Is agnosticism even a religion?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-09-2012, 09:26 PM (This post was last modified: 07-09-2012 09:30 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is agnosticism even a religion?
(07-09-2012 09:14 PM)runallday4 Wrote:  What I really meant to ask was if you agree with Laci Green (the girl in the video).

I think you are still misunderstanding the definition of the two words. Agnosticism isn't it's own category. It's not atheist, agnostic, or theist. It's agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, and gnostic theist.

I call myself an atheist (if we're being technical and agnostic atheist), but I think that's how most atheists are, there not saying they're certain, they're saying that's what they believe. I'm just as open to the possibility of a God as you are. If there was some clear sign that one existed I would believe in it.

Yeah we got the question, and we already said we don't agree with her. She posits that atheism is a positive "belief". It is not. Did you even read the replies ?

The is no ONE definition of the words, as we pointed out above. How YOU choose to do it is YOUR business. Don't tell me how to do it, or what it means when I say those words. What are you saying EXACTLY, that atheists "believe". Define belief. I'm not "open" to the possibility of gods, for the reasons stated above. Are YOU "open" to the possibility that there is a 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto ? What would YOU consider a "clear sign" that there is a god, (and how would you KNOW you were not mis-interpreting what you consider to be a "sign" ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2012, 10:29 PM
RE: Is agnosticism even a religion?
Hey, Run.

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word polysemy.

The great humanist John Ralston Saul offers this warning:

Quote:We often think of definition as a cornerstone of reason – as our protection against superstition, prejudice and ignorance. A definition is therefore intended to clarify things, to free us for action. But what we have seen in our society is that a definition can just as easily become a means of control, a profoundly reactionary force.

‘Well what is your definition of ethics? Ah, well, if that’s your definition…’

And so, rather scholastic conventions can lock us into assumptions of inevitability and give comfort to received wisdom. A definition then becomes a crutch for certainty and ideology.
(Saul, On Equilibrium, p 11-12)

What you are doing by demanding adherence to your chosen definition is working in service of an ideological position by blocking a return to discourse and denying the existence of other ideologies.

Hey, Rahn.

Word.

Hey, Bucky.

Quote:I don't like it, but I recognize it's "out there".

I feel exactly the same about Agnostic Atheist Cool

Probably not worth getting into an argument about, but I'll offer this counter argument. It's possible to prove that a 1957 Chevy is in orbit of Pluto. We have telescopes, we can send probes, set the long range scanners on the Enterprise to... well, I suppose we don't have those, but you see what I mean. We can also look at the manifests of any space missions to Pluto. I don't know of any, so the list will be relatively short. So for me, there's two differences. One can say "there is not" or "I don't know" while waiting for the evidence. The other difference is that it's possible to find evidence of the car, but impossible to find evidence of God. The first is undemonstrated, the latter is indemonstrable. So I, for one, reserve my judgement on both.

Hey, Shiruba.

Quote:Who ever said I closed my views on anything spiritual? I never said that and I would not believe but if you at least provided evidence for it.

That's actually exactly what I mean.

Your willingness to accept and explore end at evidence. That's the cut off point. The difference between you and I seems to be that I say "I don't know" in the face of no evidence while you say "I don't believe it". This is because for you, there is nothing beyond science. This is how you cut yourself off. I allow for the possibility to run free through my mind because for me, there is a possibility of something beyond science.

Quote:What we call "science" is only one particular science, a style of filtering experience that has been designed by and for a culture of uniformity and central control. It accepts only experiences that can be translated into numbers, that are available to everyone, and that can be reproduced on command. This is what scientists mean when they demand "proof." But this is only a tiny thread of all possible experiences, most of which are unique, not quantifiable, not reproducible, and not the same for all observers.
-Ran Prieur

Quote:What if the spaghetti monster talked through him to reveal itself?

Then that is a different claim. And no, I don't know if it's true. I have no reason to believe it's true and no reason to believe it's false. You seem to think that it's obvious that it's untrue. That is where you and I differ. "Obvious" isn't good enough for me.

Quote:You either worship a deity or you don't.

The term worship appears nowhere in anyone's definition of Atheism. It's an interesting requirement but not a very good one. Someone can very easily believe in the existence of God (be a Theist) and not worship that God. Here's a frivolous example.





