Online Bible Study for Agnostic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not agnostic if you attending church and want t o study the bible.

Not true at all. Besides the fact that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics (often closeted) who attend church regularly (to meet some kind of expectation--family, social, etc), besides the fact that the UU church has NO doctrinal requirements at all BUT does have the "Six Sources" which include Judeo-Christian sources AND a hymnal which includes hymns about God as well as readings from the Bible (among other books), there can be plenty of reasons for an agnostic to want to read and explore the Bible--possibly to challenge one's own current belief or lack thereof, to explore it in the sense of literature or history or in comparison to what other religions say.

This isn’t it. OP is not atheist. She’s agnostic if she’s in between atheist and the possibility of something there.

You can be agnostic AND atheist at the same time. Nearly all atheists are. And, you can be both and attend a Unitarian church - or any other church. You just don't believe and attend for social reasons, or to keep familial peace. I wouldn't do that, but it is possible.

Right. Agnostic is "I don't know" and Atheist is "I don't believe". Many people are both, but may feel more comfortable describing themselves with one word or the other.

These are mutually exclusive — you can’t not believe and yet not know. They are different. A dictionary is your friend, or agnostic writers like Richard Dawkins.

It would be hard for you to be more wrong about those things.

They are not mutually exclusive. The PP is correct. Dawkins calls himself Atheist. Nearly every Atheist also calls themselves agnostic as they cannot prove there are no gods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not agnostic if you attending church and want t o study the bible.

Not true at all. Besides the fact that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics (often closeted) who attend church regularly (to meet some kind of expectation--family, social, etc), besides the fact that the UU church has NO doctrinal requirements at all BUT does have the "Six Sources" which include Judeo-Christian sources AND a hymnal which includes hymns about God as well as readings from the Bible (among other books), there can be plenty of reasons for an agnostic to want to read and explore the Bible--possibly to challenge one's own current belief or lack thereof, to explore it in the sense of literature or history or in comparison to what other religions say.

This isn’t it. OP is not atheist. She’s agnostic if she’s in between atheist and the possibility of something there.

You can be agnostic AND atheist at the same time. Nearly all atheists are. And, you can be both and attend a Unitarian church - or any other church. You just don't believe and attend for social reasons, or to keep familial peace. I wouldn't do that, but it is possible.

Right. Agnostic is "I don't know" and Atheist is "I don't believe". Many people are both, but may feel more comfortable describing themselves with one word or the other.

These are mutually exclusive — you can’t not believe and yet not know. They are different. A dictionary is your friend, or agnostic writers like Richard Dawkins.

It would be hard for you to be more wrong about those things.

They are not mutually exclusive. The PP is correct. Dawkins calls himself Atheist. Nearly every Atheist also calls themselves agnostic as they cannot prove there are no gods.

Nope. Dawkins has said he prefers to be called agnostic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.” Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

For Dawkins, it’s that 0.1/7% possibility of a creator that makes difference between agnostic and atheist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not agnostic if you attending church and want t o study the bible.

Not true at all. Besides the fact that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics (often closeted) who attend church regularly (to meet some kind of expectation--family, social, etc), besides the fact that the UU church has NO doctrinal requirements at all BUT does have the "Six Sources" which include Judeo-Christian sources AND a hymnal which includes hymns about God as well as readings from the Bible (among other books), there can be plenty of reasons for an agnostic to want to read and explore the Bible--possibly to challenge one's own current belief or lack thereof, to explore it in the sense of literature or history or in comparison to what other religions say.

This isn’t it. OP is not atheist. She’s agnostic if she’s in between atheist and the possibility of something there.

You can be agnostic AND atheist at the same time. Nearly all atheists are. And, you can be both and attend a Unitarian church - or any other church. You just don't believe and attend for social reasons, or to keep familial peace. I wouldn't do that, but it is possible.

Right. Agnostic is "I don't know" and Atheist is "I don't believe". Many people are both, but may feel more comfortable describing themselves with one word or the other.

These are mutually exclusive — you can’t not believe and yet not know. They are different. A dictionary is your friend, or agnostic writers like Richard Dawkins.

It would be hard for you to be more wrong about those things.

They are not mutually exclusive. The PP is correct. Dawkins calls himself Atheist. Nearly every Atheist also calls themselves agnostic as they cannot prove there are no gods.

Nope. Dawkins has said he prefers to be called agnostic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.” Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

For Dawkins, it’s that 0.1/7% possibility of a creator that makes difference between agnostic and atheist.

You still don’t understand, or refuse to read or accept.

