Militant Ignostic Weak Agnostic Atheism!

"i suggest you take hint from my previous post, scroll down to where i clearly outline my original philosophies and what would be acceptable and required for me to concede defeat, and do it." Then all you did was quote and respond, the responses need to be under a title ! "I honestly want to have a serious, intellectual debate about this so if you'd still be interested i that, or if there are any other takers, message me and we can continue elsewhere." I am afraid that your unspecific and disorganized nature has taken away my zeal. "You seem to have an attitude problem, " You said: "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." And you gave an obvious biased vote: http://www.debate.org... " Things like "Obviously the one with baby eyes would take the more likely one as truth (God) from his perspective." is a statement with NOTHING to support it." That should go into the list above. Anyhow I did provide evidence: "People speak of God and all things seem to be created - Argument (Atheism) = *Buzz* try again People speak of God and all things seem to be created + Argument (Theism) = *Buzz* try again People speak of God and all things seem to be created + Nothing = Theism, you won !!!" I elaborate on this in Round 3, yes round 3, you had two rounds to respond. "- and you have yet to." You have already conceded two things to be incorrect: "Two things which I have refuted: 'You should believe what I believe, because I'm more right than you' 'And your certainty on religions, or atheism, or others, is hurting people' " "There's nothing for me to defend, you show me something I should defend. From there I prove you wrong. - read my previous posts^" You mean that one which didn't mention even one teaching from the Bible? There's nothing to defend. "- so you admit religion isn't necessary at all for morality." My argument is and was that religion promotes morality. "are materialistic... because? i agree they are, but again you're not using any supporting arguments or evidence. same can be said of the statement that secular kids learn from the media." I win since you agreed. Also media does promote immorality: http://en.wikipedia.org...(series) "and your english is beginning to quickly break down" Well, you say "i" instead of "I" but yes I am rushing (whose fault it is, by now I don't care) "how is this in any way refuting any of my original philosophies?" We all tend to forget things, this is what you said: "- One can be certain about something. That doesn't mean they 'know'." ""Its not what I am supposed to do...Did you admit that you're taking a side." - very nice argument there. clap... clap... clap... facepalm." Now you're also the victim of your own disorganization. My whole refutation was that one is taking an atheistic side before one becomes a "weak agnostic". This doesn't make sense on its own but I have explained everything in round 3. So now you're admitting your defeat ? Swell. "i suggest you take hint from my previous post, scroll down to where i clearly outline my original philosophies and what would be acceptable and required for me to concede defeat, and do it." 1. "i clearly outline my original philosophies " Yes but then your responses to what I said are all over the place and well, it becomes a mess as we can observe from this debate. It also creates needles difficulty for me plus you being unspecific. 2. "required for me to concede defeat, and do it" You don't deserve that amount of effort. Anyhow, I have won the debate not because you're not conceding defeat but because according to the way you set up this debate - all I need to do is point out one flaw ; I have pointed out many.