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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

They say in heaven, love comes first.

[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: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.

This is a very, very silly post.

American and European are not a dichotomy. Theist and Atheist are a dichotomy. One believes in a god, one does not.

"woman" is essentially the same word as "a-man". It's the same concept in the dichotomy of man and woman. So your example is a point against your position.

"Atheism" is not rebellious in any way. Maybe you mean "Anti-theist"? And BTW, not believing in a god is not inherently rebellious as that is the default position. You expose your presuppositions with this point.

"Humanist" and "secular" have completely different meanings than Atheist. Please tell me you do not need this explained, but if you do, I am willing.

Overall a very bad post which does not support your silly position at all.

[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: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.

This is a very, very silly post.

American and European are not a dichotomy. Theist and Atheist are a dichotomy. One believes in a god, one does not.

"woman" is essentially the same word as "a-man". It's the same concept in the dichotomy of man and woman. So your example is a point against your position.

"Atheism" is not rebellious in any way. Maybe you mean "Anti-theist"? And BTW, not believing in a god is not inherently rebellious as that is the default position. You expose your presuppositions with this point.

"Humanist" and "secular" have completely different meanings than Atheist. Please tell me you do not need this explained, but if you do, I am willing.

Overall a very bad post which does not support your silly position at all.

DP here -- please explain it to me. I consider myself atheist, humanist and secular. Atheist because I am not a theist (I don't believe in God). Humanist, because I believe in the power of humans, not gods, which I do not believe exist, and secular because I do not practice a religion. All three connote lack of religion. I tend to call myself atheist, but answer to humanist and secular as well.

[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: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.

This is a very, very silly post.

American and European are not a dichotomy. Theist and Atheist are a dichotomy. One believes in a god, one does not.

"woman" is essentially the same word as "a-man". It's the same concept in the dichotomy of man and woman. So your example is a point against your position.

"Atheism" is not rebellious in any way. Maybe you mean "Anti-theist"? And BTW, not believing in a god is not inherently rebellious as that is the default position. You expose your presuppositions with this point.

"Humanist" and "secular" have completely different meanings than Atheist. Please tell me you do not need this explained, but if you do, I am willing.

Overall a very bad post which does not support your silly position at all.

DP here -- please explain it to me. I consider myself atheist, humanist and secular. Atheist because I am not a theist (I don't believe in God). Humanist, because I believe in the power of humans, not gods, which I do not believe exist, and secular because I do not practice a religion. All three connote lack of religion. I tend to call myself atheist, but answer to humanist and secular as well.

A lack of religion? Perhaps, if one is unfamiliar with the origins of secularism and humanism.

[Anonymous]

Someone is obsessed with asking questions about atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone is obsessed with asking questions about atheists.

And so many believers are obbessed with the notion of a supernatural being watching over them who will allow them to live eternally, if they're good while they are here on Earth.

[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: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.

This is a very, very silly post.

American and European are not a dichotomy. Theist and Atheist are a dichotomy. One believes in a god, one does not.

"woman" is essentially the same word as "a-man". It's the same concept in the dichotomy of man and woman. So your example is a point against your position.

"Atheism" is not rebellious in any way. Maybe you mean "Anti-theist"? And BTW, not believing in a god is not inherently rebellious as that is the default position. You expose your presuppositions with this point.

"Humanist" and "secular" have completely different meanings than Atheist. Please tell me you do not need this explained, but if you do, I am willing.

Overall a very bad post which does not support your silly position at all.

DP here -- please explain it to me. I consider myself atheist, humanist and secular. Atheist because I am not a theist (I don't believe in God). Humanist, because I believe in the power of humans, not gods, which I do not believe exist, and secular because I do not practice a religion. All three connote lack of religion. I tend to call myself atheist, but answer to humanist and secular as well.

Seriously dude? Your own question illustrates that they mean different things. WTF could you possibly be asking?

anyway

Humanist: a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. a person devoted to or versed in the humanities.

Secular: in contemporary English, secular is primarily used to distinguish something (such as an attitude, belief, or position) that is not specifically religious or sectarian in nature (for example, music with no religious connection or affiliation might be described as "secular").

[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: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.

This is a very, very silly post.

