What do religious people have in common with atheists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

Based on one set of definitions.

Not everyone uses those definitions.

Do you know any atheists who don’t use the above definitions? Highly doubtful. Google it. Atheist and agnostic. You’ll see.

And yes I know who uses the other definitions:

Theists who which to equalize the terms to try and turn atheism into a claim there is no god, therefore putting an equal burden of proof on them.

Not gonna work.

Yes, me. And the people at Pew who consider them as two, no overlapping things.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/who-are-the-nones-how-are-they-defined/

You misrepresent that survey, probably intentionally. Nowhere does it define what an atheist is and most importantly it does not show you what was presented to the respondents. If I was given that survey, and could choose only one, I would choose “atheist” even though I am also agnostic.

If the prompt had a clear definition of Atheist as “claiming there is no god” then I would have to choose agnostic. As would most atheists, including the famous ones like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and most of the members of American Atheists and the Atheist Community of Austin (which has global participants).

There isn’t even a definition of God presented in that survey. It’s virtually useless for defining the terms and their popular usage.

If that is the best evidence you have, you have failed to biblical proportions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is simply another form of religious faith. Faith in nothing is still faith in something.

It is a type of faith, but not a religious one.

This is a stupid statement. Atheism is not "faith in nothing". It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Do you have "faith" there are no leprechauns?

Yes, I have "faith" that there are no leprechauns. Faith has multiple meanings beyond ones involving religion.

Well then since this is a Religion forum, in the future I suggest that you explain and define your non-standard terms, so that we can understand their irrelevance here.

You made an assumption that others would make the same error as you in interpreting your version of faith's meaning by asking the question of "do you have faith that there are no leprechauns".

Short answer, yes, I have "great trust or confidence in ..." that there are no leprechauns. (Cambridge dictionary)

I feel sorry for you that you can't understand the most basic definition of a word, especially one you posed erroneously.

Dude YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID THERE WAS A DIFFERENT MEANING FOR FAITH. You. I know what faith means when religious people say it.

As I said previously, I do feel sorry for you. You asked the question and it was answered. You just don't like the answer. If you wanted it to mean what you assumed, you should have asked, "do you have religious faith there are no leprechauns."

Stop getting your panties in a wad.

I don’t need you to feel sorry for me. I could not care less. Just you saying that is repulsive and creepy. I will reiterate though that:

- You claimed there were more than one meaning of the word faith.
- Then you complained that I can’t understand the right one (yours).

Which is it? Are there one or more?

You make no sense, man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is simply another form of religious faith. Faith in nothing is still faith in something.

It is a type of faith, but not a religious one.

This is a stupid statement. Atheism is not "faith in nothing". It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Do you have "faith" there are no leprechauns?

Yes, I have "faith" that there are no leprechauns. Faith has multiple meanings beyond ones involving religion.

Well then since this is a Religion forum, in the future I suggest that you explain and define your non-standard terms, so that we can understand their irrelevance here.

You made an assumption that others would make the same error as you in interpreting your version of faith's meaning by asking the question of "do you have faith that there are no leprechauns".

Short answer, yes, I have "great trust or confidence in ..." that there are no leprechauns. (Cambridge dictionary)

I feel sorry for you that you can't understand the most basic definition of a word, especially one you posed erroneously.

Dude YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID THERE WAS A DIFFERENT MEANING FOR FAITH. You. I know what faith means when religious people say it.

As I said previously, I do feel sorry for you. You asked the question and it was answered. You just don't like the answer. If you wanted it to mean what you assumed, you should have asked, "do you have religious faith there are no leprechauns."

Stop getting your panties in a wad.

I don’t need you to feel sorry for me. I could not care less. Just you saying that is repulsive and creepy. I will reiterate though that:

- You claimed there were more than one meaning of the word faith.
- Then you complained that I can’t understand the right one (yours).

Which is it? Are there one or more?

You make no sense, man.

There is nothing creepy about you being wrong, or your inability to look up a definition of a word in any online dictionary. Or, the fact that you don't understand a word can be used in many contexts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

WRONG. PP’s definition, which is very commonly used, is just as valid as yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is simply another form of religious faith. Faith in nothing is still faith in something.

It is a type of faith, but not a religious one.

This is a stupid statement. Atheism is not "faith in nothing". It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Do you have "faith" there are no leprechauns?

Yes, I have "faith" that there are no leprechauns. Faith has multiple meanings beyond ones involving religion.

Well then since this is a Religion forum, in the future I suggest that you explain and define your non-standard terms, so that we can understand their irrelevance here.

You made an assumption that others would make the same error as you in interpreting your version of faith's meaning by asking the question of "do you have faith that there are no leprechauns".

Short answer, yes, I have "great trust or confidence in ..." that there are no leprechauns. (Cambridge dictionary)

I feel sorry for you that you can't understand the most basic definition of a word, especially one you posed erroneously.

