What do religious people have in common with atheists?

[Anonymous]

Given that people (or maybe even the same person) are trolling from various angles...let's recap the facts:

1) 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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
“Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.

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.”

2) therefore, these comments are correct:
"Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it"
"Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists."
"Agnostics lean toward athiesm but aren't fully sure."
And, Pew considers them as two distinct categories.

3) AND, these comments are also correct:
"A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are."
"You can be both atheist and agnostic."
"Agnosticism can be paired with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic theist if they believe in a deity or deities but deny a method of proving it. This is the same for agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in any god or gods but do not attempt to prove such a claim."


Stop trolling and acting like your definition of "agnostic" is the ONLY correct definition.

[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:

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.

I think YOU are the one who can't follow the thread.

PP was referring to the person you responded to, and not your response. That's pretty obvious. Read it again.

And maybe next time don't go right to "STFU" when you are the one who didn't follow the thread. Confusion like that is very common here and in any anonymous conversation. You need to be cognizant of that to avoid madness as has happened here in this thread.

[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:

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.

I think YOU are the one who can't follow the thread.

PP was referring to the person you responded to, and not your response. That's pretty obvious. Read it again.

And maybe next time don't go right to "STFU" when you are the one who didn't follow the thread. Confusion like that is very common here and in any anonymous conversation. You need to be cognizant of that to avoid madness as has happened here in this thread.

As I said, you should STFU if you aren't following...which you aren't. You are confusing posters.

[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:

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.

I think YOU are the one who can't follow the thread.

PP was referring to the person you responded to, and not your response. That's pretty obvious. Read it again.

And maybe next time don't go right to "STFU" when you are the one who didn't follow the thread. Confusion like that is very common here and in any anonymous conversation. You need to be cognizant of that to avoid madness as has happened here in this thread.

As I said, you should STFU if you aren't following...which you aren't. You are confusing posters.

That's clearly not the case. Not sure why you can't see that or why you take such pleasure from "STFU" and can't discuss like an adult. But you have a good day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that people (or maybe even the same person) are trolling from various angles...let's recap the facts:

1) 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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
“Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.

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.”

2) therefore, these comments are correct:
"Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it"
"Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists."
"Agnostics lean toward athiesm but aren't fully sure."
And, Pew considers them as two distinct categories.

3) AND, these comments are also correct:
"A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are."
"You can be both atheist and agnostic."
"Agnosticism can be paired with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic theist if they believe in a deity or deities but deny a method of proving it. This is the same for agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in any god or gods but do not attempt to prove such a claim."


Stop trolling and acting like your definition of "agnostic" is the ONLY correct definition.

Excellent summary. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that people (or maybe even the same person) are trolling from various angles...let's recap the facts:

1) 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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
“Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.

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.”

2) therefore, these comments are correct:
"Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it"
"Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists."
"Agnostics lean toward athiesm but aren't fully sure."
And, Pew considers them as two distinct categories.

3) AND, these comments are also correct:
"A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are."
"You can be both atheist and agnostic."
"Agnosticism can be paired with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic theist if they believe in a deity or deities but deny a method of proving it. This is the same for agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in any god or gods but do not attempt to prove such a claim."


Stop trolling and acting like your definition of "agnostic" is the ONLY correct definition.

Excellent summary. Thanks!

You cannot be atheist and agnostic. That makes no sense. Most atheists not care and don’t need to prove there is no god as there is no proof one exists.

[Anonymous]

Are all these posts just the same two people fighting over semantics? Because it's boring.

In real life, most groups include a mix of people and they manage to get along just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are all these posts just the same two people fighting over semantics? Because it's boring.

In real life, most groups include a mix of people and they manage to get along just fine.

No, it is more than two people.

The rest of us are here to discuss issues in a discussion forum. Glad you have your safe place - if you don’t like discussion or disagreement, maybe that’s a better place for you than here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all these posts just the same two people fighting over semantics? Because it's boring.

In real life, most groups include a mix of people and they manage to get along just fine.

No, it is more than two people.

The rest of us are here to discuss issues in a discussion forum. Glad you have your safe place - if you don’t like discussion or disagreement, maybe that’s a better place for you than here?

Because literally every post in the religion forum devolves into this, completely derailing all discussion. People nitpicking the meaning of words in other people's posts and completely forgetting what the original topic was.

It's absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all these posts just the same two people fighting over semantics? Because it's boring.

In real life, most groups include a mix of people and they manage to get along just fine.

No, it is more than two people.

The rest of us are here to discuss issues in a discussion forum. Glad you have your safe place - if you don’t like discussion or disagreement, maybe that’s a better place for you than here?

