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

Because there are actually multiple definitions for the word agnostic.

Your definition isn’t the only one that is correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an atheist, one of my strongest convictions to my children is NOT lying to them about magic sky daddy or having them believe fake things to comfort them. Obviously ymmv, but that was one thing I hated about religion and one thing I was determined not to do to my kids. So I don't really get the point.

That was my perspective. I told my child that I did not believe in it, but a lot of people do, including her grandparents. She was welcome to attend religious services and even church-based summer camps with her friends and family members, which she did. I didn't want to indoctrinate her into atheism because I did not appreciate being indoctrinated into Christianity when I was growing up. She is free to make her own choices. Now an adult, she is not pursuing organized religion, although I'm not sure if she is an Atheist or just disinterested.

By the way, you really can't indoctrinate someone into nothing, which is what not believing is.

Also, you can be both atheist and disinterested.

+1. I was going to say the same thing about "indoctrinating someone into atheism". Are we indoctrinated into NON belief in big foot? Zeus? Thor?
The only thing I would make sure to do with my children as an atheist is to help them develop critical thinking skills

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an atheist, one of my strongest convictions to my children is NOT lying to them about magic sky daddy or having them believe fake things to comfort them. Obviously ymmv, but that was one thing I hated about religion and one thing I was determined not to do to my kids. So I don't really get the point.

That was my perspective. I told my child that I did not believe in it, but a lot of people do, including her grandparents. She was welcome to attend religious services and even church-based summer camps with her friends and family members, which she did. I didn't want to indoctrinate her into atheism because I did not appreciate being indoctrinated into Christianity when I was growing up. She is free to make her own choices. Now an adult, she is not pursuing organized religion, although I'm not sure if she is an Atheist or just disinterested.

By the way, you really can't indoctrinate someone into nothing, which is what not believing is.

Also, you can be both atheist and disinterested.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I feel like your earlier view was understandably colored through the lens of immaturity. I feel like you may feel the need to really get into it and wrestle with some arguable issues with a *well formed* Catholic such as a priest who would be open to and excited by these theological discussions. Do you want some suggestions of priests like this? Would you care to share your location? Also, I feel like, even if you do not “believe” with a capital “B”, start going through the motions of asking God to help you and just keep at it and see what happens.

OK - Sounds like you're a believer who 's trying to pull OP back into the fold. Did OP mention that they ever were in the fold? Maybe they never believed. I certainly never would have if I'd not been indoctrinated.

How silly to suggest asking a God that you don't believe in to "help" you.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I feel like your earlier view was understandably colored through the lens of immaturity. I feel like you may feel the need to really get into it and wrestle with some arguable issues with a *well formed* Catholic such as a priest who would be open to and excited by these theological discussions. Do you want some suggestions of priests like this? Would you care to share your location? Also, I feel like, even if you do not “believe” with a capital “B”, start going through the motions of asking God to help you and just keep at it and see what happens.

Op here. Thank you for the kind offer, but I respectfully decline. I used to live in DC but moved to the Midwest to be closer to family. Your post did make me tear up, though.

Anonymous wrote:As an atheist, one of my strongest convictions to my children is NOT lying to them about magic sky daddy or having them believe fake things to comfort them. Obviously ymmv, but that was one thing I hated about religion and one thing I was determined not to do to my kids. So I don't really get the point.

That was my perspective. I told my child that I did not believe in it, but a lot of people do, including her grandparents. She was welcome to attend religious services and even church-based summer camps with her friends and family members, which she did. I didn't want to indoctrinate her into atheism because I did not appreciate being indoctrinated into Christianity when I was growing up. She is free to make her own choices. Now an adult, she is not pursuing organized religion, although I'm not sure if she is an Atheist or just disinterested.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

OP, I feel like your earlier view was understandably colored through the lens of immaturity. I feel like you may feel the need to really get into it and wrestle with some arguable issues with a *well formed* Catholic such as a priest who would be open to and excited by these theological discussions. Do you want some suggestions of priests like this? Would you care to share your location? Also, I feel like, even if you do not “believe” with a capital “B”, start going through the motions of asking God to help you and just keep at it and see what happens.

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.

I have always told mine that god doesn’t exist and there is no afterlife when the conversation veered into that topic.

I also told them to always be respectful of other’s beliefs and to not engage in religion discussions, or at least avoid it.

It has never been an issue.

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.

Most people are actually agnostics. They just don’t realize it. Unless it can be proven , no one really KNOWS. And even if you don’t “believe” then you still don’t know for sure . Hence ..agnostic atheist

And no one can prove a negative

I’m an agnostic on Santa Claus. 🎅

I'm agnostic on Santa Claus, too. I'm also an atheist on Santa, because I know that it's scientifically impossible for Santa and his elves to live at the North Pole, make toys for all the Christian children in the world and deliver them all from a flying sleigh on Christmas Eve.

I'm also an atheist regarding Jesus rising from the dead and then ascending into heaven to live at the right hand of the father, because I know that it's scientifically impossible to rise from the dead, if you're really dead, and it's scientifically impossible to ascend into heaven for two reasons: 1. dead people don't go anywhere except back into the earth, just like other animals, e.g., dogs, cats, chickens, bugs, etc. 2. If any human or other animal could ascend into heaven, we now know that there is no atmosphere for them to breathe up there, so they would soon die anyhow.