Militant Ignostic Weak Agnostic Atheism!

- wars, witchburning, ruining what once used to be the intellectual capital of the world in the middle east, persecuting intelligent innovative thinkers, discrimination, etc. etc. I shouldn't have to lecture you on history. Even a strongly religious person should agree that religion has been used, been the rationalization for, excuse for, and reason for many terrible things in history. individuals that were religiously inspired, whole religious organizations and governments, and the ideologies themselves, all of them. I'm here to defend my position, not to give you history lessons which would take much more than 8000 characters. - it wasn't directed specifically at you. but it still remains that a nobler person doesn't need supposed holy texts, organized system of beliefs, or the possibility of a supernatural omnipotent creator judge to want to become a better person for oneself and others. a truly GOOD person would act GOOD because it benefits others, society, and themselves, and doesn't need religion or laws to govern/inspire/influence/force/(insert any other applicable word here) to do so. "Your point ? Just what are you talking about?" - read again carefully. the christian god is a supreme being. so is zeus. so are many others. that's my point. "Broader definition ? If it does not include the Christian God, I argue that its less likely." - need proof. this is just opinion. a very biased opinion considering you ARE christian. need OBJECTIVE proof. "I do know from reasons and recent personal experiences." - logical proof required. also, this is very personal and biased. opinions. need proof and/or logical reasoning. it's hilarious that you accuse me of having weak arguments and unorganized when you present things like this from your side. If you think your side of the debate is so much more superior, PROVE IT and put this to bed. So far you've done nothing but the complete opposite. You've also failed to read my whole post and address each point clearly to try to defeat it. I suggest you at least give it a try next round. Here it is again, summarized. militant - "vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause" ignostic - the word "god" is applied to many interpretations. before being able to discuss "does god exist"? or "does god care or interfere with our lives"? or "does god have a standard for us"? or many other questions, the word "god" must be specified first i.e. a christian god, vishnu, krishna, zeus, ra, osiris, dionysis, or even maradona, spinoza's god, etc. weak agnostic - theism states there is at least one god. atheism is in opposition to this and states there are no gods. both are concrete and set in stone, and agnosticism states we don't know. strong agnosticism states we don't know if there is a god or not and will never know, which is also set-in-stone. weak agnosticism states we don't know but there is always a possibility we might come to know in the future, whether there is a god or not. agnostic atheism - whereas weak agnosticism might deal with the question of "does god exist" in general, and might hold its agnostic views on a definition like "a supernatural omnipotent creator of the universe"... agnostic atheism is more in response to things like "does the christian god exist? one that was written in the bible, has a son named jesus who performed miracles, and gave the 10 commandments to moses and caused a worldwide flood and instructed noah to build an ark etc. etc. etc.?" in which an agnostic atheist would say that it's possible but not likely, as opposed to an atheist that would say that it just can't be. the reason i have M.I.W.A.A. written up was because i was dissatisfied with the opposing and competing views of the many non-religious beliefs. and although technically M.I.W.A.A. might be considered to fall under a type of atheism, but a much more specific type, i felt that simply calling myself an atheist suggested too many different things i didn't find to be logical, reasonable, and scientific and felt the need to specify what exactly it was i believed in. so ultimately that's the side i'm on. that of reason, logic, and science. i await your (hopefully) adequate response.