An agnostic doesn't believe in a god though. He/she just says "maybe, maybe not, nobody knows".
That's hardly ruling god out altogether.
An agnostic doesn't believe in a god though. He/she just says "maybe, maybe not, nobody knows".
That's hardly ruling god out altogether.
^ This is the definition of an agnostic:
. one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God
. one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism
see:
agnostic - definition of agnostic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
So an agnostic could not vote "both", because that involves voting for an option that he\she believes is either impossible to know or is sceptical about.
I voted 'both' as science explains much but I also think 'god' is too simplistic an explanation for something that probably goes way beyond our comprehension to understand (or science to explain). I'm sceptical of both science and religion though lean towards science. According to the other poll I'm a Weak Atheist. So I guess there are many shades of grey.
define science? define god?
God created or made science possible. Even science is limited by human comprehension that's makes it limited in its own right.
Science is something you can disprove with evidence. Belief is not involved.
I agree, science is very limited!!
The way I see it, science does require belief. You believe that you are alive. You can not proove that you are alive, you believe it.
We believe that there is a reality, but we can´t proove it. We can say "I see reality, and I hear it, and I feel real objects with my hands". But that is not proof, it is belief. To make scientific experiments and to scientifically proove certain facts, we must agree on the belief that reality is real. Science can not proove that being alive and awake isn´t an illusion.