The "does god exist?" debate I attended to was expectantly aporetic, though the arguments were more basic than I had expected. Somehow I thought they'd think of some new arguments that hadn't occurred to me, and maybe taken a more definitive stances on the issue; they were both practically agnostic, just in different degrees and of opposing dispositions. A surprisingly large amount of people attended too.

I've determined that agnosticism is basically impossible to practice in practical manners. An example- you approach the notion of homosexuality objectively in hopes of determining your feelings of it. If you take into consideration the opinion of the Bible, you are then verifying that it has authority, which is derived solely from it's supposed divine nature, and therefore are confirming that a god exists. If you do not consider its opinion, you are denying it's holiness and therefore denying the authority and existence of a god. Your reason for your inconsideration of the Bible's opinion doesn't matter- if you don't believe in its teachings, you are denying it's authority; if you instead side-step the entire doctrine because you feel you haven't the compacity to determine it's validity (or, simply put, claim you don't know), you are still placing one value system, your own, over the Christian value system, and in effect are denying it of its authority. Of course, this entire idea applies only to the agnostic of dogmatic structured religions. If you believe that there could or could not be a god or divine originator, but are not speaking of the Christian conception of god, that's perfectly valid; the conflicts only arise when a value system is attached to the belief. This may explain why most agnostics are more closely aligned with atheism than theism.

This brought me to an interesting question. Who's to say my conception of god is any less valid than the predominant Christian conception of god? I may not be able to prove or disprove the existence of god, but I can certainly place skepticism in the values which were supposedly divinely influenced by this being. It's fascinating to note that the most basic beliefs of Christianity - human exclusivity (see Genesis/rejection of Darwinism, rejection of heliocentrism), eternal existence (the soul, heaven and hell), and unconditional forgiveness (prayer) - also address man's most basic fears- we are animals and are not as different from other species as we'd like to believe, we will die, and we are fallible. Coincidental or intentional? It makes you wonder.

If you see any holes in my arguments - which is very possible - inform me. I haven't really thoroughly thought all of this out yet.