First, I would like to say that I am very impressed with the posts here. Dominata has been an outstanding addition to this discussion.
Just to finish up with Ntrox (or Ntorx as lil nymph calls him),
Science and Agnostcism go hand in hand. Both aver a current state of belief based on the information available, however; both are willing to change based on new information.
For instance, Newtons laws to explain the motion of an object are correct in a gross sense. They predictably explain how a cannonball will travel through the air. Einsteins' theories did not disprove Newton, but fine tuned them as this became necessary when dealing with sub-atomic particles. So refinements will continue as our ability to measure events becomes more sensitive.
You state that it is more logical to NOT believe in something than cannot be proven than to believe in something that cannot be proven.
Well, what I am saying as an Agnostic, is that I am reserving the right to change my mind as new information is provided (Like actually seeing God on a chariot).
A real world example would be x-rays. In 1800, you would deny its existence because it could not be seen, felt, or demonstrated. Suddenly, by accident, its presence could be demonstrated to our senses by using photograph emulsion. It was there all along, but we simple could not perceive it.
So as an agnostic, I securely deny that God has the traits created for him by Man in organized religion. I am just open to the possibity, that just because my senses can't perceive him and picture cannot be taken, that a Creator may yet exist in some form.
Evolution is real and readily observable. Many religious people state that it only exists in the sense of minor modifications, and a cat never will become a dog.
The evolutionary time scale is so long (billions of years) that our minds have a difficult time grasping this. So look at something that is observable- language. There are seven Romance languages today, each distinct and unintelligible to speakers of the parent language- Latin. So 7 new discrete entities arose from a common ancestor.
But, how does evolution address creation? Well, it tries, but I have a scientic backround and so much is left to explain.(I can expand on this as necessary)
Just to finish up, Ntrox, you have elaborated on your negative experience with organized religion. I again state that your rather polar views are influenced by anger.
Until I can definitely understand why the universe even exists at all as a location for our creation and evolution take place, I will reserve the possibity of a creator (whom I doubt has a personal interest in me).
So, I say, reserve the right to change your mind, based on new information. Don't join the faith club and sell yourself short.
PS: If God created us all, who created God? See Hobbes at
http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...0&pagenumber=3