Militant Ignostic Weak Agnostic Atheism!

"Here we can already see two flawed statements which my opponent ought to protect." - I concede to you defeating those statements, however, not the "militant" part. "Now I can't defend the teachings of Islam but I can defend Christian ideology." - go on? "Yes that is what my religion promotes. While atheism doesn't promote or teach anything hence generally speaking its more likely for a Christian to be altruistic." - You still needed an organized belief system to tell you that. An atheist would say that having good morals should not be dependent on, or associated with, supernatural beings, old stories a bunch of different ppl wrote thousands of years ago that may or may not be true and are contradictory of each other, or etc. An atheist would contend that morals should come from what is logically and reasonably beneficial to oneself and others and society. Besides having said that, atheism doesn't promote or teach anything related to that kind of stuff because the term atheism on a general basis is, opposition to the idea of theism (there is at least one deity). An atheist would contend that atheism wouldn't teach, people would. "So you're trying to tell me that Zeus and Yahweh are both called "God" ? That is not in any way debatable." - because they are. so are many other supernatural beings. "I can't show you or prove to you what kind of personal experiences I had." - exactly. "The idea was not to prove God but to prove that someone could "know"." - i'm still waiting for you to do that. "So I showed that one can be certain about some things." - One can be certain about something. That doesn't mean they "know". One could very well not know and still be certain about it because of their flawed personal convictions. "You ought to learn respect. You have a very biased opinion considering you ARE atheist." - you ought to learn respect. we both have biased opinions, i would've thought that would be painfully clear to even the simplest minds. the point here is to present an objective case strong enough to prove your side more correct than mine. still waiting for this to start. "To which I respond that if one was to look at things with baby eyes, one would become a theist." - another opinion statement with no strong supporting arguments or proof. "Now you're taking a side." - try and prove what i said there isn't correct. "For example if one would observe the world with these eyes, one would see that everything is created by something else so it follows that this world had a creator." - Or one would see that there is what we have now (universe), how things were before that, and how things were before that, ad infinitum until we come to a fork in the road which is "god started it all" or "something else did". the answer is, WE DON'T KNOW YET. seriously, is this a joke? am i being trolled here? i came on this site hoping for a delightful battle of intellects from opposing perspectives, instead i get something not much better than youtube-comments-banter. here it is again. even more simplified. present strong cases and defeat the logic in the following: militant - "vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause" - not much we can do about this part, unless you can prove that being active and aggressive in support of a cause is a bad thing. ignostic - the word "god" means many things. to discuss the existence of "god" we must clarify which "god" we're talking about. - to defeat this, prove to me that the word "god" can only mean one god and one god only. you must prove why it's wrong to put all other supernatural deities under the term "god(s)". weak agnostic - does god exist? we don't know but there is always a chance we might know in the future. - to defeat this, prove definitively that there is or is not a god. but if you concede that we don't know, you must then prove how it's not possible to come to know this. agnostic atheism - talking specifically of, for example, the christian god... he could exist but it's not likely. - note: richard dawkins is an agnostic atheist. someone like him would say the above is so because there is simply not any concrete definitive evidence to support the existence of the christian god. - to defeat this, prove why (in this case, the christian) god is very likely to exist, or simply that he does. - or you can defeat this by attacking its logic. for example, why go agnostic atheist and lean toward the atheist side of agnosticism regarding a specific god? why not the theistic side of agnosticism, or stay neutrally weak agnostic? and you seem to have the misconception that agnostic = atheist. so to clarify, these are the different types of agnosticism. agnostic theist, and agnostic atheist. one doesn't know but thinks god exists, one doesn't know but thinks god doesn't. gnostic theists and atheists are the ones that are concretely certain about their theism/atheism. there is also weak and strong agnosticism, WA basically being agnostic agnostic while SA are basically gnostic agnostic. i hope this clears things up. now let's stop this childishness and get to the point. quick. only two more rounds and i expect you not to waste them again.