Only the weak minded avoid the burden of proof to protect their assertions

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities, not all beliefs. We don’t need religion to believe religions exist. There is evidence to support the existence of most religion just not deities. Have a good one!

I had this argument with Octavia_Melody - she tried to say that the definition of atheist was the same as the definition of agnostic.

This is just more redefining words to match their argument - a longstanding tactic of liberals.

Here you go

there such people as agnostic atheists. they don't believe in a diety but they have thoughts that a higher power can exist

Sheesh, the guy is an ex almost Catholic priest.
I take it you've not met many of that constantly constipated cloth?

You know how many of my fellow Catholics growing up still got to Church or even believe? Let me know if you find out, because I haven't met any.
Care to hazard a guess as to why?

You couldn't accept that the definition of atheist SPECIFICALLY STATES a disbelief, and the definition of agnostic SPECIFICALLY STATES no disbelief.

Atheist: disbelief
Agnostic: no disbelief

Mutually exclusive.

Again, you're arguing with me when you should be arguing with the dictionary.

It's not possible to have disbelief at the same time as you have no disbelief.

I'm not saying that you aren't agnostic (seeking knowledge of god), I'm saying that you aren't atheist (denial of god).

OK, so you don't know what "mutually exclusive" means either.....

I've been saying it over, and over, and over - the definitions overlap on a word, and that word is disbelief.

Imagine for a moment that we're arguing over the definitions of the words hot and cold.

Cold: without heat
Hot: heat

These words have different definitions, but they are related on the presence or absence of heat. This difference in definition makes them mutually exclusive - one has it, the other does not.

You can continue to argue that you have a disbelief while simultaneously having no disbelief - and I'll continue to tell you that those things are mutually exclusive. You cannot have disbelief while not having disbelief - you cannot have heat at the same time as you have no heat.

Apparently you can

It is possible. When you're not sure

atheist is an absolute position - it's disbelief. Read the definitions. The definition of atheist describes someone with a disbelief in god, the definition of agnostic is someone with neither faith nor disbelief. The definitions are mutually exclusive - you can't have disbelief (atheist) and not have disbelief (agnostic)

I'm not saying the definition of atheist means to have some believe as well full stop your twisting things and ignoring my point. I'm saying as possible as a human being that all these things at once. Now we're done

Who cares what the definition say. It is just men and their opinions. The word speak for themselves. The point is it possible to fully believe I'm not be sure and have explicit doubt all the same time. It's called not being sure

Well, actually I'm not looking to change the meaning of any words, if you actually read what I said. However, English is an ever evolving language. It's always changing, definitions are always changing and being refined.

Words have meanings, and those meanings are cataloged in a book called a "dictionary"

If you just make up meanings that suit what you WANT the words to mean, then we are suddenly not speaking the same language. If I say red, and you decide that means green - we are no longer communicating.

Words matter, definitions matter - they are absolutely necessary to effective communication. This is why people who can't escape the traps of using slang are not able to get good jobs - nobody can communicate with them effectively.

If you're going to use a word, know what it means. If you're going to misuse a word, expect someone to question you about it.

Do you identify as a magical pixie now?

I don't need to believe in magic pixies. They have no relevance to my life. I'm glad you have something to believe in though.

Sorry, an extrapolation of your definition. I looked back and you did not say seeking.

Cool story, you're describing something outside of the definitions of these words.

Seeking is just something most agnostics (I've met) are doing. Knowledge being the key - most people seek it.

It's not a story just how it is. Definitions are just things made up by rooms of pompous men that people like you eat up with a fork and spoon and call it reality. Im not arguing with you your impossible and your debate always borders on self-serving dishonesty for me

The definitions overlap with one key word that you seem to be intentionally avoiding - the word disbelief.

Atheist - disbelief
Agnostic - no disbelief

That makes them mutually exclusive. Agnostic is - by definition - not atheist, because it specifically excludes those who disbelieve.

I'll tell you what I believe in.

Dictionaries

shit, I forgot - octavia is supposedly a dude....or a tranny..whatever.

Still calling people names Michael

What name ? Dude? Tranny? One is a gender, the other is descriptive..... A guy pretending to be a girl.

A tranny is not usually or always a guy pretending to be a girl. There are dif types of transgenderism though. You are ignorant. And you said it that way to be offensive. I'm not arguing with you. You just do the above I'm not sure you are a software designer I think you're a criminal lawyer.

Octavia_Melody has said it himself - he's a guy, pretending to be a girl.

Try not to be offended by everything.

I don't know of Octavia very well. You have been offensive several times to my kind and you know it. You are playing bush lawyer and that is insulting chick with balls. It's like if I said that software designers have small dicks usually and then when you got offended I'm like I merely said it's possibility and meant no offense; it is you who is to blame for my outrageous insult...

I have nothing against Australians....I think that's where you said you're from...

I have nothing specific again software designers

The name you chose is a combination of 2 female names, and you've clarified that you're not a woman. This is not calculus.

the libtard is wrong because his online alias sounds feminine

"sounds feminine" - fine, given 100 people named Octavia or Melody, what percentage of them will be men?

My guess - 0%.

If we increase the sample size to 1000....

My guess - 0%

10,000?

My guess - 0%

Do you see where I'm going with this?

and here you are trying to delegitimize his opinions based on how his alias sounds

Padre, you are a bit antagonistic and a tad too conveniently befuddled, aren't you?

But we know you're just pretending to be obtuse.

You are pretending, right, padre?

It has very musical connotations doesn't it your name. I was just reading about the meaning of Octavia and they said it meant eighth. So it must have its roots in the octave. And Melody of course is not just a name it can have meanings in Harmony and music. I think it's very beautiful. A profile name does not have to match your gender at all

hahahaha thank you

And you you're just gross. Religious people are gross