DescentBB

Personally I believe that neither agnostics or atheists really exist as honest philosophical representations of the true definitions of the word. In truth, agnosticism in a person is more complicated than simply being very open, or being undecided. I think it might be likened to someone who has commitment issues. Atheists refuse to acknowledge the classical deity, but fail to escape the pitfalls found in organized religion. We are finite beings, and we are bound to believe things we don't understand, even if we call this phenomenon by a different name (or no name at all) and dress it up with a careful measure of pronounced objectivity.

callmeslick wrote:for Woody: here's 10 million muslims led by female imams, there are a couple of smaller sects elsewhere.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/world ... .html?_r=0

Good link slick. Hopefully the Hui Muslims will get more air time to show the rest of the world the potential for the inclusion of women as Muslim leaders and the impact it will have on their faith.

Ferno wrote:

snoopy wrote:On a philosophical note, I believe I have appropriately fixed the subject of this discussion.

(If you think Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, etc. are immune to twisting things to suit their evil desires you're a fool.)

I agree up to a point. Agnostics aren't sure about religion and Atheists just don't believe in any religion. So I'm having a hard time imaging both of them twisting any kind of religion to suit their own ends. If they do, they're not really agnostic or atheist. They're just pretending.

Hence the use of the word "things." Try and tell me that some atheists and agnostics don't twist science and the law for their own benefit, and the exploitation of others.

well.. there's myself, and a couple friends of mine... But I know that's just a drop in the bucket.