Militant Ignostic Weak Agnostic Atheism!

awesome! k here we go. "militant people completely disregard the chance of them being wrong" - If that was true, I wouldn't have put this up on this site. If I so firmly believe I'm right and can't be proven wrong, there would be no need for this. It'd just be stupidly trying showing off. Which this isn't. Also, "vigorously active and aggresive, esp. in support of a cause" doesn't necessarily = "completely disregard the chance of them being wrong". "You should believe what I believe, because I'm more right than you" - This whole thing was copy pasted from my facebook page. I only had this sentence up to try and spark 'interesting discussions'. I assure you I'm actually more humble than this! hahaha. Although when it comes to CERTAIN people, I do actually believe this; but that can't be generalized into a statement like this and can only be stated case by case. "And your certainty on religions, or atheism, or others, is hurting people" - This again, I must apologize, is a flawed generalization and must be specified upon! Although the particular reason why the sentence written this way was, again, to nudge those with opposing views to post on the FB page. But to specify: - I believe it is a negative thing to have absolute certainty in 'beliefs', whether theistic or atheistic, because solid evidence is not apparent for either side and to completely disregard one or the other, even if the little proof we might have might suggest a stronger case for the other side, is wrong. It's not the logical thing to do. - I'm sure you're aware of the terrible things organized religion has been responsible for in the past, and that goes without saying, but nowadays religions tend to be damaging in other ways. Because of religion countries are torn apart, extremists take lives and endanger safety of others, ridiculous restrictive laws are in place, some ignore science/reason/logic, etc. It would require too much space to go into detail with those things and each deserve full debates of their own http://en.wikipedia.org... but sections 4 and 5 here I present to you for now, there are also others but many negative things religion is responsible for, a reasonable religious individual might also disagree with. My position is that claiming to follow certain belief systems like Christianity or Islam for example, only empower those that have the power to inflict negativity to the world. - Altruism and other positive qualities of a decent human being doesn't require any kind of belief systems. Who's a better person? Someone who is just because they feel it's the right thing to be good and kind to others, and logically it benefits themselves and society... or someone who behaves that way because of fear of supernatural punishment? Or even if they simply behave that way because they have to be told to do so by something that may or may not be true? Personally, I believe the former rather than the latter to be the nobler person. "What if you're wrong?" - If I'm wrong I'll adjust my views accordingly. That's why I put this up here. and on to the next section: - "supreme being" can still refer to countless different supernatural characters and interpretations. "position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts." I need proof. - need proof of what? that they assume too much? they do, and you've just shown that you do too. Shiva is a god, and a supreme being. So is vishnu and krishna. So is the god of abraham. so is allah (yes they're different gods, with different personalities, rules, and etc.), and zeus and odin, and many others. Apart from that, the word 'god' can also be used to describe many non-supreme-being deities. there are thousands and i trust i won't need to list them all here. this part was in response to "does god exist?" to which theists say "yes" and atheists say "no". depending on the 'god' the answer can be yes, no, or maybe. In your case the answer is 'maybe', meaning we don't have the capacity to know yet. "I need proof." - is there 100% proof that your god exists? the simple answer is no. could it be possible in the future? who knows what might happen in the future, i certainly don't and i think it's safe to assume that most of us mortals don't. that's your proof in support of "there is not enough information to know whether any deities exists, but that such might become knowable." and: - so if WA was doubt, everybody would be agnostic? there are lots of ppl unquestioningly sure about what they believe. if it was untrue everybody would not be. - many personal experiences are 50/50. some are completely bogus and some are not. but you can't logically draw conclusions from personal experiences. it's not scientific. i don't see your point with this. - religions do NOT provide valid proof. none of them. that's why they're still called "beliefs" and "faith", and not "fact". "When one looks at things with baby eyes it appears that there is God due to popular belief, everything being created and personal revelations" - since when was popular belief ever reliable? if u lived hundreds of years ago we'd thing the earth was flat. but obviously that was wrong and we kno that now. humans have a history of getting stuff dead wrong, and a humble person must always concede the possibility that human knowledge is not only limited, but not set in stone. it is mouldable, adjustable, editable, rewriteable, etc.etc.etc. all organized religions are wrong because they can't concede this fact. all holy texts are set in stone and not subject to revision. as for spirituality and beliefs apart from organized religion, strong personal biases cloud judgments many a times. if there is a part of their belief system they see to be proven wrong, and they admit and revise their body of knowledge, then congrats to them. but what is unknowable is unknowable. questions like "does god exist?" is something we don't know yet. and we shud be humble enough to admit it and not jump to conclusions and believe something just to satisfy the question. - (everything being created) does or does not equal (there is a god) - personal revelations? what kind of personal revelations? none of them can be proven and most are hoaxes, wishful thinking, or crazy things happening in the brain that's tricking us. not a very reliable indication of ANYTHING. - WA is not an argument for atheism. it's an argument against the arrogance of claiming to know something when you actually don't. theism states there is at least one deity. atheism states there are no deities. WA says woah hold on a second, we don't know that yet let's not jump to conclusions here. there are no "natural conclusions" and i fail to see where there are contradictions. "My opponent asserts that a specific God is more unlikely than an unspecific God, I need evidence." - poseidon, god of the sea, a bearded anthropomorphic figure wielding a trident, is less likely to exist than what most of us simply refer to as "god", being an omnipotent supernatural creator of the universe. if someone plays a guessing game and asks two people to guess what he's thinking of and #1 says 'animal' and #2 says 'elephant', who is more likely to be correct? specific = less chances of being right... unspecific(broader definition) = more chance of being right. "Please elaborate why shouldn't I believe with certainty in the Christian God?" - believing with certainty is on par with believing that you know. and we don't. if we did, there wouldn't be such a fuss about things and there wouldn't be any other religions in the world. well... not to mention all the different little denominations of christianity as well. leaving out all the negatives that can be said of the organized religion of christianity and dealing with JUST the personal belief in christianity... I believe it's a matter of recognizing the limits