Once again I feel that the athiest and agnostics, which by the way I can completely respect athiests but not agnostics atheist at least have a firm belief in there feelings and findings and I feel I overlooked this before when I said I can respect all beliefs because the one to me and to all that should be unaccpetable is an agnostic. the basic definition of an agnostic is someone who is to weak faithed to be a Christian and to weak willed to be an athiest I can at least respect the other atheist and do even while at odds with them for there similiar strong will and beliefs neither of which an agnostic can claim to have. and if as an agnostic true firm belief was found and shown as Jesus was quoted as saying "you have seen me but those who have not seen and still believe have a stronger faith then you" I mean in my opinion even God himself would have more respect for an atheist. I retract my previous statement of calling a flip flopper to an athiest because upon further research have found that an agnostic is the true weak one unable to come come to there own conclusion I mean I can take research and dispute religion with a atheist but an agnostic is just a lost cause to both sides the most pathetic of all.
At this time I do retract all statements against the athiest I insulted especially the f*ck you and the horse you rode in on" i am sorry you have convistion and belief in your opinions and I respect that and again appologize for that and the time it took me to do so.
At least you have the conviction to name your horse LOL
I mean come on I know we are on opposite side but agnostic please just another name for I don't know and I am to scared to choose. Can we at least agree on that? out of some common ground.
Agnostic LOL to weak to chose LOL choose a side and them rejoin at least I can respect an atheist for there beliefs an agnostic basically has none or at least won't stand behind them and regardless of what you say your own catoragation defines that. Common ground fallen etc.?
sd6515 Reviewed by sd6515 on . Argument made by religious people that just isn't valid A lot of people justify their belief in a certain religion by claiming that there is basically no difference between believing in religious texts and believing in commonly accepted historical texts. They'll say something like, "What's the difference between believing in the Bible and believing all the written accounts of the Civil War, for example? You choose to believe those accounts, even though you weren't actually there, just like I choose to believe in the Bible even though I wasn't Rating: 5