I would be too if I talked as much shit.

You made an idiotic thread cos you thought you'd be funny, but you picked the wrong demographic. lol

Simple as that.

__________________

I'm down to debate the idea wherever and whenever. Its a fact that agnostics are pussies. And I'll defend anything else I said in this thread against any criticism, so please feel free to enlighten me. else, prove me right, avoid the conflict and be a pussy.

lol

OK, So what do you think an agnostic is? (good start)

And why are they pussies (good finish)

__________________

An agnostic is a person who thinks there is a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. Agnostics accept the perspective of theists when defining these terms. Specifically, if the theistic definition of agnostic is one who is uncertain of God and the definition of atheist as one who affirmatively rebukes the existence of God then it is the agnostic who purports this terminology as the end all be all. An atheist's interpretation of said definition is one I've asserted a few times on this forum. The Atheists definition of herself is as follows, "one who does not thinking within a theistic context." The difference is integral, in one paradigm the atheist is a fanatic against religion; in the other more accurate paradigm the atheist is merely a passive objector to theism and choses not to use their methodology, their way of thinking, to define their own world. This includes thinking about God. Agnostics (in conclusion I suppose) are pussies because they hurt their own cause and by insisting upon particularly old and out-dated definitions to maintain their status-quo. An Agnostic is a pussy because he takes the moral high ground to Atheists, asserting their wily tactics as fanatical and his own calm and rational, entirely oblivious to the word game inherited by theistic thinking.

I really disagree with that. Theists don't acknowledge agnostics, to them they we are just atheists.

So don't say they define us, they don't. We don't exist to them.

An agnostic is someone who is perfectly willing to say "hell if I know" and then go have a cup of coffee while the atheists and theists sneer at one another.


:-)

Yet I, as I keep repeating, am perfectly content to admit there is no proof against God, and I'm an atheist.

Yes, but that is not the same as saying "hell if I know". Deep down you really DO think you know and you really DO care that others DO believe.

Me, I don't care.

You're wrong. Deep down meaning what, the subconscious? I don't believe in that shit either. I have even recommended religion to some people. I don't think you're right, my definition of atheism is one who does not care about theism. Thats in line.

Subconscious, no (though that does exist, most people are not honest with themselves and tend to do things they would never admit to themselves).

No, I think you say you don't know god exists, but in actuality you know he doesn't exist. So if you say "I don't know", deep down you really DO think you know.

This is going to go in circles. You'd have to know me in real life. I've never even disrespected a religious person, let alone start a single argument against them. Search this forum for topics i've started or arguments I've made trying to disprove God. You won't find any, which is consistent with what I'm saying. Personally, I don't think there is a God, but publicly I'm willing to accept a wide variety of stupid ideas as potential realities and potentially helpful outlooks. It isn't like religion is without its merits. It isn't like I'm making any metaphysical claims at all about the "truth" or "nature" or "reality". I'm too thorough and consistent with my philosophy to make those mistakes.