American and European are not a dichotomy. Theist and Atheist are a dichotomy. One believes in a god, one does not.

"woman" is essentially the same word as "a-man". It's the same concept in the dichotomy of man and woman. So your example is a point against your position.

"Atheism" is not rebellious in any way. Maybe you mean "Anti-theist"? And BTW, not believing in a god is not inherently rebellious as that is the default position. You expose your presuppositions with this point.

"Humanist" and "secular" have completely different meanings than Atheist. Please tell me you do not need this explained, but if you do, I am willing.

Overall a very bad post which does not support your silly position at all.

DP here -- please explain it to me. I consider myself atheist, humanist and secular. Atheist because I am not a theist (I don't believe in God). Humanist, because I believe in the power of humans, not gods, which I do not believe exist, and secular because I do not practice a religion. All three connote lack of religion. I tend to call myself atheist, but answer to humanist and secular as well.

Seriously dude? Your own question illustrates that they mean different things. WTF could you possibly be asking?

anyway

Humanist: a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. a person devoted to or versed in the humanities.

Secular: in contemporary English, secular is primarily used to distinguish something (such as an attitude, belief, or position) that is not specifically religious or sectarian in nature (for example, music with no religious connection or affiliation might be described as "secular").

I'm asking if you can be all three and apparently the answer is yes, at least according to you. It also sounds like a religious person can also be a humanist, if these definitions are correct.

[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: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.

This is a very, very silly post.

American and European are not a dichotomy. Theist and Atheist are a dichotomy. One believes in a god, one does not.

"woman" is essentially the same word as "a-man". It's the same concept in the dichotomy of man and woman. So your example is a point against your position.

"Atheism" is not rebellious in any way. Maybe you mean "Anti-theist"? And BTW, not believing in a god is not inherently rebellious as that is the default position. You expose your presuppositions with this point.

"Humanist" and "secular" have completely different meanings than Atheist. Please tell me you do not need this explained, but if you do, I am willing.

Overall a very bad post which does not support your silly position at all.

DP here -- please explain it to me. I consider myself atheist, humanist and secular. Atheist because I am not a theist (I don't believe in God). Humanist, because I believe in the power of humans, not gods, which I do not believe exist, and secular because I do not practice a religion. All three connote lack of religion. I tend to call myself atheist, but answer to humanist and secular as well.

Seriously dude? Your own question illustrates that they mean different things. WTF could you possibly be asking?

anyway

Humanist: a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. a person devoted to or versed in the humanities.

Secular: in contemporary English, secular is primarily used to distinguish something (such as an attitude, belief, or position) that is not specifically religious or sectarian in nature (for example, music with no religious connection or affiliation might be described as "secular").

I'm asking if you can be all three and apparently the answer is yes, at least according to you. It also sounds like a religious person can also be a humanist, if these definitions are correct.

Yes you can be all three. But that was not the question asked nor the point in response. It was about using those words instead of the word atheist as if they were synonymous. I can also be female, red-haired and republican, are they also synonyms?

I know people don’t like to click the button and read the whole thread for context here but jeesh.

[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: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.

This is a very, very silly post.

American and European are not a dichotomy. Theist and Atheist are a dichotomy. One believes in a god, one does not.

"woman" is essentially the same word as "a-man". It's the same concept in the dichotomy of man and woman. So your example is a point against your position.

"Atheism" is not rebellious in any way. Maybe you mean "Anti-theist"? And BTW, not believing in a god is not inherently rebellious as that is the default position. You expose your presuppositions with this point.

"Humanist" and "secular" have completely different meanings than Atheist. Please tell me you do not need this explained, but if you do, I am willing.

Overall a very bad post which does not support your silly position at all.

DP here -- please explain it to me. I consider myself atheist, humanist and secular. Atheist because I am not a theist (I don't believe in God). Humanist, because I believe in the power of humans, not gods, which I do not believe exist, and secular because I do not practice a religion. All three connote lack of religion. I tend to call myself atheist, but answer to humanist and secular as well.

Seriously dude? Your own question illustrates that they mean different things. WTF could you possibly be asking?

anyway

Humanist: a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. a person devoted to or versed in the humanities.

Secular: in contemporary English, secular is primarily used to distinguish something (such as an attitude, belief, or position) that is not specifically religious or sectarian in nature (for example, music with no religious connection or affiliation might be described as "secular").

