Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ozymandias]

[QUOTE=faye;656664]

no, you did not. you were unable to answer the question.

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?p=656138#post656138

Please go back and re-read my actual post. I took 2 paragraphs to explain why the question was flawed, and then 4 paragraphs giving an answer to the question, anyway.

you analysed the question and threw it out with the bathwater.

You need to read the whole response, not just the first 2-3 sentences.

so, since this was not a 'scientific' question, why use logic on the analysis and your pretense at an answer?

Just because it is a philosophical question instead of a physics, or biology question doesn't mean you can't use logic. Logic is used in philosophy all the time -- in fact much of logical discourse comes from the realm of philosophy.

Again, before you call it a 'pretense of an answer' please take the minute or two required to actually read my post. You are embarrassing yourself here.

[ozymandias]

It's because you have never thought laterally;

No, it's because you are unable to communicate your message clearly.

You accept whatever you read if it's stamped "evidence."

There you go again, making sweeping generalizations about me, based on your misunderstanding of what science is. If you swap 'evidence' with 'the Koran', and you will be describing many of the religious people on this very board. As it stands, I don't know anyone you are accurately describing. Not the religious, they reject evidence without even looking at it. Not scientists, they investigate claims that something is 'evidence' and see if it actually is.

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.

Again, it takes even less intelligence to read the Koran and reject anything a mullah tells you contradicts it.

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.

*shrug* Doubt if you want. We are clearly not going to agree on what value they have.

Your bent over by the idea if the events occurred or not but do not understand the themes.

Actually, I only point out the events that did not occur, when someone, like you, tries to use them as proof of something.

I could break them down even more if you want.

I'm sure you can -- maybe sometime I will take you up on that. It's been a while since I last read the Bible, The Book of Mormon, or the Koran -- every time I read them, I find something else I never noticed before. Granted, it's usually *not* the sort of thing a Muslim wants people to be noticing...

[کیش]

Not scientists, they investigate claims that something is 'evidence' and see if it actually is.

See this is what am telling you. Scientist do your job and your thinking. You clearly don't think for yourself is what your saying.

*shrug* Doubt if you want. We are clearly not going to agree on what value they have.

Is it because you still don't know what the bible is saying.

Actually, I only point out the events that did not occur, when someone, like you, tries to use them as proof of something.

Like I said your too worried if the events occurred or not instead of understanding the message within it.

I'm sure you can -- maybe sometime I will take you up on that. It's been a while since I last read the Bible, The Book of Mormon, or the Koran -- every time I read them, I find something else I never noticed before. Granted, it's usually *not* the sort of thing a Muslim wants people to be noticing...

It's because your reading it with negativity and a unwilling to learn.

No, it's because you are unable to communicate your message clearly.

People whose ears are closed have trouble understanding messages.

[کیش]

In your logic,

Where's the evidence of the notion that there is no God? Obviously you don't know so what's the evidence done by your favorite scientist on the topic?

[ozymandias]

See this is what am telling you. Scientist do your job and your thinking. You clearly don't think for yourself is what your saying.

You should be aware of the fact that I consider myself a scientist, both by actions, and by trade.

Is it because you still don't know what the bible is saying?

Actually, I suspect that it's because I *do* know what the bible is saying -- such as the fact that the myth about the Jews being slaves in Egypt is a fictional account designed to justify the Jewish ideas of being the chosen people -- they were so loved by their god that he stepped in to personally save them from oppression. It is a decent literary device, used to both illuminate that point, as well as point out that if you don't do what the Jewish idea of god wants, he will be vindictive and punish you and all you care about -- and there is no point attempting to defy him. Even the worlds most powerful people will be overthrown by lowly slaves if god desires.

Like I said your too worried if the events occurred or not instead of understanding the message within it.

You stated:

Where's the evidence of evidence that there is no god and everything just happens randomly without purpose or reason.

Obviously the Pharoah was right and Moses with his lack of evidence looked like a fool, smh 2012 Pharoah

To which I pointed out that that was a fictional account. You are clearly implying that, like Pharaoh, we are rejecting the evidence presented to us. Since there is no such clear cut evidence before us of the existence of god, your bring up this particular biblical myth has no merit in this conversation -- there are no parallels between that story and this one.

It's because your reading it with negativity and a unwilling to learn.

Actually, quite the opposite. I quite enjoy reading those books, and learn quite a bit each time I read them. I often hook up with a study group and read it with them, and discuss it with them. These books have *huge* impacts on the society I live in, and it is very interesting to see things from other people's view points.

People whose ears are closed have trouble understanding messages.

Indeed they do. That's often why the religious reject science and education without ever even understanding what it is.

