OK, SnnY, I'll ask again, seeing as you read and answer only that which suits you.
First off you said that you knew for a FACT that nothing could be proven.
You later said you were open to the possibility of there either being or not being a god.
This is a contradiction, if you know for a FACT that something can't be proven you can't be open to the possibility that it can be.
I also asked what the atheist dogma was you disapproved of, and the reason I asked was because an atheist would say he\she didn't believe in god, as you did. You added the rider that you didn't believe because you had seen no proof, as an atheist would. You call atheism a 'religion' and say you see no difference between the two. But if atheism is a religion, so is agnosticism.
You say you don't believe in anything, but you do, you believe there's a possibility that god exists, and you believe there's a possibility that one doesn't. You just try to word it in such a way as to make you sound superior to atheists.
Bookmarks