Support NeoGAF

[A Link to the Past]

When the bell rang, he knew that he had not convinced Bryce, and perhaps many of the others. But that week, he gave the students an opportunity to answer the questions they had missed on the last test. Grading Bryce's paper later in the quiet of his empty classroom, he saw that this time, the question that asked for evidence of evolutionary change had been answered.

Stopped reading here.

 

[Aurvant]

He actually just says man plus wife.

Wiggle room exists.

Well, he says that in the beginning God created them Male and Female AND FOR THAT REASON they are to leave their families and become Man and Wife.

It doesn't leave a whole lot of room to wiggle.

 

[onipex]

OK...but aren't you just missing the point? Do you, as a Christian, think your morality comes from the Bible? Do you only know what is good because you are told by the word of God in the bible? If this is the case (which all Christians should believe if they are indeed Christain), how is that you pick and choose your morals from the Bible. By what facts are you able to CHOOSE your morals and reject others, when only the bible can inform you of your morals?

What the heck are you talking about? You know nothing about Christianity if you think morals are picked and chosen from the Bible. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ (you should be able to tell that by looking at the name of the religion).

You and everyone else in this thread who feels they need to attack Christianity speak a lot bull. You all have a lack of understanding that is equal to those who try to attack evolution. Those that try to defend it are just as bad. Anyone who says that there are no scientists that understand and disagree with evolution is a liar.



All of you sound like fools.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Evolution is fine with religion. It's just not fine with Christianity. You can be religious and still believe in evolution.

 

[FiRez]

I totally don't get the conflict between creationism and evolution.

Evolution is merely a process. It says nothing about the origins of the process. There could still have been a creator who designed the process, with the notion of humans as the end-output of that process, and then set it in motion. Or not. Point is, it speaks nothing, for or against, a creator God.

Even my 70-odd year-old Catholic parents, raised in an exceptionally conservative Ireland, can accept evolution theory.

evolution can explain the process where "no life" transforms into "life", (ex. replicators, primordial soup, etc) but creationism still has the main flaw of "who created the creator"

 

[VictimOfGrief]

Agnostics obviously are on both sides of the fence, or more likely than not, just don't care.

The reason evolution is an atheistic theory is that belief in any creationist religion (be it sprouted from Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, etc...) more often than not requires belief in intelligent design. Intelligent design is pretty darn opposing to evolution, if you ask me.

I gotta ask what you're smoking.

As a Christian myself... I know from reading books, listening to lectures and hearing about evolution can make a person of "faith" squeamish.... it's the root though of people not understanding their own faith.

The article was a brilliant read because while it does teach it also teaches to question.

Also to correct your point, evolutionary biology is a scientific theory based on historical facts gathered over the course of time. Darwin was the main proponent of showing this.

While you could argue that Intelligent design opposes evolution--- would you argue that God doesn't use science intelligently?

 

[theBishop]

Well, he says that in the beginning God created them Male and Female AND FOR THAT REASON they are to leave their families and become Man and Wife.

It doesn't leave a whole lot of room to wiggle.

There's always room to wiggle. If you can't find it in the many english translations, you can look in the hebrew/greek. If you can't find it there, you can find it in historical perspective of the culture at the time.

Those who want to wiggle can always wiggle, and those who want literal can always find it.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Well, he says that in the beginning God created them Male and Female AND FOR THAT REASON they are to leave their families and become Man and Wife.

It doesn't leave a whole lot of room to wiggle.

From what you posted, there is insufficient information to define "wife" as exclusively female.

edit- brainfart

 

[Azih]

You know what is a really incorrect and disingenuous move? Sticking words into someone else's mouth.

Oddly enough exactly the complaint that I have about you most of the time. You do recall the thread in which I was critiquing Dawkins behaviour and you kept on thinking for no good reason that I was critiquing his subject matter don't you? That was a frustrating time for all concerned.

If you want to cite me, there is a quote function attached to every message I post.

*sigh* spec we had a conversation over PM a few months ago in which I called you out on being condescending and you never responded.

 

[Aurvant]

The conflict is that creationists think evolution includes abiogenesis.

Exactly. I used to think that Evolution directly opposed the existence of God and the origins of life until I realized that it wasn't the science that was trying to attack my faith but the people who tried to forge scientific study and understanding in to a blunt instrument against a persons personal faith.

From what you posted, there is insufficient information to define "wife" as exclusively male.

Don't you mean "Female"?

 

[gofreak]

evolution can explain the process where "no life" transforms into "life", (ex. replicators, primordial soup, etc) and creationism still has the main flaw of "who created the creator"

Sure. I'm just saying, I don't know why 'creationists' get so antsy about evolution. It could have been a tool of a creator's.

However, I CAN see how people who believe in the literal truth of the bible might have difficulty with it. But I would have thought they'd have lots of other problems reconciling the world around them with the bible anyway. And I've have hoped they were few and far between nowadays.

(Side note: Catholics are not taught that the bible is to be literally believed - at least old testament stories, the creation story etc. At least I went to a Catholic school, and we were told that Adam & Eve, Genesis etc. was just a story)

 

[Tamanon]

Yeah Catholics are one of the least literal sects, it's why so much is up for interpretation with them.

 

[Dali]

Stopped reading here.

:lol

I suspect we are of the few.

 

[Seth C]

There's always room to wiggle. If you can't find it in the many english translations, you can look in the hebrew/greek. If you can't find it there, you can find it in historical perspective of the culture at the time.

Those who want to wiggle can always wiggle, and those who want literal can always find it.

This is true. If you really want to wiggle on marriage, Biblically, the first place you can head is polygyny. Elders of the church are the only people for whom having more than one wife is specifically condemned, and even some argue this, saying the passage only commands that they be married, but doesn't rule out multiple wives. Certainly in the Old Testament polygyny was not condemned by God.

 

[szaromir]

I totally don't get the conflict between creationism and evolution.

Evolution is merely a process. It says nothing about the origins of the process. There could still have been a creator who designed the process, with the notion of humans as the end-output of that process, and then set it in motion. Or not. Point is, it speaks nothing, for or against, a creator God.

Even my 70-odd year-old Catholic parents, raised in an exceptionally conservative Ireland, can accept evolution theory.

It was the same in past when Church didn't want to accept heliocentrism and atomism as valid scientific theories and were fighting followers of these theories, because Church authorities falsely believed that these theories defy primary dogmats of Christianity, not because they thought science by itself was leading to atheism. I think it's the a similar situation now, except now Church authorities don't officially say anything about evolution, at least I don't know what's their take on it.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Don't you mean "Female"?

Durr.

Fixed. Now what?

 

[speculawyer]

Oddly enough exactly the complaint that I have about you most of the time. You do recall the thread in which I was critiquing Dawkins behaviour and you kept on thinking for no good reason that I was critiquing his subject matter don't you?

I PROPOSED possible things you make be think AND ASKED YOU IF YOU BELIEVED THEM.
BIG DIFFERENCE.

*sigh* spec we had a conversation over PM a few months ago in which I called you out on being condescending and you never responded.

Sorry . . . apparently I didn't think it was worth my time. I don't give private lessons. I prefer to debate publicly so others can see. I don't think you'll see the light but others have a chance.

 

[Aurvant]

Durr.

Fixed. Now what?

Well, I don't really know actually. I interpret the text, since Jesus states Male and Female were created in the beginning, to mean that Marriage is a defined unity between the two sexes and that was it's original intention.

By today's standards, thanks to some of the weirdest things Science has given us, a person doesn't have to be born female to BE female anymore. They can just get some operation and claim a different gender, so by twisting the natural order a person could create "wiggle room". However, none of those variables existed during Jesus' time so we have to assume that the definition of marriage applies to the natural order that Male and Female were created to join together in body and spirit by the act of marriage.

 

[victreeb3l]

Campbell smiled. "Mickey evolved," he said. "And Mickey gets cuter because Walt Disney makes more money that way. That is 'selection.' "

:lol Awesome.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Well, I don't really know actually. I interpret the text, since Jesus states Male and Female were created in the beginning, to mean that Marriage is a defined unity between the two sexes and that was it's original intention.

By today's standards, thanks to some of the weirdest things Science has given us, a person doesn't have to be born female to BE female anymore. They can just get some operation and claim a different gender, so by twisting the natural order a person could create "wiggle room". However, none of those variables existed during Jesus' time so we have to assume that the definition of marriage applies to the natural order that Male and Female were created to join together in body and spirit by the act of marriage.

You are filling in gaps with your own guesses.

Just show me where Jesus says marriage is between a man and a woman and not between a man and a wife.

 

[levious]

*sigh* spec we had a conversation over PM a few months ago in which I called you out on being condescending and you never responded.

Sorry . . . apparently I didn't think it was worth my time.

laughs

 

[speculawyer]

Evolution is fine with religion. It's just not fine with Christianity. You can be religious and still believe in evolution.

You better tell that to the Pope because the Catholic church disagrees.

But then again, much of the religious-right seems to think they are the "great whore" church.

 

[theBishop]

:lol Awesome.

If he really wanted to go for the jugular, he could say the same thing about churches, money and all. :lol

 

[gofreak]

By today's standards, thanks to some of the weirdest things Science has given us, a person doesn't have to be born female to BE female anymore. They can just get some operation and claim a different gender

Actually, nature does this for us sometimes. Every embryo starts off the same. Sometimes nature fucks up in the process of determining gender, and you have babies born with ambiguous genetalia, or both sets of genetalia, even. The odd inter-sex baby is part and parcel of the natural reproductive process.

Beyond inter-sex babies, it doesn't take an incredible leap of faith to see how even just gender identity (an issue of the brain) can go awry when sex assignment, physically, can absolutely go awry. E.g. people who claim to be one gender trapped in the body of another gender that is physically completely normal.

 

[speculawyer]

laughs

:lol Yeah, that is funny. :lol

Well, yeah . . I'm a snob. :lol

 

[sammy]

great article but it still puzzles me that in 2008 discussions like this can still rage. Jesus Christ wouldn't come into some thread spouting ID dribble ... why? because he never read the Bible, he wouldn't be aware of your origin myths .... but it seems easier for people to love a mythic cryptozoological perversion than a brilliant human philosopher.

There is no debate, there is no argument. The goal of Creationism/ID isn't to expose the possible existence of God(s) but to expose the existence of the biblical Yahweh. It has a prefabricated goal stemming from a book written by humans, and therefore will never be science. And science class should be reserved only for science.

it isn't that evolution is 100% correct or misguided, it's that to understand the process of science is to understand that we are inherently ignorant beings. And just because the source of lightning is still a debated subject, doesn't mean we should be teaching children the physiology of Thor's hammer or the process Poseidon used to create the Mariana Trench.

besides, creationists have bigger responsibilities on their shoulders ... they first need to provide evidence of exactly how zombies function, since they apparently subscribe to at least one of them existing on this planet at some point.

 

[ManaByte]

So . . . do all these non-denominational Churches teach the Bible in the exact same way? :lol

They should. I mean I've been to Methodist, United Methodist, First Baptist, New Evangelical, and even a couple Catholic Mass; and all denominational Churches have a Pastor who gives a sermon on some subject he usually pulls out of a hat every week.

In the Church I go to (which is part of a fellowship of Churches across the country), the Pastor doesn't give a sermon on a subject; instead he teaches the bible, book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse starting in Genesis and ending in Revelation. Right now the Sunday services are in John and the Wednesday night services are almost through Exodus.

So instead of pulling a subject out of thin air each week and coming out and saying "Today's sermon is on [insert subject here]", he comes out and says "Today we're in [Book, Chapter, Verse]".

They use the inductive study method:

1. What the verse says.
2. What the verse means.
3. The CONTEXT, which is one of the most important parts where misunderstanding of verse context can create different denominations including Catholicism (see below for an example).
4. Other translations. Often a word will appear that shows up one way in NKJV, when the original Greek or Hebrew word has multiple meanings and they'll point it out like "In this translation the word is [word], the original Greek/Hebrew word for this is [this] and it can mean [this] or [this].

An example of using the correct context in a verse would be Matthew 16 beginning in verse 13, which is where the Catholics got the idea that Peter was the first Pope and Christ's Church due to Peter being called Cephus (or rock) many times in the gospels. But the Catholics at the time didn't really understand the context of the exchange.

13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

This is where Jesus and his disciples were standing:

To the right of that image you may be able to see little indentations in the ROCK. At that time people would put statues of their gods in those little holes, so when Jesus asked his disciples “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” he was looking at these to see what his disciples would say. The rock that Jesus would build his Church was literally "this rock" that they were standing on; not Peter.

 

[Aurvant]

You are filling in gaps with your own guesses.

Just show me where Jesus says marriage is between a man and a woman and not between a man and a wife.

Well, the term "Wife" means, and has always meant, a married WOMAN. I guess that when Jesus spoke those words, in Aramaic of course, he didn't really think people would question the definition of what "Wife" was considering it had always been accepted to define a married woman.

I mean, seriously, we are really splitting hairs here. I, and I'm assuming You, have always understood and known that the term "wife" stood as the definition of a married woman and that it has ALWAYS gone uncontested. Well, at least uncontested until today that is.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Well, the term "Wife" means, and has always meant, a married WOMAN. I guess that when Jesus spoke those words, in Aramaic of course, he didn't really think people would question the definition of what "Wife" was considering it had always been accepted to define a married woman.

I mean, seriously, we are really splitting hairs here. I, and I'm assuming You, have always understood and known that the term "wife" stood as the definition of a married woman and that it has ALWAYS gone uncontested. Well, at least uncontested until today that is.

The point is, if it doesn't specifically say "man and woman" then there is wiggle room.

 

[Dahellisdat]

This is where Jesus and his disciples were standing:

Is Jesus somewhere in this picture?

 

[Azih]

I PROPOSED possible things you make be think AND ASKED YOU IF YOU BELIEVED THEM.
BIG DIFFERENCE.

And none of those things had anything to do with Dawkins attitude which was the only thing I had ever brought up.

The other example of you putting words into my mouth in that thread was when you flatly stated I thought you were an asshole. You were and are straight up wrong on that one.

Sorry . . . apparently I didn't think it was worth my time. I don't give private lessons..

The title of the PM was "Response to an old post that I don't want to bump" which is perfectly valid GAF Etiquette and I have had quite a few very good discussions with Gaffers I've PMed and IMed. Guess I was wrong to expect the same from you.

Further you asked for examples of condescension?

Sorry . . . apparently I didn't think it was worth my time... I don't give private lessons... I don't think you'll see the light

Edit:

Well, yeah . . I'm a snob.

Lovely, so the OP was accurate. I'll repeat what I said in the last thread. Carl Sagan was a far more effective communicator in his approach then the Dawkins manner. The OP article is further proof of this.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Is Jesus somewhere in this picture?

If you look long enough at the rocks, I'm sure pareidolia will kick in eventually.

 

[Dahellisdat]

If you look long enough at the rocks, I'm sure pareidolia will kick in eventually.

I think I see Satan somewhere in those rocks....was this taken before or after 9/11?

 

[onipex]

It was the same in past when Church didn't want to accept heliocentrism and atomism as valid scientific theories and were fighting followers of these theories, because Church authorities falsely believed that these theories defy primary dogmats of Christianity, not because they thought science by itself was leading to atheism. I think it's the a similar situation now, except now Church authorities don't officially say anything about evolution, at least I don't know what's their take on it.

That is the problem. People appoint their self or are appointed as leaders of a religion they don’t understand. There is no part of the Bible I can think of that states that there is anything wrong with these people spoke out about.

What the Bible does say is that people are given gifts and those gifts should be used and not hidden. If someone’s gift is medicine or science, than the church has no right to speak out against it. The people who do are the same misguided fools who hold up those god hates homosexual signs.

 

[levious]

so he goes to a Bible Church... cool.

 

[Regulus Tera]

Evolution is fine with religion. It's just not fine with Protestantism. You can be religious and still believe in evolution.

Fixed for the sake of accuracy (and even then I think I'm leaving out some denominations).

 

[CharlieDigital]

Edit:
Lovely, so the OP was accurate. I'll repeat what I said in the last thread. Carl Sagan was a far more effective communicator in his approach then the Dawkins manner. The OP article is further proof of this.

Oh for FUCK'S SAKE not this shit again.