That said, your word choice is a little strange to me, and I don't understand what ever it is you are jumping around, and the message you are trying to give. Partly it is the poor grammar and spelling, but much of it is the fact that our backgrounds are so different we may as well be speaking different languages some of the time.

[ozymandias]

In your logic,

Where's the evidence of the notion that there is no God?

I've repeatedly answered this. Go back a page or two, you will find it.

Obviously you don't know so what's the evidence done by your favorite scientist on the topic?

Actually, I don't honestly have a favorite scientist, nor would scientists give your question much thought, since it is a silly question.

What's your evidence that I don't have a leprechaun living in my garage?

[badmash_khel]

^^

sorry to butt in but wouldn't it be possible to prove wether there is a leprechaun in your garage simply by going to your garage and checking it out?

on the otherhand you can't really look for God anywhere since he is formless, shapeless etc.

leprechaun theory can be falsified whilst the God theory can't be falsified. a leprechaun by definition is aphysical object so we can use technology to ascertain the truth of its presence in your garage. so far i don't know of any technology which can detect God.

[ozymandias]

^^

sorry to butt in but wouldn't it be possible to prove wether there is a leprechaun in your garage simply by going to your garage and checking it out?

Nope. Leprechauns can turn invisible -- at least this one can.

on the otherhand you can't really look for God anywhere since he is formless, shapeless etc.

Bingo! In order to disprove a god, you would need to come up with a concrete, testable definition of what that god is -- something no one in history has ever been able to do. You cannot disprove something you cannot even define, or accurately describe.

leprechaun theory can be falsified whilst the God theory can't be falsified. a leprechaun by definition is aphysical object so we can use technology to ascertain the truth of its presence in your garage. so far i don't know of any technology which can detect God.

I'd say that a leprechaun is no more falsifiable than god. If you grant the leprechaun magical powers, you've suddenly put them both in the same category of 'loosely defined, vaguely described, unfalsifiable beings' -- and you have just hit upon why I am agnostic. I don't believe it is possible to disprove all gods, since you cannot make a falsifiable description of all gods.

Also, don't worry about butting in -- all are welcome to join in, that's the point of the thread.

[badmash_khel]

Nope. Leprechauns can turn invisible -- at least this one can.

There is no such thing as an invisible leprachaun. once you start changing the definition of the words from their conventional meaning, then that's just a play on words. It ceases to be a leprachaun, he moment one says it is invisible.

Bingo! In order to disprove a god, you would need to come up with a concrete, testable definition of what that god is -- something no one in history has ever been able to do. You cannot disprove something you cannot even define, or accurately describe.

Since the majority of this forum is muslim we will stick to the definition of God in Islam specifically sunni islam.

I'd say that a leprechaun is no more falsifiable than god. If you grant the leprechaun magical powers, you've suddenly put them both in the same category of 'loosely defined, vaguely described, unfalsifiable beings' -- and you have just hit upon why I am agnostic. I don't believe it is possible to disprove all gods, since you cannot make a falsifiable description of all gods.

Also, don't worry about butting in -- all are welcome to join in, that's the point of the thread.

I disagree that God is no more falsifiable than the leprechaun as i staed the reason above. Now you might say that this leprechaun has exactly the same attributes as the God in Islam, in which case i will have no objection to your point, but that would simply mean that leprechaun will be another name for God and will ceased to be leprechaun in the traditional sense.

I agree on one thing though that God can neither be proven nor disproven for the reasons that you stated.

My experience in life leads me to belive in a higher being. I have been through phases of doubts which is natural since most of us are just born into a religion.

Your experiences in life have made you an agnostic.

we can only share our knowledge but we can not give each other our life experinces and states so both our positions are equally valid. At the end it doesn't matter what we believe but what we have experinced because only what you have experienced can be your truth.

Unlike some others I doesn't come as a surprise to me why you are an agnostic. Anyone who uses their logic and brain to uberestand reality will most likely be an atheist or agnostic.

[ozymandias]

There is no such thing as an invisible leprachaun. once you start changing the definition of the words from their conventional meaning, then that's just a play on words. It ceases to be a leprachaun, he moment one says it is invisible.

I disagree. Leprechauns are traditionally magical, mischievous fairy creatures. Given the fact that the myth about leprechauns is that thy grant wishes if you find their pot of gold, it is safe to say they would be magical.

Since the majority of this forum is muslim we will stick to the definition of God in Islam specifically sunni islam.

Sure, we can work with that. Now write a falsifiable definition of god that you can get even 5 posters here to agree on.