So no, we aren't very different when it comes to worship, but that has nothing to do with my definition and nothing to do with the definition that you yourself are championing.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2012, 10:34 PM
RE: Is agnosticism even a religion?
There is a spectrum in confidence between belief and knowledge.
If you are lead into a room, blindfolded and then asked, "What room do you believe you are in" ?
You gained some facts about the room as you walked into it from the sounds that echoed around the walls.
"This appears to be a very large room" and as you say the words, the echo from those sounds help to increase your confidence in that belief.
You are escorted to the center of the room and you notice that the material you are walking on has changed. It sounds like a wooden floor.
More information is gathered through sound and your confidence about a particular type of room comes to mind but you need more information.

At this time several people enter the room and begin to run around bouncing balls. At this point you are fairly confident that these balls are basketballs.
Your belief about what room you are in is extremely high. You are confident that you are in a gymnasium and that people are bouncing basketballs.
At this stage, it is still belief, but it's not unjustified. The justification for your belief increases as more information is received.

When the blindfold comes off and you are aware that you are in a gymnasium, then that is when belief becomes knowledge.
I would contend that knowledge is the highest form of belief. I believe it to be true that I am in a gymnasium because I am aware that I am in a gymnasium.

Then we can also look at the opposite side of this.
Someone is lead into a very small quiet room. The sound is muffled on the walls to create no echo. The floor as you walked in felt like very thick carpet.
The person with you asks "Where do you believe you are" ?
You respond "I'm in my grandparents house. This the house I use to visit as a child. I remember the carpet. I can smell my grandmother baking fresh bread"
The person with you asks you to describe what you hear.
You respond "I can hear my mother helping my grandmother in the kitchen. I heard my grandfather strike a match to light his pipe"
In the room, you begin to feel around for furniture that you believe to be there. "Where is the sofa ? It should be here. Did someone move it"

At this point, you could be considered a theist. A person who confidently believes that something is true, without any evidence.
There is no justification for this person's belief and yet the person is so highly confident in their belief, they will call it knowledge before the blindfold is removed.
When it is removed, this person will then try to rationalize how they were teleported from their grandparents house to this small room.
This person will refuse to believe the reality that they are faced with and instead invent a scenario that fits with what they believe, no matter how fantasy like it is.

The agnostic in both scenarios of the gymnasium and the small room would simply say "I don't know"

In the end, I think I would disagree with Laci and say that knowledge and belief do belong in the same category as a spectrum from one to the other.
Knowledge = highly confident justified belief concerning the awareness of the observations you have made. (something like that)

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2012, 11:03 PM
RE: Is agnosticism even a religion?
Types of agnosticism
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories, some of which may be disputed. Variations include:

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not believe in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

Spiritual agnosticism
The view that universal ethics and love can guide actions more effectively than questioning the existence of deities. A spiritual agnostic would say "It doesn't matter which religion you might follow, nor does it matter whether or not you believe in God. What matters is what you do, not what you believe."

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
08-09-2012, 12:44 AM
RE: Is agnosticism even a religion?
(07-09-2012 10:29 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Run.

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word polysemy.

The great humanist John Ralston Saul offers this warning:

Quote:We often think of definition as a cornerstone of reason – as our protection against superstition, prejudice and ignorance. A definition is therefore intended to clarify things, to free us for action. But what we have seen in our society is that a definition can just as easily become a means of control, a profoundly reactionary force.

‘Well what is your definition of ethics? Ah, well, if that’s your definition…’

And so, rather scholastic conventions can lock us into assumptions of inevitability and give comfort to received wisdom. A definition then becomes a crutch for certainty and ideology.
(Saul, On Equilibrium, p 11-12)

What you are doing by demanding adherence to your chosen definition is working in service of an ideological position by blocking a return to discourse and denying the existence of other ideologies.

Hey, Rahn.

Word.

Hey, Bucky.

Quote:I don't like it, but I recognize it's "out there".

I feel exactly the same about Agnostic Atheist Cool

Probably not worth getting into an argument about, but I'll offer this counter argument. It's possible to prove that a 1957 Chevy is in orbit of Pluto. We have telescopes, we can send probes, set the long range scanners on the Enterprise to... well, I suppose we don't have those, but you see what I mean. We can also look at the manifests of any space missions to Pluto. I don't know of any, so the list will be relatively short. So for me, there's two differences. One can say "there is not" or "I don't know" while waiting for the evidence. The other difference is that it's possible to find evidence of the car, but impossible to find evidence of God. The first is undemonstrated, the latter is indemonstrable. So I, for one, reserve my judgement on both.

Hey, Shiruba.

Quote:Who ever said I closed my views on anything spiritual? I never said that and I would not believe but if you at least provided evidence for it.

That's actually exactly what I mean.

