XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 09:32:40 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 20:49:38 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:00:09 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:52:34 -0700, A Nony Mouse  wrote:   
   >...   
   >>>>A careful person will not reject the possibility of no gods existing on   
   >>>>the basis of any evidence as yet presented, nor reject the reverse   
   >>>>possibility on that evidence.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Such careful persons are called agnostics.   
   >>>   
   >>>Not really. Agnostics say that they do not know and cannot know if any   
   >>>deities exist. They may be believers or not be believers.   
   >>   
   >>    Do you think there's no distinction between strong and weak agnostics?   
   How   
   >>about strong and weak atheists? Your idiot brother bilgat can't comprehend   
   the   
   >>distinction between any of them, or even that there is a distinction. Are   
   you as   
   >>clueless as that idiot?   
   >   
   >I have no idea what distinction you imagine exists among agnostics other   
   >than belief in god or unbelief, theist or atheist.   
      
       Strong agnostics believe it can't be known whether or not God exists. Weak   
   agnostics believe that if God does exist it is possible for some people to know   
   it. I'm a weak agnostic and consider strong agnosticism to be even more stupid   
   than strong atheism.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)