I have come to a position on issues of faith and religion that presents me with a perspective that while I can not disprove the existence of gods, those of faith inversely can not prove the existence. It is a matter of personal belief, not science, and those personal beliefs are justifiable, as they have no bearing on the lives of others, at least when religion is a personal experience and not an institution. While I do not believe in gods, I also respect the beliefs of others to the extent that I will not exercise a forceful position toward them in an attempt to change their views, just as I expect the same mutual respect from them in regards to my views. This does not preclude potential debate or discourse on topics of faith, but facilitates the respectful and beneficial act of discourse.
On matters of society, I apply my agnostic views to the state, likewise seeing that the state does not exist, which promotes my view toward agorism. There is no state. There are only buildings, documents, people, and ideas. And all acts "on behalf" of the state are merely individual acts toward a common goal. This is where I find the idea of collectivism flawed, because individuality is a strong human trait, and we each think and act in our own interest, even when we are working together for mutual benefit. Yet my worldview is not exclusionary, as I respect the individual choices of others to work together to resolve society's problems. I am even prone to the idea that government can produce positive results, but I can only support a government that does not exercise the use of force, or prevents individuals from exercising natural rights.
A violent state only promotes individual acts of violence as a result. Government can not abate violence through edict or fiat, but through example, just as a parent to a child. By participating in or promoting violence, central government only encourages individuals to take the same positions.