Because literally every post in the religion forum devolves into this, completely derailing all discussion. People nitpicking the meaning of words in other people's posts and completely forgetting what the original topic was.

It's absurd.

To you, maybe. To others, those things are important, and words and definitions matter to have proper comprehension of the points. Why don't you complain about the ad hominem posts instead? Those are truly useless and designed to stymie discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all these posts just the same two people fighting over semantics? Because it's boring.

In real life, most groups include a mix of people and they manage to get along just fine.

No, it is more than two people.

The rest of us are here to discuss issues in a discussion forum. Glad you have your safe place - if you don’t like discussion or disagreement, maybe that’s a better place for you than here?

Because literally every post in the religion forum devolves into this, completely derailing all discussion. People nitpicking the meaning of words in other people's posts and completely forgetting what the original topic was.

It's absurd.

To you, maybe. To others, those things are important, and words and definitions matter to have proper comprehension of the points. Why don't you complain about the ad hominem posts instead? Those are truly useless and designed to stymie discussion.

Except when you harass people when they use valid definitions. Then it’s trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all these posts just the same two people fighting over semantics? Because it's boring.

In real life, most groups include a mix of people and they manage to get along just fine.

No, it is more than two people.

The rest of us are here to discuss issues in a discussion forum. Glad you have your safe place - if you don’t like discussion or disagreement, maybe that’s a better place for you than here?

Because literally every post in the religion forum devolves into this, completely derailing all discussion. People nitpicking the meaning of words in other people's posts and completely forgetting what the original topic was.

It's absurd.

To you, maybe. To others, those things are important, and words and definitions matter to have proper comprehension of the points. Why don't you complain about the ad hominem posts instead? Those are truly useless and designed to stymie discussion.

Except when you harass people when they use valid definitions. Then it’s trolling.

Not a lot of that actually happening. Much more whining about harassment than actual harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all these posts just the same two people fighting over semantics? Because it's boring.

In real life, most groups include a mix of people and they manage to get along just fine.

No, it is more than two people.

The rest of us are here to discuss issues in a discussion forum. Glad you have your safe place - if you don’t like discussion or disagreement, maybe that’s a better place for you than here?

Because literally every post in the religion forum devolves into this, completely derailing all discussion. People nitpicking the meaning of words in other people's posts and completely forgetting what the original topic was.

It's absurd.

To you, maybe. To others, those things are important, and words and definitions matter to have proper comprehension of the points. Why don't you complain about the ad hominem posts instead? Those are truly useless and designed to stymie discussion.

Except when you harass people when they use valid definitions. Then it’s trolling.

Not a lot of that actually happening. Much more whining about harassment than actual harassment.

Just another version of trolling.

Probably even the same troll playing both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all these posts just the same two people fighting over semantics? Because it's boring.

In real life, most groups include a mix of people and they manage to get along just fine.

No, it is more than two people.

The rest of us are here to discuss issues in a discussion forum. Glad you have your safe place - if you don’t like discussion or disagreement, maybe that’s a better place for you than here?

Because literally every post in the religion forum devolves into this, completely derailing all discussion. People nitpicking the meaning of words in other people's posts and completely forgetting what the original topic was.

It's absurd.

To you, maybe. To others, those things are important, and words and definitions matter to have proper comprehension of the points. Why don't you complain about the ad hominem posts instead? Those are truly useless and designed to stymie discussion.

Except when you harass people when they use valid definitions. Then it’s trolling.

Not a lot of that actually happening. Much more whining about harassment than actual harassment.

Just another version of trolling.

Probably even the same troll playing both sides.

No, I am not trolling. Just calling it as I see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all these posts just the same two people fighting over semantics? Because it's boring.

In real life, most groups include a mix of people and they manage to get along just fine.

No, it is more than two people.

The rest of us are here to discuss issues in a discussion forum. Glad you have your safe place - if you don’t like discussion or disagreement, maybe that’s a better place for you than here?

Because literally every post in the religion forum devolves into this, completely derailing all discussion. People nitpicking the meaning of words in other people's posts and completely forgetting what the original topic was.

It's absurd.

To you, maybe. To others, those things are important, and words and definitions matter to have proper comprehension of the points. Why don't you complain about the ad hominem posts instead? Those are truly useless and designed to stymie discussion.

Except when you harass people when they use valid definitions. Then it’s trolling.

Not a lot of that actually happening. Much more whining about harassment than actual harassment.

Just another version of trolling.

Probably even the same troll playing both sides.

No, I am not trolling. Just calling it as I see it.

Right…