pig

I feel that remark is condescending. Translation: We're in a special club that has removed the intellectual fetters of false spiritual desire, leaving those with overly-emotionally muddled psychobabble to scratch in the dirt like self-shitting chickens. Look how they play with the shadows!!! It's probably also because I've watched you post for a long time, and as I said, you have a way with words. When you were talking with will about the Mac vs. MS stuff, and you basically pulled the classic " I don't mean to offend you, but you're an idiot" routine. Putting it all in context with the style you typically adopt, I interpreted the above as a little condescending. If you didn't intend it that way, then well, there you go.

Re: agnostic vs. awful and awesome. That's true. However, a-blah usually means "not blah." I'm not arguing your definition of gnostic isn't valid, correct, and well substantiated. All I'm saying is that I recall seeing a more general definition elsewhere, which was general like the term "agnostic." I haven't been able to find a reference, so I didn't post about it. However, as I found myself back in the thread, I felt that I would address it.

I don't think there are two teams to this thing, outside of the obvious context of the New Atheists vs. Theists Believers that has been set up in the OP. I'm really not sure what you mean. I was setting up a simple binary definition based on what I've read elsewhere.

gnostic: believes existence of God can be proven.
agnostic: believes existence of God is not provable.

Seems pretty simple to me. Sorry for any confusion, etc.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style