speaks Portuguese, I suppose, and also some Amerikan patois. Down here in Wagga-Wagga I am doing some sheep-shearing with Malaysian pal, Ho Ki Po Ki (oh, maybe he's from Vietnam) who has keen interest in Quran and would like to read nice thing from USA about it but Bruce he don't care at all, at all as prefers the Indian gods he read about in "Kama Sutra". He broke butt once while doing contortions he read about in that book but he enjoyed book very much. I am now approaching wether, which is castrated ram, to fleece him but he is giving me dirty look so I'll have a few tinnies instead. My teacher, Ms. Germaine Greer, famous feminist, is not at sheep-shearing but in place called Academia, which I cannot find on map, but she always say "The devil can cite scripture for his own purposes". She was angry because she had been jilted by some merchant from Venice. Now this beer is pretty damn fine and, as they say in Benghazi "Carpe diem".

One reason why religious craziness has long flourished in the US is that it has seldom been exposed for what it is. When the emperor is naked because it is a "religious" belief of his crazy, ignorant congregation that he is, in fact, wearing the most splendid suit in the world, most relatively sane Americans are afraid to point out the error – unless its adherents can be marginalized as a “cult” – for fear of being labeled as religious bigots.

Until recently, in well-intentioned mainstream American society, it was unacceptable to ever criticize or mock any religion. This sprang from our multicultural heritage and our adherence to the ideal of religious freedom. One might criticize a wide range of political and social ideas, but religious beliefs and practices were off limits (although lack of belief – i.e. atheism – was not). Meanwhile, the religious fanatics whose beliefs were treated with this excessive respect were cultivating their wacky, self-serving mythologies and spewing their bile all over the rest of us. Unlike most Americans, they didn’t care about being perceived as bigots; their narrowness was a source of pride. And, with their craziness immune from mockery, or even critical analysis, by rational people, there was nothing to counterbalance it. This is how, over the long run, they could manage to pervert the meaning of “Christianity” into its direct opposite.

EL WINGNUT: "As defined, an agnostic is:

'Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis knowledge; after Gnosticism' "

You are confusing etymology of the word -- that is, the roots of where a word came from -- with its actual, present-day definition. You didn't provide a link to your source - if you got that etymology from an actual dictionary then you too would have known as much.

Moreover, that's not the etymology for "agnostic" that Webster's dictionary provides, which is this one:

Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Which is to say, per Webster's etymology "agnostic" comes from unknown and unknowable.

Here, by the way, is the actual definition of the word "agnostic" as I mean it in this context, as provided by Webster's dictionary:

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

EL WINGNUT: "When you self proclaim as being without knowledge you classify yourself as an uninformed dogmatic who no longer seeks, or a seeker who has not yet arrived."

When you self confuse the etymology of a word with its real, present-day definition you classify yourself as an uninformed individual with respect to literacy, or someone who is intentionally trying to deceive.

You are really living up to your name, El Wingnut.

EL WINGNUT: "I will consider you a seeker who is arriving."

That's nice. I will consider you an uninformed individual with respect to literacy or someone who is intentionally trying to deceive.

EL WINGNUT: "Be careful not to arrive at the wrong conclusion as it could be costly."

Gotta love fundi-religious scare rhetoric. Or not.

EL WINGNUT: "To say I will never believe and I am an agnostic are mutually incompatible.

A true agnostic says, 'up to this point in my search, I do not know.' "

That's what you get for conflating a word's etymology with its actual definition - bullshit.

Again and according to the actual definition of agnostic, a "true agnostic" in this context is someone who "holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" and more broadly, "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."

EL WINGNUT: "BTW - a self proclaimed agnostic really weakens his basis to argue or debate - he should really be content with questioning."

BTW - someone who conflates the etymology of a word with its actual definition really weakens his basis to argue or debate - he should really be content with questioning.

So what's your opinion of Conservapedia's project to "improve" the Bible by altering it - including the removal of Luke 23:34 because in their minds it is a "falsehood," El Wingnut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

As defined, an agnostic is:

"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism"

When you self proclaim as being without knowledge you classify yourself as an uninformed dogmatic who no longer seeks, or a seeker who has not yet arrived.

I will consider you a seeker who is arriving.

Be careful not to arrive at the wrong conclusion as it could be costly.

Also, you wrote:

You asked me, and what I honestly told you is that as someone with a college-level science education the Bible will never be "100% satisfactory" to me since because of my solid understanding of science I will never believe in the Biblical story of creation as told in the book of Genesis.

To say I will never believe and I am an agnostic are mutually incompatible.

A true agnostic says, "up to this point in my search, I do not know."

BTW - a self proclaimed agnostic really weakens his basis to argue or debate - he should really be content with questioning.