I'm asking if you can be all three and apparently the answer is yes, at least according to you. It also sounds like a religious person can also be a humanist, if these definitions are correct.

Yes you can be all three. But that was not the question asked nor the point in response. It was about using those words instead of the word atheist as if they were synonymous. I can also be female, red-haired and republican, are they also synonyms?

I know people don’t like to click the button and read the whole thread for context here but jeesh.

The words female, red-haired and republican are not related. The words secular, humanist and atheist are related, and are often used interchangeably.

[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: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.

This is a very, very silly post.

American and European are not a dichotomy. Theist and Atheist are a dichotomy. One believes in a god, one does not.

"woman" is essentially the same word as "a-man". It's the same concept in the dichotomy of man and woman. So your example is a point against your position.

"Atheism" is not rebellious in any way. Maybe you mean "Anti-theist"? And BTW, not believing in a god is not inherently rebellious as that is the default position. You expose your presuppositions with this point.

"Humanist" and "secular" have completely different meanings than Atheist. Please tell me you do not need this explained, but if you do, I am willing.

Overall a very bad post which does not support your silly position at all.

DP here -- please explain it to me. I consider myself atheist, humanist and secular. Atheist because I am not a theist (I don't believe in God). Humanist, because I believe in the power of humans, not gods, which I do not believe exist, and secular because I do not practice a religion. All three connote lack of religion. I tend to call myself atheist, but answer to humanist and secular as well.

Seriously dude? Your own question illustrates that they mean different things. WTF could you possibly be asking?

anyway

Humanist: a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. a person devoted to or versed in the humanities.

Secular: in contemporary English, secular is primarily used to distinguish something (such as an attitude, belief, or position) that is not specifically religious or sectarian in nature (for example, music with no religious connection or affiliation might be described as "secular").

I'm asking if you can be all three and apparently the answer is yes, at least according to you. It also sounds like a religious person can also be a humanist, if these definitions are correct.

Yes you can be all three. But that was not the question asked nor the point in response. It was about using those words instead of the word atheist as if they were synonymous. I can also be female, red-haired and republican, are they also synonyms?

I know people don’t like to click the button and read the whole thread for context here but jeesh.

The words female, red-haired and republican are not related. The words secular, humanist and atheist are related, and are often used interchangeably.

No, they are NOT used interchangeably, and their different definitions have been posted above.

They are not synonyms. How hard is this to understand?

[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: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.

This is a very, very silly post.

American and European are not a dichotomy. Theist and Atheist are a dichotomy. One believes in a god, one does not.

"woman" is essentially the same word as "a-man". It's the same concept in the dichotomy of man and woman. So your example is a point against your position.

"Atheism" is not rebellious in any way. Maybe you mean "Anti-theist"? And BTW, not believing in a god is not inherently rebellious as that is the default position. You expose your presuppositions with this point.

"Humanist" and "secular" have completely different meanings than Atheist. Please tell me you do not need this explained, but if you do, I am willing.

Overall a very bad post which does not support your silly position at all.

DP here -- please explain it to me. I consider myself atheist, humanist and secular. Atheist because I am not a theist (I don't believe in God). Humanist, because I believe in the power of humans, not gods, which I do not believe exist, and secular because I do not practice a religion. All three connote lack of religion. I tend to call myself atheist, but answer to humanist and secular as well.

Seriously dude? Your own question illustrates that they mean different things. WTF could you possibly be asking?

anyway

Humanist: a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. a person devoted to or versed in the humanities.

Secular: in contemporary English, secular is primarily used to distinguish something (such as an attitude, belief, or position) that is not specifically religious or sectarian in nature (for example, music with no religious connection or affiliation might be described as "secular").

I'm asking if you can be all three and apparently the answer is yes, at least according to you. It also sounds like a religious person can also be a humanist, if these definitions are correct.

Yes you can be all three. But that was not the question asked nor the point in response. It was about using those words instead of the word atheist as if they were synonymous. I can also be female, red-haired and republican, are they also synonyms?

I know people don’t like to click the button and read the whole thread for context here but jeesh.

The words female, red-haired and republican are not related. The words secular, humanist and atheist are related, and are often used interchangeably.

