Nabraben wrote:
Agnostic eh? Agnosticism is for the weak minded. You're too much of a coward to go to Hell for not believing in a higher power, and you're too scared to look like a dumbass for believing in something that doesn't exist.
I bet you're thinking with accepting both you have a 100% chance of being right, but actually you just have a 100% chance of being wrong. Idiot.
I bet you're thinking with accepting both you have a 100% chance of being right, but actually you just have a 100% chance of being wrong. Idiot.
Bull. You expect everyone with a motivation to reach a conclusion based on what...faith? Some people like to be convinced of things, and if they aren't, they don't fool themselves into believing they are just so they can reap benefits or appear to "know" something.
Theism: God exists
Atheism: God does not exist
Agnosticism: God may or may not exist (depending on definition of agnosticism)
With both theism and atheism, one must have surety to claim that stance. This is great for some people who've happened to have religious epiphanies (theists) or who believe so strongly in "science" that they have their own anti-God epiphany (atheists). But not for agnostics. We need to be convinced by something. Whether an epiphany, hard evidence, a logical conclusion, a philosophical conclusion. Whatever. IMO none of these hard and fast facts one way or another exist. And I'm certainly not going to take a giant leap of faith one way or the other just to satisfy one of those who is convinced.
Asking an agnostic to "make up his mind already" is like giving someone a jar of 100 numbered beans, asking him to pull one out, and decide which number it is without even looking at it just so he can reach a Holy Conclusion. NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE EITHER WAY DUMBASS.
Besides which, speaking of "chances", there is no majority religion--chances are the vast majority are wrong. How do you feel now, sucka!?
Edited, Sun Feb 6 04:27:19 2005 by Palpitus