The Elliot Argument

Wow, it's almost like I've been saying the same thing for weeks. Words have meanings. You can't be certain and uncertain at the same time.

It's like you're so adamant about saying that "no" is the default side even though it completely is given the context of this situation. Why don't you just go burn a bunch of dictionaries or something?

[edit]
I'm not going to watch the video because I've seen it before.

Your arguments come straight from the comment section, you idiot. I don't know why I need to constantly repeat myself. The definition of atheist has nothing to do whether you're open to the idea of a god existing, it just means you don't believe in god. Agnostic, just means you're aware of your lack of knowledge. When you admit to not knowing, you are directly saying you have no conviction, even if you think it is possible for there to be a god.

how about consulting a dictionnary?

And the first to say a dictionnary is a social construct gets a punch to the face.

Agnostic means you admit you have no knowledge, but you can still assume whether god exists or not. In other words, you can be Atheist-Agnostic, or Theist-Agnostic. You can only be one or the other. I agree with Jaclyn when she says that no one can be just plain Agnostic. No one can be just plain Atheist or Theist either. They can say they are just that, but that would be dishonest imo.

I'm gonna stop here since neither of us are presenting any evidence for our claims. its all just a matter of opinion. Let's just agree to disagree here.