<p>
Arrogant I may be, but I’m not ignorant. At the very least I have addressed all of your complaints whereas you have skipped the questions I have posed towards you.</p>
<p>
What is my misconception? I think you’ve failed to understand what I meant as below:</p>
<p>What I said:
Your response:
The quote you examined stated that agnostics choose to not argue in favor of theism or atheism because it is impossible to realistically prove one side or the other. You misinterpreted what I said as if I somehow thought agnostics are inherently atheistic. The “argument” was the subject of “dismiss”, not the possibility of a deity. When you quoted me, you conveniently left out the “doesn’t exist” at the end. So maybe you didn’t misunderstand what I said. Instead, unable to find anything else wrong with my argument, resorted to distortion.</p>
<p>All rational theists and atheists are technically agnostic, that does not prevent us from taking a stance. Does claiming to be atheist mean I’m stating certainty in my beliefs? No. That’s what you fail to understand and fail to correct. The inception of debate is not in certainty but decision. I’ve made a decision on how I perceive the world around me.</p>
<p>
Once again, a failure to comprehend what I’ve said. It’s neither. The subject of the quote was your average agnostic, someone who takes a middle ground on the possibility of a deity yet doesn’t take pause when rejecting the possibility of other supernatural beings like fairies and invisible pink unicorns. </p>
<p>
Your ad hominem was your attempt to undermine my intelligence and ability to form an argument. You falsely claimed I was employing a straw man argument (as in the above quote where you failed to understand what I meant by agnostics dismissing the religious debate) so as to undermine my entire argument.</p>
<p>
Actually we agree on what agnostic means, but you thought I meant something else. </p>
<p>
And you have failed.</p>