Creepy Condescending Wonka

I always find it funny how people think atheists and agnostics are the same thing. They're quite different.

Atheist: there is no god
Agnostic: I don't know if any gods exist or not

One mind is closed, the other is open. One has no belief, the other is unsure where to place their belief.

Lumping them together is a sure sign of someone who doesn't know what one or both actually means.

Who's quibbling? I'm going by the dictionary definition, and you're making shit up.

It's all down there, just look for the parts where your definition doesn't match the dictionary definition that I posted.....and the one about the word "REAL", which is the only definition I didn't bother to post....because at that point, you proved that you were making up definitions to support your argument.

Have a nice day :)

Don't argue with me, argue with the dictionary. There is a reason the two words have different definitions, you should keep reading them until you figure out what that reason is.

whatever you say

An atheist isn't agnostic. The definitions prevent that possibility. That you can't accept the definition says more about your motivations than anything. It's quite clear that you desperately don't want to accept that the definitions don't support your assertions.

Personally, I can accept when I'm wrong - but that isn't necessary or even an option in this case, because I'm not givin opinion, I'm repeating a pair of very VERY old definitions.

Let me spell it out for you using as few words as possible (from the definitions), to illustrate the incompatibility.

Atheist: disbelief
Agnostic: neither faith nor disbelief

So, if you have disbelief (atheist), you cannot be agnostic, because they have neither faith nor disbelief.

I have a feeling that you've confused agnostic with gnostic.

Good luck sorting that out. There are plenty of dictionaries online that you can use to assist you in your quest to learn the meanings of words.

Hate to be the bearer of...

I was going to suggest whether either of yous might just instead decide to opt to stop wasting each other's time and use one of those newfangled "Dictionary" apps, but it turns out he already did.

So why is this still going on?

Now if you excuse me, I'm off to my Church's weekly Agnostic Atheists for Jesus meet...

Good gosh.

You contradicted yourself.

Sentence one: "It means not having a belief in a god
Sentence three: 'Atheists don't "have no belief"'

"not having a belief" and "having no belief" are the same thing.

If you're open minded about it, then you're agnostic.

I'm not trying to shame anyone who's either atheist or agnostic. I went from being a priest to being agnostic for a lot of years, then I found my belief and determined that it was organized religion that I had a problem with - man is flawed, and corrupts everything...including belief in God.

My entire purpose was to point out that someone who doesn't understand one, or the other (or both) shouldn't be making statements that lump them together.

You should try arguing with a dictionary. Both words are quite well defined, and you seem to be confused.

Apparently you don't.

Because that is the part that makes it incompatible.... You're lost.

I thought agnostic was believing in a higher power but not organized religion, or is that a theist?

I see what the problem is here...I thought you didn't understand the definition of either Atheist or Agnostic....but it turns out that you don't understand the word "Disbelief"

Do I need to put up the definition for the word "REAL"? You seem to have stopped reading the definition of disbelief before you got to the end of it.

These are words that have existed and been defined for longer than you and I have been alive combined (and I'm old).

You consistently ignore parts of the definition that don't support the opinion you're trying to sell.

Atheist: disbelief
Agnostic: no faith or disbelief

Repeat that until it sinks in. Until that happens, you can live in whatever bubble makes you happy. Don't let me stand in the way of your delusion.

Words have meaning. Instead of changing the meaning to fit your argument, try using the correct words. When you're ready to act like an adult and use words correctly, I'm sure you'll find conversations more meaningful.

You realize you are arguing with an adult that plays with and worships false idols? little plastic ponies🦄🐴

Proving her wrong never gets old, and it helps me to remember the mentality of those on the left. It's all about feelings with them. She feels like the words should mean something else, so she argues using definitions that only she knows.

He's male.

I'm sure his parents are proud.

Poor reading comprehension, for starters.

I thought so, as I ask him if he was a brony.

I blame the College/University culture for turning fools into master debaters. People like her think they are Ben Shapiro or something.

Seems more about splitting hairs over semantics?

But then ad hominemizing it to tickle the prostrate of a sycophanting knuckle dragger sure nudged your point a few notches for what it is.

Wedging in "she" as much as possible also helps illuminate your position further [{because women are, well, bad bad baaaaaaaaaaaad. Especially from an incel pov}]

So... I'm an incel now... My grandkids will think that is hilarious!

Overdoing the "she she she she she her" bit begs the question of what your partner selection indicates about your orientation as well as how unsure of what is sexual identity can someone elderly possibly still be.

As far as I can figure, if your wife witholds sex for one day, you can be an incel. Just more far left bs.

Hahaha, I'm so virile that my offspring has offspring!

Good job. Nothing is worse than dying alone.

Nothing better than a guy called an incel trying to flex his nutsack.

"I-I-Inc-c-cel, me? Puleaze, I'll have you know I got more descendents than - than - than -than Ghengis Kahn!"

Yeah, this is getting tedious.

A true test of stamina!

No, the dictionary proved you wrong.

Argue with the dictionary.