Yes Dawkins calls himself agnostic. As do nearly all atheists. Only YOU are requiring mutual exclusivity.

Watch a few episodes of The Atheist Experience on YouTube. This discussion occurs very, very frequently.

https://laughingsquid.com/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnosticism-vs-gnosticism-a-comic-guide-to-religious-belief/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not agnostic if you attending church and want t o study the bible.

Not true at all. Besides the fact that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics (often closeted) who attend church regularly (to meet some kind of expectation--family, social, etc), besides the fact that the UU church has NO doctrinal requirements at all BUT does have the "Six Sources" which include Judeo-Christian sources AND a hymnal which includes hymns about God as well as readings from the Bible (among other books), there can be plenty of reasons for an agnostic to want to read and explore the Bible--possibly to challenge one's own current belief or lack thereof, to explore it in the sense of literature or history or in comparison to what other religions say.

This isn’t it. OP is not atheist. She’s agnostic if she’s in between atheist and the possibility of something there.

You can be agnostic AND atheist at the same time. Nearly all atheists are. And, you can be both and attend a Unitarian church - or any other church. You just don't believe and attend for social reasons, or to keep familial peace. I wouldn't do that, but it is possible.

Right. Agnostic is "I don't know" and Atheist is "I don't believe". Many people are both, but may feel more comfortable describing themselves with one word or the other.

These are mutually exclusive — you can’t not believe and yet not know. They are different. A dictionary is your friend, or agnostic writers like Richard Dawkins.

It would be hard for you to be more wrong about those things.

They are not mutually exclusive. The PP is correct. Dawkins calls himself Atheist. Nearly every Atheist also calls themselves agnostic as they cannot prove there are no gods.

Nope. Dawkins has said he prefers to be called agnostic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.” Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

For Dawkins, it’s that 0.1/7% possibility of a creator that makes difference between agnostic and atheist.

You still don’t understand, or refuse to read or accept.

Yes Dawkins calls himself agnostic. As do nearly all atheists. Only YOU are requiring mutual exclusivity.

Watch a few episodes of The Atheist Experience on YouTube. This discussion occurs very, very frequently.

https://laughingsquid.com/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnosticism-vs-gnosticism-a-comic-guide-to-religious-belief/

First you insisted that Dawkins calls himself an atheist (bolded). Now you say he calls himself an agnostic (bolded). I’m not the one who is confused. Whatever the laughing squid says on the issue is irrelevant because we’ve been arguing about Dawkins, and about Dawkins’ distinction between atheists and agnostics. Which is really clear and easy to understand, namely, they’re two different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not agnostic if you attending church and want t o study the bible.

Not true at all. Besides the fact that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics (often closeted) who attend church regularly (to meet some kind of expectation--family, social, etc), besides the fact that the UU church has NO doctrinal requirements at all BUT does have the "Six Sources" which include Judeo-Christian sources AND a hymnal which includes hymns about God as well as readings from the Bible (among other books), there can be plenty of reasons for an agnostic to want to read and explore the Bible--possibly to challenge one's own current belief or lack thereof, to explore it in the sense of literature or history or in comparison to what other religions say.

This isn’t it. OP is not atheist. She’s agnostic if she’s in between atheist and the possibility of something there.

You can be agnostic AND atheist at the same time. Nearly all atheists are. And, you can be both and attend a Unitarian church - or any other church. You just don't believe and attend for social reasons, or to keep familial peace. I wouldn't do that, but it is possible.

Right. Agnostic is "I don't know" and Atheist is "I don't believe". Many people are both, but may feel more comfortable describing themselves with one word or the other.

These are mutually exclusive — you can’t not believe and yet not know. They are different. A dictionary is your friend, or agnostic writers like Richard Dawkins.

It would be hard for you to be more wrong about those things.

They are not mutually exclusive. The PP is correct. Dawkins calls himself Atheist. Nearly every Atheist also calls themselves agnostic as they cannot prove there are no gods.

Nope. Dawkins has said he prefers to be called agnostic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.” Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

For Dawkins, it’s that 0.1/7% possibility of a creator that makes difference between agnostic and atheist.

You still don’t understand, or refuse to read or accept.

Yes Dawkins calls himself agnostic. As do nearly all atheists. Only YOU are requiring mutual exclusivity.

Watch a few episodes of The Atheist Experience on YouTube. This discussion occurs very, very frequently.

https://laughingsquid.com/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnosticism-vs-gnosticism-a-comic-guide-to-religious-belief/

First you insisted that Dawkins calls himself an atheist (bolded). Now you say he calls himself an agnostic (bolded). I’m not the one who is confused. Whatever the laughing squid says on the issue is irrelevant because we’ve been arguing about Dawkins, and about Dawkins’ distinction between atheists and agnostics. Which is really clear and easy to understand, namely, they’re two different things.

