Agnostics

[bennyboy]

Well, I've introduced the idea of conditional belief-- a belief that is ambiguous until a knowledge requirement is resolved.  Do you accept this as a valid basis for a pure agnostic position?

An agnostic atheist position, yes.

 A pure agnostic position? There is no such thing.

You are the definition of an agnostic atheist, and everything you've described up to this point is agnostic atheism, yet you choose to not use the word for whatever reason and instead look silly trying to divorce an idea of one of it's essential components while purportedly retaining all of its original meaning.

It just doesn't work like that. Learn to accept language for what it is, don't try and reinvent the wheel. I appreciate the effort, but the actual results make you look more than a little stupid(no offense).

I'm YOUR definition of an agnostic atheist.  I do not use that definition, and so I choose not to identify myself in that way.  I'm perfectly capable of understanding the words, and choosing those which I feel best describe me.  I've described the ways in which I feel one can be purely agnostic on the God position without being atheist, and why I prefer to identify using that word.  You can keep going around the merry-go-round if you like, but there's little you can say that will shed new light on the debate, while I believe my idea of conditional belief at least gives an angle that people haven't considered before. In the end, you can call me whatever you want, by your definitions, and I will identify as whatever I want, by my definitions. But I'd never tell YOU how to identify YOURSELF, because I'm not God (so far as I currently know).

As for you calling me stupid(no offense), I'd respond that you are a disrespectful, condescending asshat (no offense). You are also unoriginal, which in my eyes makes most of what you've typed a waste of space.