Kane said:
Actually there is a difference between me and other agnostics. For one, I am very un-bias toward both sides. It seems many other agnostics are actually more atheists. They really deep down believe there is no God. Me, I am very 50/50 in this. Many that claim to be agnostic act much more atheists.
From Dictionary.com:
agĀ·nosĀ·tic n.
1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism
atheist \A"the*ist\, n.
[Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.]
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
I consider myself an agnostic rather than atheist because to deny the existence of God is as baseless as to claim to know for sure the One True God. However, I do not believe that at present we CAN "know" if there is a God. I have a hard time even comprehending what COULD constitute proof.
However, I am skeptical about the existence of a God as commonly conceived.
Kane said:
Why would you be okay with NOT knowing the truth? Aren't you afraid if that you will go to hell if you did go down the wrong path? Many people, even Christians can't seem to comprehend what hell exactly is.
because I don't really believe we CAN know, as I stated. Even assuming there is a God, (for this discussion, a separate, intellegent being who created the universe intentionally and for a purpose) why would you ever assume that WE are the central purpose??? That seems like egocentrism in the extreme. The universe is huge, we inhabit only a tiny, out of the way corner of it. It is far more likely that we are just a side effect of the real purpose, which, like the God that created it, is completely unfathomable to us. (When you make chocolate milk, the added sugar and the act of stirring create bubbles on the top that persist longer than in most liquids. Making bubbles was not your purpose, you made chocolate milk, the bubbles are just a side effect... Maybe life, and humanity, is something like that)
And while you claim to truly be in the center (not really the definition of agnostic), you sure seem to have picked WHICH God to not be sure of. Many of the Gods people have believed in had no "hell"... On what basis did you pick JHVH and Christ as the only candidates for "real" god? why the Judeo-Christian model over others? Zeus, Kronos, Shiva, Kali, Amun-Ra why not any of them? Or any of the several thousand other gods humanity has at times worshipped?
Kane said:
Actually that site I gave didn't seem too much of ĀfundamentalistĀ claims. In the site it seems to me that they were trying to mix science and creationism together, which surprisingly it worked quite well. Some of the philosophy though is a little strange to me still.
You are right, it is not just rabid Fundamentalist ranting, but rather an attempt to define "Creation Science", but is somewhat disingenuous just the same. For example, in its slideshow on the rise of modern man that you referenced, it give an outdated lineage of the rise of man, showing "African Man", "Asian Man", and "European Man" all arising out of "Neanderthal Man". It even says that scientists no longer believe this model, but it does not present the commonly accepted model, rather it spends the next several dozen slides using biblical evidence to "disprove" a model that NO ONE currently accepts...
I guess, the reason I am OK with NOT knowing is because I believe I CANNOT know... and god has granted me the wisdom to accept the things I cannot change... (a little tongue in cheek, but I couldn't resist)
SB