You too!

Fair enough. So thank you for these conversations and your seeking.

Maybe I should change that to “agnostic and questioning”. If I were strictly agnostic, then I’d believe it’s impossible to know. I don’t think it’s impossible to know, I just know I haven’t found anything convincing yet.

Not to be rude (because you and I have had some good conversations that I have enjoyed), but isn't agnosticism a bit of an evasive position—a shoulder shrug in a discipline where truth really matters? If Christianity is possible, doesn't that justify serious investigation rather than complacent fence-sitting? People have to live by some vision and some sensible paradigm. Isn't it true that one really can't remain agnostic on many existential questions? If you live your life suspending judgment on such matters, I would guess you're just not doing your homework. I'm trying to be respectful, not rude; these are honest questions. So (and I'm being serious): Is agnosticism a way to avoid the questions? Maybe you haven't yet been convinced in one direction or another, but you can always choose to look, seek, and understand. I can't imagine someone would just sit comfortably in the "agnostic" seats and never try to get a better view of the state.

Good point! This is a main reason why I’m agnostic actually, instead of atheist.

We don't. Lots of people are good without God, and that's a good thing. We need as many good people as possible in the world.

I think the problem is more on the side of the atheists. For the atheist or the scientific naturalist, what reason is there to be good besides self-interest (survival or self or of one's community)? And in that case, goodness is defined as selfishness, which creates a bit of a problem.

I am good because it speaks to a deeper truth than survival. It speaks to the value of an objective morality that sees God-like value in other humans beings and in everything He has created. It speaks to the virtue of goodness as a way to speak God through relationships.

Another problem for scientific naturalists is also to have to justify why there is even such a construct as good, aside from an artificial fabrication to enhance the possibility of survival. If we are but an agglomeration of chemicals governed by genetic mutation and natural selection, what does "good" have to do with anything except a latent vestige of more violent days when non-survival was more a daily threat. And yet we must also ask, in a world of overpopulation, starvation, disease, and a dearth of adequate resources, could not one just as easily define "good" (in terms of survival) as decimating half of the global population to make survival easier for the remaining ones?

One can readily see that "good" as a survival construct is a shaky proposition and a vulnerable axiom.

To me, if you need the excuse of religion to do good things (charity, loving others etc) than you’re a bad person. If I need a god to tell me to love others, then that’s a problem.