Pay, enough. You're either a huge troll or incapable of understanding simple concepts.

This is fine how you have worded it. I would like to ask the forum some questions. I'll try to finish in about a week. Anyone can answer the questions. It is not very important to answer the questions, as far as, needing a large sample size of results, for this to work. If you decide not to answer a question then just make a mental note of your opinion. Some questions might have to be redone if they are too ambiguous. It will cover about 10 questions. I will post the results at the end and present a theory. Zumby's answer is recorded for this question.

Question #1

Choose the stronger/firmer assertion.

1. I know there is no God
2. I'm not sure if God exists

If by firmer you mean have reached a more definitive conclusion then of course the first is a more firm position. But that's pretty trite and I guess I'm interested to see if you have a non-trite point to make. I'll admit to having flashbacks to the old Pletho quizzes where he set up a string of questions only to fizzle at the end when he was supposed to have made his point.

Also - before you spend too much time contemplating 1 - note that relatively few atheists would hold to that position. (Frankly I don't know how one could honestly hold that position given that a non intervening deistic type god would appear just the same as there being no-god)

Yes

This might be interesting or It might amount to nothing. I will be very interested in the results. I wanted to try this and I thank anyone who contributes. I'll be trying to make an important point at the end. At any rate, it should not be too time consuming.

Ok, I'll wait to see what point you have to make about something which seems to me to be more a semantics quiz than anything substantive.

That is fine. Answering is encouraged, but not required.
Feel free to "Flame Away" at me, anytime

I haven't flamed you at all, actually. I'm not a big fan of flaming myself but note that you invite it when you answer with "you fail" and fail to substantively respond to the posts made in response to yours.

Sorry, my mistake. I was not specifically referring to you about flaming me. I meant to say that anyone can flame me, at anytime

I replied "You Fail" to people for a reason. I know that it is hard to debate with an Atheist. I found out that being forceful is not the way to win over strong willed people (and I mean "strong willed" in the best possible way). I had the best of intentions.

I've decided that I must rely on logic, whenever I can. Get people to look at things differently, tempered with reason. God has a part in this.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

Getting people to look at things differently is fine - but not at the expense of ignoring what they say and just returning over and over again to arguments that have been responded to but you ignore the response.

Using logic is great, but what are you doing when you refuse to acknowledge that language evolves and that common use defines words? You disagreed with me but only responded by asking questions without explaining how you thought they refuted this claim.

I'm starting to think that you're not a troll, but neither do I think you're really interested in a back and forth discussion. You reply to lengthy arguments with pithy one liners and then say "well, we've got to agree to disagree".

If you want respect for your arguments sometimes you have to give it as well. That doesn't mean you need to agree - but at least treat the argument seriously (that goes for a lot of people actually).

Honestly, I think you should just post whatever your theory is, and then take it from there. Expecting people to pick and choose answers to a set of vague questions for A WEEK! That's asking a lot, especially considering how you have not been able to come to any agreement over some basic terminology definitions from the same people you want to respond to a survey.

Show me my misreading of the original definition?

I'm trying to use simple agreeable terms.

Do you agree with the following statement?

"Scientists have to be objective and observe exactly what they see and not what they expect to see."

I'm sure this guy posts ITT ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3RVU4mYCK0

Pretty much the last ten pages or so have been you misreading not only the original definition of the term "agnostic" (I specifically pointed out your misreading of Huxley's original definition and explained why you didn't get it, among others), but a host of other commonly accepted definitions. If you want a recap of pretty much EVERYONE correcting you on your misreadings and/or misinterpretations (and thus the flaws in your consequent deductions), just go back to where you originally started posting in this thread.

Start with one example.