 

[Anerythristic]

That is really common huh, these Bible only churches. I'm a Catholic , I always wondered does the story change for american protestants on how the bible was put together?

Reason I ask is I remember hearing from a friend that they teach there were these "Bible only" churches wondering around the desert like lost tribes of christianity.

 

[Karakand]

During a recent conversation with my brother where he insisted on showing me he knew absolutely everything about anything (teenagers...) he announced to me that he was "skeptical" of parts of evolution.

I have never felt a chill go down my spine like the one that went down it then and there.

He lives in California. Not bumfuck California, developed California.

He goes to public school.

His father was a scientist.

Yes he goes to church, but it's Anglican (Episcopal), which while not such a great thing is not exactly a hotspot of evolution "skepticism".

Then I realized he consumes primarily conservative-focused news and information (e.g. Fox "News").

This is a war that has to be fought on more than one front unfortunately.

 

[Stoney Mason]

During a recent conversation with my brother where he insisted on showing me he knew absolutely everything about anything (teenagers...) he announced to me that he was "skeptical" of parts of evolution.

I have never felt a chill go down my spine like the one that went down it then and there.

He lives in California. Not bumfuck California, developed California.

He goes to public school.

His father was a scientist.

Yes he goes to church, but it's Anglican (Episcopal), which while not such a great thing is not exactly a hotspot of evolution "skepticism".

Then I realized he consumes primarily conservative-focused news and information (e.g. Fox "News").

This is a war that has to be fought on more than one front unfortunately.

You have to understand some relatively bright people still like to play the "rebel" role even beyond teenagers.

 

[ManaByte]

That is really common huh, these Bible only churches.

The eighth largest Church in the country (and third largest in California) is one.

 

[Aurvant]

During a recent conversation with my brother where he insisted on showing me he knew absolutely everything about anything (teenagers...) he announced to me that he was "skeptical" of parts of evolution.

I have never felt a chill go down my spine like the one that went down it then and there.

He lives in California. Not bumfuck California, developed California.

He goes to public school.

His father was a scientist.

Yes he goes to church, but it's Anglican (Episcopal), which while not such a great thing is not exactly a hotspot of evolution "skepticism".

Then I realized he consumes primarily conservative-focused news and information (e.g. Fox "News").

This is a war that has to be fought on more than one front unfortunately.

A Grip. You need to get one.

There is no "war" that needs to be fought. Evolution science and Faith based religions can, and do in many cases, co-exist. However, if a person finds issues with the current teachings of Macro-evolution then I don't see why that should "send a chill down your spine". It's not like he screamed "I'M SKEPTICAL ABOUT EVOLUTION!!!!" and then proceeded to smack you across the face with a sledgehammer.

Also, the fact that you demonize him because he focuses primarily on the conservative side of things is ridiculous and, to be honest, a bit elitist. To criticize someone just because they watch a certain news channel borders on complete douchebaggery and it really serves no purpose other than making yourself feel better about your liberal, progressive "news".

Oh, that "news" station just so happens to have higher ratings than the other networks, so there's got to be a reason why everyone is watching it, or do all of them send chills down your spine as well?

 

[Evlar]

They should. I mean I've been to Methodist, United Methodist, First Baptist, New Evangelical, and even a couple Catholic Mass; and all denominational Churches have a Pastor who gives a sermon on some subject he usually pulls out of a hat every week.

In the Church I go to (which is part of a fellowship of Churches across the country), the Pastor doesn't give a sermon on a subject; instead he teaches the bible, book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse starting in Genesis and ending in Revelation. Right now the Sunday services are in John and the Wednesday night services are almost through Exodus.

So instead of pulling a subject out of thin air each week and coming out and saying "Today's sermon is on [insert subject here]", he comes out and says "Today we're in [Book, Chapter, Verse]".

They use the inductive study method:

1. What the verse says.
2. What the verse means.
3. The CONTEXT, which is one of the most important parts where misunderstanding of verse context can create different denominations including Catholicism (see below for an example).
4. Other translations. Often a word will appear that shows up one way in NKJV, when the original Greek or Hebrew word has multiple meanings and they'll point it out like "In this translation the word is [word], the original Greek/Hebrew word for this is [this] and it can mean [this] or [this].

An example of using the correct context in a verse would be Matthew 16 beginning in verse 13, which is where the Catholics got the idea that Peter was the first Pope and Christ's Church due to Peter being called Cephus (or rock) many times in the gospels. But the Catholics at the time didn't really understand the context of the exchange.

13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

This is where Jesus and his disciples were standing:

To the right of that image you may be able to see little indentations in the ROCK. At that time people would put statues of their gods in those little holes, so when Jesus asked his disciples “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” he was looking at these to see what his disciples would say. The rock that Jesus would build his Church was literally "this rock" that they were standing on; not Peter.

Calvary Chapel, eh?

Proceeding through the Bible sequentially by the traditional Protestant text order doesn't magically make sermons less prone to error. (BTW, I don't think you ought to criticize the Catholic Church for "pulling sermons out of a hat"- their Liturgy of the Hours is the most comprehensive system of enforcing study through the whole of Scripture I know, and it's required for all clergy and deacons in the Church to use it daily.)

 

[Karakand]

You have to understand some relatively bright people still like to play the "rebel" role even beyond teenagers.

I'm not sure I follow. :-/

 

[Tamanon]

I'm not sure I follow. :-/

Just that even though kids are taught the right way, they're also taught to question. That's not a bad thing

What is faith without doubt?

 

[Stoney Mason]

I'm not sure I follow. :-/

Just saying I know bright people who have their own personal absurd theories about some real absurd things. Either because they don't fully understand something or they make the mistake of thinking they have a revolutionary new insight or position into an age old problem (the rebel aspect) that has already been discussed or dismissed many times over. Young people especially tend to fall into these traps because they have so little experience but older people do it too was all that I way saying.

 

[msv]

Well, the term "Wife" means, and has always meant, a married WOMAN. I guess that when Jesus spoke those words, in Aramaic of course, he didn't really think people would question the definition of what "Wife" was considering it had always been accepted to define a married woman.

Definitions change over time. How do you know that was the definition at the time?

I mean, seriously, we are really splitting hairs here. I, and I'm assuming You, have always understood and known that the term "wife" stood as the definition of a married woman and that it has ALWAYS gone uncontested. Well, at least uncontested until today that is.

Sure as hell I'm splitting hairs if it's my philosophy and understanding of life and norms (as in what one should and shouldn't do - prescriptive). I try to question everything, so I as well question this.

Lovely, so the OP was accurate. I'll repeat what I said in the last thread. Carl Sagan was a far more effective communicator in his approach then the Dawkins manner. The OP article is further proof of this.

That is merely your opinion. I don't know if Sagan is more effective in his communications than Dawkins, it could just as well be the other way around. The article the OP posted isn't proof against Dawkins' rhetoric, maybe merely proof for the effectiveness of Sagan's rhetoric. The article seems fake to me though, seems more like a story with all the detail.




Also, for the people still claiming Agnosticism (on the first few pages in this thread) has anything to do with Atheism, you're wrong. Agnosticism is more of a statement saying 'It is ultimately unknowable or unknown'. Atheism, on the other hand, concerns the belief that there is no deity or simple the absence of belief in deities.

Now I can understand people confusing the two, since 'believing' can be mistaken for 'knowing'. This is not the case though, since belief can be many of things - but not knowledge (in and of itself - check Wikipedia for that one). I've looked at the dictionary.com site and it said

be·lief Audio Help /bɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-leef] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

This means belief is an opinion or conviction, but not a truth-claim. Therefore one can be agnostic as well as an atheist. You can be an agnostic atheist in many ways as well - just being agnostic for the sake of admitting you can't know anything for sure, or maybe you give it far more plausibility and are sitting on the fence - giving it whatever plausibility you wish.

English is not my first language though, so forgive me if I've made any mistakes - I got my info from reading the definitions online.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Just saying I know bright people who have their own personal absurd theories about some real absurd things.

Hey man, don't blame me when the spiders of the world gain sentience and enslave all of humanity for food!

 

[Tamanon]

I actually want to see 9/11 Truthers debate Creationists to see who has a better understanding of scientific theory.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Hey man, don't blame me when the spiders of the world gain sentience and enslave all of humanity for food!

Crabs already beat them to to it: