Atheist/Agnostic ?

[Anonymous]

I use the word atheist since I don’t find the concept of a god to be very plausible. Never go to church etc.

I think the term agnostic is better for the type of people who occasionally rock up to church but strongly suspect it is all nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agnostic is someone who's on the fence.

An Atheist does not believe in any god or gods, or that there is no evidence of any.

Someone who is on the fence is a doubter. Agnostic literally means not knowing. Like asymptomatic - not having symptoms

Incorrect. By your analogy, agnostic means not knowing if you are symptomatic or asymptomatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I use the word atheist since I don’t find the concept of a god to be very plausible. Never go to church etc.

I think the term agnostic is better for the type of people who occasionally rock up to church but strongly suspect it is all nonsense.

Yes, atheists are often incorrect about what agnosticism actually is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I use the word atheist since I don’t find the concept of a god to be very plausible. Never go to church etc.

I think the term agnostic is better for the type of people who occasionally rock up to church but strongly suspect it is all nonsense.

Yes, atheists are often incorrect about what agnosticism actually is.

Maybe they don’t believe in organized definitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I use the word atheist since I don’t find the concept of a god to be very plausible. Never go to church etc.

I think the term agnostic is better for the type of people who occasionally rock up to church but strongly suspect it is all nonsense.

Yes, atheists are often incorrect about what agnosticism actually is.

Maybe they don’t believe in organized definitions.

That doesn't mean definitions don't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My brother was agnostic, then atheist. He got into a terrible motorcycle accident. The woman who hit him had a heart attack while driving and died, he barely survived. He had a very long and difficult recovery, even had to get around in a wheelchair for a time.

He surprisingly became a Christian while recovering from that awful tragedy.

Head injury?

No, his legs were horribly broken. His pelvis was smashed. They were very close to amputating his left leg. His doctors thought he may never walk again.

It’s cool you thought to make fun of his accident though. You don’t seem to exhibit the kindness you claim is lacking in Christians.

When have I commented on Christian kindness?

So you are happy to be a person who thinks life threatening accidents are jokes.

Everyone here constantly points out how mean spirited and rude Christians are to people who are not their religion.

Why do you think a car accident in which a woman died and a young man grievously injured is something to poke fun at?

I haven't commented on "how mean spirited and rude Christians are". Why would you assume that I do?

I'm poking fun at you since your comment was totally off topic.

So asking me if my brother had a head injury from his accident is poking fun at me? I don’t follow that logic at all.

It sounded like you were asking if he had a head injury and a result of the damage to his head and brain was his conversion to Christianity.

That’s what you meant. Because you are that type of person.

I’m the kind of person who would make a joke because your post was off topic.

Should I just report it next time? Seems extreme.

I greatly appreciated the joke. I also felt it was aimed at the poster, who clearly had no business on this thread, rather than the brother.

NP. I’ve watched this back and forth, and that poster was clearly mocking the brother’s accident. Gross and disgusting.

[Anonymous]

I am an atheist and would not use the word “agnostic” to describe myself, as it implies that there is a state of knowing that one could achieve but that I personally am not yet in.

I don’t think it’s possible to know the existence or nonexistence of any God with that level of certainty (when people claim to be certain of one or the other I inevitably suspect that it is something other than empirical proof I am about to be presented with, and so far that has always been correct).

But it also is not so important to me one way or the other that identifying myself to others as an agnostic would be important. Functionally, for the reasons the question is ever posed in real life, I am an atheist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I use the word atheist since I don’t find the concept of a god to be very plausible. Never go to church etc.

I think the term agnostic is better for the type of people who occasionally rock up to church but strongly suspect it is all nonsense.

Yes, atheists are often incorrect about what agnosticism actually is.

Maybe they don’t believe in organized definitions.

That doesn't mean definitions don't exist.

But do we really KNOW if definitions exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an atheist and would not use the word “agnostic” to describe myself, as it implies that there is a state of knowing that one could achieve but that I personally am not yet in.

I don’t think it’s possible to know the existence or nonexistence of any God with that level of certainty (when people claim to be certain of one or the other I inevitably suspect that it is something other than empirical proof I am about to be presented with, and so far that has always been correct).

But it also is not so important to me one way or the other that identifying myself to others as an agnostic would be important. Functionally, for the reasons the question is ever posed in real life, I am an atheist.

I don't think that's it. The term "agnostic" implies that we can't know.

[Anonymous]

Howzabout this:

I don't believe in a god but don't claim there isn't one because I cannot provide evidence there is not one making it unfalsifiable.

Just as I cannot prove there are no Leprechauns, Pixies, unicorns, or yes, that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar in the store window.

So call that whatever you want. I like to say both Atheist and Agnostic. Come up with a new term if that bothers you. I don't care, and I am baffled why you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Howzabout this:

I don't believe in a god but don't claim there isn't one because I cannot provide evidence there is not one making it unfalsifiable.

Just as I cannot prove there are no Leprechauns, Pixies, unicorns, or yes, that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar in the store window.

So call that whatever you want. I like to say both Atheist and Agnostic. Come up with a new term if that bothers you. I don't care, and I am baffled why you do.

Your belief in the non-existence of God is not supported by science and logic. It's an irrational position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Howzabout this:

I don't believe in a god but don't claim there isn't one because I cannot provide evidence there is not one making it unfalsifiable.

Just as I cannot prove there are no Leprechauns, Pixies, unicorns, or yes, that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar in the store window.

So call that whatever you want. I like to say both Atheist and Agnostic. Come up with a new term if that bothers you. I don't care, and I am baffled why you do.

Your belief in the non-existence of God is not supported by science and logic. It's an irrational position.

As is the case with all irrational concepts. -DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an atheist and would not use the word “agnostic” to describe myself, as it implies that there is a state of knowing that one could achieve but that I personally am not yet in.

I don’t think it’s possible to know the existence or nonexistence of any God with that level of certainty (when people claim to be certain of one or the other I inevitably suspect that it is something other than empirical proof I am about to be presented with, and so far that has always been correct).

But it also is not so important to me one way or the other that identifying myself to others as an agnostic would be important. Functionally, for the reasons the question is ever posed in real life, I am an atheist.

I don't think that's it. The term "agnostic" implies that we can't know.

We also can't know if there are minotaurs or unicorns buried in earth strata unaccessible to us, or whether the universe sits on top of a gigantic child's dollhouse. If "agnostics" wouldn't declare themselves agnostic with respect to minotaurs and unicorns then they should not do so with the concept of a divine entity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Howzabout this:

I don't believe in a god but don't claim there isn't one because I cannot provide evidence there is not one making it unfalsifiable.

Just as I cannot prove there are no Leprechauns, Pixies, unicorns, or yes, that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar in the store window.

So call that whatever you want. I like to say both Atheist and Agnostic. Come up with a new term if that bothers you. I don't care, and I am baffled why you do.

Your belief in the non-existence of God is not supported by science and logic. It's an irrational position.

I don't believe in the non-existence of god. This has been explain to you many times and you are simply trolling.

I just don't believe in one.

Just like you don't believe there is an even number of gumballs in the jar. Or an odd number, even though it has to be one of the two. You don't believe it is one and you also admit you don't know, comparable to Atheist and Agnostic.

[Anonymous]

Nobody can really KNOW if gods exist or if they don’t. There is no evidence supporting either belief.

We are all agnostic.