You are the one who is confused. It’s been explained pretty simply, and with a link to a cartoon, so I can only assume you are being difficult on purpose.

Dawkins calls himself both an atheist and an agnostic. I am both atheist and agnostic. Nearly every atheist is also agnostic. All the “famous”atheists: Dilahunty, Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc, same thing. Very, very few atheists claim to know there are no gods. Please tell me you understand this fact.

Yes, they are different things. One refers to whether you have a religious belief and the other as to whether you know there is a god. “Gnostic” refers to knowledge, and “Theist” refers to belief. Different, but not mutually exclusive.

Got it now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look into BSF, a colleague likes it.

What’s BSF? Thanks!

Bible Study Fellowship - there are personal study questions, group discussion (online option), a lecture you can listen to and notes. Intense but worthwhile!
https://www.bsfinternational.org/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not agnostic if you attending church and want t o study the bible.

Not true at all. Besides the fact that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics (often closeted) who attend church regularly (to meet some kind of expectation--family, social, etc), besides the fact that the UU church has NO doctrinal requirements at all BUT does have the "Six Sources" which include Judeo-Christian sources AND a hymnal which includes hymns about God as well as readings from the Bible (among other books), there can be plenty of reasons for an agnostic to want to read and explore the Bible--possibly to challenge one's own current belief or lack thereof, to explore it in the sense of literature or history or in comparison to what other religions say.

This isn’t it. OP is not atheist. She’s agnostic if she’s in between atheist and the possibility of something there.

You can be agnostic AND atheist at the same time. Nearly all atheists are. And, you can be both and attend a Unitarian church - or any other church. You just don't believe and attend for social reasons, or to keep familial peace. I wouldn't do that, but it is possible.

Right. Agnostic is "I don't know" and Atheist is "I don't believe". Many people are both, but may feel more comfortable describing themselves with one word or the other.

These are mutually exclusive — you can’t not believe and yet not know. They are different. A dictionary is your friend, or agnostic writers like Richard Dawkins.

It would be hard for you to be more wrong about those things.

They are not mutually exclusive. The PP is correct. Dawkins calls himself Atheist. Nearly every Atheist also calls themselves agnostic as they cannot prove there are no gods.

Nope. Dawkins has said he prefers to be called agnostic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.” Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

For Dawkins, it’s that 0.1/7% possibility of a creator that makes difference between agnostic and atheist.

You still don’t understand, or refuse to read or accept.

Yes Dawkins calls himself agnostic. As do nearly all atheists. Only YOU are requiring mutual exclusivity.

Watch a few episodes of The Atheist Experience on YouTube. This discussion occurs very, very frequently.

https://laughingsquid.com/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnosticism-vs-gnosticism-a-comic-guide-to-religious-belief/

First you insisted that Dawkins calls himself an atheist (bolded). Now you say he calls himself an agnostic (bolded). I’m not the one who is confused. Whatever the laughing squid says on the issue is irrelevant because we’ve been arguing about Dawkins, and about Dawkins’ distinction between atheists and agnostics. Which is really clear and easy to understand, namely, they’re two different things.

You are the one who is confused. It’s been explained pretty simply, and with a link to a cartoon, so I can only assume you are being difficult on purpose.

Dawkins calls himself both an atheist and an agnostic. I am both atheist and agnostic. Nearly every atheist is also agnostic. All the “famous”atheists: Dilahunty, Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc, same thing. Very, very few atheists claim to know there are no gods. Please tell me you understand this fact.

Yes, they are different things. One refers to whether you have a religious belief and the other as to whether you know there is a god. “Gnostic” refers to knowledge, and “Theist” refers to belief. Different, but not mutually exclusive.

Got it now?

Go ahead and ignore what Dawkins says about himself, that he prefers to be called an agnostic to being called an atheist. Doesn’t matter to me. Pretend you’re right about Dawkins’ own self-description, ignore what he calls himself, and sleep soundly tonight.

[Anonymous]

BSF is very good. For something super accessible, check out the She Reads Truth app. There are a number of bible studies there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look into BSF, a colleague likes it.

What’s BSF? Thanks!

Bible Study Fellowship - there are personal study questions, group discussion (online option), a lecture you can listen to and notes. Intense but worthwhile!
https://www.bsfinternational.org/

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are the one who is confused. It’s been explained pretty simply, and with a link to a cartoon, so I can only assume you are being difficult on purpose.

Dawkins calls himself both an atheist and an agnostic. I am both atheist and agnostic. Nearly every atheist is also agnostic. All the “famous”atheists: Dilahunty, Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc, same thing. Very, very few atheists claim to know there are no gods. Please tell me you understand this fact.

Yes, they are different things. One refers to whether you have a religious belief and the other as to whether you know there is a god. “Gnostic” refers to knowledge, and “Theist” refers to belief. Different, but not mutually exclusive.

Got it now?

This is pretty hilarious. Dawkins says very clearly in the Telegraph quote above that he is agnostic, not atheist. How can you argue that he defines himself differently from what he, himself, says in plain English? Insulting pp, saying she’s the confused one, doesn’t save your argument here.

[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:You are not agnostic if you attending church and want t o study the bible.

Not true at all. Besides the fact that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics (often closeted) who attend church regularly (to meet some kind of expectation--family, social, etc), besides the fact that the UU church has NO doctrinal requirements at all BUT does have the "Six Sources" which include Judeo-Christian sources AND a hymnal which includes hymns about God as well as readings from the Bible (among other books), there can be plenty of reasons for an agnostic to want to read and explore the Bible--possibly to challenge one's own current belief or lack thereof, to explore it in the sense of literature or history or in comparison to what other religions say.

This isn’t it. OP is not atheist. She’s agnostic if she’s in between atheist and the possibility of something there.

You can be agnostic AND atheist at the same time. Nearly all atheists are. And, you can be both and attend a Unitarian church - or any other church. You just don't believe and attend for social reasons, or to keep familial peace. I wouldn't do that, but it is possible.

Right. Agnostic is "I don't know" and Atheist is "I don't believe". Many people are both, but may feel more comfortable describing themselves with one word or the other.

These are mutually exclusive — you can’t not believe and yet not know. They are different. A dictionary is your friend, or agnostic writers like Richard Dawkins.

It would be hard for you to be more wrong about those things.

They are not mutually exclusive. The PP is correct. Dawkins calls himself Atheist. Nearly every Atheist also calls themselves agnostic as they cannot prove there are no gods.

Nope. Dawkins has said he prefers to be called agnostic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.” Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

For Dawkins, it’s that 0.1/7% possibility of a creator that makes difference between agnostic and atheist.

You still don’t understand, or refuse to read or accept.

Yes Dawkins calls himself agnostic. As do nearly all atheists. Only YOU are requiring mutual exclusivity.

Watch a few episodes of The Atheist Experience on YouTube. This discussion occurs very, very frequently.

https://laughingsquid.com/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnosticism-vs-gnosticism-a-comic-guide-to-religious-belief/

First you insisted that Dawkins calls himself an atheist (bolded). Now you say he calls himself an agnostic (bolded). I’m not the one who is confused. Whatever the laughing squid says on the issue is irrelevant because we’ve been arguing about Dawkins, and about Dawkins’ distinction between atheists and agnostics. Which is really clear and easy to understand, namely, they’re two different things.

You are the one who is confused. It’s been explained pretty simply, and with a link to a cartoon, so I can only assume you are being difficult on purpose.

Dawkins calls himself both an atheist and an agnostic. I am both atheist and agnostic. Nearly every atheist is also agnostic. All the “famous”atheists: Dilahunty, Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc, same thing. Very, very few atheists claim to know there are no gods. Please tell me you understand this fact.

Yes, they are different things. One refers to whether you have a religious belief and the other as to whether you know there is a god. “Gnostic” refers to knowledge, and “Theist” refers to belief. Different, but not mutually exclusive.

Got it now?

Go ahead and ignore what Dawkins says about himself, that he prefers to be called an agnostic to being called an atheist. Doesn’t matter to me. Pretend you’re right about Dawkins’ own self-description, ignore what he calls himself, and sleep soundly tonight.

Now you were just being a jerk. You’re trolling. No one is this dumb for real.

Dawkins calls himself an atheist.

You may be the only person in the world who know who Richard Dawkins is who doesn’t know that.

[Anonymous]

Reposting for format

Anonymous wrote:

You are the one who is confused. It’s been explained pretty simply, and with a link to a cartoon, so I can only assume you are being difficult on purpose.

Dawkins calls himself both an atheist and an agnostic. I am both atheist and agnostic. Nearly every atheist is also agnostic. All the “famous”atheists: Dilahunty, Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc, same thing. Very, very few atheists claim to know there are no gods. Please tell me you understand this fact.

Yes, they are different things. One refers to whether you have a religious belief and the other as to whether you know there is a god. “Gnostic” refers to knowledge, and “Theist” refers to belief. Different, but not mutually exclusive.

