Rhetoric 3302 Questions

Article: Until now, I had never heard of an “agnostic.” Even throughout the reading, it was hard to distinguish whether the author was talking about an agnostic or an atheist, for at times it seemed that their beliefs coincided. However, I did agree with the paragraph that explained that no matter what, people tend to do what they please. No matter what your religion is, there are other motives for avoiding “bad behavior” - such as punishment from the law, or the “discomfort of dreading discovery.” But when it comes down to it – people literally just “do what they want.”
Radio Broadcast: I thought this broadcast was really interesting and was narrated very well (a little humor goes a long way and keeps things interesting). I, myself have never read the Bible. Although I was raised as a Catholic, I have never taken it upon myself to actually sit down and read everything word for word. The Bible had always been known to me as a basic guide book to which we were supposed to live and learn from. Of course, that view has since changed a little, especially since listening to this broadcast. But I guess you could say that the Bible teaches by “example.” Although the lessons and stories seem cruel and full of violence – maybe they are merely shown that way to depict what we are NOT supposed to do?? Instead of taking them literally – maybe we are supposed to view them from the opposite perspective? Just a guess.

I understand what an atheist is but what exactly is a Agnostic? I don't understand there defination of an agnostic!! I think that for an agnostic that they can't just make there own rules they have to a bid by someones rules it may not be Gods law but it would be the countrys law because if they didn't follow that they would get arressted. I don't think people should have to restrain themselves to please God I believe whatever they have to do they should do it!! I think people should be able to do what they want with there lifes without worrying whether there going to hell or not as long as they don't steal or kill or do really bad things theres no reason why God should not except them in my eyes. I don't really think it is morally wrong to have sex before marriage its not like the people planned to have sex at least I know some of my friends haven't!! You can't help it all the time if you have sex before marriage I don't think that should decide whether you go to hell or heaven!! I don't really have a religion but I do believe in God to a certain point but I don't always believe in everything that the Bible says and how God wants us to be!!

Agnostics are the creme filling the faith Oreo; hard, crispy theists on one side, equally hard, crispy atheists on the other and stuck in the middle are the agnostics, they get twisted, licked at, and no one really knows what it is. After reading Russell's work, F.A.Q.'s (frequently asked questions), really, I am no closer to understanding what differentiates an Agnostic from someone who is simply 'spiritual'. From the reading it seems like he wants it both ways, to not be Religious, but to not annoy them either. It also seems like most of the points he addresses are things that are also asked of atheists, or anyone who does not nominally belong to an organized religion.

Personally, I loved Sweeney's monologue. It's a very common situation, someone gets curious, gets to sitting down with the Bible, and finds out how complicated it is. The Bible is complex, the language is obtuse, and everything changes; the god of Genesis is not the god of Leviticus is not the god of the Gospel According to John is not the god of Revelation. The morality of the Old Testament is drastically different then the morality of the New. In the Bible, people come and go, then come back, only to go again but they pick up a cameo a few books later. It's dark, stark, and very illogical. I also liked her encounter with the Mormon missionaries, but for purely private reasons.

This American Life Radio Program

This program addressed a lot of the pressing debates in church vs. state, making me realize that there is a lot of gray area. One of the stories that really stuck out to me was the girl who chose a graduation song with a reference to god. This seems ridiculous to me that this was blown out of proportion, simply because there are so many other church/state overlaps that deserve far more attention. The best example I can think of is our nation’s leader who is constantly referring to his religious beliefs and even worst, criticizing beliefs that do not coincide with his own.
So, my question is: How do we draw the line between church and state? How can we clarify what is legally permissible?

What is Agnostic?

To me, the idea of being agnostic seems too indefinite. I mean, I don’t think I could sleep at night if I was agnostic. First, according to Russell, agnostics say they do not have sufficient grounds for affirmation or denial. We could say that--based on existing research--there is a substantial amount of evidence pointing to the notion of humans evolving from a lineage of ape-like ancestors. Or, we can ignore this evidence and make a choice based solely on the faith in our hearts. In other words, is an agnostic someone who is incapable of making a decision?

Still, one part that really intrigued me was his reply about the teachings of Jesus—agnostics admire him, but only to the extent that they admire other prominent historical figures.

Russell also seems to incorporate the Greek gods and goddesses into his responses. Do you think that, in the future, our society will look at the teachings from the bible in the same way we look at Greek mythology (as mere legends and folklore)??