Your willingness to accept and explore end at evidence. That's the cut off point. The difference between you and I seems to be that I say "I don't know" in the face of no evidence while you say "I don't believe it". This is because for you, there is nothing beyond science. This is how you cut yourself off. I allow for the possibility to run free through my mind because for me, there is a possibility of something beyond science.

Quote:What we call "science" is only one particular science, a style of filtering experience that has been designed by and for a culture of uniformity and central control. It accepts only experiences that can be translated into numbers, that are available to everyone, and that can be reproduced on command. This is what scientists mean when they demand "proof." But this is only a tiny thread of all possible experiences, most of which are unique, not quantifiable, not reproducible, and not the same for all observers.
-Ran Prieur

Quote:What if the spaghetti monster talked through him to reveal itself?

Then that is a different claim. And no, I don't know if it's true. I have no reason to believe it's true and no reason to believe it's false. You seem to think that it's obvious that it's untrue. That is where you and I differ. "Obvious" isn't good enough for me.

Quote:You either worship a deity or you don't.

The term worship appears nowhere in anyone's definition of Atheism. It's an interesting requirement but not a very good one. Someone can very easily believe in the existence of God (be a Theist) and not worship that God. Here's a frivolous example.

Like Satanist's for example?





So no, we aren't very different when it comes to worship, but that has nothing to do with my definition and nothing to do with the definition that you yourself are championing.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Well the thing is I believe everything can be explained because we live in a rational universe. I understand that you believe your mind is more open but I don't believe it is. I'm not asking for a miracle or something impossible to get. I'm asking for a body, a real thing you can show me or something you can prove. It isn't that much and while you may say it is more open you already have shown you don't believe in ridiculous things like the flying spaghetti monster or the pink unicorn. Now you say you don't know. What would convince you to know? Would evidence convince you? You believe science cuts me off but I believe it explains the mysterious and discovers things I didn't know. I don't think it cuts anyone off I believe it builds the bridges of knowledge and understanding. It doesn't cut off my understanding but increases it.

I believe someone already brought up a good point. Would it be logical for me to believe that a Chevy truck was spinning around Pluto? I believe it would not. Now you say its because it is obvious that it is why I don't believe that. Well no, I do not believe so because Chevy did not launch a model of their car towards the small planet or we have no photos or evidence one exists out there. It isn't only obvious but nothing observed has shown us any evidence to believe so.

Like Satanist's for example?

I'm not championing the definition but I believe worship goes strong with religion. If worshiping this deity didn't exist there would be no religion. Just a basic belief in a deity.

The video is not working can you try to find another?

I like hearing your replies and different views. I think its interesting. Smile

I also think FStratZero explains it well.

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F Kennedy

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

It has been a long time. How have you been?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2012, 07:27 AM
RE: Is agnosticism even a religion?
Hey, Shiruba.

Quote:Well the thing is I believe everything can be explained because we live in a rational universe. I understand that you believe your mind is more open but I don't believe it is. I'm not asking for a miracle or something impossible to get. I'm asking for a body, a real thing you can show me or something you can prove. It isn't that much and while you may say it is more open you already have shown you don't believe in ridiculous things like the flying spaghetti monster or the pink unicorn.

Show me where I said I disbelieve the existence of the pink unicorn.

I think "ridiculous" is the key word here. It's not one that I use so flippantly.

You do believe that everything can be explained by science. Because of that, you summarily dismiss anything that falls outside of that realm (what Prieur was talking about). I am not the same as you. While I only believe with certainty that which has been demonstrated, my mind does not eliminate the possibility of things that fall outside of it. I can listen to the "ridiculous" Animist mythology of an Amazonian tribe and consider it as a possibility. I consider there being a creator of the universe as a possibility. Everything is a possibility. Nothing is summarily dismissed. That is why you have closed yourself off to a greater spiritual reality and I have not.

I'm also a cultural relativist and a social constructivist, both of which dovetail with my Agnosticism nicely, but that's not truly germane to this conversation.

Quote:Now you say you don't know. What would convince you to know? Would evidence convince you? You believe science cuts me off but I believe it explains the mysterious and discovers things I didn't know. I don't think it cuts anyone off I believe it builds the bridges of knowledge and understanding. It doesn't cut off my understanding but increases it.

Evidence would convince me. It would do a fantastic job of convincing me. And I too believe that it explains all manner of phenomena. Science does increase my understanding of the universe. But what it does not do, is limit it, as it does with you.

