Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are either atheist or agnostic, not both. If you waiver you are an agnostic, not atheist.

Sigh.

Again, nope. It has nothing to do with "wavering". It has to do with what you claim to know. "Gnostic" refers to knowledge, not belief.

Go back and read the thread, with particular attention to the cartoons, if you wish to understand what the vast majority of atheists believe.

You cannot be both. You are either atheist or agnostic. I am an atheist. Gnositc has nothing to do with anything.

"Agnostic" literally means "don't know: "Origin mid 19th century: from a ‘not’ + gnostic."

"Atheist" literally means without religion, with the same etymology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are either atheist or agnostic, not both. If you waiver you are an agnostic, not atheist.

Sigh.

Again, nope. It has nothing to do with "wavering". It has to do with what you claim to know. "Gnostic" refers to knowledge, not belief.

Go back and read the thread, with particular attention to the cartoons, if you wish to understand what the vast majority of atheists believe.

You cannot be both. You are either atheist or agnostic. I am an atheist. Gnositc has nothing to do with anything.

OP, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally by Marcus Borg is an excellent study. I’ve done several sermon series on this book.

/minister

Anonymous wrote:You are either atheist or agnostic, not both. If you waiver you are an agnostic, not atheist.

Sigh.

Again, nope. It has nothing to do with "wavering". It has to do with what you claim to know. "Gnostic" refers to knowledge, not belief.

Go back and read the thread, with particular attention to the cartoons, if you wish to understand what the vast majority of atheists believe.

You are either atheist or agnostic, not both. If you waiver you are an agnostic, not atheist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp’s who called Dawkins an atheist without any modifiers[u] are straight-up wrong.

Good thing no one did that!

But you went from "Dawkins doesn't call himself an Atheist!" to "Dawkins call himself an Atheist with modifiers!"

Too funny.

You mean the atheists at 20:40 and 21:52 didn’t call Dawkins an atheist? Well how about that.

What I mean is: my very first post in this thread -- the one that started all this brouhaha -- was the following:

"You can be agnostic AND atheist at the same time. Nearly all atheists are."

Not only a modifier, but the modification of the term atheist was the entire point of clarification.

You know this already, though.

I'm curious: what are your religious beliefs?

So when you said “Good thing no one did that” and accused pp of making it up, you weren’t referring to 21:52? Or 21:52 is “no one”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp’s who called Dawkins an atheist without any modifiers[u] are straight-up wrong.

Good thing no one did that!

But you went from "Dawkins doesn't call himself an Atheist!" to "Dawkins call himself an Atheist with modifiers!"

Too funny.

You mean the atheists at 20:40 and 21:52 didn’t call Dawkins an atheist? Well how about that.

What I mean is: my very first post in this thread -- the one that started all this brouhaha -- was the following:

"You can be agnostic AND atheist at the same time. Nearly all atheists are."

Not only a modifier, but the modification of the term atheist was the entire point of clarification.

You know this already, though.

I'm curious: what are your religious beliefs?

Anonymous wrote:I am agnostic, but would like to try out a Bible study this year - something online, most likely. For background - I'm a woman and was raised protestant and now attend a Unitarian church. Looking generally to explore spirituality and religion, and it's been a very long time since I've read a Bible. Any women's online Bible studies that are any good, and that might be a good fit for someone like me?

Ray Vanderlaan studies are very good. He presents on location in the Holy Land and gives the cultural context behind the Bible. They are very interesting studies. He has several.

https://www.rightnowmedia.org/Content/Series/502

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp’s who called Dawkins an atheist without any modifiers are straight-up wrong.

Good thing no one did that!

But you went from "Dawkins doesn't call himself an Atheist!" to "Dawkins call himself an Atheist with modifiers!"

Too funny.

You mean the atheists at 20:40 and 21:52 didn’t call Dawkins an atheist? Well how about that.

Anonymous wrote:the pp’s who called Dawkins an atheist without any modifiers are straight-up wrong.

Good thing no one did that!

But you went from "Dawkins doesn't call himself an Atheist!" to "Dawkins call himself an Atheist with modifiers!"

Too funny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP just throwing out more definitions. Because it's just that easy to just make up definitions.