I found the entirety of "This American Life" program to be quite entertaining. I did not know where or if the separation of church and state was in the constitution; found out it is not, but there are other indicators of a intened secular state. I always thought that our past government was radically more religious, but learned that our forefathers went against incorrporating their spiritual believes so that they could form a secular form of government. This idea that we live in a anti-religious country seems to just be the opposite. The shift to the conservative has proven to be radical in the past fifty years. I found the second half of the program to be a very interesting case study of a indivdual who tried so hard to understand her own religion that she eventually saw through it. She thought being a good christian was to be well informed and to not be a ignorant follower, this proved to be incorrect. Her spiritual journy just became confusing and her catholic conditioning fell apart with her new found free thinking and analysis. She kept trying to be a believer, but the more she new the more her interconflict grew.

I don't know if I believe in long term agnosticism as a valid spiritual or scholarly point of view. I think it could be a good transition ideology, but it seems as a lazy point of view for your life outlook. If God is here then you must be able to see that force somewhere, or if GOd is not here then one sould have nero sence of the existance of GOd. I believe it should logically be a either or type issue, this of course depends on your definition of God. Agnostics don't seem to have a definition of God, so they can not see this force or see this force's absence. Agnostic's believes seems not thought out, seem not defined. It seems that they reject the Jewish, CHristian, and Muslim definition of God, but don't want to create it for themselfs. They just take the easy way out and have no solid opinions and definitions for themselfs so they can not agree or dissagree with the existance of God. I feel it is quite lazy both spiritually and scholarly to be a agnostic, because of this lack of self definition. These topics don't seem to have one real answer. One should make one up for yourself, don't wait for an answer to slap you in the face. You can always change your opinions if you change your mind, but be a active thinker.

I found the entirety of "This American Life" program to be quite entertaining. I did not know where or if the separation of church and state was in the constitution; found out it is not, but there are other indicators of a intened secular state. I always thought that our past government was radically more religious, but learned that our forefathers went against incorrporating their spiritual believes so that they could form a secular form of government. This idea that we live in a anti-religious country seems to just be the opposite. The shift to the conservative has proven to be radical in the past fifty years. I found the second half of the program to be a very interesting case study of a indivdual who tried so hard to understand her own religion that she eventually saw through it. She thought being a good christian was to be well informed and to not be a ignorant follower, this proved to be incorrect. Her spiritual journy just became confusing and her catholic conditioning fell apart with her new found free thinking and analysis. She kept trying to be a believer, but the more she new the more her interconflict grew.

I don't know if I believe in long term agnosticism as a valid spiritual or scholarly point of view. I think it could be a good transition ideology, but it seems as a lazy point of view for your life outlook. If God is here then you must be able to see that force somewhere, or if GOd is not here then one sould have nero sence of the existance of GOd. I believe it should logically be a either or type issue, this of course depends on your definition of God. Agnostics don't seem to have a definition of God, so they can not see this force or see this force's absence. Agnostic's believes seems not thought out, seem not defined. It seems that they reject the Jewish, CHristian, and Muslim definition of God, but don't want to create it for themselfs. They just take the easy way out and have no solid opinions and definitions for themselfs so they can not agree or dissagree with the existance of God. I feel it is quite lazy both spiritually and scholarly to be a agnostic, because of this lack of self definition. These topics don't seem to have one real answer. One should make one up for yourself, don't wait for an answer to slap you in the face. You can always change your opinions if you change your mind, but be a active thinker.

I really don’t understand the concept of an Agnostic, I understand that is in between an atheist and someone who believes in religion. Only the article didn't really explain it well. Like this example about not marrying your husband's brother. Then they said this If you have the misfortune to be a childless widow with an unmarried brother-in-law, it is logically impossible for you to avoid disobeying `God's law'. I really don’t think that this brother-in-law is the only man that you can marry. There are lots of other men that you could possible explain. I really think the whole article gave examples like this so that I really don’t know exactly what an agnostic person really believes and does. I don't think they should be able to make there own laws (which is what I got) If they are so illogical, like with that marriage thing I really don’t trust them to make good dissensions.
This American Life: I think that this program was really well done. I think that she brought up some really good points. I thought the lady was really funny while still having a good point. I think that she has a really good point that she can't really believe what she feels. I think that this point really what has been doing this week. It doesn't mean all we feel is believable. I also thought that it was important that she put out the point that most people read the bible. Then it also proves the point that people preach about the good of the bible. Then the bible is filled with really horrible stories. I think that this episode really opened my eyes about the horrors of the bible. I really don’t think that the bible is that good a story that should be taught for morals.

