Agnosticism is the most logical perspective on religion and spirituality

Introduction The point of religion is not to acknowledge there is a God and then be a good person because of that. Yes, that plays a role, but the main issue of religion is to have a relationship with the Creator. 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? People who are atheists exist as such because they maintain that they cannot find a real relationship with the Creator, and that the spiritual feeling religious people get is due to an alternative and naturalistic explanation from the brain. I hope I do not present a false dichotomy, but it seems to be that either people truly experience a relationship with God, or they are delusion-ed to think so because of natural processes in the brain. As I am a Christian, I will argue that theism is the most logical choice, because I believe that I and 88 percent of the world's population do not live in delusion. http://en.wikipedia.org... Painting a picture Many religions exist in the world today, and all make claims of the supernatural and generally some type of god. All religions agree that life has meaning and each religion provides a way to achieve said meaning. But just because the religions differ on the semantics of the supernatural, it does not prove that the supernatural doesn't exist. Rather, should a god exist, we would expect different groups of people to have differing opinions of such a being. Allow me to provide a metaphor: 100 people live in a village. Outside of this village may be a person named Fred. None of the people in the village have personally met Fred. 88 people say Fred exists, but by different means. 28 people say they have met Fred's son, so they know Fred exists. 21 people said they met a messenger sent by Fred who had direct quotations by Fred proving that he exists. 49 say that they have met various associates of Fred, all giving their own opinions of Fred, so this group also assumes Fred exists. 10 people say that they have never met anyone associated with Fred, yet they assume some version of Fred exists because of the 88 people in the village disputing the exact personality of Fred. Lastly, the remaining 2 people in the village completely deny there being any Fred at all, claiming there is no observable evidence that Fred exists. ( The statistics given resemble the actual demographics of religion and atheism in the world used by these two sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... ) I am not saying that because most people believe in God, he must exist. Rather, I am saying should a God exist, we would expect most of the world to be religious. Atheism generally takes the affirmative of a worldview that gods don't generally exist based on a lack of observable evidence. 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 evolutionMost of human historyAny personal story that someone shares with youAny second-hand accounts of eventsetc. Arguments against agnosticism and reasons for theism. So far I feel that I have established a fair understanding of the demographics of religion (or lack thereof) in the world and why it isn't the most logical perspective for the atheist position by merely the lack of observational evidence. I will now show why agnosticism also does not meet the criteria for the best perspective, and then I will make a positive claim for theism. Two metaphors: You cannot remain neutral on a moving train. Imagine a boy having never met his father. Some of his family asserts the father is dead, the rest of the family assert he is still alive. The boy can either seek evidence that shows the father is dead and move on with his life, or seek out his father should he be alive, but remaining ignorant is not the best option in this situation. If God exists, asserting a religion may give you the benefit of an afterlife. If God doesn't exist, asserting as such gives you complete freedom in the way you choose to live your life (this is not to say that religious people don't have freedom, but without religion sin does not exist, hence the “extra” freedom for atheists). Remaining ignorant provides no such benefit- no determined afterlife and no assurance of complete freedom during life People with spiritual lives tend to live longer. http://www.webmd.com... I believe that atheists, agnostics, and theists can all agree that methods of increasing the length of your life are automatically the most logical. Should my opponent disagree with this statement, 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. Closing Statement We can know if God exists by committing to have a relationship with the Creator. Even though this may sound cheesy, as already stated this generally leads to a longer life and potentially an infinite afterlife.