As opposed to Manorchurch, who is more of a pedarist...

(Actually I'm kidding about that - just taking advantage of word simile)

__________________
Biden 2010

No! That is a contradiction, a direct, explicit contradiction. You said yourself, the REASON you don't like being called an atheist is because it doesn't allow you the social mobility to convince someone else of YOUR ideas. That is a blatant contradiction. Of course the people you're trying to recruit are capable of accepting or not, as is everyone, always; so no shit. But, you're still ATTEMPTING a conversion. I, on the other hand, want the good name of the atheist to stop being run through the dirty by hypocrites like yourself, associating yourself with a higher and mightier moral imperative, oh, we don't want to enforce anything, blah blah blah, only atheists are evil enforcers. Give me a break, find a theist on this forum or in the world I have tried to convert. I know you've tried, you just admitted as much, and I'm sure in the process said something like "oh, see, us agnostics, we aren't like evil atheists, we don't try and recruit anyone. want to join us?"

You again are missing the point. I am not trying to convince others to be agnostics (except for those who call themselves atheists but are by their own words agnostic); I am trying to convince others not to try to impose their beliefs on me (whether they are atheists or theists).

It isn’t what people believe that bothers me, it is what they do with that belief.

Now an atheist who says: "I know there is no god, but you are free to think what you want" is not agnostic, but is someone I can respect.

Likewise a theist who says: "I know there is a god, but you are free to think what you want" is not agnostic, but is someone I can respect.

Now a theist or atheist who says: "I know you are wrong, so you must do what I want" is someone I don't respect. Now there are differing degrees of respect and not respecting, but those are the categories.

I will grant you that if I really believed that there were only four categories, I can understand your misguided belief that I want to shoehorn people into definitions, but I believe I made it clear in my post that I was using it only for illustrative purposes. I understand that the categories are broad swathes covering a continuum of different beliefs, so on the borders there are overlap.

I also understand your argument and definition, but what I am trying to point out is that I think your definition is counterproductive to my goal of getting theists as a whole (not everyone, because there will ALWAYS be those who insist on imposing their beliefs) to agree to "live and let live". A simple way of recognizing this is that your definition is EXACTLY what the intolerant theists want to believe. They WANT to have godless atheists out there who are actively seeking to undermine faith, and they brand us all equally. I refuse to allow them to define me (particularly since it doesn't apply to me).

And I think ultimately my goal is really what you want (I could be wrong, you may want to convert all theists to atheism, but then you really ARE a hard core atheist and not a tolerant atheist like you claim).

look, to me, the agnostic is stuck in this trap, comparing his tolerance to others' intolerance. This is pervasive in modern liberal societies, at least. But, its just the same thing as taking the moral high ground. Within your comparison, one finds something ideal in one's own ideology, whereas one also find the ideologies of other's lacking. Whereas you and I are neither types of advocates, theistic or anti-theistic, you none-the-less advocate inadvocacy amongst all people in this debate. I don't, though I am not an advocate of my personal philosophy, and instead proceed to truly advocate nothing. When asked, do you believe in God, you say "It is not possible to know is God exists, so I reserve myself from answering." When I am asked the same question my reply, similar but succinctly different, is "I don't think like that." What I am trying to say is, you actually ask yourself "is there a God?" and while I am aware of the concept of God, I have not turned that metaphor into something literal, I can't actually comprehend what I'm even talking about when I say God, all I can do, honestly, is NOT ask those questions because they're predicated on things I don't "get".

I claim to be an Agnostic because I don't care for any of the "Main-Stream" Religions of Today, or Yesteryear.

Sacrificing other Humans, beasts,,,or Fowl for a god is messy. And, not at all sanitary. I think a god worth its salt would find some other way to appease its sick Lusts.

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

hey, who hasnt sacrificed a human or two for the spring crop?

Is that all it takes Burb? All this time I've "prayed" for rain. That, and a large portion of "Fertilizer" to spread over my fields.

Religions have me beat on that account.

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

I am taking it that you saw the South Park episode on this very subject.

Good stuff.

Never heard the word before. Nor does Dictionary.com list it. With your Mexican heritage, you probably meant "pendejo".

Well, of course. Only an idiot would believe in the JCI godhead, in either its monotheistic mode or its triune interpretation. Personally, I've taken to looking more than a bit askance at leading writers and "intellectuals" who fondly recount their comings and goings to Jesus and/or Yahweh. Anybody who actually believes that crap is no thinker. Kant, well, maybe, but Kant does a lot of processing, and not a whole heck of a lot of original thinking, at base.

I'm turning more to a "nodes of chaos" POV, that all possibilities stand an equal chance of taking form and place. When operating with eternity and infinity, everything that can happen, does happen, eventually. Maybe we should look at it from the standpoint of "what cannot happen"? Might reduce the size of the infinite set.