Most nodes regarding "God" could be considered preaching to the choir around here. No one can say for sure if there is or is not a god. You may believe in God, you may not, but one thing neither you nor anyone else can do is say if God exists or does not exist. We are all involuntary Agnostics. I find it rather amusing that people still debate on a topic that cannot be proven with logic alone. I also find it amusing that non-Christians always feel it necessary to argue with Christians about the topic of God inside the contexts of their religion, looking for that loophole in dogmatic law. It is always an "away game" when arguing with a Christian. Christians have faith, anything that resembles sound logical thinking that does not reflect their belief can be explained away on the last front with the simple explanation that it is gods will, or that they may not know, but they believe. Their religion entitles them to be correct all of the time without exception, how can you argue with that sort of "logic"?

I envy Christians in the same way that I envy people with Downs Syndrome. There is always an answer for those who have faith the same way that someone who has not the cognitive power to think rationally is constantly at peace with themselves and their environment.

Granted, it isn't really fair to those of us who are trying to rationalize our existence without the benefit of faith. To say I don't believe in God would be a lie. It's not that I believe in the old white-haired spreader of famine and tosser of lightning bolts. I believe there is "Something". That's all, that epitomizes the extent of my faith, and I am shamed to admit that it has absolutely no root in logic. I think there is probably something out there. Be it the Father of Jesus or the Tongan god of Death, I couldn't say.

Fuck if I know, and neither do you.

Jesus...I put it through a spell checker and almost vomited... All fixed now.

I guess the question here is "What does it mean to be rational?" Is there some "objective rational right" that we all must follow in order to be rational, or is it something more subjective. I contend that what is rational for me may not be rational for you. We both are different people with different backgrounds. There is no way for me to expect that you can, or even should, belive the same things I do. Perhaps it IS rational for me to believe in God based on my experience, or my context. No two people are the same or have the same experiences to base their rationality, their beliefs on.

It seems like we run into trouble when we assume that we should all believe the same things. Obviously you cannot argue with a Christian in the context of Christianity if you are not a Christian. You can both be "right," that is, both be behaving perfectly rationally, and so any argument is very illogical.

Its important to remember, however, that just because rationality may be relative, truth is not necesarily subjective. Though you may be perfectly right in beliving what you believe, what you believe may not necesarily be the truth. This is where agnosticim kicks in. If we are all perfectly entitled to our beliefs (as long as we are intellectually virtuous in obtaining those beliefs) who is to say which belief is right? It is wrong to attack anothers beliefs without first admitting that your beliefs are on just as shaky grounds as any other. Your believing them makes them true for you, but does not necesarily align them with Truth.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.