View Single Post
#1
Old 02-09-2013, 11:08 AM
Tom Cruise
Co.cktail
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Reading UK
Age: 23
Posts: 4,170
Rep Power: 27 Tom Cruise has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cruise has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cruise has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cruise has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cruise has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cruise has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cruise has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cruise has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cruise has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cruise has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cruise has a reputation beyond repute
Points: 1,110,000,202,973.94
Bank: 255,324,994,149.91
Total Points: 1,365,325,197,123.85
thanks for the green! - jose830 enjoy the beer and the boobies :beerchug: - jose830 Thanks for the green...eat a healthy burger :D - jose830 
Troop and Military Support - Amber Alert - Bladder Cancer - Endometriosis - Equality - Liver Cancer - Liver Disease - Missing Children - POW/MIA - Spina Bifida - Suicide - HUGH JASS 
Default I just dont get Agnosticism

I hear a lot of my friends, and other people, declaring themselves Agnostic at the moment, I just dont see the point.

Their justification is that it is more scientific to acknowledge the possibilty that a god(s) exist than to outright deny it. Ok so if I acknowledge the very small possibility (IMO) that there is an all controlling god or gods, then surely, going by scientific principals, I would only believe in it if there was proof that it/they existed? Thereby making the 'god' a part of science and a rationable explainable being which does not require any element of faith to believe in it.

Do we need a new a classification for people who acknowledge the possibility that when they are inside the sky turns red? or who think there is a small chance they are the subject of a 'Truman Show' type program? (dont lie we've all been there)

Have I misunderstood what Agnosticism is? Are there any Agnostics on this forum who would argue against?
Reply With Quote
Tom Cruise is offline