Agnostic is a category for people who do not make a choice between belief and disbelief in God

No, it isn't. Agnostic. A-gnostic. Gnostic-gnosis-knowledge.

An agnostic claims not to have knowledge of something. To know something, you have to believe it, and it has to be true. The agnostic accepts that God has not been proven or disproven. The truth of His existence has not been establish. So regardless of personal belief that God exists or does not exist, the agnostic will not claim to know that God exists or does not exists. Again, this category includes anyone who believes in God, but admits that they are not 100% sure of his existence.

Read here for more:

What is Agnostic Theism?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Mark Van Deel wrote:

Do you think that both agnostics and atheists are in the category of 'non theist'?

Not necessarily.

That's retarded. Neither agnostics or atheists are theists.

Mark Van Deel wrote:An atheist is, by definition, a non theist

An atheist belongs to a category of 'non theist'- but they are not synonymous. Look up 'synonymous', dopey.

Dude, this thread and the one on water are really making you look pathetic.

I am an atheist which means I don't believe in god because theism is the belief in gods and the prefix a means without. I am also agnostic because I claim ignorance on whether or not god actually exists because I can't possibly know one way or the other. A lack of belief is not a positive claim. I don't believe you're a very attractive woman with a penchant for frequenting message boards and being obstinate about every possible topic but I don't know for sure so I'll have to claim ignorance. See I haven't stated a positive claim one way or the other.

P.S. I am aware of the post I made previously in this thread and all I can say is sometimes banging your head against a wall can be fun.

Webster's Schmebster's. Atheism is not believing gods exist. Agnosticism is recognizing that you don't know whether gods exist. Why anyone would think there is a contradiction between the two is beyond me. Have you ever heard someone say, "I believe x, but I don't know"? I believe it will snow here today, but I don't know. I believe my car is in the driveway, but it might have been stolen last night, so I don't know. I believe I will attend a class today, but it might be cancelled, so I don't know. I believe there is no god, but I can't have complete knowledge of the entire universe, so I don't know. I think all of these examples are things an ordinary person might say, and not necessarily a fucking drunken idiot troll retard moron.


Someone who says, "I know there is a God" is a theist, and not an agnostic.

Someone who says, "I believe there is a god, but I don't know" is a theist agnostic.

Someone who says, "I don't believe there is a god, but I don't know" is an atheist agnostic.

Someone who says, "I know there is no god" is an atheist, and not an agnostic.


I think two of the above statements are kind of dumb, but I don't think any of them are necessarily the worldview of a fucking drunken troll retard idiot moron.

(I would also characterize "I have no opinion and claim no knowledge of the existence of god" as an atheist agnostic statement. This is because atheism isn't an affirmative belief, but simply a lack of belief. The person who makes this statement has no belief in god, and so, despite her lack of affirmative belief in no-god, she is an atheist. But I recognize that reasonable minds can differ on this use of the word "atheist.")

Rick Reuben wrote:That's simple.

I find your answer mostly satisfactory, thanks.

Why bother?

Rick doesn't care about the reality behind the words he is using, he is only aware of their place in his private mythology. And therefore raging against the world when that mythology doesn't meet up to the facts.

He wants his cake and he wants to eat it to. He wants a part of the big issues, but he doesn't want to be invested or take part personally in any of them. He just wants them for his internet identity.

Paging HM Government.... HM Government to thread, please...

Rick Reuben wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:Again, as I said on, I think, another thread just recently, I came to this conclusion a long time ago, with no help from you.

If you came to that conclusion, why did you immediately abandon it, and make this nutty claim?

Hansen, making this nutty claim that atheists with power are les murderous wrote:As far as I know, except in totalitarian communist regimes, believers in religion and god were not regularly put to death by atheists, and even then, it was more a function of those regime's needs to have total power and control over the people they were dominating.

That's the biggest 'exception' of all fucking time- Hansen: "Yeah, except for the two largest atheistic regimes of the 20th Century being two of the most murderous we've ever seen, atheists have a much more gentle trak record with their citizens when they take power." Hah hah. That's like saying that, except for Katrina, hurricanes have been good to New Orleans. And then Hansen blows my mind with the rationalization that the murders by Stalin and Mao are not really anything that we can pin on atheists, because after all, they were about 'power and control'! ??? Ummm... YEAH! And why do the religious kill? Is it not for power and control???

You people will say just about anything. It's a trip.

Twist what I've said however you want Rick. It makes no difference to me. I know what I think.

By the way, of course I meant that when the religious kill, it is for power and control. That is what I meant when I said it was the nature of that particular beast to do so. It really knows no other way. When anyone has absolute power, it seems they are compelled to act in this way. The ideology or beliefs behind it really don't make a difference; once absolute power is attained, any beliefs they may have had to justify their actions really take a back seat to the process of consolidation of power and control.

Who fucking cares who does the killing? Do you really think it is possible to dehumanize someone else, without dehumanizing yourself, and turning into a beast, even if you initially had the best of intentions?

Those who have an idea of the possibility of the perfection of mankind, who seek the power needed to perfect mankind, and then obtain the power the needed to perfect mankind, always, without exception, end up destroying what it means to be human in the first place.

Why don't you go back to gazing at your visage in the mirror now Rick, or maybe you can't, because you don't like what you see?

I don't know if I would say these cryptically repulsive mating rituals you demented cretins indulge in were designed intelligently, but they certainly are vomitously rich in their fullsomeness, and I often wonder what exotic new directions they might proceed toward as you compulsively vibrate into a festering mass of congealed mewling invertebrates

Rick Reuben wrote:

eva03 wrote:I am an atheist which means I don't believe in god because theism is the belief in gods and the prefix a means without. I am also agnostic because I claim ignorance on whether or not god actually exists because I can't possibly know one way or the other. .

You are very mixed up. You want to be both atheist and agnostic because you're too weak-minded to choose between the two. Atheism means denial that there is a deity. If you do not make that denial, then you are an agnostic.

You can now call yourself an agnostic.

Rick, i would love to hear your take on transgenderism.

Rick Reuben wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:Rick, i would love to hear your take on transgenderism.

You rarely have the guts to answer simple questions, but I'll try again:

Do you believe there is a hybrid atheist/agnostic position, or do you believe the two positions are discrete?

Can one person be both?

It's a semantic argument, and i dislike semantic arguments. If you have some sort of black and white worldview, which you seem to have, and can only handle the simplicity of either/or, then i guess you have to be hardline about it. I, however, am fine with people taking the time to explain their beliefs if they fall somewhere between atheist/agnostic or a "hybrid" of the two, if you will.

Me, i believe that there is a god, but i don't know for sure. If i have to label myself, i go with "spiritual agnostic." But labels really don't matter much to me. When i didn't drink for years and years people called me straightedge, but i didn't call myself that, because i didn't like the hardline judgmental implications of it. Whatever.

If you want to affix the label "agnostic" on anyone who has even the slightest inkling of uncertainty about the existence of a God, fine, go ahead, i don't care. Just don't expect everyone else to play by your rules.

"Guts." Ha.