[AthenianStranger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I get the opinion I'm dealing with a bunch of horribly misinformed 19-year olds. You win. God is an atheist, or something.

AS out...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a little snooty. And I don't think they're all 19 or horribly misinformed. (I wish I was only 19! Hell, I wish I was only 30)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, you're right. It's just frustrating. For me, Christ is the meaning of life. One gets the impression that for some posters on here, debating religion is trivial and something to be taken lightly, to be approached with the most brisk and vulgar of brevities (TOOTH FAIRY!) as if one's brief experiences and slight literary career was enough to convince them of whatever the truth about God is to which they subscribe. Whereas for any other topic, one would yield to an expert or someone who knew what they were talking about. (Or as far as DS is concerned, we should yield in EVERYTHING to the person who gets the highest score on some intelligence test, regardless of how ignorant they are about the topic at question).

One would think that someone with some experience of God (whether real or imaginary) would know more about the God of their experience than someone who claims that God doesn't exist.

But it seems that instead of accepting this, those who believe God doesn't exist think that they are therefore entitled to make pronouncements about things concerning God.

One would think that agnostics, who by definition don't know, are ignorant (Don't get mad at me- that's what the word means- A GNOSIS) would keep quiet and listen to those who claimed to know something. Maybe it will turn out that they don't know anything. That's what happened with Socrates. Maybe it will turn out that they do. Either way, those who call themslves agnostics should defer to the gnostics- those who know (or claim to know). If they are not willing to do this, then they should not ask questions about religion to theists.