School Shootings - More Evidence of a Non-Existent Deity?

[marylandblue]

141. I really don't care how believers sort non-believers

I sort myself as agnostic, and the idea of "not being committed" is far from ludicrous, lot's of us are not committed to lots of things. Does escargot taste good? I am not committed to yes or no, since I never ate them. Does intelligent life exist on other planets? I think probably yes, but I am not committed to that, there being no direct evidence of such. If the idea of "not being committed" sounds so ludicrous to you, I suggest you think long and hard about how many things you don't actually know about, or no very little about, therefore you are not "not committed" to a position on them. What is your position on who I should for court judge in the next election? i assume you are "not committed" since you don't know where I live and even if you did, you probably don't know anything about who is running for judge here. And if you are committed on that issue, please tell me who to vote for, because I sure don't know.

"Broadly" is not the key word in the definition, the key word is "unknown." Atheists may claim to also be agnostic, because gods "may exist, but they don't believe in them," but if anything, that is the bullshit position. Because lots of atheists call religion "bullshit," "delusional," "nonsense," "lies," and so on. Sure, you hold the THEORETICAL possibility that gods may exist along with leprechauns and unicorns, but do you seriously believe there is a snowball's chance in hell that an actual leprechaun will ever be found? And I don't mean a short green Irishman, or a little humanoid living in the Andromeda Galaxy, or some future genetic engineered marvel. I mean the thing that we all always mean - the magic little creatures that is said to be living in Ireland since at least medieval times. You and I both KNOW there is no such creature, nor will any evidence of such a creature be found.

So don't give me BS that you think there "may" be gods. You don't think that. You are NOT an agnostic. I AM an agnostic, because I think there actually is some evidence (though I consider it weak, it's strong enough to be uncertain). So what's reason to be uncertain yourself? Because everything is uncertain? Because you can't prove a negative? Now that's bullshit! I can prove you didn't kill Julius Caesar. It's actually quite easy to prove that you didn't. So if you don't believe in gods, don't believe in them. If you don't believe in the possibility of certain knowledge, that doesn't make you a real agnostic, that makes you a philosophical skeptic. You can call it agnosticism if you want, I don't care, but don't pretend like you REALLY doubt your own beliefs, just so you can get agnostics on your "team" in order to counter those nefarious theists you are trying to keep you down, because theist actually like agnostics better.

They may say they like agnostics better, but in reality, most of them don't. The ones who have a problem with atheists mostly also don't like members of other religions, and don't like other members of their own religion who follow the wrong version, and they don't like agnostics either. There are no atheist OR agnostic members of Congress. There is one "unaffiilated." I don't get represented either.

I have never given atheists any grief for their beliefs. And I've not given agnostic atheists or atheists who claim to be agnostic, or any other type of person who is not theist any grief. Until now. Because you are giving me grief for mine. More than I have ever gotten from anyone, anywhere for it, simply because you have decided for me what I "should" believe, what I "should" say or think and what the "correct" definitions are (or in post 140, even what the "correct" reading of a definition is), all while pretending that's all perfectly reasonable to tell someone that. What other kind of people do we both know that say stuff like that? Don't tell me you are agnostic on THAT question.