How does the slam to your "new age commie faggot janitor"
support your line of reasoning? Or was that simply intended to provide
some sort of comic relief from your totally unoriginal "arguments"?
No one has really brought anything new or interesting to this discussion
for hundreds of years as far as I can tell, and random unprovoked
personal attacks are neither new nor interesting. You seem to display
or at least pretend a lack of comprehension of the fact that a fundamentalist
approach is not the only, and is indeed the least sophisticated
approach to any mythology. Your argument that a fundamentalist viewpoint
is the only valid religious viewpoint seems pretty weak, and is
To my mind, and in the minds of many, the value of a religious teaching
or story lies in the truth of it's lesson, and it's literal, historical
"truth", or lack thereof, is irrelevant. In fact, Joseph
Campbell says that to require a literal understanding of any mythology
robs it of its deeper meaning.
In order to claim the title "agnostic" one is not required
to restrict oneself to a strict materialist viewpoint. This would
not be agnosticism, but atheism, or some other "ism" that
claims to have the very knowledge that agnostics accept that they
do not have access to. I also agree that it is difficult to remain
"neutral" as to the likely literal truth of certain "magical"
myths in light of scientific knowledge available to us. I don't
believe this is required either. But none of this gets us anywhere
in answering the questions that really can't be answered.
What, if anything, is the purpose of our existence? Does "God"
exist, and if so, what is the nature of God? Is it true that "the
mind is meat" or is there more to us, some purely spiritual
aspect that exists separate and apart from our physical bodies?
These are the interesting questions to me. I know that it is difficult
to remain in the uncertainty of negative capability on these kinds
of questions, but that is the challenge of being a real agnostic.