Dude YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID THERE WAS A DIFFERENT MEANING FOR FAITH. You. I know what faith means when religious people say it.

As I said previously, I do feel sorry for you. You asked the question and it was answered. You just don't like the answer. If you wanted it to mean what you assumed, you should have asked, "do you have religious faith there are no leprechauns."

Stop getting your panties in a wad.

I don’t need you to feel sorry for me. I could not care less. Just you saying that is repulsive and creepy. I will reiterate though that:

- You claimed there were more than one meaning of the word faith.
- Then you complained that I can’t understand the right one (yours).

Which is it? Are there one or more?

You make no sense, man.

There is nothing creepy about you being wrong, or your inability to look up a definition of a word in any online dictionary. Or, the fact that you don't understand a word can be used in many contexts.

Again:

I can in fact understand there are multiple uses of a word, and was using the religious context in the religion forum. It is you who insisted I use a second one, which I stated I understood just do not care about as it is not relevant to religion. The topic in this forum. The religion forum. Where religious topics are discussed.

What is creepy are your personal comments and “I feel sorry for you” bs. It’s skeevy. Stick to the discussion and make your points and leave that other stuff out of it please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

WRONG. PP’s definition, which is very commonly used, is just as valid as yours.

Except it is not “very commonly used” by actual atheists.. It is used by many theists to try and apply the burden of proof gotcha I mentioned above. It intentionally misrepresents the position of most atheists. That’s what makes it “wrong”.

Hey, I have a great idea. Instead of arguing the definition of words, why don’t we ask people what they think? Why don’t we ask atheists if they are also agnostic or not? And then decide if it is possible to be both.

Sound like a plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

Based on one set of definitions.

Not everyone uses those definitions.

Do you know any atheists who don’t use the above definitions? Highly doubtful. Google it. Atheist and agnostic. You’ll see.

And yes I know who uses the other definitions:

Theists who which to equalize the terms to try and turn atheism into a claim there is no god, therefore putting an equal burden of proof on them.

Not gonna work.

Yes, me. And the people at Pew who consider them as two, no overlapping things.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/who-are-the-nones-how-are-they-defined/

You misrepresent that survey, probably intentionally. Nowhere does it define what an atheist is and most importantly it does not show you what was presented to the respondents. If I was given that survey, and could choose only one, I would choose “atheist” even though I am also agnostic.

If the prompt had a clear definition of Atheist as “claiming there is no god” then I would have to choose agnostic. As would most atheists, including the famous ones like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and most of the members of American Atheists and the Atheist Community of Austin (which has global participants).

There isn’t even a definition of God presented in that survey. It’s virtually useless for defining the terms and their popular usage.

If that is the best evidence you have, you have failed to biblical proportions.

As you say yourself, there are multiple definitions.

Pew presents as either/or. It’s not multiple choice.

Anyway, most people use them as distinct beliefs, not overlapping.

Stop pushing your definitions as the only correct ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

WRONG. PP’s definition, which is very commonly used, is just as valid as yours.

Except it is not “very commonly used” by actual atheists.. It is used by many theists to try and apply the burden of proof gotcha I mentioned above. It intentionally misrepresents the position of most atheists. That’s what makes it “wrong”.

Hey, I have a great idea. Instead of arguing the definition of words, why don’t we ask people what they think? Why don’t we ask atheists if they are also agnostic or not? And then decide if it is possible to be both.

Sound like a plan?

Wrong. It’s very commonly used by everyone, including actual atheists such as myself.

You can work off of your own definitions but don’t act like they are the only ones that are correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

Based on one set of definitions.

Not everyone uses those definitions.

Do you know any atheists who don’t use the above definitions? Highly doubtful. Google it. Atheist and agnostic. You’ll see.

And yes I know who uses the other definitions:

Theists who which to equalize the terms to try and turn atheism into a claim there is no god, therefore putting an equal burden of proof on them.

Not gonna work.

Yes, me. And the people at Pew who consider them as two, no overlapping things.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/who-are-the-nones-how-are-they-defined/

You misrepresent that survey, probably intentionally. Nowhere does it define what an atheist is and most importantly it does not show you what was presented to the respondents. If I was given that survey, and could choose only one, I would choose “atheist” even though I am also agnostic.

If the prompt had a clear definition of Atheist as “claiming there is no god” then I would have to choose agnostic. As would most atheists, including the famous ones like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and most of the members of American Atheists and the Atheist Community of Austin (which has global participants).

There isn’t even a definition of God presented in that survey. It’s virtually useless for defining the terms and their popular usage.

If that is the best evidence you have, you have failed to biblical proportions.

As you say yourself, there are multiple definitions.

Pew presents as either/or. It’s not multiple choice.

Anyway, most people use them as distinct beliefs, not overlapping.

Stop pushing your definitions as the only correct ones.

Yes, Pew presents it as a choice - THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. Respondents had to choose one or the other, even though they might have been both.

Did you read my post?

Did you look at the graphics I suggested?

Do you know you can also be a theist and be agnostic? As in someone who is a Catholic but is not certain about it being true? Doesn’t that seem reasonable, and logical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

WRONG. PP’s definition, which is very commonly used, is just as valid as yours.

Except it is not “very commonly used” by actual atheists.. It is used by many theists to try and apply the burden of proof gotcha I mentioned above. It intentionally misrepresents the position of most atheists. That’s what makes it “wrong”.

Hey, I have a great idea. Instead of arguing the definition of words, why don’t we ask people what they think? Why don’t we ask atheists if they are also agnostic or not? And then decide if it is possible to be both.

Sound like a plan?

Wrong. It’s very commonly used by everyone, including actual atheists such as myself.

You can work off of your own definitions but don’t act like they are the only ones that are correct.

So you claim there is no god?

Great.

Prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

WRONG. PP’s definition, which is very commonly used, is just as valid as yours.

Except it is not “very commonly used” by actual atheists.. It is used by many theists to try and apply the burden of proof gotcha I mentioned above. It intentionally misrepresents the position of most atheists. That’s what makes it “wrong”.

Hey, I have a great idea. Instead of arguing the definition of words, why don’t we ask people what they think? Why don’t we ask atheists if they are also agnostic or not? And then decide if it is possible to be both.

Sound like a plan?

Wrong. It’s very commonly used by everyone, including actual atheists such as myself.

You can work off of your own definitions but don’t act like they are the only ones that are correct.

So you claim there is no god?

Great.

Prove it.

I’m sorry you struggle with language, but the more common usage is that they are two different beliefs, not overlapping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

Based on one set of definitions.

Not everyone uses those definitions.

Do you know any atheists who don’t use the above definitions? Highly doubtful. Google it. Atheist and agnostic. You’ll see.

And yes I know who uses the other definitions:

Theists who which to equalize the terms to try and turn atheism into a claim there is no god, therefore putting an equal burden of proof on them.

Not gonna work.

Yes, me. And the people at Pew who consider them as two, no overlapping things.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/who-are-the-nones-how-are-they-defined/

You misrepresent that survey, probably intentionally. Nowhere does it define what an atheist is and most importantly it does not show you what was presented to the respondents. If I was given that survey, and could choose only one, I would choose “atheist” even though I am also agnostic.

If the prompt had a clear definition of Atheist as “claiming there is no god” then I would have to choose agnostic. As would most atheists, including the famous ones like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and most of the members of American Atheists and the Atheist Community of Austin (which has global participants).

There isn’t even a definition of God presented in that survey. It’s virtually useless for defining the terms and their popular usage.

If that is the best evidence you have, you have failed to biblical proportions.

As you say yourself, there are multiple definitions.

Pew presents as either/or. It’s not multiple choice.

Anyway, most people use them as distinct beliefs, not overlapping.

Stop pushing your definitions as the only correct ones.

Yes, Pew presents it as a choice - THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. Respondents had to choose one or the other, even though they might have been both.

Did you read my post?

Did you look at the graphics I suggested?

Do you know you can also be a theist and be agnostic? As in someone who is a Catholic but is not certain about it being true? Doesn’t that seem reasonable, and logical?

And…that’s exactly why I gave it as an example.

One or the other.

I get that you have your definitions that you choose to use. But yhose are not the only definitions used today. Words can have multiple meanings/usage. As you demonstrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faith.
Takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.

Agnostics are the exception to the rule, but they are not atheists.

A-theists can also be A-gnostic, and the vast majority are.

“Gnostic” means to know.

“Theist” means to believe in a god or gods.

No, atheists and Agnostics are very different. Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it.

You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially incorrect in your definition of agnostic, and wholly incorrect in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive. So please tell me why someone can’t be both as you define them above.

Then google “Atheist vs Agnostic” and look at the “images” tab.

See how many graphics from so many different sources there are explaining the opposite? Why do you think that is? It’s because of the purposeful misrepresentations of what most atheists actually believe.

WRONG. PP’s definition, which is very commonly used, is just as valid as yours.

Except it is not “very commonly used” by actual atheists.. It is used by many theists to try and apply the burden of proof gotcha I mentioned above. It intentionally misrepresents the position of most atheists. That’s what makes it “wrong”.

Hey, I have a great idea. Instead of arguing the definition of words, why don’t we ask people what they think? Why don’t we ask atheists if they are also agnostic or not? And then decide if it is possible to be both.

Sound like a plan?

Wrong. It’s very commonly used by everyone, including actual atheists such as myself.

You can work off of your own definitions but don’t act like they are the only ones that are correct.

So you claim there is no god?

Great.

Prove it.

I’m sorry you struggle with language, but the more common usage is that they are two different beliefs, not overlapping.

I am sorry you cant defend your claim.

Or maybe you are not really an atheist?