I am entitled to my opinion and I have stated it.

Would be great if i had money and knew where to find them

yes, with a library card. and no, i do not have netflix

i have a late fee

they are suppppeeer different!
Atheist means they believe in no god, wherease Agnostic means they believe in god, just not sure his form, or have a belief system very different from any named religions.

Not necessarily, most Agnostics actually don't believe in god, they just know that they have no evidence to say for certain one way or the other. Agnostic theists like me, or a weak agnostic as Ikuto is as she put it, do believe in god, we just know that there is no evidence to prove or disprove its existence. Agnostic belief is really the religion and irreligion of "i dont know" :D
I hope im reading your post correctly, the wordings a little confusing, but just because someone practices something other than a named religion doesnt automatically make them agnostic. Its just makes that religion, well ...different.

But your right, the two are very different.

You're right, I forgot to add that in, as I think most agnostics I met are like that, silly me XD

Sorry for my terrible wording; what I meant to say is people who believe in some form of god, but their set of beliefs don't have a name since they are solely the beliefs of that individual might also say they are agnostic.

Its fine ^^
I'm sure that's very true. Thank you for clarifying. The few people that Ive spoken to who fit that definition prefer to be called Spiritual. Mind you this was like...two people and they were together in a group, but i could see how someone would like to use the term agnostic for that. It doesn't exactly fit the definition, but i understand why they would use it. X3

Yush, I think it's just as an easier answer to the question when people ask I 'spose.

well, personally I'm what you'd call "spiritual" I don't exactly follow an established religion, but I do believe in some form of higher power (or god, if you will). As far as the bible's concerned, I have this belief that there are multiple ways to achieve the same end (which of course comes from a pagan belief). Originally I was a christian, but due to many 'tradition christian views' I've gotten away from that. I also feel that the bible shouldn't be interpreted literally all the time (ex. in the book of Matthew chapter 4 when satan tempts jesus, I don't believe that an entity actually came up to him and tried to tempt him). not to mention that lately I've been experiencing things which seem to suggest multiple ways to "find god"

I understand how you feel;
I almost left Christianity at a time myself because of what I thought were core Christian views. I sat down with myself, so to speak, and reviewed over different things in my life, and decided that yes, I had seen evidence of God, and that the details could work themselves out later.
I had a very hard time with my first boyfriend because he was an atheist while I was a Christian. We never really argued about it, but it kinda tore me up inside with moral debate. I did have a bad understanding of hell and even the Bible itself at that time, so I'm not sure if I would have reacted the same if I dated an atheist today, but v.v

I met a wonderful bunch of Christians when coming to college though, and they showed me what the Bible actually said about God, and taught me of the things of life, and consequently cleared up all sorts of terrible misconceptions I had, as well as bringing me closer to God, which in the end is what it's really about.

I guess that ended up being a little irrelevant.
But while I believe there is only one God, and he is a more abstract being, defined by Love and Righteousness, I believe God can definitely speak to people outside the religion borders of Christianity or any religion for that matter.

@wingless fairy: I'd love to talk to you about what your friends showed. Is it ok if I pm'd you?

Yeah, it's perfectly fine ^.^

I'm more than happy to suggest that the world would be a better place without religion. While organized religion has done good for the world, I believe that the evil it has done far outweighs whatever good it has contributed as a whole to society and that without religion people might learn to be "good" for the sake of being good (and kind and respectful and helpful, etc) instead of learning to be "good" because they're going to be rewarded. To be "good" only because you'll receive a reward is inherently selfish and thereby not "good" at all.

I agree that the world MIGHT be better without SOME forms of organized religion, but believe it or not, there are/were forms of religion that people do not do 'evil' (the reason I put evil like that, is because I personally don't believe in 'good' and 'evil', as these are human terms, and very much depend on the point of view of the one making such statements. Is a lion 'evil' because it kills and eats an antelope? my question is, from the standpoint of the lion, or the antelope?), and the religions that said 'evil' is done in the name of, actually teaches against those very actions. So while, yes, there have been great acts of 'evil' in the name of many organized religions, those acts cannot be the sole thing that you base an argument off of as to why we'd better off without it, as those religions that the 'evil' has been done in the name of, are strictly against the said actions.

I agree with both Lydia and Ikuto!

As with any goverment, or organization, things won't be perfect because people aren't perfect; When a country has a bad group leading them, they will sometimes do bad things, we've seen many evidences of this. It's imperfect, it's not what it should be, but, if it were, it could be a good thing.

You know what's started more wars? Property rights. Water, land, resources, trade routes, even other humans. Indeed, ask an historian and she'll tell you that most "religious" wars can be traced back to something involving property, and religion was just a way to get up support for it. Shall we get rid of those? Or, better yet, since wars would likely be fought over getting rid of property rights, why not just get rid of property? Poison the water, destroy the land, burn the oil, close off the trade routes, kill every person who cannot personally defend themselves from being enslaved.

And religion is obviously not "pointless", unless you were just being angsty and actually meant "sucky", rather than "lacking in a point". If it were actually pointless, no one would follow a religion. What religion's "point" is varies from person to person. For some, it's spiritual fulfillment. Others like having something to belong to, or something that ties them to other people. Others like the discipline that some religions require. Really, the reasons are as numerous as the people who follow religions.

Also, just so you know, talking about "religion" as one group or entity makes you sound kinda silly. There's so much variation (including more than a few religions that abhor violence in general) that it's essentially like saying "animals have no eyes". Technically, it's true, in that some animals have no eyes, but if you refer to the group as some cohesive whole, you're setting yourself up to be proven wrong and your point undermined because there are very blatant examples that run counter to your statement.

Generally I've found that when people say "religion" in a negative light, they are looking to attack Christians.

For instance with the "religion starts wars" argument, they always bring up the crusades, which were actually started because Constantinople kept getting attacked by Arab invaders. Religion was used as a way to get help from Europe. I also love to bring up Buddhists when they do this. It's funny. Also asking "which religion."

If one brings this up to the attacker, then they'll start adding problems they have with other religions, but usually they go for Christianity first.

This is probably due to the fact that Christianity is the largest religion in the U.S. Christians are seen as the sort of poster children for all religious people.