RaceKickfist

OP, this is a path I've undertaken myself. I figure I'll add my two cents, as I find that my position is quite similar to yours.

First, I'll state that I'm a theist. a Christian, actually. So I'm going to be talking about that side specifically (sorry Hindu homies, maybe next time) Second, I'll state that I find science and faith can safely and happily coexist in someone's brain and not cause debilitating cognitive dissonance. I can say this because I'm not currently lying on the floor of my apartment in the fetal position, shaking my fist at the ceiling while i rage in existential despair.

The biggest thing I've noticed is that theists and atheists (or creationists and evolutionists, or sciencers and biblotomers, etc.) consistently and overwhelmingly talk past each other. One side always assumes the other side has all the knowledge and wisdom that their side has. Its less of a discussion and more of a "throw rocks" kind of thing. and everybody throws rocks. (book of John chapter 8 drop heyoooooooo).

Anyway, I notice a lot of the same arguments get used over and over and over. Evolution certainly is *true* in the sense that we can definitely observe it. Where it gets fuzzy (at least to me, since the arguments I've researched to the contrary I've found less than compelling) is where it scales the farther (further?) back we go in time. I'm skeptical about the common ancestry. I'm curious about all that noise concerning the cambrian explosion. And I really have to question abiogenesis. like a serious, cocked-eyebrow questioning. because it is wierd. and unprecedented, and perhaps....miraculous. the fine tuning argument is also interesting.

The other thing I notice, is that the overwhelming majority of people don't understand the Bible. yeah you can read the words in it and they form sentences and stuff, but to really understand it you need to do some hermeneutics. you gotta get your exegesis mojo goin. For example- it may be difficult to tell since very few of us read hebrew, or can grasp ancient literary form structure, but the book of genesis may very well be allegorical. it is written in a similar structure as poetry at that time. could it be literal? maybe. is it a game changer for faith in the Judeo-Christian God? not for me. Second- allllll the Leviticus stuff. gotta love me some shrimp. lets take Leviticus 19:19 for example, the "mixed fabrics" verse. a little study into the region and cultures of that time will tell you that it was very popular to weave strips of other fabrics into garments and sell it as having "magical properties." God doesn't hate cotton-poly blends, but He *does* take issue with his chosen people putting their faith in the ancient equivalent of a spam email for boner pills.

I'll agree with what has been said before on this thread, that you won't find any true "unbiased" resources. everybody will have an agenda. so you kind of have to balance it out. read a nice chunk of Dawkins? pair it with a robust glass of William Lane Craig. Just polished off a bag of Chris Hitchens? Wash it down with an ice cold J. Warner Wallace. I've heard a nice slice of Lee Strobel pie goes great with a scoop of Bart Ehrman.

and now, I'll finish it off with an unsatisfying pithy quip that I like for some reason:

Science is How, Religion is Why.

@stinky: i appreciate design and animation just fine, and there's a lot of john k's work that i do enjoy. i just think he's a little butthurt toward the animation industry. I dont blame him, i'd feel that way too in those circumstances. And bless his heart, he keeps trying to get back in the game, you gotta respect that. I just happen to agree with chris holmes when he says "Because if it were up to him [john k.], all his mass market cartoons would be full of boogers and breasts." Thats john k's bag; that's what he does. I hope his kickstarter is successful, and he can do what he wants. and showcase all the off-model pimply boobs and boogery farts rendered in fully-realized and detailed still shots that his heart desires. if i wasnt broke, i'd throw a few bucks his way on principal alone.

i have to agree with this guy.

http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/note-to-john-kricfalusi-enough-already

if john k gets the cash for his show, awesome. but he's been nursing this grudge against the animation community for nearly 20 years, and has had more opportunities than most to prove himself. I'll be interested to see how he fares this time around.

check the other branches and explore other jobs. you don't go for infantry, you settle for infantry.

because chik-fil-a's are independently owned and operated, I'm not sure I find boycotting them an effective means of getting your point across. it seems like the corporate headquarters is mostly to blame for the public statement (which i dont think is "boycott-worthy" since everyone is entitled to an opinion, free speech, etc.), and the donations of millions of dollars to pro-traditional marriage foundations. What I think most people take issue with is where the money goes, but wouldn't boycotting the restaurants also carry the potential for damaging locally owned and operated business that might not even agree with that corporate mandate? does chik-fil-a make it part of their franchise agreement that every individual restaurant ante-up for charitable donations for specific groups (in this case, pro-traditional marriage groups)? seems like punishing the middle man to me.

I dunno, it just seems like none of this ordeal is as cut-and-dry as either side claim it is. Regardless of my personal thoughts on homosexuality, I think it's previously taboo considerations have flip-flopped and it seems like being gay is totally "in" now (ha! being "out" is "in!" I made a slogan), and I truly think homosexual marriage is an inevitability in our society.

My faith is pretty core to who I am, and is essentially the only thing that has kept me going. To find it "proven wrong" isn't so much an exercise in thinking of "what am I free to do, now that I am released from the shackles of religious indoctrination" as it is a contemplation of what I would do (me, personally) with the information that there is no right or wrong, no purpose for my being, and the fact that I'm a cosmic accident. Some may be able to prosper and thrive in a world where that is the definition of life, but I don't think I would, or could.

Interesting question, OP.

get used to it, OP. most times the loudest people are just the folks who need to be listening. Because sensationalism sells, you're really only going to hear the most vocal and controversial things being said. When it comes to matters of faith, of course it's going to get heated, and the back and forth is definitely going to get emotional. and the dumbest is going to shout the loudest. Pick your fights, and always James 1:19

I'm not sure I buy into the whole "its just a lump of cells" argument for not classifying a fetus as a human life. When NASA found evidence of microbes on mars, or when scientists discovered GFAJ-1 (silicon-based life) they called it "Life." why would it be any different if it was found in a uterus?

ebony bow with 2000+ charges of soul trap - "The DMV"

could think of nothing more soul-stealing than the DMV.

working on whatever i can, and trying not to glance at the clock too much.

and i'm naming my argonian "Stringfellow."

because airwolf.