I disagree that God is no more falsifiable than the leprechaun as i staed the reason above. Now you might say that this leprechaun has exactly the same attributes as the God in Islam, in which case i will have no objection to your point, but that would simply mean that leprechaun will be another name for God and will ceased to be leprechaun in the traditional sense.

I'm using the simple, traditional definition of leprechauns as mischievous trickster fairy creatures. The only thing they have in common with your god would be the ability to do magic.

I agree on one thing though that God can neither be proven nor disproven for the reasons that you stated.

At least we can agree on that -- that's the major point.

My experience in life leads me to belive in a higher being. I have been through phases of doubts which is natural since most of us are just born into a religion.

That's an interesting thing for you to say -- I would say my life was the opposite. My experiences have shown me that there is no evidence of a higher power, despite being born into, and force fed religion at a young age. As I grew older, I was able to see religion for what it really was, the more I looked into it.

Your experiences in life have made you an agnostic.

Agnostic atheist, actually.

we can only share our knowledge but we can not give each other our life experinces and states so both our positions are equally valid.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying -- and I disagree with what I think you are saying. If you mean 'true' when you say 'valid', then I disagree with you whole heartedly. Just because some experiences something (say a hallucination) that they are unable to share with another doesn't make that hallucination true.

At the end it doesn't matter what we believe but what we have experinced because only what you have experienced can be your truth.

I think I agree with your message here, but not the exact words you used. There is a difference between 'truth' and 'reality'. Not everyone gets to experience reality the same way. Some have mental conditions that cause them to experience events that are not real -- but may feel real to them. Subjectively, it may be a 'real' experience, but objectively, what they experience may not be real, or true.

Unlike some others I doesn't come as a surprise to me why you are an agnostic. Anyone who uses their logic and brain to uberestand reality will most likely be an atheist or agnostic.

I'm a little leery when you put that 'or' there. Any honest, logical person, atheist or theist, will be an agnostic, as even if you believe in a god, you cannot prove it's existence.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive -- they measure different things. Many, many, many of the religious I have talked to are agnostic theists -- they believe there is a god, but they cannot prove it to 100% certainty -- and most of them prefer it that way. If god *could* be proven, any illusion of free will is blown away, and the idea of 'faith' being virtuous has no meaning.

Thanks for joining the conversation -- it's nice to have a civil disagreement with someone willing -- and able -- to discuss rationally and logically.

[faye]

[QUOTE=ozymandias;656674]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.

but you said yourself that philosophical, religious questings are not for the scientific agenda. so why should i accept your falisifiability in connection with a query about the reason for life?
keep your falsifiability in the domain where it is able to be utilised. science.

[faye]

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

so what if you said that?
not all the scientific designs and creations are beneficial. many disastrous mistakes have been made by scientists.

i quite like time lapse photography, though. seeing those amazing creations of god, flowers and animals, like that, is awesome.

[faye]

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

sounds as though you are getting very uptight now. it seems problematical for you to deal with those who don't think in the same rigid pattern as yourself.
why would we need scientists to disprove that which some of us know from our own experience, exists?
hon, scientists are just other human beings who do their thing and everyone else does their thing. you appear to need the scientists to tell you what is your reality. well, dear, good for you. others are not all that needy for scietific approval.

why is imagination not reality? if it exists then is it not also reality?
what you don't know, is what imagination, fantasy, hallucination, mystical experience, telepathy, psychic phenomena, actually are.
so, you are trying to be insulting and dismissive, as i said.
and what is outside the brain? perhaps we are all hallucinating what we call, reality.
scimitar said that your scientists have decided, now, that 'reality' is only information and NO THING.
so can you tell me exactly how you can prove that reality is actually OUTSIDE
the brain and not a figment of our individual and mass 'imagination'.

maybe that purple, 24 ft, dude living in your garage actually is existing now that you have conceived him. i do hope the roof is 25ft high or the poor guy will have to be designed so that he can telescope his body, curl over nicely or do a lot of bending. i hope you have considered these things.

[faye]

[QUOTE=ozymandias;656677][QUOTE=faye;65666}

Again, before you call it a 'pretense of an answer' please take the minute or two required to actually read my post. You are embarrassing yourself here.[/QUOTE]

darling, i don't get embarassed.
i am just enjoying, watching a robotic mind display it's limitations. you are the finest example i have encountered so far.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

so what if you said that?
not all the scientific designs and creations are beneficial. many disastrous mistakes have been made by scientists.

i quite like time lapse photography, though. seeing those amazing creations of god, flowers and animals, like that, is awesome.

No disastrous mistakes have been made by people who misuse science. The Scienist only reveals what is possible.