I think that most atheists have a notion of religion they feel is wrong and assume that all religion and spirituality is somehow just like that other religion. I like religion.
Also, when it comes to atheism, although it seems the most logical choice at first, I think it's the least logical when considering the following statement:
Atheism specifically believes there is no God, but one must know what God is to deny its existence. If one knows what God is, how do they know that is truly what God is? Because a specific religion described God that way? Atheists should realize they not only may, but likely do have a misconception of God.
God per specific definitions may not exist, but what about the right definition? What is the right one? Is there a right one?
Words and names themselves are often what they are specifically because man believes they are that. So to know what a word really is at a given time, a form of consensus should be made to establish its definition. Its primary definition would leave remaining only the most common attributes of that word or name.
I find the common attributes of God are all powerful, all knowing, everywhere, good and fair.
There may be more, but this is just a quickie. Of that defined God; Omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, good, and fair, the only thing that denotes this God must likely make actions is fairness. All other attributes require no actions.
Without action, how would we know a God like this exists? We likely would not, and it would likely be improvable either way, leading agnosticism to the rise.
However, since fairness likely requires action, through observance of the natural world we can see if fairness is present.
Fairness is balance. Do you see balance in the world? Where there is life - there is death, when forests grow too large - fires burn, there is light and darkness. I do see balance in the world and I believe although it may seem personally unfair, it is not in the grand scheme of things, overruling my personal perception of fairness. So I believe that balance is good and that if God must maintain balance, that God too is good. Although light even by many religions is seen as Good while dark is seen as Evil, without the balance of them, even pure light may be as blinding as pure dark. Because they must both exist in balance, they contrast the value of both.
Well, I'm done my rather lengthy rant here that I wasn't going to write until I happened across one of your random quotes from Dr. Seuss which inspired me:
"Be Who You Are and Say What You Feel Because
Those Who Mind Don't Matter
and Those Who Matter Don't Mind."
I'm also going to post this on my blog, because I did put a bit of time into writing it :D I hope I didn't misunderstand what you wrote, especially since I'm not quite sure what an invisible pink unicorn is, but I think it's like the elephant in the room analogy?
Originally written for:
Posted here for safekeeping.
Any comments? Feel free to reply! I don't have "email replies" set up yet, so check back for replies please.
By the way, I'm not saying that definition of God is right, but I believe it anyway. I think the most logical spiritual or non-spiritual path may be agnosticism, but I suppose I don't like it because I think it makes some people feel like "now I don't have to worry about or even acknowledge spirituality." That's ignorance. It doesn't happen to everyone though. If two people disagree, I believe there is a medium explanation to which both people would gladly accept and defend, but it must be presented properly. Now, what is proper depends I think per-person, because what is proper is subjective.