Dear Nathan Jaco,

December 19, 2009 at 12:08 pm (agnosticism)

Your attempts at convincing me that I lack logic on the issue of God last night were futile and boring to say the least. I see it as parallel to that of proselytizers trying to convince me that there is a god based on nothing more than faith. This is how I see agnosticism… a faith-based mindset. If you believe that there’s a chance for God, that’s fine. But don’t spread your delusions to me. This is the act of religion.

There’s an equal chance that the Biblical God and Zeus and a boogieman that lives in your closet all exist. That is to say, logically, none of these exist. I would appreciate you not using pseudo-logic to justify your delusion, because you are not being honest with yourself.

I have explained to you the concept of negative proof to you before, and you merely dismissed it. This is neither being open-minded nor scientific. I told you about how I have studied how the brain believes things that are are false. I have told you before how the church uses hypnosis. You dismissed those too. It culminates to only one conclusion: you lack the will to research the subject further, opting to stay agnostic. It’s a like a -1, a 0, and a 1. The theist believes in God based on faith alone, and nothing can change that. The agnostic believes that there’s a chance for God or gods, but thinks that we can’t know. The atheist is truly in touch with reality, knowing that everything is knowable if put to the test. The atheist has put the notion of gods to the test, and the gods have failed on every account.

The labeling of me as being illogical is a harsh and ironically illogical label because that is humorously coming from one who deals in secrets (i.e. your Freemasonry), one who takes an anti-abortion stance, and one who admits a willingness to participate in the act of torture. I can tell you haven’t put a lot of thought into where your priorities in politics lie in the great means-and-ends fight for freedom. Science holds nothing sacred, is non-discriminatory towards women, and has ethics against torture.

Perhaps if you looked at yourself for a second, to truly know the difference between belief and knowledge, between logic and irrationality, then you will know why I arrive at the decisions I do. But then again, this letter is a work of failure. If you could reason with agnostics, there would be no agnostics.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: