Militant Ignostic Weak Agnostic Atheism!

Without ado, lets begin: Militant: Definition: "vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers." http://dictionary.reference.com... Observations: Militancy ignores ignorance. In other words militant people completely disregard the chance of them being wrong. Responding to my opponent: "You should believe what I believe, because I'm more right than you" According to who ? You ? That is not convincing. " And your certainty on religions, or atheism, or others, is hurting people" o Are you certain that you're right ? o Hurting people ? I certainly without any dubiety believe in Christianity. I became many times more altruistic and improved my own hence other people's life. Now prove me wrong? o Sources and valid examples, please. My own argument: o What if you're wrong ? o Will provide after I see my opponent's response. Ignostic: Observation: "Ignostic" is not a real word. I'll have to use the definition presented by wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org... Responding to my opponent: "What do you mean by the word 'god'?" Supreme being "The word "god" must be clearly defined first before you consider the question 'does god exist?' " I've just did that. Arguments (quotes from wikipedia): "position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts." I need proof. Request: Elaborate your position on this so that we would have something to debate, thank you. Weak agnostic: Definition: "Weak agnosticism is the assertion that, at present, there is not enough information to know whether any deities exists, but that such might become knowable." http://en.wikipedia.org...# Observation: o I need proof. Responding to my opponent: " things are beyond our understanding at this moment" So? " claim something as absolute truth." Nothing technically is 100% certain but that's not what weak atheism is about. "This is as opposed to a strong agnostic who would claim that we don't know and never will. " Doesn't make weak agnosticism right but I like the comparison. Arguments: o Weak agnosticism =/= Doubt ; if this were untrue everybody would be an agnostic. It is a statement which needs like all other statements - prove itself. Weak Agnosticism must prove: o All personal experiences are bogus. o Your standard of what is certain is correct. o Other religions provide no valid proof. In order for weak agnosticism to fulfill its burden, it has to take a side which is according to weak agnosticism is uncertain. In other words one must be an atheist first and foremost. When one looks at things with baby eyes it appears that there is God due to popular belief, everything being created and personal revelations ; weak agnosticism is more of an argument for Atheism hence it loses its credibility of being a natural conclusion. Wherefore it contradicts itself. o This will be elaborated after my opponent responds. Agnostic Atheism: Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org... Observations: o My opponent asserts that a specific God is more unlikely than an unspecific God, I need evidence. Arguments: o This whole debate can very easily become: "Is the Christian God real" however I don't want that (done it a million times). Please elaborate why shouldn't I believe with certainty in the Christian God? No arguments just reasons. o I will elaborate after my opponent responds. Thank you, M