This American Life:

I found this radio commentary quite interesting. I have not completely read the Bible, but I do know it contains great wonders of Jesus. Numerous passages describe Him as a loving, caring, forgiving person. And many of the passages are extremely difficult to understand, part of why it can be a very difficult book to read. If you cant interpret passages, you will be unable to ever understand Jesus and what He is trying to tell you. However, I do know, that there is a lot of meaning and lessons to be learned behind each and every message. In addition, I do know that there is some information that I cannot agree with. One example is the belief that homosexuals are bad people and are going to hell. I would have to say this belief upsets me the most. However, I do know, that there are very few people these days (in our generation especially), that would hate gays because the Bible says so. I have definitely seen hatred in this world against someone being a homosexual, with one of my best friends getting assaulted and put in the hospital for that reason. However, I do not believe the guys that beat him up are strong church goers and did it because they believed God said so. Therefore, I find it difficult to follow everything the Bible says.

What is Agnostic?

I found this to be a very difficult reading. As many others have commented on, it is not very clear in understanding what an agnostic really is. My understanding is they do not have a clear belief, and are stuck in the middle somewhere. Is there a God or isn’t there a God? I would be interested in speaking more to a person who calls themselves an Agnostic for a better understanding on this term. I became more and more confused as I continued to read the article.

After reading "What is an Agnostic?" by Bertrand Russell, I was still a little confused by the whole concept of the Agnostic belief. I understand that they feel there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existance of God. I am confused about exactly what they do believe. So man does not have a spirit, but they are not sure if there is an after life? It all sounds a little funny to me, and it seems like all Agnostics can't be grouped together because each individual chooses what he or she wants to beleive. I do agree with the Agnostic's view of the Bible, and how it really has no more credibility than Homer or Greek mythology.

I enjoyed listening to Julia Sweeney's radio program. I thought she made a lot of really good points about how the bible is constantly contradicting itself. Also, she discussesome of the stories and how truely cruel and unusual they are about incest, rape, and murders. I liked how she kind of made the whole concept about religion and the bible humerous. I thought she asked a lot of questions like why would God make humans so imperfect and then punish them for it. I thought that Julia brought up a lot of the questions that most people wonder about God and the bible.

Bertrands essay i thought was quite candid. He didnt attempt to cast religion in a bad light unlike most of his other essays where he plays the antagonist. He answers questions that many of may have of what actually an agnostic is.
The radio play was typical of a left wing who is upset with the establishment and any sense of moderation. Each topic was cliche and brought up only the worst case scenarios such as the georgia teacher "forced" to go with the status quo. not once was the otherside represented and to further propagandize his views he continuously presented us/vs/them references.

First, I couldn't read the article... I dunno why it wouldn't let me to the site. I am pretty sure I'm not typing it wrong (my roomie double checked!). Anyways, onto the discussion. As an agnostic, I can perhaps help with a detailed discussion of what this position entails. I do have a 'firm' belief, and I try to look at it humbly. Frankly, I find it incredibly arrogant for either an athiest or a religious believer to proclaim their undoubtable knowledge of something I think no one has even the capability to fathom. Agnosticism is a 2 faceted idea. First, the belief entails that no one can know this issue- I do not believe that there is NO God, because no evidence has shown me cause. I do not believe that there is for sure a God, for the same reason. I believe that we as humans and rational beings cannot know what is beyond death. Think of what Socrates said about death: If you die and there is an eternal place to go, great. If you die and there isn't anything, well you won't really notice anyways. I am content with my life. Part 2: Agnosticim is commonly also connected with the idea that ORGANIZED religion is incorrect/bad/not the best way to believe. I firmly agree. It has been too misused, abused, and each one claims to be the "only and true" belief system. If that is the case, every faith except one is'wrong', and most of the planet is screwed. I would never accept a formal organized faith, even if I did change my position about my belief in a higher power.
The radio show was great! Very interesting. I will say though, that as a non-Christian and in the 'minority' of the country, I don't appreciate being forced into things by the Christian majority. Democracy isn't JUST about "majority rules". It also has the important responsibility of the PROTECTION of the minority. Otherwise, you'd have Christians starting heretic burning before you'd know it. And I really don't like fire.

“What is an agnostic?”

The article “What is an agnostic?” was useful in its distinctions between atheists and agnostics. Though calling oneself an agnostic does seem like kind of a wishy-washy stance, the author does make some interesting and relevant observations that can be applied to the conduct of both atheists and agnostics. First, on the point of morality, Russell says that everyone is free to act how they choose, yet the moral code of agnostics (atheists) is often similar to that of religious people. In a manner similar to Russell’s beliefs, I think morality doesn’t require a belief in God. Perhaps the reason people through history have repeated created “religious teachings” is to explain the mysterious natural tendency toward a “moral code”, a tendency that also exists in the absence of religious explanation. We can see that religious teachings from ancient mythology up to more modern religions all seek to give meaning to what might be simply a biological tendency to define personal boundaries in behavior, created through evolutionary processes. The question begging to be asked is: does morality exist because religion leads us to morals, or does religion exist because our inherent morality leads us to religion? One could go a step further, and ask whether moral behavior based on a fear of eternal punishment might be less “sincerely moral” than morality that exists in the absence of that fear?

It is interesting that Russell acknowledges our attitudes toward ancient Greek mythology, which raises the point of historical perspective. The “here and now” always seems inherently “correct” to so many people, but time will eventually bury our culture and our way of life as it has to many civilizations throughout history. People have tended to feel that the ideas and technologies existing in their own time are the “most advanced”, and societies seem to think time and again that “we’ve reached our limits” or “this time, surely we are correct”. For example, many people believed in the 1800’s that science had no where else to go, that we “invented everything inventible”. In ancient Greece (which was at the time, ‘modern Greece’), most people probably never dreamed that their religion and their world views would fade away and be replaced by entirely new stories not existing at their time. Why should we be any different?

“Godless America”

Julia Sweeney’s radio talk on her experiences with the Bible and faith is startling to say the least. I have never really read the Bible (as many other raised-Catholics will admit to). If half of what Sweeney discusses is actually in the Bible, and her interpretations are reasonable, there are serious reasons to doubt that it is in fact work inspired by a loving, flawless being. I thought the way she set the tone of the monologue by first encouraging the listeners to agree that the Mormons’ beliefs were ‘clearly ridiculous’ was especially impressive, as even Christian listeners may find they are suddenly viewing Christian teaching from an outside perspective.

The biggest problem Sweeney seemed to have with her sudden realizations was that she couldn’t go back to the way it was. There were many implications of her decision that God doesn’t exist – she had been praying to nobody all those years, sharing her deepest thoughts with only herself; her relatives were all dead in body and spirit; she would also meet the same fate. It would probably be easier for many people who talk themselves out of faith if they could go back to a stage in their beliefs in which difficult realizations don’t have to be acknowledged. When I first started to question religion, I was also horrified at the prospects of a truth that wasn’t religious, and by the possibility that I was straying into dangerous territory. But once one’s mind is made up, that’s it. Even if I want to, I CANNOT force myself to believe in religious teachings, no matter how hard I try. Beliefs, we must acknowledge, are not things that can be changed by fear or desire alone; sincere belief can only be changed by... a sincere change in beliefs!

After reading the acticle "What is an Agnostic", I am still very confused. The whole thing seemed to be about defining an Agnostic. However, after reading it, I seemed to be even more puzzled. Basically from what I got out of it, an Agnostic makes all their own rules, believes what they want, and have no standards to base their beliefs from. All other religions and groups usually have a set of rules to live by, but it seems the Agnostics don't. So how do you know if you are really an Agnostic?

