agnostic atheism is oxymoronic

[genkaus]

if we all had the same definitions we would have nothing to talk about.

That's demonstrably false - as demonstrated by many of the threads here.

[christcahinkilla]

that is based on your interpretation of that data.

what is debate?

[genkaus]

that is based on your interpretation of that data.

Not really. A lot of people start threads by specifying what they mean by certain words and concepts and the same meanings are used throughout by others. And still they have a lot to talk about.

what is debate?

To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

[christcahinkilla]

opposing definitions?

[genkaus]

opposing definitions?

Nope. Opposing points.

[Gilgamesh]

that was a nice picture someone posted about if someone asks you if you believe in gods you have to answer "yes" or "no" ...no you have another option, I do not know

In your head, ask yourself the question "Do I believe that any of the god claims are true?" I guarantee the answer is either 'yes' or 'no.' Anything else you choose to answer with out of your mouth is you lying because you're afraid of hell or some shit. Real. There's no such thing as not knowing whether you believe a claim. Based on experience/evidence/your feelings toward the claim, you either will believe it, or you will reject it.

[christcahinkilla]

based on experiment and testing i would create my beliefs.

I do not know.

ps. neither do you.

[Tiberius]

let me put this in the most simple basic terms possible.

OK.

theist - believe but can't prove
atheist - don't believe but can't prove

Those are far from the most simple terms possible. The most simple terms would be:

Theist - person who believes in the existence of God.
Atheist - person who does not believe in the existence of God.

No need to use "proof" in the definition at all.

theses are both beliefs, they are conclusions without experimentation

Well, some might claim they have experimented. Whether those experiments were valid or not is different. For instance, a theist may experiment by praying for something and see if their prayer is answered, and choose to believe based on the results of their prayer.

agnostic - i do not know

The definition of agnostic is indeed "I do not know", but understand that the agnostic is not saying "I do not know what I believe". Rather, they are saying "I do not know if God exists."

This is a position on knowledge of God, rather than belief in God. Thus, one can combine atheism and agnosticism, or theism and agnosticism quite easily, since belief and knowledge are related, but are not the same.

For instance, one can believe something without having actual knowledge of it. I can believe it is raining outside without being outside, based on anything from looking out of the window to listening to the pitter patter of raindrops on the roof. Note that you can be wrong about beliefs; by definition they are not necessarily true. Keeping with the raindrop example, I could be wrong about my belief that it is raining outside. Perhaps someone is squirting water down the window pane, or spraying it on the roof instead.

An agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in God, but does not claim to know that God does not exist. An agnostic theist makes the same claim for knowledge, but believes in God instead.

Conversely, a gnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in God and also claims to know that God does not exist. A gnostic theist is someone who believes in God and claims to know that God does exist.

that was a nice picture someone posted about if someone asks you if you believe in gods you have to answer "yes" or "no" ...no you have another option, I do not know

The other option is invalid in the context of the question. An answer of "I do not know" just another way of saying "no", since someone who claims not to know whether they believe in something is either lying or holds no belief. It is not possible to not know whether you believe in something; beliefs can be broken down to simple true/false statements that you either agree with or disagree with.

Now, it is possible to not have heard of the subject of the question before, or not be familiar with it, but if that is the case, you cannot possibly have a belief in it, unless you are arguing that you can hold a belief in something you know nothing about?

If I asked you: do you believe in Kazzlefague?

You may respond "I do not know", but you still lack any kind of belief in Kazzlefague, so you are essentially saying "No, because I do not know anything about Kazzlefague".

[MikeTheInfidel]

So when God rained fire down from the sky on Sodom and Gomorrah and TURNED A HUMAN BEING INTO A PILLAR OF SALT, you think there's a scientific explanation of that?

No you moron. Those are stories to make a point.

This might be a shocker for you, so you might want to defer looking at this until you think yourself mature enough to take it:

The universe wasn't created in 6 days. Adam wasn't made from dirt. Eve wasn't formed from his rib. There is no such tree of the knowledge if God and evil. Snakes don't talk. There was no garden of Eden. .. etc. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And this might be a shocker to you: I know that. It was you that said "every instance of evidence in the bible is exactly the same [as what I'm experiencing.]". What the hell were you talking about if you weren't saying that the stories the Bible tells are exactly like what I experience?

[Foxaèr]

No you moron. Those are stories to make a point.

The entire unholy book is simply to make a point, which is to learn to read and think independently of doctrine. Or at least that should be the point.