Agnosticism is the most logical perspective on religion and spirituality

My opponents starts by using an analogy: "How can a husband love his wife if he isn't sure whether she is real or not? How can a person say there might be a god, then not try to see if they can establish a real relationship with him?" It seems my opponent is basically saying God should be as obvious as another human being that can be confirmed with all 5 senses. Later in his arguments he reasons that observable evidence is not needed for knowing if something exists or is true: "I argue that lack of observable evidence is not a valid reason to deny the phenomena of a vastly religious world. If we were to only accept things based on observable evidence, then we cannot believe: Darwinian evolution Most of human history Any personal story that someone shares with you Any second-hand accounts of events etc." I thnk it would be wise to question and doubt these things. Being agnostic doesn"t mean that a person blindly accepts Darwinian evolution as fact. I"d certainly be skeptical of human history and stories of events both first and 2nd hand. People lie, people make stuff up. That is why the scientific method was created. When someone publishes something in a science journal, you have the opportunity to test what they are saying for yourself. Science is all about reproducibility. You don"t accept anything as fact until it is shown to be reproducible. I am not someone who thinks history as written is exactly how it happened. A very common argument once a theist admits that God cannot be sensed with the 5 human senses is that we must take it on "faith". My opponent talks about the "spiritual feeling" that prayer can provide. Some call it a "spiritual high" and they affirm their belief that it can only have one of two causes, "either people truly experience a relationship with God, or they are delusion-ed to think so because of natural processes in the brain." To that I"d counter by saying that people who meditate experience the same chemical phenomena, sense of euphoria (release of endorphins) in the brain. Most Buddhists meditate to achieve emptiness and a calmed, peaceful state of mind, not to cultivate their relationship with god. http://thebuddhistcentre.com... My opponent uses the idea of popularity, religion in this case, as determining probability, truth and rationality (logic). Lets explore that. I seem to recall that many popular notions that humans have had (and plenty they have now) are completely absurd and unfounded. Here is a list of 11 such health examples including, shark cartilage curing cancer, lobotomy curing mental illness, Coca Cola's Vitamin Water brand of drinks being healthy, tobacco curing ailments, bloodletting curing disease. http://www.businessinsider.com... With such logic, rumors with no basis in fact or evidence become true if enough people believe them to be true. (2) "methods of increasing your life are automatically the most logical" My opponent cites some medical study attempting to link religion to lifespan. My opponent then challenges me saying " he should prove that a shorter life is the more logical goal of humanity He may argue that he would rather sacrifice the extended life because he does not want a spiritual life, but my point is that the most logical and rational thing is to extend our life when we are able to." This seems to assume that the length of your life in years is the most important aspect of someone's life, not perhaps how they live those years. Modern humans live far longer than our ancestors ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) and is far more dependent on our diets and medicine (thanks to science!) than religion. Most make it to their 60s and 70s at least. There are a lot of ways to increase one's lifespan besides being religious. They include things like always getting 8 hours of sleep, eating oatmeal for breakfast every day of your life, avoiding fatty meats like pork, eat only organic foods, avoiding alcohol and drugs, avoiding driving or riding in cars. So basically, don't party during your teens and 20s, don't enjoy bacon, sausage or ham, don't experiment with anything that might damage your longterm health, use cars (which are the cause of a lot of deaths) sparingly. I think most people are not willing to do all those things just to add a few more years to their lifespan. I think most would say, live your life, enjoy yourself, have fun. Better to live a shorter life that you enjoyed and don't regret missing out on things (which you would cause organic food is expensive!) than to grow old and feel you could have had so many more experiences. Also, living to extreme old age is probably not as great as some would think. Oh it sounds cool when someone lives to 100 and beyond, but is it? Lucky few retain their independence, both physically and financially, deep into old age. But if you are like many, the waning years of life are years filled with pain, pills, and confusion. I personally am not running out to join a religion so that I can live to be 100 and be frail and helpless those last 15-25 years. A few final points for my case for Agnosticism being logical: Those who are paid to think logically in their profession, scientists that is, are more likely to doubt the existence of God http://www.americanscientist.org... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... I say that observable, reproducible evidence is important for determining fact and truth. Since there is no reproducible evidence for the existence of God, yet none for disproving God either, we cannot be 100% sure either way. My opponent seems to think it's a good idea to be religious just in case there is a God and a potential afterlife. Well, what if you choose the wrong God? The God of Abraham (Christian, Jewish, Islamic) is not the same God as every other religion in the world. Plus, there are Muslims who consider Christians and Jews non-believers and heretics, and vice versa. Ah, this reveals the fear element and militant elements of many Theistic religions. Most religions say their God is the correct God and any other is wrong and dooms you to Hell. (this makes me think of the Eskimo asking the priest why he told him about Hell in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek by Annie Dillard http://www.brainyquote.com... ) Some go so far as to say it is the duty of a true believer to send non-believers to this Hell as quickly as possible (jihad). This is how many religions use fear to drive conformity and unity within a community. Religion seems to be born of Hope but lives through Fear. As a child I was very afraid of Hell, but as a child I also believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I believed those things because those I trusted told we they were real. I hadn't yet developed the ability to use logic and critical thinking to make sense of things I observed and my surroundings to decide which things were real, which things were not real, and which things I couldn't be sure were real or not. We have the ability to think and question. If we are creations of a God(s), then we were given this ability by God(s). To not think and question would be wasteful of God-given ability, yet to have no doubts about God is to not think. To have doubts yet declare that there is 100% certainty the existence of a God(s) is simply dishonest and fooling one's self. When enough thought is put into this, agnosticism and skepticism is the most logical conclusion