[JolánGagó]

Originally Posted by Clydey

It's not personal, Habib. It's just frustrating. I'm pretty much a veteran when it comes to these religious discussions and I hear the same arguments over and over. When you're not discussing religion, you're a sound guy. When you start talking about religion, though, I just want beat you over the head with a science textbook.

Your arguments aren't exactly original either. Every forum on the internet, be it about tennis or icelandic reptiles has a thread like this, and every thread like this have a guy like you repeating all over the same

in fact this very same discussion is almost as old as mankind so stop pretending originality FFS.

[Clydey]

Originally Posted by JolánGagó

Exactly. Pure belief based on no scientific evidence.

Just like not believing in fairies and unicorns is "pure belief".

[Clydey]

Originally Posted by Har-Tru

Agnosticism is clearly the most "natural" position. Any other thing is based on pure belief.

It's not natural and it isn't practical. As I said earlier, we are all technically agnostics. In practice, none of us are. Are you an agnostic when it comes to every other God that has been invented throughout history? Technically, you are. However, if someone asks you if Zeus exists, your opinion is going to be "no".

[Clydey]

Originally Posted by JolánGagó

Your arguments aren't exactly original either. Every forum on the internet, be it about tennis or icelandic reptiles has a thread like this, and every thread like this have a guy like you repeating all over the same

in fact this very same discussion is almost as old as mankind so stop pretending originality FFS.

It's not the fact that the arguments are unoriginal. It's that they don't hold up under scrutiny.

Glad you entered the thread, though. That's all this thread needs, someone who thinks that not believing in fairies and unicorns requires just as much faith as a positive belief in an all-powerful deity.

[GlennMirnyi]

Originally Posted by DCM

Longest argument in the history of MTF??

Of course, Clydey's in it.

Originally Posted by JolánGagó

Exactly. Pure belief based on no scientific evidence.

Why would I explain that, Im not a believer

Now you try to scientifically explain why there musn't be a God, or ask Clydey to. Good luck.

You said that agnosticism is the most scientific position. Prove it.

It's not scientific to believe in a superior power. It's scientific to believe only in something you can prove its existence.

Originally Posted by Har-Tru

Agnosticism is clearly the most "natural" position. Any other thing is based on pure belief.

So it's natural for you to believe in a superior power... interesting.

That's called inferiority complex.

[Echoes]

God is not a superior power for everybody (or at least not an omnipotent being). I would say for Christians it's the creative power of the universe and the power who creates our own free will (if I'm wrong just correct me).

I rather like that idea. It reminds me of what John Fowles argued in The French Lieutenant's Woman : "If God exists, it can only be the Freedom that allows other freedoms to exist." And I think it's close to the Christian point of view.

Free will to me has religious origins. If everything is material that means we would be predetermined by chemical reactions. I personnally can't believe in that. But that's just belief and I assume it.

Believing in some you can prove the existence is rather silly because if you can prove it you just CAN'T deny it. If you believe in something or in something else, it just mean you can't prove it. But by the way science can only focus on material things. So what about abstraction? Sentimentality: love, hate, beauty, ugliness, etc. What has science to do with that?

[Har-Tru]

Originally Posted by Clydey

It's not natural and it isn't practical. As I said earlier, we are all technically agnostics. In practice, none of us are. Are you an agnostic when it comes to every other God that has been invented throughout history? Technically, you are. However, if someone asks you if Zeus exists, your opinion is going to be "no".

I take the notion "is there a God"? when I say agnosticism is the most natural position. Not "does this X God exist?".

Originally Posted by GlennMirnyi

Of course, Clydey's in it.

This is gold.

So it's natural for you to believe in a superior power... interesting.

That's called inferiority complex.

What you on about? I said agnosticism is the most natural position.

[GlennMirnyi]

Originally Posted by Har-Tru

I take the notion "is there a God"? when I say agnosticism is the most natural position. Not "does this X God exist?".



This is gold.



What you on about? I said agnosticism is the most natural position.

Agnosticism is believing in a superior power but not actually acknowledging any superior power as religions say so.

[Sunset of Age]

No.

[JolánGagó]

Originally Posted by GlennMirnyi

Of course, Clydey's in it.



You said that agnosticism is the most scientific position. Prove it.

It's not scientific to believe in a superior power. It's scientific to believe only in something you can prove its existence.



So it's natural for you to believe in a superior power... interesting.

That's called inferiority complex.

Originally Posted by GlennMirnyi

Agnosticism is believing in a superior power but not actually acknowledging any superior power as religions say so.

you obviously have no clue of what agnosticism means

[GlennMirnyi]

Originally Posted by JolánGagó

you obviously have no clue of what agnosticism means

Look who's talking: someone who can't grasp what atheism means.

[JolánGagó]

My dad is bigger than yours

[ShotmaKer]

some of the arguments in this thread are pure gem

[Har-Tru]

Originally Posted by GlennMirnyi

Agnosticism is believing in a superior power but not actually acknowledging any superior power as religions say so.

Agnosticism is not knowing. Simple as that.

Noun: agnosticism ag'nós-ti`si-zum

1. A religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God
"agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"

[Jōris]

Pretty good discussion, guys. Habibko won it by reason of having an argument that resembles mine.