No, they are NOT used interchangeably, and their different definitions have been posted above.

They are not synonyms. How hard is this to understand?

Yes, they are often used interchangeably. maybe not correctly, but interchangeably. Who even mentioned the word "synonyms"? YOU, that's who. You understand that, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don’t sound like an atheist, you sound like someone that needs to heal their relationship with their perception of religion.

This.

I don’t feel comforted by the idea of a higher power and I’ve never felt the need to introduce that idea to my kids.

Regarding death, I’ve taught them that everything that lives, dies. It’s a fact. Plants die - even trees that may live for centuries eventually die. Bugs die, pets die, people die. Sometimes we are very very sad when something or someone dies. It’s okay to be sad.

Regarding what happens when people/animals die, I’ve said that no one really knows but of people have different ideas about it. I haven’t done a good job of explaining “nothing” but I have explained that I don’t think people go to other physical or non physical places. I don’t believe in ghosts, and angels are nice to pretend about. So are fairies and mermaids and dragons.

We talk a lot about gratitude, kindness, and generosity, and we try to model those things.

I find a lot of solace in nature and we try to share that with the kids, as well as learning things we can do to feel comforted - a warm bath, a good book in a cozy blanket, tea with honey, feeling the warmth of the sun on our bodies on a cold day, moving our bodies, listening to music, making art.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting perspective and I’ll definitely do some research, thank you PP! Luckily, I’ve only played this card once when my son was 2 and we had to put down our old dog. He asked where she was and I panicked and said heaven. He doesn’t remember the dog at all and there hasn’t been any other death (close to us) so I think I lucked out. When it happens to my parents (who I’m sure will have a Catholic funeral because it’s what they want) or in-laws, I’ll be better prepared.

"The dog was finished living so the vet took her body away after it stopped working. The dog's heart stopped, so blood stopped pumping, ..." etc. Heaven means nothing.

Excellent

Yep. I also acknowledge what happens to bodies after people die can seem creepy or gross or strange. My oldest is pretty weirded out by the idea of cremation, which I get. I’m pretty weirded out by the idea of burial.

[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: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.

This is a very, very silly post.

American and European are not a dichotomy. Theist and Atheist are a dichotomy. One believes in a god, one does not.

"woman" is essentially the same word as "a-man". It's the same concept in the dichotomy of man and woman. So your example is a point against your position.

"Atheism" is not rebellious in any way. Maybe you mean "Anti-theist"? And BTW, not believing in a god is not inherently rebellious as that is the default position. You expose your presuppositions with this point.

"Humanist" and "secular" have completely different meanings than Atheist. Please tell me you do not need this explained, but if you do, I am willing.

Overall a very bad post which does not support your silly position at all.

DP here -- please explain it to me. I consider myself atheist, humanist and secular. Atheist because I am not a theist (I don't believe in God). Humanist, because I believe in the power of humans, not gods, which I do not believe exist, and secular because I do not practice a religion. All three connote lack of religion. I tend to call myself atheist, but answer to humanist and secular as well.

Seriously dude? Your own question illustrates that they mean different things. WTF could you possibly be asking?

anyway

Humanist: a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. a person devoted to or versed in the humanities.

Secular: in contemporary English, secular is primarily used to distinguish something (such as an attitude, belief, or position) that is not specifically religious or sectarian in nature (for example, music with no religious connection or affiliation might be described as "secular").

I'm asking if you can be all three and apparently the answer is yes, at least according to you. It also sounds like a religious person can also be a humanist, if these definitions are correct.

Yes you can be all three. But that was not the question asked nor the point in response. It was about using those words instead of the word atheist as if they were synonymous. I can also be female, red-haired and republican, are they also synonyms?

I know people don’t like to click the button and read the whole thread for context here but jeesh.

The words female, red-haired and republican are not related. The words secular, humanist and atheist are related, and are often used interchangeably.

No, they are NOT used interchangeably, and their different definitions have been posted above.

They are not synonyms. How hard is this to understand?

Yes, they are often used interchangeably. maybe not correctly, but interchangeably. Who even mentioned the word "synonyms"? YOU, that's who. You understand that, right?

“Maybe not correctly”?

I rest my case.