Quote (CPK001 @ 29 Jun 2021 01:52)
That I do agree with. If I am told some news then I would go and ask 2 or 3 other people to see if they tell me the same thing. That gives the story more...solidarity. It's not necessarily that I do not believe what I am told, it's because I believe that I go out and want to find out more. If I didn't believe then I wouldn't pursue.
Alright then, what Biblical topic do you wish to argue? Is there any particular passage that you find hard to believe?
Those who have spent their lives in that field, you can read their findings online. Easily accessible information in this day and age.
We all walk our own paths, one day the world will open its borders and with confidence.
That's why I ask what research you have done or whom you have asked about these things? I guarantee that some people will gladly play 20 questions with you all day.
I don't have any particular passage of the Bible to argue because again it was written by man. Now while I admit there is a chance it is the word of God, it is evident that is not; by this I mean as how the followers act in regard to the teachings. Now clearly there is false prophecy and those who have simply misunderstood the writings and have become mislead and therefore lost but the fact remains that the word of God should be impermeable if it exists. This paragraph is not an argument but rather an observation that I began at a very young age perhaps 10 years old when I witnessed "mischief" in the church.
As far as research is concerned we must agree that everyones burden of proof is different, in other words you may not believe something as easily as I would. With this in mind we can agree that any fact is actually a collection of smaller facts that support that fact because without that reference the fact becomes psuedo or false reasoning. Building on this, almost any research I could do personally is limited by both my intelligence as well as my means of inquiry (do I have internet? Am I rich? / Can I afford to spend my life properly asking questions?) so most information I collect is what I call "second hand information". This information although likely correct (atoms exist, the north star never moves etc.) is unverifiable to me personally - it would take me a hundred lifetimes to confirm what astronomers already know however the fact remains I have only one lifetime and i am not an astronomy major so I must take it on faith atoms are real.
So while I may seem to have strong opinions regarding religion and science I actually don't because the scope of chemistry, physics, energy and time are so mind boggling the whole word of scientists still know little about basic things like gravity. So if I'm unable to make a rational decision about gravity with with I interact with constantly i feel it be absolutely foolish of me to assuming what happens after my death or the nature of God; two things I have 0% experience with unlike gravity.
I hope this gives some insight into what it means to be agnostic. The logical approach to religion would be to study them each equally and fully but I think that's a waste of life. I have a much simpler ideal which is to enjoy the speck of time we have on this planet instead of searching for reason and purpose which frankly I think don't exist.