Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[faye]

Well you can say their reasons for claiming they're the truth is incorrect. because they lack evidence.

That's independent on whether your belief is correct or not.

So please don't say "exactly" because it is evident you didn't understand the variables pertaining to each matter. They're mutually exclusive.

you can SAY they are not truth because they lack evidence, in your eyes, but that is still not proof they are not true. therefore you have no proof that they are incorrect. another fallacious assumption.

ones evidence is their own knowing...

what does one need indepentent verification for? i don't.
who are the supposed 'independents', anyway? you and ozy? you guys already have closed minds, so you wouldn't count as neutral.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

no you can say they're not truth because they lack evidence ...period; there's no "my eyes" ,because reality is independent of me. "evidence" is stuff independent of you, not dependent on you. Or else any idiotic claim of having hallucinating visions would be evidence. And we know that is flawed.

again logic fail.

[ozymandias]

so, the 'action of waves' creates silica, quartz, limestone, coral, shells, basalts, obsidians and all the other stuff that sand is made from?

You are grasping at straws now.

do they also create trees, flowers, mountains, coral reef,s fishes and apes like you and scimitar?

Of course not.

lol. who is the 'we' that it is sooooo important to prove anything to?

I used it as an all inclusive 'anyone that reads your post'.

so, do you have proof that waves are not intelligent,

Not needed. You are the one claiming they are, you can provide the proof.

if not then my statement is correct and needs no proof from me. that will be my proof.

Um... do you even understand what proof is? You can't use 'I claimed it was true' as your proof.

[ozymandias]

for YOU, that is not how it works. bear in mind the fact that humans have many different ways of viewing reality. each individual. yours is via, logic, proof, and the desire to prove others wrong, from YOUR way of viewing 'life the universe and everything'.
what i do, is consider the possibility of different ideas and views. i have no need, as i have already said, to seriously battle over different views. i am just having fun, watching your desperate need to prove that others are wrong and you are right.

The word for that is not 'open minded', it's 'gullible'. If you are willing to accept any claim as true, with out evidence.

Who's being desperate? I'm just here to expose some people to a world they might not see much -- and get a peek into how their world works, too. Science and logic are not true as the result of a popularity contest. Your belief in them doesn't really matter to me.

apart from your seeming prejudice against muslims specifically, why else would you be here on this forum?

Why would you think I am prejudice? Because I use examples that my past history on this board will be understandable to many posters here?

I'm here to expose others to a way of thought they don't get much exposure to -- and clearly that's working, since you and that other poster clearly don't understand science, but are willing to at least discuss it.

I'm also here to get exposed to the flip side of that. In my life the majority of religious people I run into are agnostic theist christians. It's interesting to run into (mistakenly) gnostic theists, and Muslims in general.

I'm also here at the request of an anonymous poster that invited me here.

[ozymandias]

precisely.
so, if one does not know if their belief is correct/truth, then one does not have a base from which to tell others their beliefs are not correct/truth.

Not true at all. Let's use math as an example: I can *believe* the millionth digit of Pi is '1'. I believe that is true, but I don't know -- all I did was take the results from the first result returned from google. I can still tell someone that believes the millionth digit is 'APPLE' that they are incorrect, not knowing if my belief is true or not.

[ozymandias]

you can SAY they are not truth because they lack evidence, in your eyes, but that is still not proof they are not true. therefore you have no proof that they are incorrect. another fallacious assumption.

ones evidence is their own knowing...

Haha, no.

what does one need indepentent verification for? i don't.

To verify that they have the truth.

who are the supposed 'independents', anyway? you and ozy? you guys already have closed minds, so you wouldn't count as neutral.

You know what? I'm going to ask that you stop using the terms 'open minded' and 'closed minded', as you clearly have no clue what they mean. Of all the people here, the only ones not willing to look at, and discuss the evidence would be you and کیش . You both walked in with your foregone conclusions, and are rejecting anything that does not line up with them. You resort to fallacies and name calling to avoid even considering our side of the issue -- and then call us close minded because you can't be bothered to present any evidence to back up your claims.

I'm close minded (according to you) because I don't believe waves are intelligent. Why should I believe they are intelligent? Because you claimed they are. Why did you claim they are? Because everything is part of the mind of the creator, and share in it's intelligence... Do you not see how none of that is anything other than you making absurd, unfounded claims?

It's not close minded to reject your baseless claims.

[ozymandias]

no you can say they're not truth because they lack evidence ...period;

That's not true. Something can be true, even if there is no evidence for it (yet) -- you just don't have to accept it as true until it is the best fit to the given evidence. For instance Fermat's Last Theorem was coined in 1637, and believed to be true right up until 1995, when it was finally proven. Between coining and proving, it was believed true, partly because no contradicting evidence was found. Had a contradiction been found, it would have been proven false.

[ozymandias]

“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” -- Carl Sagan

Just leaving this here. Faye's misunderstanding of 'open mindedness' keeps making me remember this quote.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Not true at all. Let's use math as an example: I can *believe* the millionth digit of Pi is '1'. I believe that is true, but I don't know -- all I did was take the results from the first result returned from google. I can still tell someone that believes the millionth digit is 'APPLE' that they are incorrect, not knowing if my belief is true or not.

Sorry I wasn't careful with what I was writing because I hate to give Faye any involved replies; since she just recycles the same contenions over and over again

what I meant to write was "you can say that their claims of being true are incorrect because they lack evidence".

[کیش]

You just keep ignoring it. I *JUST* answered it again.



No. Read the definition of agnostic, and then try and explain how your question makes *any* sense at all.



Eh, I actually think he is not 'saving' me, so much as making this more difficult at times. When he starts name calling, or posting incorrect definitions it makes it harder to have a civil conversation.

I'm still waiting for your proof, Mr. atheist man. Please respond back with your own experiences and writing.

Thanks

[Admin Khan]

How do you explain verses in the Holy Quran, or Bible, that have been verified today. For example,

أَلَمۡ تَرَ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُسَبِّحُ لَهُ ۥ مَن فِى ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٲتِ وَٱلأًرۡضِ وَٱلطَّيۡرُ صَـٰٓفَّـٰتٍ۬*ۖ كُلٌّ۬ قَدۡ عَلِمَ صلاتَهُ ۥ وَتَسۡبِيحَهُ ۥ*ۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَلِيمُۢ بِمَا يَفۡعَلُونَ

Earth is described as egg-shaped (not a perfect circular globe), a fact which was discovered recently in the human history.

Do you feel like these were mere predictions?


Also, Quick-sort or Tim sort?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

How do you explain verses in the Holy Quran, or Bible, that have been verified today. For example,

أَلَمۡ تَرَ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُسَبِّحُ لَهُ ۥ مَن فِى ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٲتِ وَٱلأًرۡضِ وَٱلطَّيۡرُ صَـٰٓفَّـٰتٍ۬*ۖ كُلٌّ۬ قَدۡ عَلِمَ صلاتَهُ ۥ وَتَسۡبِيحَهُ ۥ*ۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَلِيمُۢ بِمَا يَفۡعَلُونَ

Earth is described as egg-shaped (not a perfect circular globe), a fact which was discovered recently in the human history.

Do you feel like these were mere predictions?


Also, Quick-sort or Tim sort?

http://en.islamtoday.net/node/667

The word in question is the verb (dahâ). This verb comes from the tri-literal root d-h-w, and it appears in the Qur’ân in relation to the Earth in the following verse: “And the Earth, after that, He spread out (dahâhâ).” [Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât: 30]

This word conveys one concept in the Arabic language: that of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”. Allah mentions this to us in the verse to show us something of his providence to us. He explains what he means by stretching the Earth out and smoothing it out in the following verses: “He brought forth from it its water and its pasturage, and He made the mountains firmly fixed.” [Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât : 31-32]

Therefore, Allah smoothed out the Earth for us by making it a stable and suitable place for habitation, providing its inhabitants with water, pasture, and keeping its mountains firmly-fixed.

With respect to this word’s association with eggs, it is as follows:

Due to the fact that the word conveys the meaning of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”, the Arabs named the place where an ostrich incubates and hatches its egg an "udhiyy". This is a hollow pit in the ground around 30 to 60 centimeters deep. The Arabic word for this shallow depression is derived from the triliteral root d-h-w – the same etymological root as the verb dahâ. The reason for this is that the ostrich spreads out and flattens this area with its legs before laying its egg in it. The ostrich uses neither a nest nor a burrow for its eggs.

From this, we must understand that the word is not used for the egg itself but rather for the flattened depression where the ostrich deposits its egg.

Whoever uses the word to refer to the egg or to the shape of the egg is being inexact in his linguistic usage. However, without doubt we can say that such an error does not detract from the person’s reputation or scholarship as a whole, and it does not warrant a harsh reprimand.

In any case, verse 30 of Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât – that mentions the verb dahâ in reference to the Earth – is not discussing the shape of the Earth at all. It cannot be used as proof that the Earth is flat or round or egg-shaped. The verse is silent on the matter. And Allah knows best.

The exact shape of the Earth is best known from empirical observations, and not from seeking to deduce its exact shape from the Qur’ân.

The Earth is practically a perfect sphere.

Yes, the Earth is ever so slightly flattened at the poles, due to its rotation, technically making it an approximate "oblate spheroid", a rounded shape with a sight bulge at the equator.

However, the difference made by the bulge is extremely minute. The diameter at the equator is only 42.72 kilometers greater than the diameter at the poles. Considering that the average diameter of the Earth is about 12,742 km, the difference is infinitesimal – nothing at all like the shape of an ostrich egg, which is visibly an oval. The average ostrich egg is 15 cm long and 13 cm wide.

Therefore, the claim that the Earth is shaped like an ostrich egg is not only unfounded scripturally, it is scientifically inaccurate.

We should also take this occasion to mention that the Earth is almost perfectly smooth. Its near-perfect smoothness is not compromised by the contours of its crust. The highest mountains and deepest trenches of the crust are insignificant compared to the vastness of the Earth's surface.

To get an idea of how insignificant the mountains and trenches are when compared to the Earth's surface, we can compare the smoothness of the Earth to that of a billiard ball. A billiard ball must be very smooth and regular. The tolerance allowed for a billiard ball is only 0.22%. (Tolerance, in engineering, refers to the permissible limit of variation in a dimension of a manufactured object.) The Earth, by comparison, has a tolerance of about one part in 584, or 0.17%. This means the Earth is much more perfectly smooth than what is allowed for a billiard ball.

And Allah knows best.

[Manzareh]

"Ask an agnostic and atheist man..." you can be agnostic AND atheist?

[Afghanistan2010]

I'm still waiting for your proof, Mr. atheist man. Please respond back with your own experiences and writing.

Thanks

He is no different than us,he blindly believes in the words of other men,we he thinks believe in a madman same crap we heared from the pagans of makkah.

[DaZahroJaam.]

No, they do not. Gnosticism is about proof, theism is about belief.

You can't have proof for something you don't believe in.

You can't be agnostic if you are an atheist and not an agonistic if you are an atheist. For the sixth time, those two contradict each other in definition.