Agnostic atheism

Originally posted by @romans1009
Then why do you leave so many of my questions unanswered and resort to pool whizzing?

What "questions unanswered"?

Originally posted by @romans1009
If you’re open to the possibility that you’re wrong, why not actively pursue an answer to whether God exists and whether Jesus Christ was God in the flesh? Why not question the evidence?

If you had read and understood all my previous posts on this thread, you would not be asking me this question.

So one must assume that you are asking it for some reason of your own that has nothing to do with me writing answers and your reading them.

Online disinhibition syndrome is not some difficult concept. It's easy to understand and, what is more, it's extremely common.

Originally posted by @romans1009
There you go, being an intellectual fancy pants again

You’re making yourself look like a jerk.

Originally posted by @fmf
What "questions unanswered"?

We went over this already. Not climbing back on this merry-go-round again. Direct your whizz elsewhere.

Originally posted by @fmf
If you had read and understood all my previous posts on this thread, you would not be asking me this question.

So one must assume that you are asking it for some reason of your own that has nothing to do with me writing answers and your reading them.

Online disinhibition syndrome is not some difficult concept. It's easy to understand and, what is more, it's extremely common.

There you go, refusing to answer a question again by claiming you already answered it. That’s gotta be the most used tool in your trolling toolbox.

Originally posted by @divegeester
You’re making yourself look like a jerk.

In whose eyes, amigo? Yours? The other trolls in this forum?

Originally posted by @romans1009
In whose eyes, amigo? Yours? The other trolls in this forum?

Yes mine.

I have no idea who the other trolls are as you seem to be too scared to say who they are.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Yes mine.

I have no idea who the other trolls are as you seem to be too scared to say who they are.

Not at all. I’ve already identified the head troll. He’s the atheist who spends all day flaming Christians and contributing little substance. Surely you know who your leader is.

Originally posted by @fmf
For me personally, it is, in a way, because it was me self-identifying as an agnostic atheist on another thread that has given rise to this thread.

Fair enough.

Romans... I agree with you most of thetime, but I will say this, it is always best to let your opponent define his terms, and let us define our terms. That is the best way to an honest debate. Not accusing you of anything but if someone wants to even use dishonest phrases, it is fine to quietly point it out herea nd there but semantics is always the wrong hill to die on.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Romans... I agree with you most of thetime, but I will say this, it is always best to let your opponent define his terms, and let us define our terms. That is the best way to an honest debate. Not accusing you of anything but if someone wants to even use dishonest phrases, it is fine to quietly point it out herea nd there but semantics is always the wrong hill to die on.

Compare this condescending hypocritical advice to another poster, on one hand, to, on the other, your ridiculously scornful response to my attempt to describe my take on the actual source and nature of what people refer to as "spirituality" on that thread you ran away from.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I find it hilarious he begins all his accounts keen to project an image akin to sonship, but soon descends into Robbie.

Wow so now Romans has gone from me to sonship to Robbie? You need to stay off the hallucinogens dude.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Fair enough.

Romans... I agree with you most of thetime, but I will say this, it is always best to let your opponent define his terms, and let us define our terms. That is the best way to an honest debate. Not accusing you of anything but if someone wants to even use dishonest phrases, it is fine to quietly point it out herea nd there but semantics is always the wrong hill to die on.

I appreciate what you’re saying, but all I did was ask him to define agnostic atheist because it sounded contradictory to me (the definitions I’m used to are an agnostic doesn’t know if God exists and an atheist doesn’t believe God exists.)

He declined to answer and suggested I start a thread, but I didn’t see the point in doing that when all I was looking for was his definition.

Originally posted by @romans1009
There you go, refusing to answer a question again by claiming you already answered it. That’s gotta be the most used tool in your trolling toolbox.

He's done it so many times with me I've lost count. Even when I was new he claimed to have answered my questions over the last 10 years and said if I was interested in his answers I should go back and read all the threads for the last ten years. 😴

Originally posted by @romans1009
I appreciate what you’re saying, but all I did was ask him to define agnostic atheist because it sounded contradictory to me (the definitions I’m used to are an agnostic doesn’t know if God exists and an atheist doesn’t believe God exists.)

He declined to answer and suggested I start a thread, but I didn’t see the point in doing that when all I was looking for was his definition.

You didn't see the point of it. And yet here is the thread about it and it's on its 10th page already. Maybe not every topic is suited to your interests.

Originally posted by @philokalia
...if someone wants to even use dishonest phrases, it is fine to quietly point it out herea nd there but semantics is always the wrong hill to die on.

If you think the term 'agnostic atheism' is "dishonest", just come out and say rather than bury it in a meally-mouthed way in a post to someone else when you haven't had the integrity to make the point properly.