"What is Agnostic?" by Bertrand Russell

After reading about atheists and now reading about agnostics, I have come to realize how much I didn't know about either one. In particular, I never knew what an agnostic was. This article was very interesting to read about the differences between the atheist, the agnostic, and the Christian. I thought it was interesting on how Russell answered some questions. He would always define what the word or words were in the question, to better answer it. I found an interest in one of Russell's answers to the question talking about miracles and other religions. Russell talked about, "There is just as much miraculous evidence for the Greek gods in Homer as for the Christian God in the Bible." Most Christians believe in God with faith and use the Bible as their evidence. The Greek gods are something we hear and learn about in interest as stories and legends. How can you say there are "much miraculous evidence" equal to both? Russell said, "...the agnostic dismisses them as legends and points to the fact that all religions are plentifully supplied with such legends." Does that mean, that sooner or later, people will begin to believe all religion is based on is legends?
Also the other part I thought was interesting that Russell commented on was the kind of evidence that could convince God exists. It really caught my eye, when he said, "..if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence." I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next 24 hours, including the events that seem as if they would never happen...I would believe all the way that there is existence of superhuman intelligence, such as God. Not just believe a little, as Russell said.

This American Life: "Godless America"

This radio show was interesting to listen to all the way through. One of the parts that caught my eye was how in the first amendament, it does not exactly say anything about the seperation of church and state. All around the world, people battle with this rule of seperation of church and state. Maybe the Constitution should be amended, so the rules are more clear. A scenaro that was mentioned was about a girl who wanted to sing a certain song that mentioned God in it for her graduation ceremony. The school took her out of the program, because God could not be mentioned like that. I feel that she was treated a little unfair. She should of at least been able to choose a different song, and still participate. Even though, I think religion should stay out of schools. Everyone goes to school to learn about math, english, science, and various other subjects; not to pray and read the bible. This is why we have church services, Bible school study, and religion classes.
Lastly, I thought what Julia Sweeney's had to say brought up a lot of good points. I have never read the Bible all the way through. But I never knew the Bible contradicted itself. Some of the contradictions she told about, does almost make one doubt their faith on some standards. Also, the one question Sweeney thought and try to understand was, "Do you believe God loves you with all his heart?" I do understand what she means when she FEELS as God loves her with all his heart. Many people could probably say, "yeah, I feel God loves me", but do they really believe in that love? Is their faith truly there?

The readings about the Agnostic were intriguing because they look at God and Religion in a different way from Believers and Athiests. I can see why people would believe in Agnostic views because as people we seek to find rationalization for our views on life. The Agnostic viewpoint on God is not one of negative perception, but rather one that denies belief because it lacks evidence that would instill faith. The only problem I had with this article was that the author seemed to portray his own views about life in a negative way and try to impose this belief as an Agnostic way of thinking. He says, "For my part, I am unable to see any great beauty or harmony in the tapeworm. Let it not be said that this creature is sent as punishment for our sins." Opinions like this have no place in an article that attempts to define Agnostic beliefs. It is very possible that some Agnostics would see life as very beautiful with all the creatures, animals, and people living in harmony for the most part, having both good and bad days.

“What is an Agnostic?”

I was struck by a line early on in the article, in which Russell draws the line he sees between atheists and agnostics: “An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not.”

I do not see this distinction at all. To my memory, I don’t recall ever hearing an atheist proclaiming that there was conclusively no God, or even that it was possible for it to be known conclusively that there was no God. In the article we read for the previous class period, “An Atheist Manifesto,” which was a rather thorough overview of many atheist points, nothing of the sort was ever claimed. Rather, the argument focused on the rational improbability of God and the many contradictions between religious ideas and observable reality/logical reasoning.

Harris’s definition of Atheism is this: “The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence.” This seems very much like the agnostic stance. At the end of his article, Russell says that the sort of evidence that would convince him God existed would be along the lines of a booming voice from the clouds, accurately predicting everything that would happen in his day. I fail to see how this is anything unique to agnostics; if a diehard atheist experienced the same thing, I am quite sure he would undergo a change of thinking as well.

Either my understanding of atheism is completely off, and atheists actually are convinced that beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no God, or atheism and agnosticism are at most slightly different degrees of the same thing. Both question the existence of God and discount faith without evidence as sufficient reason for believing in him. Neither rules the existence of God; they merely demand evidence and say that none currently exists.

“Godless America”

This American Life has always been one of my favorite radio programs, and the monologue was engaging as usual. That said, I’ve never read the Bible and don’t really feel I can make a proper comment on the topics the program covers.

