in yer last post u said that my position on wut an agnostic iz iz the following:
"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.

No, agnostics don't say "there's a supreme being out there, but I don't know what it is." They say "there might be a supreme being out there, or there might not be a supreme being out there." When you say "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", you imply that they think there is indeed some supreme being but they don't know what it is. Saying that agnostics are "not sure ov what iz out there" (which I would agree with) is not the same as that.

"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?"

Because this is a basic tenet of Islamo-Judeo-Christianity. We could tweak the definition of God until it is not possible to prove one way or another whether it exists, but then you have to make all sorts of decisions about what sorts of things you would call gods and what sorts of things you wouldn't. For example, some people would say that God is the same thing as Nature and use the word that way, but I'm not going to say that Nature doesn't exist. That is why I specified the Judeo-Christian God in my argument.