Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ozymandias]

lol, tryhard. never said it was evidence of existence.

no ,if you want to dismiss a claim as nonexistent or impossible, it is up to you to prove it does not exist or is not possible.

Sure -- but that's not what atheism is. Atheism is *not* the claim that gods do not, or can not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is not a claim, it is a rejection of a claim.

otherwise you have to keep in mind that the claim is a possiblity. that is; keep an open mind.

Sure, it's possible (it's also possible that I am a 42 foot tall, purple orangutan with magic powers) -- and if you want to convince anyone it is more than a mere possibility, you need to provide evidence for your claims.

[ozymandias]

This ought to help clear up your confusion about the words 'atheist' and 'agnostic', as used in theological discussions:

[ozymandias]

Another picture that was shared with me today:
It's a simplistic, graphical explanation of how science works, and why it's not a bad thing that science changes -- it's because we get more, and better data.

[faye]

No, that's the reason why it is a logical fallacy. No word games needed. When having a logical discussion or debate, in order to come to conclusions you can trust as valid, you need to follow the rules of logic.

here is my illogical analysis of your behaviour which i consider valid.

you have no answer to the question because the scientists haven't produced one for you yet, so you use your geek logic and word games, to infer that the question is stupid, thereby inferring that to even ask such a question, is stupid, therefore the questioner is stupid.
this is an avoidance and intimidation tactic, by you, to not have to admit, 'I DO NOT KNOW'

i don't need to follow rules set down by a robotic mentality, that shows great limitations. that is your problem.

[faye]

[QUOTE=ozymandias;656637] (it's also possible that I am a 42 foot tall, purple orangutan with magic powers....

.well, it's also possible that this is another flaky, geek, word game, intended to mock the idea of being open minded.

the idea of open mindedness must be a thorn in the side of those who aren't capable of such but then, that is your choice.

[ozymandias]

[QUOTE=faye;656655]

here is my illogical analysis of your behaviour which i consider valid.

you have no answer to the question

Funny -- you must have missed the part of my post where I actually answered the question. Please, if you want to have a conversation with me, take the time to read my posts *before* you get offended and post an angry reply.

because the scientists haven't produced one for you yet,

I don't need other people to answer that question -- I did quite fine on my own. It's also likely that scientists will never try to answer that question -- you know, because it is not a scientific question.

so you use your geek logic and word games, to infer that the question is stupid, thereby inferring that to even ask such a question, is stupid, therefore the questioner is stupid.

I'm not saying you are stupid for asking a fallacious question, just mistaken.

You are asking a question, assuming it has an answer, and are getting upset that I pointed out that that is not necessarily a true assumption.

I'm not sure why you are getting so offended over that.

this is an avoidance and intimidation tactic, by you, to not have to admit, 'I DO NOT KNOW'

How can I try to 'avoid' answering a question I answered in my first reply? Just because you ignored 75% of my post doesn't mean it no longer exists...

i don't need to follow rules set down by a robotic mentality, that shows great limitations. that is your problem.

You are welcome to ignore logic, and pretend it was created by a 'robotic mentality' -- and you are also welcome to ignore this thread. I'm sorry if you are unwilling to allow logic into a discussion of philosophy or theology, it's no wonder you are devoutly religious.

There is no need to be afraid, unless you are worried that your faith will be shaken by an honest, open, logical discussion.

[faye]

you think i am angry AND devoutly religious?
arrogance and egomania, i find highly amusing and entertaining.
like i said to scimitar. keep up the good work.

[ozymandias]

.well, it's also possible that this is another flaky, geek, word game, intended to mock the idea of being open minded.

Believe that if you like. It was giving an example of how 'possible' and 'likely' are not the same thing.

the idea of open mindedness must be a thorn in the side of those who aren't capable of such but then, that is your choice.

Again, I think you are confused. I am a scientist. By definition, I am willing to look into things, study them, and look at the evidence. That's what being a scientist is. You, on the other hand, are rejecting science -- without even looking into it, or understanding what it is.

You accuse me of doing what you are doing, and call me close-minded, because this mental image you have of me is identical to how you are behaving...

Being open minded means willing to accept you are wrong, in the face of evidence -- not accepting things as true with no evidence, which is what you are asking me to do, nor is it 'open minded' to close your mind and refuse to investigate anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions, which is what you are doing.

[ozymandias]

you think i am angry

Based on your name calling and emotionally charged posts, it appears so.

AND devoutly religious?

I assumed that, given your dogmatic rejection of anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions.

arrogance and egomania, i find highly amusing and entertaining.

It's always good to be able to laugh at yourself. Good for you.

like i said to scimitar. keep up the good work.

Will do. Perhaps I can open a few eyes while I am here.

[faye]

show me where i rejected science. i think you are becoming illogical, now.
and did you not once say that we are all scientists? even me. so why would i reject myself.

laughing at oneself is very important. you should try it, because you are very funny.

[faye]

Actually, no. I was reminded by someone on another forum that I had not posted here in a while, and they requested I come back -- so I did.
That is quite silly, you are right -- since a camera cannot photograph imaginary things.

you are not naming the invitor. is that secret knowledge?

so, something which you are unable to prove exists or doesn't exists, is classified as imaginary. what exactly does 'imaginary' mean, to you?
is that just another of your superior logical intellect, dismissives?

[faye]

[QUOTE=ozymandias;656657]

I don't need other people to answer that question -- I did quite fine on my own. It's also likely that scientists will never try to answer that question -- you know, because it is not a scientific question.

no, you did not. you were unable to answer the question. you analysed the question and threw it out with the bathwater.
so, since this was not a 'scientific' question, why use logic on the analysis and your pretense at an answer?

[کیش]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

It's because you have never thought laterally; You accept whatever you read if it's stamped "evidence." that doesn't take a genius to read someone else's critical thinking and "experiments." And pass it off as if you have been enlighten and have figured everything out.

You said you have read the holy scriptures but I have a doubt that you fully comprehend the meaning of the prose, and the various stories of the Prophets. Your bent over by the idea if the events occurred or not but do not understand the themes.

I could break them down even more if you want.

[ozymandias]

show me where i rejected science. i think you are becoming illogical, now.

You keep saying it is 'geek logic' and stating that it is useless to explain experiences. You reject the idea of falsifiability, which is a cornerstone of science.

and did you not once say that we are all scientists? even me. so why would i reject myself.

I believe I stated we all reap the benefits of science.

laughing at oneself is very important. you should try it, because you are very funny.

[ozymandias]

you are not naming the invitor. is that secret knowledge?

Actually, yes. They do not wish to be outed, nor do I actually know their username here.

so, something which you are unable to prove exists or doesn't exists, is classified as imaginary.

I'm quite capable of putting words into my own mouth, I would thank you to kindly refrain from attempting to do so as well.

what exactly does 'imaginary' mean, to you?

Existing only in the imagination: "imaginary conversations", not real, fabricated, not of reality, fictional.

is that just another of your superior logical intellect, dismissives?

No, it was actually a fairly thinly covered insult. You made a comment pretending to believe that scientists expected photos of your visions as proof, ignoring the fact that there is an entire body of science that can be used to explain so-called supernatural visions, and in the years and years of study, no scientist has *ever* validated the supernatural.

I don't believe that you experienced anything more than a hallucination, dream, or delusional event -- if you are not just outright lying. I was not being intellectual or dismissive to avoid the topic, I flat out stated that your visions were imaginary, and were not real events that occurred outside your brain.