I have, however, seen a discussion in the past in which someone much like this woman listed a wide array of inconsistencies, contradictions and passages in the bible which seemed to promote violence. A believer well versed in the bible went point by point through the same phrases and stories, providing context and making his own convincing and thoughtful interpretations of the same things. I would have liked to have seen something like that here; the woman’s points were interesting, but the program felt incomplete, more like a collection of “the bible is weird!” sound bytes than a balanced examination of the issues. Perhaps it’s a useful and entertaining portrait of one woman’s faith crisis, but it’s hardly a fair look at the bible.

The answers in Bertrand Russell's 'What is an Agnostic?' struck me as very interesting and eye opening. While I can't exactly define what an agnostic would be, I can understand the point he was getting at. After reading through and getting an overview of what an agnostic is, I feel like I share many of the same views as were described. At the same time, I share many of the views of an atheist. So, I guess I still don't know exactly where I stand.
But, as the atheists seem to be much more into the religion bashing, I feel like I fall more into the agnostic ideals, as they seem to accept the beliefs of others, while not persecuting them. The author touches on how agnostics, or himself at least, do not admire the persecutions that have gone on/go on in the popular religions. I feel that everyone is entitled to their own belief. It's the same as "to each his own", which I think is a good rule to live by. I can respect this type of "idle" stance on religious beliefs.

After reading and hearing about Julia Sweeney's experience. I, too, was raised in a Catholic environment and school, constantly being told that the bible and doctrines were true. Any questioning was a breech of faith. As I grew and was freed of the religious brainwashing, I was able to explore on my own, and can completely understand the series of events. Although my own mind evolution was based on things scientifical, not of the bible, I also saw the holes that began to appear in the things I learned of from the age of 5.
When one looks deeper into the facts and can accept that their teachings may be incorrect, it's easy to see that many things involved in the bible are improbable, if not impossible.

I couldn't get to the article, which it seems, is only me. But I did get to the radio interview, so I'll write about that.

I thought the radio program, while humorous, brings up a lot of good points. I don’t think I’ve ever really heard or read from the point of view of a religious person looking at religion critically. It makes you wonder, how many people have actually read the Bible, cover to cover? I tried once, I didn’t get very far. Julia Sweeney provides example after example of stories that in today’s society would most likely not qualify as moral (Abraham being asked to kill his son, the whole ordeal with Lot…). So, if we’re supposed to follow, believe, live by, whatever, the Bible in its entirety, we’re supposed to base our lives on all of that? The logical answer to that is no, you overlook the “bad” parts and instead follow the good stuff, right? Well that brings up the question: what parts do we live by and what parts do we ignore? And who chooses? I mean, is it an all or nothing system, or is it okay to ignore a few parts? Another way to look at it, the Bible is just a rough set of guidelines to live our lives, you don’t have to take it literally, just get the big picture. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve experienced that it’s pretty common to find people that identify themselves by one faith or another, but acknowledge that not everything in the Bible is literally true. But if you believe that, then I guess it’s possible for someone to live by the ideals presented in the Bible but not believe in God. If a Catholic, Protestant, etc. can pick and choose out of the Bible, why can’t I just pick out a fairly large portion? But it’s probably unfair for me to say that, as I would personally pick out quite a few sizable chunks out of the Bible.

They talked a lot about theoretical problems and decisions!! They were also talking about religiouse beliefs that are really extreme which I do agree with that very much so many religions have taken drastic measures in there religion just so people make God happy and that is the only way they cna get into heaven!! They have told us in My God Problem that none of these sayings of theres a seperation between state and church in any documents like the Founding Fathers never spoke about God thats what the non-christians were saying!! I think that this is really confusing on what they talk about because they kind of jump around!! Well those are my comments!! How do they know that none of this is in the Constitution? What is a religious test, and why is it so important? How does this guy know about all of this information about the Founding Fathers and about the reactions of God?

"What is an Agnostic"
i have to say that i agree completely with russel's views. i've considered myself to be agnostic for some time now. it's impossible to speak for anyone who claims to have had a religious experience, or someone who just believes in god, but i can say for myself that there is no reason to accept something just for the sake of it. i think that many people make the concious choice to believe in god either out of a religious upbringing, or some personal experience that applies only to them. this is what appeals to agnosticism to me. it is a much more humble approach in that all it really accepts is uncertainty, which is all anyone who hasn't been personally "touched" by god can really have. the author's views and points are far more thoughtful and enlightening than the opposing views arguments, in my opinion. i don't understand how someone could read this and not agree with it to at least some extent.