re: #286 b_sharp

The ‘here we go again’ was a reference to the umpteen times that argument has been forwarded. I didn’t assume you were being snarky, and my snark was more frustration than anything else.

Your error is in assuming an atheist needs to be 100% convinced. That isn’t true of science, and it isn’t true of atheists.

The definition of atheist you are using isn’t realistic.

So then how do you define the difference between agnosticism and atheism (it’s getting a bit difficult to separate the different threads of argumentation without constructing a spreadsheet)?