August:
I am agnostic along the lines of both.
what kind of agnostic are you, do you believe that you can't know everything for sure, or that you don't know everything for sure?
I love having an element of mystery in life, though. I would absolutely despise having all the answers, whether they be scientific or philosophic in nature.
There is one great advantage to agnosticism versus any religion, though...I am able to open my mind to other religions as well and to see the perspective of other people without being judgmental on grounds of a personal religion. As a result, I've been learning a lot about other religions, and I am quite sure they all point in the same direction when talking about a moral code. For example, most people think "jihad" means "holy war." It is really the root word of Arabic "Jahada," which means "to strive for a better life." Only extremists use it as an excuse for war against people, but those of true faith know the Qur'an specifically prohibits kidnapping, terrorism, and harming civilians. See? I can look into things like that because I don't have a religion that tells me what is "evil" versus "good." My hands did not catch fire when I picked up the Qur'an in the bookstore. In fact, I would say the Bible and the Qur'an are pretty close in theme.
Buddhism is also extremely interesting. It pretty much boils down to seeking higher understanding of the universe--enlightenment. I like this religion because I think we are all Buddhists, in that aspect. All of us is looking for higher truth and understanding, and we can find it everywhere. To me, there is no need to set your beliefs in stone because the world changes, so why shouldn't mankind?
I understand your unease coming here, and if we get our way, you will be feeling a lot more uneasy in your agnostic beliefs
Sorry, but my unease is the unease of being in a place of personal attacks...it is not unease with my 'belief' of nonbelief. There is always something to be learned, though, so I have been called here for whatever reason and by the great mysterious "whomever" in the sky...it could be God...I don't exclude it as a possibility. That's what agnostics--dare I say--believe.
Kurieuro:
Thankfully, I believe God is always working to draw people to Him, and so if this is true, perhaps most will have that opportunity where things that matter become clear and everything else fades away
This resembles Buddhism very much, except the word "God" would be replaced with something like "nature." In the way you wrote, God could be a metaphor for higher understanding, wisdom, and enlightenment, and in that case, I believe you are correct...everyone wants those things. The path they take to achieve their personal enlightenment depends on the paths they choose, though. I must refuse to believe that there is only one path to enlightenment. That would be as though the entire planet is ignored because there is only one path to enlightenment, and it is somewhere in the Blue Ridge Mountains. You had an extremely elegant way of putting it, Kurieuro.
it appears as though people generally try to fit data into their pre-existing beliefs rather then evaluate such data without bias. Anyone who claims to present an unbiassed case on any matter I believe is wrong, as such is impossible to do. The most we can perhaps hope for is bringing consistency with our beliefs, and trying to be open to criticism of them
I agree. Have you ever seen a movie by Michael Moore? He completely ignores Evidence A, which goes against his themes, and turns entirely to Evidence B, which enhances his ideas. If he were to allow his movies to be openly criticized prior to releasing them, there would be a lot more truth to what he is trying to say. That's why I don't understand why people fear criticism--it's better to take criticism and seek the truth through your mistakes than to defy criticism and pretend you already know the truth, only to be judged later by the rest of the world.
That's exactly why I have a tendency to have preconceived notions about science. Criticisms are not only allowed, but sought. Once someone claims to have found a scientific theory that no one else knows about, if that person is a true scientist, he or she must seek out the scientific community. He must look for someone to criticize his work, to explain where he may have went wrong in his research, and to have him go through and correct the mistakes. Peer-reviewed work makes things much more believable to me. Criticism, though often painful, is only a minor stumble to enlightenment. If it is truly enlightenment one seeks, there should be no fear of criticism. If it is
not enlightenment they seek, but instead a desire to convince everyone that they are already enlightened, then there is a slight problem--the problem being Jesus Christ was enlightened, but I have my doubts as to the millions of others who claim to be "just like Jesus." (I like the study you presented--that was a fine way to illustrate your point.)
Some might say I intentionally skew Scripture to fit my position, but I really do see a strong Scriptural case for these positions of mine. Perhaps I am simply more aware to the Hebrew (at least I like to think so), or perhaps I simply perceive what is being revealed in Scripture differently based on many previous experiences and beliefs of mine that I was unaware to.
I sincerely hope no one would accuse you of doing wrong. Your path to enlightenment is different than anyone else's path because it is a personal journey...your own spiritual journey. Why, then, would it be wrong of you to "skew" the Scriptures? If you are getting the themes from the stories presented, then you haven't overlooked the Scripture. Jesus spoke in parables--the literal version of his stories made no sense if you didn't understand his themes. To me, that is all the Bible is--a series of parables that can lead you toward a path of enlightenment. So perhaps it is
you who are interpreting the Scriptures the correct way and many others who are not.
