betterof2evils4

Okay... This is not to start a dispute about religion, but I found this kind of humorous:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/odd_suing...z_yE2vRUvq188F

How would they handle this? If the defendant (God) is entitled to a jury of his/her peers, who would that be?

And this is one of our congressmen...

captain howdy

Wow! I may hate everyone’s various gods and think they are all BS but this has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of. If the guy who filled the suit is agnostic isn't he acknowledging that there is a god by suing him/her/it thus voiding his beliefs? I understand it's in protest but doesn't make much sense to me. I would rather sue our government in an attempt to strike all religion from our law system than actually acknowledge a god!

betterof2evils4

See, I thought he was disputing his beliefs, too. But then again, he's in the standpoint of not being able to prove the existence of a supernatural being or otherwise, but he's still acknowledging an omniscient force in this lawsuit. So, in my opinion, he's just ignorant.

What I'm wondering is who put out the counter-file of "God" there. I bet it was some religious weirdo in the office thinking they were being a "messenger o' god."

calgaryhhr

Maybe it was George W.

Isn't he the messenger for god?

betterof2evils4

He would like to think so

captain howdy

Maybe. He talks to him every night.

mizzouHHR

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an agnostic believes that they can not say if there is a God or not, and won't rule out anything. They think there COULD be a higher power, but that doesn't take the shape of a human. I could be all wet, but that's how I have interpreted an agnostic, which could help explain why they would try to sue them. I do agree though that the guy is a nut.

betterof2evils4

Nah, that's it in nutshell. It is more of a logic-induced point-of-view that relies more on factual evidence than faith. Of course, there are varying degrees of agnosticism; there will always be those that are more on one side of the fence than the other, which could be either side (believing/disbelieving), but generally all agnostics share one main idea of theism, and that is that you'll never REALLY know until you die.

I am an agnostic, and I know that there is no way of proving one way or the other, and I don't try to. It's more... hope. I hope there isn't a creator-of-life, mainly because one life is enough for me, and the image of eternal life after death doesn't entice me in the least bit.

captain howdy

Correct. An agnostic can neither prove nor disprove god so they remain open to the possibility that there could be a god of some sort. Usually only people that are confused about religion or insecure about death contend to be agnostic. I felt like that at one point of my life but have since moved on. But by him actually acknowledging that there "is" a god that he can sue IMO kind of voids the possibility of a non-existence. Obviously he has to believe in him/her/it to file a case as absurd as it may seem and no matter what point he's trying to prove. Definitely a nut job though.

betterof2evils4

While that is a low-blow, it is, for the most part, correct.

When people come to hardships in their life, they tend to either become more faithful or choose to deny their god. Those are the ones who are confused/insecure.