Reply to What do religious people have in common with atheists?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "What do religious people have in common with atheists?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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

[b]You are correct in your definition of atheist (which are different from posters above) but partially [u]incorrect[/u] in your definition of agnostic, and wholly [u]incorrect[/u] in your assumption that they are mutually exclusive[/b].  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.[/quote]

^^^^
Lying, oppositional twat insists her definition is the only correct one. STFU. 
[/quote]

- I am not insisting anything of the sort, please read it again
- I am not a her
- Please note a DP also suggestion you not resort to name calling
- Despite that it is my turn to name call: you are a sexist pig.[/quote]

Lying, oppositional twats like to play games because they are trolling.

There are multiple definitions/usages of “agnostic”. Period. Anyone who has an issue with that can fck off and go argue with Merriam and Webster.

[/quote]

Again:

NOBODY CLAIMS THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINTION.

That's you being dishonest and straw-manning.

What's being claimed is that an atheist can also be agnostic.

That's it. Period.  You're fighting a fight by yourself.  [/quote]

Again, that is true for only one of the definitions of the word “agnostic”.

Again, there is another valid, commonly-used definition/usage of it.

Again, oppositional trolls want to ignore dictionaries.

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

“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,[u] or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god[/u].”

[/quote]

Holy crap, am I being gaslighted?

[quote]Again, that is true for only one of the definitions of the word “agnostic”. [/quote]

Did you see where I typed:  "NOBODY CLAIMS THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINTION." and "You're fighting a fight by yourself. "?
[/quote]

Great. So then if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive. 
[/quote]

Are you asking that if a word has more than one definition, that those definitions are mutually exclusive of each other?

IMHO, no, definitions don't have to be mutually exclusive, it's all about context in how the word is used. [/quote]

There are two definitions of "agnostic". One definition means that a person can be both atheist and agnostic. The other definition means that they are mutually exclusive.

If you acknowledge that there are multiple, correct definitions of the word "agnostic" then you should also acknowledge that the earlier comment [i]"Athiests don't believe in a god, Agnostics aren't sure and question it"[/i] is, in fact, correct.

You, of course, can always share the definition that [u]you[/u] use yourself and discuss that, but your definition isn't the [u]only[/u] correct one. 
[/quote]

Get off your high horse, dude. I was a different poster than the others. I was trying to understand the basis of your, "if you agree that there is more than one definition then you also agree that it is correct to say they are mutually exclusive" claim.

I didn't share jack of a definition either way. Try not to be so argumentative and assume intent of posts. [/quote]

Hey, dude - you get off your high horse. When everyone is anonymous, it's hard to tell one poster from another.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics