same here, with just minor differences in how we say it.-The bible was written thousands of years ago. They did a nice job for what they saw around them. I say it was nice because they used what they knew to describe what they don't know. That's real science to me.-"god" for me is not "not knowable", that's not a double negative there. We can use what we know to describe "it" the best way we can. We can narrow some of the possible traits' of "it". This should be done as a group because I, as an individual, could distort the perception, skew the data, so to speak. The scientific method applies.
 
I am ok with anthropomorphizes things. It is ok as long as we are being careful. I think of it as a tool in a tool box. It is one of the major "tools" we use on a regular basis to "build" an understanding. But it is not use as much in "finishing trim" ... we don't use a hammer to sand drywall smooth. -for me, the bible: An ape "awoke" and asked "What am I?" The universe answered with the "bible". "You are human." It delivered this answer as fast as this ape would accept it.-Where I differ from 'bible thumpers", is that I see no reason to change the traits of god as we learn more about the universe. Almost the exact same thing as my child changing his view(traits) of me as they grow. Then finally, when he is man enough, he understands that, in the end, we are both as human as we can be.-My sect of agnosticism: Use what you know to describe something you don't know. With total focus on two notions. One, That we can have more than one reasonable conclusion(s). Two, we can change our conclusion based on new data. In other words, it is a beautiful thing when we find out we were dead wrong. That is a religious experience!-So they have "a body rises". I have "it is great to be wrong because I learnt something new". I see why they think I am crazy. :). They think "I like being wrong". Silly ape.