OP (and PPs) can call themselves whatever they want. We don't have strict or even "industry standard" definitions.

And the last pic was just for fun.

Yes, there are multiple definitions. Dawkins uses a very specific definition to define himself as an agnostic while being a de facto (in effect NOT in fact) atheist. To talk about Dawkins, you need to use the definition he uses.

Lol again trying to say "in effect" and "in fact" are different definitions of "de facto". Either works dude! You are making points against yourself!

Uh, no. In your own post, Dawkins clarifies that “de facto” means “as if” and he doesn’t use the phrase “in fact”. Can you really not see the difference?

In what world does “as if” mean the same thing as “in fact”? Let Dawkins define himself as he prefers, in this case as an agnostic. You define yourself as you like, agnostic atheist or whatever you prefer.

Should have added that Dawkins uses “de facto”/“as if” atheist to describe himself. But not “in fact” atheist. You do you and call yourself an agnostic atheist, but stop applying your own labels to Dawkins, and the pp’s who called Dawkins an atheist without any modifiers are straight-up wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP just throwing out more definitions. Because it's just that easy to just make up definitions.

OP (and PPs) can call themselves whatever they want. We don't have strict or even "industry standard" definitions.

And the last pic was just for fun.

Yes, there are multiple definitions. Dawkins uses a very specific definition to define himself as an agnostic while being a de facto (in effect NOT in fact) atheist. To talk about Dawkins, you need to use the definition he uses.

Lol again trying to say "in effect" and "in fact" are different definitions of "de facto". Either works dude! You are making points against yourself!

Uh, no. In your own post, Dawkins clarifies that “de facto” means “as if” and he doesn’t use the phrase “in fact”. Can you really not see the difference?

In what world does “as if” mean the same thing as “in fact”? Let Dawkins define himself as he prefers, in this case as an agnostic. You define yourself as you like, agnostic atheist or whatever you prefer.

Children, please just use the term that you'd like to use for yourself and allow others the freedom to choose for themselves.

Try not to sh1t on others. Just like it says in the bible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP just throwing out more definitions. Because it's just that easy to just make up definitions.

OP (and PPs) can call themselves whatever they want. We don't have strict or even "industry standard" definitions.

And the last pic was just for fun.

Yes, there are multiple definitions. Dawkins uses a very specific definition to define himself as an agnostic while being a de facto (in effect NOT in fact) atheist. To talk about Dawkins, you need to use the definition he uses.

Lol again trying to say "in effect" and "in fact" are different definitions of "de facto". Either works dude! You are making points against yourself!

Uh, no. In your own post, Dawkins clarifies that “de facto” means “as if” and he doesn’t use the phrase “in fact”. Can you really not see the difference?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your cartoon is totally irrelevant because Dawkins isn’t using those particular definitions.

Dawkins uses a different definition, which is theological not epistemological or cartoonish. By his theological definition he’s agnostic not atheist.

This is why he intentionally, carefully, clarified that “de facto” means “in effect”, not “in fact” like you tried to translate. You tried to totally wipe out the nuance that Dawkins used so carefully.

Nope. He is using those distinctions, with different terms. They are equal.

Your comment that “de facto” means “in effect”, not “in fact” is pretty damned funny. I'll accept either! If you are trying to say "de-facto atheist" means "not atheist" though, you are carrying the bag at the back of the horse there.

You are trying to paint "atheist" into the corner to share the burden of proof. No go there pal. It's on you.

Have a nice day!

Signed,

Atheist and Agnostic (like virtually all atheists).

Happy to “go there” and get proof. Easily done, and from one of your own posts, where you quote Dawkins as saying “a de-facto atheist would be someone who lives their life as if there is no supernatural being.” Not lives “in fact” as an atheist. Words matter.

Also, at the debate at 20:57, Dawkins himself says he’s agnostic not atheist. He doesn’t use your terminology about being an “agnostic atheist.” Since we’re talking about Dawkins’ self-identification here, this seems pretty darn relevant.

At the end of the day, though, you’ve moved from calling Dawkins an “atheist” in multiple posts at the beginning of this thread. Now you’re qualifying him and yourself as “agnostic atheists”. That’s progress!