The problem is not him, or just him, it is the rest of us, the feed.
Why don't you shove that "arts major" horseshit up your prissy, anal retentive ass, you arrogant, conceited bitch. You don't know what i studied at university because i have refused to play that snotty game with you.
Apparently you did not read carefully enough.
In fairness, this is a thread for atheists to discuss what type of atheist they are. Why don't you let them do that instead of insisting they're all wrong, and you're right?
Because that's what you're dong. It's not about logic or reason, it's about you being right.
I never thought there could be such a thing as a fanatical agnostic until I met you.
My position on the subtext of your question, Kolyo, is:
I do not know if there is a GOD (gods); I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist; I see no reason that suggests gods are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.
In an atheist site where I occasionally post...the regulars (I originally wrote that "inmates") INSIST that because of that description, I am an atheist. I do not consider myself to be an atheist.
I certainly do not consider questions about the ultimate REALITY (including questions about the possible existence of gods) to be uninteresting or unworthy of consideration...as so many apparently do. I recognize and acknowledge that there seems to be no way to ever actually answer them, but speculation about REALITY IS, to me, extremely interesting and worthy of discussion.
Anyway...if you are one of the atheists who think that because of my description of my position, I have to be an atheist...
...what do you think? I don't think I can be especially objective...I will insist I am not an atheist.
But I am interesting in hearing how much of an atheist you think I am.
Why do you feel the need to challenge them?
Shouldn't they be allowed to believe whatever they want? It's not like they're foisting their beliefs on anyone else.
And it's not like you've brought anything new to the discussion, everything you've said here you've said a hundred times before, like a broken record. Nobody is in any doubt as to what you believe. Now be courteous, and give it a rest.
Marozia, born Maria and also known as Mariuccia or Mariozza (c. 890 – 937), was a Roman noblewoman who was the alleged mistress of Pope Sergius III and was given the unprecedented titles senatrix ("senatoress") and patricia of Rome by Pope John X.
Edward Gibbon wrote of her that the "influence of two sister prostitutes, Marozia and Theodora was founded on their wealth and beauty, their political and amorous intrigues: the most strenuous of their lovers were rewarded with the Roman tiara, and their reign may have suggested to darker ages the fable of a female pope. The bastard son, two grandsons, two great grandsons, and one great great grandson of Marozia—a rare genealogy—were seated in the Chair of St. Peter." Pope John XIII was her nephew, the offspring of her younger sister Theodora. From this description, the term "pornocracy" has become associated with the effective rule in Rome of Theodora and her daughter Marozia through male surrogates.
Marozia was born about 890. She was the daughter of the Roman consul Theophylact, Count of Tusculum, and of Theodora, the real power in Rome, whom Liutprand of Cremona characterized as a "shameless whore... [who] exercised power on the Roman citizenry like a man."
You're not discussing their beliefs, you're telling them they're wrong, and you're right.
And, as an Agnostic, shouldn't you just leave them to it?
The man had an epiphany. Now he wants to force it on the world. Like every reborn believer.
I have a political ideology. No question there. It rests somewhat left of Roosevelt's New Deal. But it doesn't push for religion or atheist ideas, just pushes back when the right to them is encroached.
You haven't changed a syllable since your original post on Abuzz.
What is it with so many atheists here that causes them to get all worked up when someone reasonably and courteously challenges their takes on matters?
I only speak out when you start making false assumptions on a thread like this and then make a crusade about it. On most threads I let you rave on without protest, whether or not I agree.