was a different poster than the others. I was trying to understand the basis of your, "if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive" claim.

I didn't share jack of a definition either way. Try not to be so argumentative and assume intent of posts.

Don't waste your breath on this guy. In his first paragraph he admits that there are at least two definitions of agnostic and that someone can be both, then in his second paragraph he insists we accept his absolute statement which accounts for only one of the definitions. He's either (certainly) a troll or incredibly stupid.

1. Wasn’t my statement.
2. I didn’t say that was the only correct definition.

Oppositional trolls have bad reading comprehension.

And they love to insert themselves into discussions without reading the thread. If you can’t follow the thread then maybe STFU.

[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:

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.

Get off your high horse, dude. I was a different poster than the others. I was trying to understand the basis of your, "if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive" claim.

I didn't share jack of a definition either way. Try not to be so argumentative and assume intent of posts.

Don't waste your breath on this guy. In his first paragraph he admits that there are at least two definitions of agnostic and that someone can be both, then in his second paragraph he insists we accept his absolute statement which accounts for only one of the definitions. He's either (certainly) a troll or incredibly stupid.

1. Wasn’t my statement.
2. I didn’t say that was the only correct definition.

Oppositional trolls have bad reading comprehension.

And they love to insert themselves into discussions without reading the thread. If you can’t follow the thread then maybe STFU.

Nope. Your statement "Athiests [sic] don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it" has no ambiguity or accommodation. Your logic is dysfunctional.

[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:

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.

Get off your high horse, dude. I was a different poster than the others. I was trying to understand the basis of your, "if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive" claim.

I didn't share jack of a definition either way. Try not to be so argumentative and assume intent of posts.

Don't waste your breath on this guy. In his first paragraph he admits that there are at least two definitions of agnostic and that someone can be both, then in his second paragraph he insists we accept his absolute statement which accounts for only one of the definitions. He's either (certainly) a troll or incredibly stupid.

1. Wasn’t my statement.
2. I didn’t say that was the only correct definition.

Oppositional trolls have bad reading comprehension.

And they love to insert themselves into discussions without reading the thread. If you can’t follow the thread then maybe STFU.

Trying to read through the thread and not following your reasoning. It's as clear as mud.

[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:

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.

Get off your high horse, dude. I was a different poster than the others. I was trying to understand the basis of your, "if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive" claim.

I didn't share jack of a definition either way. Try not to be so argumentative and assume intent of posts.

Don't waste your breath on this guy. In his first paragraph he admits that there are at least two definitions of agnostic and that someone can be both, then in his second paragraph he insists we accept his absolute statement which accounts for only one of the definitions. He's either (certainly) a troll or incredibly stupid.

1. Wasn’t my statement.
2. I didn’t say that was the only correct definition.

Oppositional trolls have bad reading comprehension.

And they love to insert themselves into discussions without reading the thread. If you can’t follow the thread then maybe STFU.

Nope. Your statement "Athiests [sic] don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it" has no ambiguity or accommodation. Your logic is dysfunctional.

As I said...
1. Wasn’t my statement.
2. I didn’t say that was the only correct definition. In fact, I have explicitly said that isn't the only definition in other posts.

Keep on trolling though.