But you're flat wrong. Liberals, for instance, often support gay marriage. That clearly is not "trying to please everyone." It's actively alienating a majority of the population.

The extreme left (Communism, for example) does tend to discount individual initiative and advocate the same rewards for everyone, regardless of talent or effort. But that hardly represents liberalism, just as right-wing dictators hardly represent conservativism.

And as I demonstrated above, that's nonsense. There are some things, like God, for which there is no clear, objective evidence. Stating such a truth is not being "unwilling to accept absolutes." It's being unwilling to accept unproven assertions.

"The world was sneezed out of the left nostril of an invisible 500-foot-high unicorn." IMO, there is just as much evidence for that as for your God. Are you "unwilling to accept absolutes" if you disbelieve me in the absence of proof?

I recognize that you feel you have all the evidence you need. I respect that. SOMETHING got the universe rolling, and if you want to call that something God, I won't argue. In fact if that's your definition of God, I'll even agree that God exists. But that raises all sorts of other questions, such as "what does God mean, then" and "how do you know it's the Christian God" and "why should we worship it?"

God may well exist; acknowledging that fact is why I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. But his/her/its existence has not been revealed to me in a way I consider logically and evidentially satisfactory.

I'll repeat the question I asked above: Are you saying I should make a positive assertion about something that I don't, in fact, have positive knowledge about?

Any objective proof (public miracles performed, for example) or my own personal anecdotal proof (God decides to reveal himself to me in such a way that I'm convinced it's not just a hallucination).

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.