For example, perhaps you have skewed evolution to fit the facts while ignoring the greater problems such a theory has? Yet, it might be more that you are not aware of the problems I am talking about, since evolution is generally not allowed to be critically analysed like other scientific theories within education
I am not a scientist, if your idea of a scientist is one with a degree. However, I do like to read about scientific theories, and evolution simply made sense to me. Like the pieces to a puzzle, everything clicked together--for me. That is a part of my path to spiritual enlightenment. As I said, we all have our own individual paths, and mine just tends to reflect more on a higher understanding of the sciences rather than a higher understanding of the Bible. There are still a few pieces missing from the puzzle, and those are what the debates tend to focus on. They have already had thousands of battles against certain aspects of evolution, though for the most part, they are not fighting the theory as a whole, but disputing the
how, when, where, and
why aspects of it. Perhaps
I would skew the facts to support evolution, but I am not a peer-reviewed scientist, so my words don't really make a huge difference to the scientific community. Just as most Christians are not peer-reviewed scientists with a lot of education in the different sciences, they have a tendency to be ignored as well. Science seems to be a closed loop of people with advanced degrees in the specific areas. That is what must be done to advance science, though. If they spent all of their time trying to fight with fundamentalism, nothing would be accomplished. The arguments they fight are arguments within the scientific loop. It's almost like they are a secret society, though they are also always willing to toss their ideas out to the public, if the public is truly curious as opposed to looking for a fight. You say they tend to ignore the greater problems of the theory, but the scientific community is unaware of any greater problem. Is it you who noticed the greater problem, or scientists? Was it the Christian community who noticed the greater problem, or a Geologist who stood up and said, "excuse me? There is a critical flaw within evolution. My records indicate..." and was then cut off by his or her peers? As far as I know, the scientific community has, on more than one occasion, allowed people to dispute them. It always turned out to be a waste of time, though. Assume you are an expert in the sky. To you, the sky is blue because of ozone in the atmosphere scattering light and making it blue. You have a wealth of knowledge in the chemistry of the atmosphere, the early atmosphere, the wind patterns, the cloud patterns, and pretty much anything else that is up there. You, being an expert in the field, are the first person anyone wishing to learn about the sky would go to. However, this disturbs a great many people who worship the ground. They claim there are no shifting wind patterns. They claim the reason the sky is blue is due to a giant blue crayon. They claim you are intentionally skewing scientific facts to suit your "belief" in how the atmosphere works. You, being a busy person, have no time to listen to the arguments because you know they are secular in nature and have no true science to back them up--only skewed facts created by laymen to skew the minds of others. You have already heard the arguments--evidence for the existence of the giant blue crayon, evidence that the wind always blows in the same direction...whatever. You know that if someone were to ask you a serious question with a serious desire to learn about your job, you would be more than willing to answer. You are an intelligent person, though, and know that the only thing you will get if you go and speak to the 'ground worshippers' are attacks against science. For that reason, you tend to ignore them.
It's the same way with Christians. It seems pretty obvious to me, after sifting through the arguments, that the science offered as evidence against evolution is only partly true...even occasionally misconstrued. I've read several books written by scientists, such as Michael Shermer and Carl Sagan, who presented the same arguments and then refuted them, stating that facts were intentionally skewed to go against scientific theories. It's been this way since Galileo's proposterous blaspheme against the church that put him on house arrest until his death. Was it fear that causes such arguments? Fear that perhaps we don't have all the answers? Fear that maybe after death, there is nothingness as opposed to some beautiful heaven? Fear that our loved ones who have passed away might not be anywhere but in the ground? Fear that we cannot talk to the people who have died and get responses? I'm not sure what it is, but something causes people to dispute science without actually looking into it. It's the same way with Michael Moore fans--they take everything he says at face value without further delving into his work. Why? Because Moore confirms for them some of their already-held beliefs. It doesn't matter that Moore isn't a real journalist and has no integrity. It's the same way with Science vs. Religion, Evolution vs. Creation, Intelligent Design vs. ? ? ?, Christianity vs. ? ? ?
I have a problem with this, I suppose. I've done it several times before. You are right, though...I do come into the forum with preconceived beliefs and stereotypes, and I am trying my best to overcome that. I think the longer I stay in these forums, the easier it will be for me to realize I do not have all the answers and I will be able to learn something from others. I guess I came in with the preconceived notions that I would automatically be seen as one of those "agnostic fools." You know how you feel uncomfortable going into a building where everyone is a little different than you are? It's kind of like that. I feel I'm coming into a place where everyone is different than I am, and where everyone has banded together to celebrate their similarities while bashing those who are different. I feel it in many situations and in many different places, but things never seem to change. I feel out of place no matter where I am, and I get glances coming from all directions--disgusted stares and snickers--and it doesn't matter the religion of the person...it's simply in human nature to hate those who are different If I could get rid of my third arm growing from my abdomen, things would assuredly be different.
By the way, what kind of agnostic are you, do you believe that you can't know everything for sure, or that you don't know everything for sure?
THE LORD IN THE LIGHT!! THE LORD IN THE LIGHT!! 