dunt quote one part ov my post an leave the next part out ov it so that u can try an make it seem az if wut i said wuz different.

in yer last post u said that my position on wut an agnostic iz iz the following:
"an agnostic belivez that there iz a sumpreme being ov sum sort"
now if thatz all i had said, then yah, i wood ov been wrong. but i said "an agnostic belivez that there iz a sumpreme being ov sum sort, but since there is no certainty, they choose not 2 follow a religion"
now in case yer not pickin up on wut im sayin, the part wit the no certainty obviously meanz there there iz no certainty on whether er not there iz a supreme being an if there iz, wut exactly that supreme being iz.

so once again, plz explain the different between:

agnosticz simply r not sure ov what iz out there, an wut u said. i aint the smartest guy but buddy, im sayin the exact same thing u r an yer sayin im wrong.

now about a supreme being precludin free will, well how do u kno that if there wuz a supreme being, it wood preclude free will?

now we can bicker on whether er not my definition wuz word fer word out ov the dictionary, but i think u get wut i wuz sayin an i must say that i dun appreciate ppl who kno wut im talkin bout commin on an tryin to tell me im wrong by sayin the exact same thing i said, but usin a whole bunch ov smart wordz. im in skool, an am in a world religionz course so i do kno wut the difference iz.