What do religious people have in common with atheists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Go back through and actually read the whole thread. I get it. You are the poster that likes to argue with everyone because you don't ever understand when you're wrong. Feeling sorry for your moronic reasoning is not skeevy. It's just sad that as an adult you haven't mastered 3rd grade level reading comprehension and understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It’s not even my “claim”. That’s just how most people use the terms.

[Anonymous]

For our oppositional friend:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

“Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.

Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For our oppositional friend:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

“Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.

Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god.”

I never disputed that. I disputed that you couldn’t be both. You can, and most are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It’s not even my “claim”. That’s just how most people use the terms.

No it isn’t. Not even the post that follows yours says that.


But thanks for admitting that you are NOT an atheist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For our oppositional friend:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

“Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.

Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god.”

I never disputed that. I disputed that you couldn’t be both. You can, and most are.

Most people use the second definition, making them either/or, not both.

[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: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?

It’s not even my “claim”. That’s just how most people use the terms.

No it isn’t. Not even the post that follows yours says that.


But thanks for admitting that you are NOT an atheist.

Troll. I didn’t “admit” that.

There are multiple definitions and most people don’t use yours. Get over it.

[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: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?

It’s not even my “claim”. That’s just how most people use the terms.

No it isn’t. Not even the post that follows yours says that.


But thanks for admitting that you are NOT an atheist.

Troll. I didn’t “admit” that.

There are multiple definitions and most people don’t use yours. Get over it.

You did admit that you don’t claim there is no god, but you also claim that is the definition of atheist. So, yes you did.

Even the most ardent, famous atheists like Richard Dawkins admit they can’t prove or be 100% certain no god of any definition exists.

Agnosticism can be paired with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic theist if they believe in a deity or deities but deny a method of proving it. This is the same for agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in any god or gods but do not attempt to prove such a claim.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/video/religious-views-atheism-agnosticism-theism.html

Watch that video then come back educated.

You can be both atheist and agnostic, and most atheists are.

[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: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?

It’s not even my “claim”. That’s just how most people use the terms.

No it isn’t. Not even the post that follows yours says that.


But thanks for admitting that you are NOT an atheist.

Troll. I didn’t “admit” that.

There are multiple definitions and most people don’t use yours. Get over it.

You did admit that you don’t claim there is no god, but you also claim that is the definition of atheist. So, yes you did.

Even the most ardent, famous atheists like Richard Dawkins admit they can’t prove or be 100% certain no god of any definition exists.

Agnosticism can be paired with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic theist if they believe in a deity or deities but deny a method of proving it. This is the same for agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in any god or gods but do not attempt to prove such a claim.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/video/religious-views-atheism-agnosticism-theism.html

Watch that video then come back educated.

You can be both atheist and agnostic, and most atheists are.

Of course any atheist acknowledges that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. The same can be said for fairies. Do you believe in fairies?

[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?

I'll start. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't BELIEVE there is a god (Atheist), and live my life as if there isn't one, and I also don't KNOW if there is a god (Agnostic), as no one can really know.

[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: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?

It’s not even my “claim”. That’s just how most people use the terms.

No it isn’t. Not even the post that follows yours says that.


But thanks for admitting that you are NOT an atheist.

Troll. I didn’t “admit” that.

There are multiple definitions and most people don’t use yours. Get over it.

You did admit that you don’t claim there is no god, but you also claim that is the definition of atheist. So, yes you did.

Even the most ardent, famous atheists like Richard Dawkins admit they can’t prove or be 100% certain no god of any definition exists.

Agnosticism can be paired with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic theist if they believe in a deity or deities but deny a method of proving it. This is the same for agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in any god or gods but do not attempt to prove such a claim.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/video/religious-views-atheism-agnosticism-theism.html

Watch that video then come back educated.

You can be both atheist and agnostic, and most atheists are.

Liar. I didn’t make that claim.

I DGAF what some random theologian says. Guess he isn’t 100% certain about historical Jesus either.

I understand the definitions that you use. They are not the definitions that most people use. Get over it.

[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: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?

It’s not even my “claim”. That’s just how most people use the terms.

No it isn’t. Not even the post that follows yours says that.


But thanks for admitting that you are NOT an atheist.

Troll. I didn’t “admit” that.

There are multiple definitions and most people don’t use yours. Get over it.

You did admit that you don’t claim there is no god, but you also claim that is the definition of atheist. So, yes you did.

Even the most ardent, famous atheists like Richard Dawkins admit they can’t prove or be 100% certain no god of any definition exists.

Agnosticism can be paired with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic theist if they believe in a deity or deities but deny a method of proving it. This is the same for agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in any god or gods but do not attempt to prove such a claim.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/video/religious-views-atheism-agnosticism-theism.html

Watch that video then come back educated.

You can be both atheist and agnostic, and most atheists are.

Liar. I didn’t make that claim.

I DGAF what some random theologian says. Guess he isn’t 100% certain about historical Jesus either.

I understand the definitions that you use. They are not the definitions that most people use. Get over it.

This is false, most atheists do not use that definition for themselves, and this is best evidenced by the fact that no atheist here agrees, including the post right above yours.

[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: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?

It’s not even my “claim”. That’s just how most people use the terms.

No it isn’t. Not even the post that follows yours says that.


But thanks for admitting that you are NOT an atheist.

Troll. I didn’t “admit” that.

There are multiple definitions and most people don’t use yours. Get over it.

You did admit that you don’t claim there is no god, but you also claim that is the definition of atheist. So, yes you did.

Even the most ardent, famous atheists like Richard Dawkins admit they can’t prove or be 100% certain no god of any definition exists.

Agnosticism can be paired with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic theist if they believe in a deity or deities but deny a method of proving it. This is the same for agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in any god or gods but do not attempt to prove such a claim.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/video/religious-views-atheism-agnosticism-theism.html

Watch that video then come back educated.

You can be both atheist and agnostic, and most atheists are.

Liar. I didn’t make that claim.

I DGAF what some random theologian says. Guess he isn’t 100% certain about historical Jesus either.

I understand the definitions that you use. They are not the definitions that most people use. Get over it.

This is false, most atheists do not use that definition for themselves, and this is best evidenced by the fact that no atheist here agrees, including the post right above yours.

I'm right; you're wrong!

No, I'M right; YOU'RE wrong! ad infinitum

[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: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?

It’s not even my “claim”. That’s just how most people use the terms.

No it isn’t. Not even the post that follows yours says that.


But thanks for admitting that you are NOT an atheist.

Troll. I didn’t “admit” that.

There are multiple definitions and most people don’t use yours. Get over it.

You did admit that you don’t claim there is no god, but you also claim that is the definition of atheist. So, yes you did.

Even the most ardent, famous atheists like Richard Dawkins admit they can’t prove or be 100% certain no god of any definition exists.

Agnosticism can be paired with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic theist if they believe in a deity or deities but deny a method of proving it. This is the same for agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in any god or gods but do not attempt to prove such a claim.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/video/religious-views-atheism-agnosticism-theism.html

Watch that video then come back educated.

You can be both atheist and agnostic, and most atheists are.

Liar. I didn’t make that claim.

I DGAF what some random theologian says. Guess he isn’t 100% certain about historical Jesus either.

I understand the definitions that you use. They are not the definitions that most people use. Get over it.

This is false, most atheists do not use that definition for themselves, and this is best evidenced by the fact that no atheist here agrees, including the post right above yours.

I'm right; you're wrong!

No, I'M right; YOU'RE wrong! ad infinitum

….aaaaand…. Your point is?

….aaaaand… you made it better how?

[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: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?

It’s not even my “claim”. That’s just how most people use the terms.

No it isn’t. Not even the post that follows yours says that.


But thanks for admitting that you are NOT an atheist.

Troll. I didn’t “admit” that.

There are multiple definitions and most people don’t use yours. Get over it.

You did admit that you don’t claim there is no god, but you also claim that is the definition of atheist. So, yes you did.

Even the most ardent, famous atheists like Richard Dawkins admit they can’t prove or be 100% certain no god of any definition exists.

Agnosticism can be paired with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic theist if they believe in a deity or deities but deny a method of proving it. This is the same for agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in any god or gods but do not attempt to prove such a claim.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/video/religious-views-atheism-agnosticism-theism.html

Watch that video then come back educated.

You can be both atheist and agnostic, and most atheists are.

Liar. I didn’t make that claim.

I DGAF what some random theologian says. Guess he isn’t 100% certain about historical Jesus either.

I understand the definitions that you use. They are not the definitions that most people use. Get over it.

This is false, most atheists do not use that definition for themselves, and this is best evidenced by the fact that no atheist here agrees, including the post right above yours.

One oppositional (lying) twat doesn’t provide evidence of anything. They want to push their definition as the only correct definition. That’s just not true.

It’s the troll who just wants to argue. Poorly.