"I don't know" - Is that so hard to comprehend?

[Fonceai]

"what ifs" are acknowledgments of possibilities, meaning that your version of "I don't know" is more elaborate than that, and that is why your version of "I don't know" is so hard to comprehend.

Your "I don't know" includes definitions, conditions, and modifiers that aren't all that common.

[Kamehameha34]

No. "What ifs", in this context, are nothing more than validation for uncertainty.

Point out a few "what if"s you've seen me employing.

[Fonceai]

Your defense of the use of "what ifs" and then challenging your use of them is contradictory.

Last time I checked, an agnostic accepts every single "what if" for and against God equally.

You can't throw your hands up and say:

I have no evidence that such a god is possible, or impossible.

... and expect us to all nod and acknowledge the wisdom of your agnosticism.

By criticizing those that don't agree with you, you aren't really saying, "I don't know"... you're saying, "I know better than anyone else."

[Kamehameha34]

So asking people to support their beliefs, after they deem them the most logical, is professing how you view yourself as "better than anyone else"?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So asking people to support their beliefs, after they deem them the most logical, is professing how you view yourself as "better than anyone else"?

Unfortunately, you've proven throughout your posts that the logical mechanisms you employ aren't exactly worthy of a medal.

Therefore, what you may or may not deem more logical than anyone else really matters as much to me as cream cheese; your ways of coming to conclusions have again and again been shown to be irrational and illogical, and at times, are just a display of stubborn ignorance.

Need to realise that you have a problem with defining words and phrases, and USING that definition to support your argument. You keep saying 'you don't know', and then profess that to be a more logically sound conclusion that anyone else. you WRONGLY define agnostic, and your views don't even fall into the myriad of subcategories of agnosticism. In the face of being told that 'knowing' you don't know is different from believeing that noone currently does know, or CAN know, you stubbornly sidestep, and plough on with an argument rife with holes.

Admitting you don't know is bleeding obvious. I don't know either, but I am still a weak atheist, and have my beliefs, based on sound logical reasoning.

You. Are. Not. Agnostic. Your views are not groundbreaking, YOU are the one who thinks that, everyone else is just trying to wave that illusion away.

Telling you to grow up would be quite appropriate at this point, since I imagine you have still put me on ignore. That was not warranted. Looks like you can start by looking at your definition of the word 'trolling'.

[Kamehameha34]

This message is hidden because pikatore is on your ignore list.

You've proven yourself incapable of mature discussion, and this is the second occasion. Every time you address me, it's just a cowardly attempt to get the last word.

[Jack]

The topic here is Kam's contention, not Kam himself. Let's get back on topic. (And don't bother accusing me of doing the same thing I'm saying we shouldn't do. I know I was, and that's why I'm not posting in these threads anymore.)

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[pikatore]

well, that seem to have pretty much closed up this thread then. thank god.

[Praxius]