Assume Nothing

Do you even know what agnosticism entails? It's not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - they work in conjunction, because its definitions permits so. It's not 'I'm indecisive in believing/disbelieving' - it's a claim regarding knowledge (or the lack thereof in this case) pertaining to the existence/non-existence of a god/gods. This is a lame attempt on your part to change the definition of either word. Someone can't be both agnostic AND an atheist. So yes, they're mutually exclusive of each other. What a dumb argument. Lame? Dumb? Do you really think that supports your blank assertions? ag·nos·tic noun /agˈnästik/  agnostics, plural A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God a·the·ist noun /ˈāTHēˌist/  atheists, plural A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods - he is a committed atheist A person who does not believe does not have to know to do so, unless you're misdefining belief. If you can't figure out the fine line between those two definitions, you're hopeless. I'm reading what you copy/pasted and they're clearly different. Life would be easier for you if you can comprehend these terms better. If you're going to judge, then the onus is on you to prove otherwise. I'd use the definition of agnosticism where it only asserts 'I do not know whether a deity exists or not'. What's your definition, then? Life would be easier if you weren't so unnecessarily hostile.

I don't follow. Agnosticism doesn't claim disbelief, nor claim belief because it's not asserting/denying either - it's answering the question 'do you know if god/gods exists?' I realise that there are inconsistent dictionary definitions, but I'll operate on the ones that are most meaningful + least ambiguous. It also explains the use of terms such as 'agnostic atheist', or 'gnostic theist' too.

I'm not sure what we're actually talking about. Is it immortality, or life-extension? A distinction needs to be made before any meaningful discussion could be made out of this.

I wonder if regulations on meat-production would help at all.

Do you even know what agnosticism entails? It's not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - they work in conjunction, because its definitions permits so. It's not 'I'm indecisive in believing/disbelieving' - it's a claim regarding knowledge (or the lack thereof in this case) pertaining to the existence/non-existence of a god/gods. This is a lame attempt on your part to change the definition of either word. Someone can't be both agnostic AND an atheist. So yes, they're mutually exclusive of each other. What a dumb argument. Lame? Dumb? Do you really think that supports your blank assertions? ag·nos·tic noun /agˈnästik/  agnostics, plural A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God a·the·ist noun /ˈāTHēˌist/  atheists, plural A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods - he is a committed atheist A person who does not believe does not have to know to do so, unless you're misdefining belief.

I'm just saying, if god is supposed to be infinitely smarter than me, and i'm smart enough to question that, then shouldn't god be smart enough to question that as well? What does that mean?

Banned for not making sense.

It depends how you're defining 'god'. I'll remain a little ignostic until Omar clarifies.

Oh, I read it wrong - it is the USPS. I like some of the comments on it though: http://imgur.com/gallery/0fNA0

Caption: I got something shipped to me with UPS and this is the route it took...

Banned for misusing the term 'assume'.

Banned for incoherency and the general lack of thinking.

It may sound good, sure. It may even feel good, for the person praying. But what's the connotations behind it? What's the implicit message in the phrase 'I will pray for you'?

Oh, literally zero? I thought it was figurative. Uh, that makes it difficult...

EDIT - oh, literally zero. nevermind this.

I'm spending my day browsing what's essentially food-porn. I feel rather hungry right now, silly hypoglycemia.

If only you'd continue the discussion of some of my older threads. That'll be pretty cool. Nope, apparently that isn't happening :(

... when you'd expect a reply, but don't get it. (applies to forums, emails, private messages, etc.)

I don't see it as exploitative to pay them sub-par wages. It's just opportunistic whilst at the same time providing opportunities for those in the third-world. Does sweatshop-esque labour not raise their standard of living? EDIT - Oh, missed the part about fairtrade. I don't know enough about it, but surely it'll be inefficient to pay more - unless it's cutting out the middleman?

... but is it exploiting African children to eat cheaper foods? - and is that even relevant in this situation?

Related:

Banned for assuming that I was being 'funny'. Nope, I was being facetious.

The sudden realization that one of the closest memes that you relate to would be the Socially Awkward Penguin. I'd say it's less 'annoying' than 'puzzling', though.

Banned for living in my fridge. You're supposed to be in the freezer, I don't want you going off on me so soon.

I think I'd enjoy it... maybe