As an Atheist, what do you tell your little kids?

[Anonymous]

Tell them the truth. No one has ever gone to heaven and come back to tell about it, so we don’t know

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agnostic is the belief that something either is or could be out there but that man doesn’t know what it is. If you look at religion historically, it has always been used as a societal tool by man to acquire power and resources and control others. Religion was the first form of government and religious rules the first form of codified societal norms. It serves a purpose but religion like government unchecked is always corrupt as power inevitably corrupts.

"Agnostic" simply means you "don't know" ("Gnostic" = "knowing" or knowledge).

You can be both Atheist and Agnostic, and most atheists consider themselves both. Many Theists do as well.

There are many degrees and definitions of "not knowing" of course.

I am not agnostic. I am an atheist. I know there is nothing. If you aren’t sure, you are agnostic.

And your point is....? Note the words "most" and "you can be both" in the post you are responding to.

ps you make that claim you have the same burden of proof as a theist. What is your evidence there is "nothing"? And you need to define "nothing" first as well. (I think you might mean to say there isn't anything supernatural). Not trying to be argumentative but I don't like double standards.

Op here. I just read through the last few pages and I agree with this. I think I’m both agnostic and atheist.

In my view, you are one or the other but not both.

If you are confident there is no god, no afterlife, etc you are atheist.

If you aren’t sure you are agnostic.

I don’t see a Venn Diagram with overlap. You should like you are agnostic in how I define it, not an atheist.

"How you see it" doesn't matter though, does it?

There are multiple definitions for agnostic. The way that you “see it” isn’t any more valid than the PP’s way.

Sure they can see it differently. Of course, they'd be wrong.

Because "gnostic" means "know/knowledge" and so "agnostic" means "not know". That's what the words mean.

You can not know and also not believe, just as you likely do about leprechauns.

What PP and others like him are trying to do - unsuccessfully - is place an equal burden of proof on non-believers. Sorry, that is not how logic works! The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

Nearly all atheists are also agnostic. Ask them. There's plenty here! But it also includes the "famous" ones too - not that that matters. Theists can be agnostic as well, but for some reason there seems to be fewer of those. I wonder why?

+1. They are literally two different words with two different meanings and it seems no matter how many times people explain some people still don’t get it

Because there are actually multiple definitions for the word agnostic.

Your definition isn’t the only one that is correct.

In this case, it actually is, based on the people who claim the title. It is ONLY theists who claim that atheism means something other than what it means to the vast majority of atheists.

Atheism: The lack of belief in a god or gods
Atheist: Someone who does not believe in a god or gods.

If the atheists think it means that, and the etymology of the word is consistent with the definition, then any other definition is, at best, vernacular. Unless you think you can use any word to mean any thing you want and no one ever misuses a word. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agnostic is the belief that something either is or could be out there but that man doesn’t know what it is. If you look at religion historically, it has always been used as a societal tool by man to acquire power and resources and control others. Religion was the first form of government and religious rules the first form of codified societal norms. It serves a purpose but religion like government unchecked is always corrupt as power inevitably corrupts.

"Agnostic" simply means you "don't know" ("Gnostic" = "knowing" or knowledge).

You can be both Atheist and Agnostic, and most atheists consider themselves both. Many Theists do as well.

There are many degrees and definitions of "not knowing" of course.

I am not agnostic. I am an atheist. I know there is nothing. If you aren’t sure, you are agnostic.

And your point is....? Note the words "most" and "you can be both" in the post you are responding to.

ps you make that claim you have the same burden of proof as a theist. What is your evidence there is "nothing"? And you need to define "nothing" first as well. (I think you might mean to say there isn't anything supernatural). Not trying to be argumentative but I don't like double standards.

Op here. I just read through the last few pages and I agree with this. I think I’m both agnostic and atheist.

In my view, you are one or the other but not both.

If you are confident there is no god, no afterlife, etc you are atheist.

If you aren’t sure you are agnostic.

I don’t see a Venn Diagram with overlap. You should like you are agnostic in how I define it, not an atheist.

"How you see it" doesn't matter though, does it?

There are multiple definitions for agnostic. The way that you “see it” isn’t any more valid than the PP’s way.

Sure they can see it differently. Of course, they'd be wrong.

Because "gnostic" means "know/knowledge" and so "agnostic" means "not know". That's what the words mean.

You can not know and also not believe, just as you likely do about leprechauns.

What PP and others like him are trying to do - unsuccessfully - is place an equal burden of proof on non-believers. Sorry, that is not how logic works! The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

Nearly all atheists are also agnostic. Ask them. There's plenty here! But it also includes the "famous" ones too - not that that matters. Theists can be agnostic as well, but for some reason there seems to be fewer of those. I wonder why?

+1. They are literally two different words with two different meanings and it seems no matter how many times people explain some people still don’t get it

Because there are actually multiple definitions for the word agnostic.

Your definition isn’t the only one that is correct.

What are the multiple definitions for the word agnostic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tell them the truth. No one has ever gone to heaven and come back to tell about it, so we don’t know

That's because you can only go to heaven if you're dead.

very convenient.

No one's ever gone to hell and come back to tell about it either.

Maybe neither place exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell them the truth. No one has ever gone to heaven and come back to tell about it, so we don’t know

That's because you can only go to heaven if you're dead.

very convenient.

No one's ever gone to hell and come back to tell about it either.

Maybe neither place exists.

[Anonymous]

Why doesn't anyone mention that world leaders, CEO's, doctors, etc., believe in a higher power and/or religion?
I know of doctors who pray before difficult surgeries.
Also, hasn't anyone had a prayer answered, for something important or serious?

The atheists and/or agnostics on this post are similar to the left liberals who try to ram down their views on everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why doesn't anyone mention that world leaders, CEO's, doctors, etc., believe in a higher power and/or religion?
I know of doctors who pray before difficult surgeries.
Also, hasn't anyone had a prayer answered, for something important or serious?

The atheists and/or agnostics on this post are similar to the left liberals who try to ram down their views on everyone.

That’s a huge red flag.

We just want Republicans from shoving their religion down our throats. And up our vaginas…

Capiche?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why doesn't anyone mention that world leaders, CEO's, doctors, etc., believe in a higher power and/or religion?
I know of doctors who pray before difficult surgeries.
Also, hasn't anyone had a prayer answered, for something important or serious?

The atheists and/or agnostics on this post are similar to the left liberals who try to ram down their views on everyone.

I'm sure there are rapists and murderers who pray before their acts too. Is that really the bar you're setting? It's basically on the floor.

Atheists arent shoving anything, we just want to be left alone by religious zealots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why doesn't anyone mention that world leaders, CEO's, doctors, etc., believe in a higher power and/or religion?
I know of doctors who pray before difficult surgeries.
Also, hasn't anyone had a prayer answered, for something important or serious?

The atheists and/or agnostics on this post are similar to the left liberals who try to ram down their views on everyone.

I believe that your psychiatrist prayed, out of desperation when nothing else worked on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why doesn't anyone mention that world leaders, CEO's, doctors, etc., believe in a higher power and/or religion?
I know of doctors who pray before difficult surgeries.
Also, hasn't anyone had a prayer answered, for something important or serious?

The atheists and/or agnostics on this post are similar to the left liberals who try to ram down their views on everyone.

That’s a huge red flag.

We just want Republicans from shoving their religion down our throats. And up our vaginas…

Capiche?

Ceviche!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell them the truth. No one has ever gone to heaven and come back to tell about it, so we don’t know

That's because you can only go to heaven if you're dead.

very convenient.

No one's ever gone to hell and come back to tell about it either.

Maybe neither place exists.

ooh heaven is a place on earth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agnostic is the belief that something either is or could be out there but that man doesn’t know what it is. If you look at religion historically, it has always been used as a societal tool by man to acquire power and resources and control others. Religion was the first form of government and religious rules the first form of codified societal norms. It serves a purpose but religion like government unchecked is always corrupt as power inevitably corrupts.

"Agnostic" simply means you "don't know" ("Gnostic" = "knowing" or knowledge).

You can be both Atheist and Agnostic, and most atheists consider themselves both. Many Theists do as well.

There are many degrees and definitions of "not knowing" of course.

I am not agnostic. I am an atheist. I know there is nothing. If you aren’t sure, you are agnostic.

And your point is....? Note the words "most" and "you can be both" in the post you are responding to.

ps you make that claim you have the same burden of proof as a theist. What is your evidence there is "nothing"? And you need to define "nothing" first as well. (I think you might mean to say there isn't anything supernatural). Not trying to be argumentative but I don't like double standards.

Op here. I just read through the last few pages and I agree with this. I think I’m both agnostic and atheist.

In my view, you are one or the other but not both.

If you are confident there is no god, no afterlife, etc you are atheist.

If you aren’t sure you are agnostic.

I don’t see a Venn Diagram with overlap. You should like you are agnostic in how I define it, not an atheist.

"How you see it" doesn't matter though, does it?

There are multiple definitions for agnostic. The way that you “see it” isn’t any more valid than the PP’s way.

Why even have definitions? Let's believe anything means whatever each of us wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agnostic is the belief that something either is or could be out there but that man doesn’t know what it is. If you look at religion historically, it has always been used as a societal tool by man to acquire power and resources and control others. Religion was the first form of government and religious rules the first form of codified societal norms. It serves a purpose but religion like government unchecked is always corrupt as power inevitably corrupts.

"Agnostic" simply means you "don't know" ("Gnostic" = "knowing" or knowledge).

You can be both Atheist and Agnostic, and most atheists consider themselves both. Many Theists do as well.

There are many degrees and definitions of "not knowing" of course.

I am not agnostic. I am an atheist. I know there is nothing. If you aren’t sure, you are agnostic.

And your point is....? Note the words "most" and "you can be both" in the post you are responding to.

ps you make that claim you have the same burden of proof as a theist. What is your evidence there is "nothing"? And you need to define "nothing" first as well. (I think you might mean to say there isn't anything supernatural). Not trying to be argumentative but I don't like double standards.

Op here. I just read through the last few pages and I agree with this. I think I’m both agnostic and atheist.

In my view, you are one or the other but not both.

If you are confident there is no god, no afterlife, etc you are atheist.

If you aren’t sure you are agnostic.

I don’t see a Venn Diagram with overlap. You should like you are agnostic in how I define it, not an atheist.

"How you see it" doesn't matter though, does it?

There are multiple definitions for agnostic. The way that you “see it” isn’t any more valid than the PP’s way.

Sure they can see it differently. Of course, they'd be wrong.

Because "gnostic" means "know/knowledge" and so "agnostic" means "not know". That's what the words mean.

You can not know and also not believe, just as you likely do about leprechauns.

What PP and others like him are trying to do - unsuccessfully - is place an equal burden of proof on non-believers. Sorry, that is not how logic works! The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

Nearly all atheists are also agnostic. Ask them. There's plenty here! But it also includes the "famous" ones too - not that that matters. Theists can be agnostic as well, but for some reason there seems to be fewer of those. I wonder why?

+1. They are literally two different words with two different meanings and it seems no matter how many times people explain some people still don’t get it

+1 I think people don't get it because the words seem so different, with "agnostic" seeming "nice" and "atheist" seeming harsh, so many people prefer agnostic.

I know that when a friend called themselves agnostic, they got a lot of pity and kindness - and advice on how to believe in God. Now that they call themselves atheist, they get more coldness and silence.

"Atheism" , meaning "not-God ism" is inherently rebellious. Why bring up a concept just to reject it? There are a million things I'm not, and infinite things that don't exist. Why mention them?

Humanist or Secular is often a more useful word than atheist.

I'm American. I'm not "aeuropean".

I'm a "woman" . I'm not a "not-man" .

OK, that one is a bit weird due to misogyny of Latin-based languages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I feel like your earlier view was understandably colored through the lens of immaturity. I feel like you may feel the need to really get into it and wrestle with some arguable issues with a *well formed* Catholic such as a priest who would be open to and excited by these theological discussions. Do you want some suggestions of priests like this? Would you care to share your location? Also, I feel like, even if you do not “believe” with a capital “B”, start going through the motions of asking God to help you and just keep at it and see what happens.

OK - Sounds like you're a believer who 's trying to pull OP back into the fold. Did OP mention that they ever were in the fold? Maybe they never believed. I certainly never would have if I'd not been indoctrinated.

How silly to suggest asking a God that you don't believe in to "help" you.

It's profoundly ascientific to say something is "silly" without examining evidence. It works for some people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agnostic is the belief that something either is or could be out there but that man doesn’t know what it is. If you look at religion historically, it has always been used as a societal tool by man to acquire power and resources and control others. Religion was the first form of government and religious rules the first form of codified societal norms. It serves a purpose but religion like government unchecked is always corrupt as power inevitably corrupts.

"Agnostic" simply means you "don't know" ("Gnostic" = "knowing" or knowledge).

You can be both Atheist and Agnostic, and most atheists consider themselves both. Many Theists do as well.

There are many degrees and definitions of "not knowing" of course.

I am not agnostic. I am an atheist. I know there is nothing. If you aren’t sure, you are agnostic.

And your point is....? Note the words "most" and "you can be both" in the post you are responding to.

ps you make that claim you have the same burden of proof as a theist. What is your evidence there is "nothing"? And you need to define "nothing" first as well. (I think you might mean to say there isn't anything supernatural). Not trying to be argumentative but I don't like double standards.

Op here. I just read through the last few pages and I agree with this. I think I’m both agnostic and atheist.

In my view, you are one or the other but not both.

If you are confident there is no god, no afterlife, etc you are atheist.

If you aren’t sure you are agnostic.

I don’t see a Venn Diagram with overlap. You should like you are agnostic in how I define it, not an atheist.

"How you see it" doesn't matter though, does it?

There are multiple definitions for agnostic. The way that you “see it” isn’t any more valid than the PP’s way.

Why even have definitions? Let's believe anything means whatever each of us wants.

Or just use one of the common definitions used by millions today.

Many words have multiple meanings. Not sure why you’re struggling with this.