Got it now?

This is pretty hilarious. Dawkins says very clearly in the Telegraph quote above that he is agnostic, not atheist. How can you argue that he defines himself differently from what he, himself, says in plain English? Insulting pp, saying she’s the confused one, doesn’t save your argument here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BSF is very good. For something super accessible, check out the She Reads Truth app. There are a number of bible studies there.

Thank you!

[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:You are not agnostic if you attending church and want t o study the bible.

Not true at all. Besides the fact that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics (often closeted) who attend church regularly (to meet some kind of expectation--family, social, etc), besides the fact that the UU church has NO doctrinal requirements at all BUT does have the "Six Sources" which include Judeo-Christian sources AND a hymnal which includes hymns about God as well as readings from the Bible (among other books), there can be plenty of reasons for an agnostic to want to read and explore the Bible--possibly to challenge one's own current belief or lack thereof, to explore it in the sense of literature or history or in comparison to what other religions say.

This isn’t it. OP is not atheist. She’s agnostic if she’s in between atheist and the possibility of something there.

You can be agnostic AND atheist at the same time. Nearly all atheists are. And, you can be both and attend a Unitarian church - or any other church. You just don't believe and attend for social reasons, or to keep familial peace. I wouldn't do that, but it is possible.

Right. Agnostic is "I don't know" and Atheist is "I don't believe". Many people are both, but may feel more comfortable describing themselves with one word or the other.

These are mutually exclusive — you can’t not believe and yet not know. They are different. A dictionary is your friend, or agnostic writers like Richard Dawkins.

It would be hard for you to be more wrong about those things.

They are not mutually exclusive. The PP is correct. Dawkins calls himself Atheist. Nearly every Atheist also calls themselves agnostic as they cannot prove there are no gods.

Nope. Dawkins has said he prefers to be called agnostic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.” Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

For Dawkins, it’s that 0.1/7% possibility of a creator that makes difference between agnostic and atheist.

You still don’t understand, or refuse to read or accept.

Yes Dawkins calls himself agnostic. As do nearly all atheists. Only YOU are requiring mutual exclusivity.

Watch a few episodes of The Atheist Experience on YouTube. This discussion occurs very, very frequently.

https://laughingsquid.com/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnosticism-vs-gnosticism-a-comic-guide-to-religious-belief/

First you insisted that Dawkins calls himself an atheist (bolded). Now you say he calls himself an agnostic (bolded). I’m not the one who is confused. Whatever the laughing squid says on the issue is irrelevant because we’ve been arguing about Dawkins, and about Dawkins’ distinction between atheists and agnostics. Which is really clear and easy to understand, namely, they’re two different things.

You are the one who is confused. It’s been explained pretty simply, and with a link to a cartoon, so I can only assume you are being difficult on purpose.

Dawkins calls himself both an atheist and an agnostic. I am both atheist and agnostic. Nearly every atheist is also agnostic. All the “famous”atheists: Dilahunty, Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc, same thing. Very, very few atheists claim to know there are no gods. Please tell me you understand this fact.

Yes, they are different things. One refers to whether you have a religious belief and the other as to whether you know there is a god. “Gnostic” refers to knowledge, and “Theist” refers to belief. Different, but not mutually exclusive.

Got it now?

Go ahead and ignore what Dawkins says about himself, that he prefers to be called an agnostic to being called an atheist. Doesn’t matter to me. Pretend you’re right about Dawkins’ own self-description, ignore what he calls himself, and sleep soundly tonight.

Now you were just being a jerk. You’re trolling. No one is this dumb for real.

Dawkins calls himself an atheist.

You may be the only person in the world who know who Richard Dawkins is who doesn’t know that.

So you’re calling Dawkins something that he doesn’t call himself? OK. Just for kicks, let’s recap that quote from above.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”

And then they segue into the distinction that you refuse to see (or can’t grasp), that seeing a 0.1/7% possibility of a creator makes the difference between an agnostic and an atheist.

Calling me a jerk doesn’t save you here. In fact, the ad hominems kinda make it clear you know you’re wrong. Yeah, I’m aware of the epistemology vs. theology definitions. But Dawkins is NOT, I repeat NOT, making those particular arguments. He’s making a DIFFERENT argument when he defines himself. So you putting words into his mouth to win an argument on a mom’s website is kinda pathetic.

[Anonymous]

I am an atheist. I would never go to church or explore religion as I am an atheist and do not believe in God or religion. An Agnostic attending church and bible study and not an agnostic. You are a light believer or believer.