There is no such thing as an agnostic.

[nt250]

It's your theory that I'm trying to disprove; your set of requirements to do so. What am I supposed to argue about? If you remain vague I suppose it's easy to not be proven wrong...

On a side note, do I fall into the "just likes to argue" pile if I don't ever actually argue with you about the existence of God?

How am I remaining vague? There is no such thing as an agnostic. Can't get anymore specific than that.

Why are you trying to disprove my theory? To argue with me. See? Itold you self proclaimed agnostics just like to argue, and they ONLY argue with atheists.

"Agnostics" don't like atheists. We make you look riduculous while you try and convince yourselves that you are intellectually superior for saying "I don't know".

Do you keep such an open mind about astrology, tea leaf readers, psychics? Are you willing to say you "don't know" if people can communicate with the dead? All while charging $700 an hour, of course.

Do you find anything patently ridiculous? How about perpetual motion machines? Dowsing? Nigerian bank deposits?

Can you make up your mind about anything? Then why is a god so different? It's different because you believe. You just don't want to admit it because you know how stupid it is.

If you do keep an open mind about all that other stuff, then I take it back. You're just plain stupid.

BTW, you are now arguing with me about finding someone else to argue with. I'd say you've proved me right about my theory.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

How am I remaining vague? There is no such thing as an agnostic. Can't get anymore specific than that.

You're vague in that you say I have to argue with a religious person, but specify neither a specific person nor a topic to discuss.

Why are you trying to disprove my theory? To argue with me. See? Itold you self proclaimed agnostics just like to argue, and they ONLY argue with atheists.

Thank you for proving my point. Your theory is wonderfully constructed so that if anyone tries to disprove it, they automatically prove it. I like to call it jackass logic. I can not possibly disprove your theory without arguing with you, and since arguing with you qualifies as a condition for being a fake agnostic, I prove your theory. Brilliant, in that not at all kind of way.

"Agnostics" don't like atheists. We make you look riduculous while you try and convince yourselves that you are intellectually superior for saying "I don't know".

I don't even know you. I do get the impression that if I feel intellectually superior I'm not alone, not in our 2 person dialogue. The only thing that's ridiculous is your theory. In reality, you're just trying to one-up the agnostics you so despise by being MORE intellectually superior and calling them out on it. You're like a teenager who shops at Hot Topic and thinks they're punk rock.

Do you keep such an open mind about astrology, tea leaf readers, psychics? Are you willing to say you "don't know" if people can communicate with the dead? All while charging $700 an hour, of course.

Of course not. $700 an hour is obviously a scam. Wonderful strawmen, though. Very intricate; excellent craftsmanship.

Do you find anything patently ridiculous? How about perpetual motion machines? Dowsing? Nigerian bank deposits?

Are you high?

Can you make up your mind about anything? Then why is a god so different? It's different because you believe. You just don't want to admit it because you know how stupid it is.

I can make up my mind about all sorts of things that have much more conclusive evidence than the existence of a God does, or in my opinion has much more supporting conclusive evidence (as opposed to Biblical/religous evidence that promotes doubt)

If you do keep an open mind about all that other stuff, then I take it back. You're just plain stupid.

You should take it back because they're stupid parallels.

BTW, you are now arguing with me about finding someone else to argue with. I'd say you've proved me right about my theory.

Of course I have. It's part of your intellectual superiority allowing you to create a catch 22 scenario. The only way to attempt to disprove a theory proves it. I guess good for you?

Seriously though, if you'd like to ACTUALLY talk about it without getting all hung up on thinking I'm just out to argue with you because I feel like you're embarrassing me and my belief-disguised-as-fake-agnosticism-because-in-reality-I-know-how-stupid-it-is-but-I-just-wanna-appear-cool, I'm all ears.

 

[Zieveraar]

Ignosticism nt, it is a good way to go. Don't know, don't care, don't want to know. It doesn't affect me either way.