And for those Agnostic dot com members that are still "on the fence"...this will surely make you get off it.
Bill Maher (the original anti -#Religulous) pokes fun at SCOTUS member Amy Coney Barrett...try not to laugh too hard...
Let me respond in general about the term "fence sitter"
#1. I won't respond specifically to name callers like @Paddypereira and if you continue the rude path you'll be blocked.
#2. As you see in the comments below - there's many who are still "believers" - I consider those who still "have faith" in a god to be "fence sitters"
#3 Bill Maher is my favorite blunt, in-your-face anti-religion spokesperson for me.
If you want to debate...bring facts...not name calling or ad hominem attacks. Otherwise you'll not only be ignored, you'll be blocked.
Well, first explain what you mean by "members who are still on the fence". If you mean by that the agnostic people, believe me, there's nothing of being still on the fence for being agnostic. I don't believe in God but I don't take this belief as fact. If that's being on the fence for you, you're being ignorant. I'm talking for myself, of course. I would like first to hear your explanation so I can make my own conclusion.
Oh, of course you need to bash one group to reaffirm yourself.
Why do you think agnostic are fence sitters? Do you really only see the world over a belief basis? I have to believe in no god otherwise I am over the fence?
Agnostic is not about believing. My belief is irrelevant. Agnosticism is about what I know, and I will act over what I know, not about what I believe.
And for concepts that are by definition impossible to know about (because they are not falsifiable) I don't even care because they are useless concepts.
While you need to struggle with believing or not, the agnostic argument is that even deciding about belief is useless. I can create infinite non falsifiable concepts about gods, life and anything else. Te answer for all of those concepts are the same, they don't matter because they have no practical purpose. Believing or not on them should not be relevant as it should not dictate my actions.
You think we need to decide, I say, I don't need to decide over something that is irrelevant and should not even be asked in the first place.
Though I'm 100% atheist I take issue with "fence sitters". First, it's a derogatory term used to shame agnostics, which I find objectionable behavior. Stop shaming something just because it's different. Save that shaming for horrible things. Secondly, so what if they aren't atheists... they are in the reason side of secular and humanism and that is a benefit not a detractor.
Leave the "eating their own" to the religibots. It hurts our secular community to to dismiss them in such a way.
Yes, Bill is funny and he's just as funny without dissing our other secular friends.