Quote:I believe someone already brought up a good point. Would it be logical for me to believe that a Chevy truck was spinning around Pluto? I believe it would not. Now you say its because it is obvious that it is why I don't believe that. Well no, I do not believe so because Chevy did not launch a model of their car towards the small planet or we have no photos or evidence one exists out there. It isn't only obvious but nothing observed has shown us any evidence to believe so.

I don't see how "logical" factors into it.

I find your wording somewhat confusing, but I'll try to wade through.

If someone told me that a Chevy was in orbit of Pluto, I'd have neither a reason to believe them nor a reason to disbelieve them. If they cannot offer me proof, then I do not disbelieve it, I reserve my judgement. I would not say, "I don't believe it," but I imagine, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you would. I believe that they believe it, which is an interesting thing to think about, but that's where it ends. It remains, in my mind, a possibility.

The difference between that Chevy and God is that we can find out about the Chevy.

But there's also context. If someone tells me that humans put the car there, then suddenly it doesn't make sense because there have been no missions to Pluto, let alone one where they sent a 1957 Chevy and I'm aware of the magnitude of such an endeavour. Based on those facts, that particular claim seems unlikely. If the person goes on to claim that there are missions off the books, suddenly I go back to reserving my judgement. If someone tells me the Chevy formed spontaneously, then suddenly it doesn't make sense because the laws of entropy forbid that sort of thing from happening. If the person goes on to claim that there is some physical law that I'm unaware of that suggests that complex machinery just winks into existence, I got back to reserving my judgement until I see proof of such a law. If he tells me that a wizard did it, I reserve my judgement immediately.

I think where we converge is that neither of us will consider something as certain without evidence. Where we diverge is that in the absence of evidence, you disbelieve while I reserve my judgement.

Thus, for me, the fundamental difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is that Atheists lack belief (and in some cases disbelieve) while Agnostics remain neutral. While in the strictest sense, someone who is neutral is not on one side of a dichotomous argument (so in that sense, I'm an Atheist), truthfully, they aren't really on either side. They are neutral. Which is it's own category.

The video is of Conan the Barbarian, who has believed in the existence of the god Crom all of his life, explaining to Crom that he does not worship him, nor does he pray to him (because he believes Crom does not listen). He asks Crom to grant him revenge and, "If you will not listen, then to Hell with you!"

It's just an example of a believer not worshiping.

Conan talks about Crom in another part of the movie. From 1:08-2:18.





Here's another version of the other clip.





Oh, and here's the scene where his father commits an act of child abuse by indoctrinating his son Tongue





Conversely, someone could go to church and worship and not believe in God.

All of this is to say that your worship criteria doesn't seem to get the job done.

ON EDIT: Holy disabled embedding, Batman! Just click on the "watch it on YouTube" link and you can see it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2012, 07:57 AM
RE: Is agnosticism even a religion?
(08-09-2012 12:44 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  
(07-09-2012 10:29 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Run.

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word polysemy.

The great humanist John Ralston Saul offers this warning:


What you are doing by demanding adherence to your chosen definition is working in service of an ideological position by blocking a return to discourse and denying the existence of other ideologies.

Hey, Rahn.

Word.

Hey, Bucky.


I feel exactly the same about Agnostic Atheist Cool

Probably not worth getting into an argument about, but I'll offer this counter argument. It's possible to prove that a 1957 Chevy is in orbit of Pluto. We have telescopes, we can send probes, set the long range scanners on the Enterprise to... well, I suppose we don't have those, but you see what I mean. We can also look at the manifests of any space missions to Pluto. I don't know of any, so the list will be relatively short. So for me, there's two differences. One can say "there is not" or "I don't know" while waiting for the evidence. The other difference is that it's possible to find evidence of the car, but impossible to find evidence of God. The first is undemonstrated, the latter is indemonstrable. So I, for one, reserve my judgement on both.

Hey, Shiruba.


That's actually exactly what I mean.

Your willingness to accept and explore end at evidence. That's the cut off point. The difference between you and I seems to be that I say "I don't know" in the face of no evidence while you say "I don't believe it". This is because for you, there is nothing beyond science. This is how you cut yourself off. I allow for the possibility to run free through my mind because for me, there is a possibility of something beyond science.



Then that is a different claim. And no, I don't know if it's true. I have no reason to believe it's true and no reason to believe it's false. You seem to think that it's obvious that it's untrue. That is where you and I differ. "Obvious" isn't good enough for me.


The term worship appears nowhere in anyone's definition of Atheism. It's an interesting requirement but not a very good one. Someone can very easily believe in the existence of God (be a Theist) and not worship that God. Here's a frivolous example.

