"On what grounds do you reject this definition?"

This one: "One who doesn't believe in a deity, but also allows that one may exist."

If you don't believe in a deity, you are an atheist (a-without theos-gods). It doesn't matter if you allow for their existence, you don't believe in them. I'm not sure where you got your original definition, but dictionary.com says "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." "Disbelief in the existence of supreme beings" is vastly different than "belief that God does not exist."

But what you just described is Deism, not Agnosticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

"Right and wrong"? EXTREMELY relative. Not only can the "right" or "wrong" behavior vary from person to person, but it also varies from situation to situation. Is it "right" or "wrong" to punch someone? Is it "right" or "wrong" to kiss someone? Depends entirely on the context.

Additionally, I hold the view that everyone has their own particular continuum of what is "right/wrong" "good/evil" "better/worse" behaviors, so while one is able to judge and rank a behavior according to his or her own scale, they are incorrect in assuming that scale applies to anyone else.

"Methods & acts of doing are part of the act itself...not a driving presence of the desire to carry it out. "

You obviously missed what I was hinting at. By "presence", I was referring to a more abstract notion in terms of these opposites: "present / absent" , "positive / negative" "substance / no substance". Your argument was based around these opposites as well-- that one term is actually is the absence of another presence. My assertion is that what one might call "evil" is its own autonomous concept, not simply the absence of another concept.

The reason I included "the act of DOING" specifically is based on the emphasis in that phrase: DOING. Action is the opposite of passivity, and were "evil" simply an absence, there would be no action; no DOING.

On your analysis on the etymology of the term "hell", I must disagree strongly. The Online Etymology Dictionary as well as several entries on Dicitonary.com list the origin of the word to be derived from Old English "hel" which derives directly from Anglo-Saxon "Hel". Here are links to confirm my information: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hell and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hell
If you can provide reference to support your Greek theory, I would be happy to see it. When the Bible (both NT and OT) were translated into English, virtually all the variants of the afterlife were translated into "hell" despite their original Hebrew and Greek connotations.

As to your second point, I would have hoped you to derive from my essay that I do not believe in the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" at all. I believe it is a false duality and ultimately the two sides are relative, not absolute. However, this leads to the fact that the only way your point of "evil = absence of good" to be definitively true is if they WERE a duality, absolutes, and completely passive. Additionally, the definition you mentioned would only cover Evil-By-Omission, such as not speaking up when something wrong is happening, but it does not cover ACTS OF "EVIL". In order to commit an ACT OF "Evil", we're not talking about an absence but a PRESENCE of action.

For example, murder is an ACTIVE behavior, not a passive one; its not an "absence of good" that leads a person to commit such an action, but the PRESENCE of something else. That active presence includes motives, methods, and the act of DOING. You can't just remove "Good" and expect "Evil" to remain--frequently "Evil" requires an act of it's own.

"you're arguing the fact that theres no scientific way to DETERMINE the cause....All the while overlooking the obvious..."There is in fact A CAUSE", and not an accidental or random occerence."

Says who?

An accidental or random occurrence can BE a cause. "Cause" does not necessarily imply intelligence, simply action.

I agree entirely!

I also think if it were nothing but the celebration of the incarnation of Jesus there would be no problem, just as there's really no problem with any non-Christan wanting to celebrate Ash Wednesday.

I don't either, since I usually try to step back and reason through decisions ALL the time. Occasionally it lowers my guard with that though, and I can't see or understand why I'm getting upset over "nothing", or have a desire to do a particular action even though I "know" its not the right thing to do. I do find out within a few days why, though. ; P I might also be a bad example because my hormones are artificially regulated as well, but it still happens.

And ooooh yes, Cleric can do the "cute" voice, and does. XD
Not as much as I do though, and not quite as extreme. KIIIIIITTTTYYYYYYY.....!!!!!!1!

Oh I didn't mean to imply that it is ONLY hormones. That comment was specifically an allusion to PMS and such, as it is true that (most) women do behave oddly and it is primarily caused by (if I remember correctly?) hormonal fluctuations in preparation for superhappyfungirlytime. I don't think women are by nature any more or less rational than men, but there is a specific instance that we can point to for the large majority of women in which they generally behave more irrationally. It is more difficult to pinpoint such an instance for men, but one would be absurd to insist that they do not have their moments or subjects, its just not so regular and obvious. I think what would be culturally defined in this instance is the manifestation, not the cause.

Interesting information about the "cute voice" also. :)

No idea, I really wish they'd stop though. *sigh*

It's actually all the way around the eye like this : http://userpages.monmouth.com/~wstreett/FaceIT/st...