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.

^^^^
Lying, oppositional twat insists her definition is the only correct one. STFU.

- 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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:NP

I have no doubt that god does not exist. Label me whatever you want.

Can we get back to laughing at the irrational religious posters?

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.

^^^^
Lying, oppositional twat insists her definition is the only correct one. STFU.

- 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.

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.

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.

^^^^
Lying, oppositional twat insists her definition is the only correct one. STFU.

- 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.

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:

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.

I think I was just called a "twat" for my post about being an agnostic atheist!

Don't words have set meanings by the way?

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:

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.

I think I was just called a "twat" for my post about being an agnostic atheist!

Don't words have set meanings by the way?

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.

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.

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.

^^^^
Lying, oppositional twat insists her definition is the only correct one. STFU.

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:

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.

You are the liar, man. Not once did I say it was the only definition. In fact I pointed out who uses your definition and why.

My point, supported by evidence shown without any contradictory, is that most atheists don't use that definition to describe themselves, rendering it a misleading definition. (I keep saying this and you keep twisting it because you are dishonest. Please stop.)

You know this is true because you went to google in a frenzy to prove the opposite, and all you came up with is a well-word Pew survey which did not support your position in any way. That didn't work so now you resort to name calling. You've hit rock bottom.

Oh and your sophomoric name calling does not help you or your position either, but it does not bother me. Call me whatever you like.

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.

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:

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.

You are the liar, man. Not once did I say it was the only definition. In fact I pointed out who uses your definition and why.

My point, supported by evidence shown without any contradictory, is that most atheists don't use that definition to describe themselves, rendering it a misleading definition. (I keep saying this and you keep twisting it because you are dishonest. Please stop.)

You know this is true because you went to google in a frenzy to prove the opposite, and all you came up with is a well-word Pew survey which did not support your position in any way. That didn't work so now you resort to name calling. You've hit rock bottom.

Oh and your sophomoric name calling does not help you or your position either, but it does not bother me. Call me whatever you like.

Anonymous wrote:Both justify their evil deeds with their beliefs about God.

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.

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.