Like Satanist's for example?





So no, we aren't very different when it comes to worship, but that has nothing to do with my definition and nothing to do with the definition that you yourself are championing.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Well the thing is I believe everything can be explained because we live in a rational universe. I understand that you believe your mind is more open but I don't believe it is. I'm not asking for a miracle or something impossible to get. I'm asking for a body, a real thing you can show me or something you can prove. It isn't that much and while you may say it is more open you already have shown you don't believe in ridiculous things like the flying spaghetti monster or the pink unicorn. Now you say you don't know. What would convince you to know? Would evidence convince you? You believe science cuts me off but I believe it explains the mysterious and discovers things I didn't know. I don't think it cuts anyone off I believe it builds the bridges of knowledge and understanding. It doesn't cut off my understanding but increases it.

I believe someone already brought up a good point. Would it be logical for me to believe that a Chevy truck was spinning around Pluto? I believe it would not. Now you say its because it is obvious that it is why I don't believe that. Well no, I do not believe so because Chevy did not launch a model of their car towards the small planet or we have no photos or evidence one exists out there. It isn't only obvious but nothing observed has shown us any evidence to believe so.

Like Satanist's for example?

I'm not championing the definition but I believe worship goes strong with religion. If worshiping this deity didn't exist there would be no religion. Just a basic belief in a deity.

The video is not working can you try to find another?

I like hearing your replies and different views. I think its interesting. Smile

I also think FStratZero explains it well.

I do think that everything can be explained. However, I think we don't know shit. 50 years from now people will laugh at some of what we think to be true, just like we laugh at some things that were believed to be true 50 yerars ago.

Note the word "believe" in this.

In science, we can find something and say: "ok, this has held up to x,y and z tests and it always comes out the same. Therefore it is true."

The fallacies here are huge. Firstly, x, y and z tests may not be all the tests that can be done, they are just what we know to test for.

Secondly, what we are testing may just be a peripheral aspect of a much larger whole, and when we come across the whole our tests will bring totally different results.

Every generation of scientists believes that they have finally gotten to the bottom of this or that. Next it turns out it was a false bottom, and there are levels below it.

There is a lot of "believing" in science, despite all the "proving".

It doesn't really matter though, as long as we are progressing. We may not know shit, but we have identified bird droppings. It's the correct road to go.

We are extremely limited by our physical senses and our language. What we cannot perceive or express can't be proven. Yes, we have tools to see some of what our eyes can't see by themselves. But our eyes still have to be able to see the proof, and our language must be able to communicate it. We are making progress penetrating into the "unperceiveable". But we do have to acknowledge that by nature we are still extremely limited.

So, even in science, there is a lot of belief. Call it "assume to be true" and you'll feel more comfortable, but it's still the same thing.

Anyway, I say that we don't know shit and that's why I call myself a freethinker. I think that the existance of a "god", i.e. something that can be perceived by us and has greater powers than us, is extremely unlikely.

But then, maybe someplace in our universe, or another universe, there is a whole colony of such "gods", i.e. beings that are way superior to us. Maybe they have always been that way, or maybe they are just more evolved. Can't prove it, can't disprove it, but I think it to be possible.

Maybe our "universe" is just like a forest, and we are an ant hill in that forest. And some day a kid with a stick will come along and poke into our hill to watch us run around like chickens without a head. And people will say "god" came to us and try to somehow appease the kid.

Who knows? Humans sure don't. All sorts of things are possible. So I am back again to the fact that we don't know shit. We don't even know everything that's in the food we stick into our mouths every day, nor everything about our own brains.

I can see the validity of all the labels we are discussing here. So I am a freethinker, I don't want to limit myself by categorizing myself with any of the labels.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: Is agnosticism even a religion?
I'm technically Agnostic, but I don't have a religion.

Atheists- Believe that nothing happened for no reason and that everything just appeared and often try to act as if they are smarter than the average human being and telling people what really happened.

Agnostic- People who aren't sure what exists and prefer not focus on the subject because they have better things to do with their lives instead of worrying about some bullshit that happened billions of years ago.

Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 04:22 PM
RE: Is agnosticism even a religion?
Drive-by necroposting for juvenile self-gratification. And I thought I didn't have a life. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: Is agnosticism even a religion?
(06-09-2012 09:23 PM)runallday4 Wrote:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIKeC9k2-Jg

In this video she explains that agnosticism actually isn't a religion. Is she right?

Yes. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: