Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ozymandias]

do you have any proof of that belief?

Other than your own posts, and the posts of others referring to you as a female? Not really. In this case, the subject of your gender is neither important (you being male or female changes nothing about this conversation), nor are you making an extraordinary claim regarding your gender, that evidence is sufficient for my needs.

The amount of evidence needed scales with the size of the claim. Were you to claim to be a hermaphroditic being with both XX and XY chromosomes expressed as part of your adult physiology, I would not take your claim at face value -- but since there are indeed women on the internet, your claim to be one is not hard to accept.

[ډګروال]

I believe that she, herself has called herself an 'old woman' several times.



I may have been confused. Since I am perfectly willing to answer all but personally identifying questions, and do so regularly, I did not understand you intended your comment to refer to me.

I'm sorry if you feel I am not answering questions. Do you have a specific question you saw asked that I missed and did not answer?

no
i know faye is a lady.
it is you who knowing very well that i ment you but tried to bring faye in and act funny(not really funny though).
thats exactly what you do with many questions(if you dont dodge them).

[faye]

Quote: my question....
what proof do you have that only the scientific method is the correct and only method, to judge everything?

your answer...[QUOTE]The lack of a better system. If a better system existed, science would be using that system -- that's the whole point of science.[QUOTE]



so, you DO think science is the correct and only method to judge everything. scientism.

but you have no proof that it is the correct and only method of judging everything, just that it is the one they use.

[faye]

Other than your own posts, and the posts of others referring to you as a female? Not really. In this case, the subject of your gender is neither important (you being male or female changes nothing about this conversation), nor are you making an extraordinary claim regarding your gender, that evidence is sufficient for my needs.

The amount of evidence needed scales with the size of the claim. Were you to claim to be a hermaphroditic being with both XX and XY chromosomes expressed as part of your adult physiology, I would not take your claim at face value -- but since there are indeed women on the internet, your claim to be one is not hard to accept.

that was a joke, sheldon.

[ozymandias]

no
i know faye is a lady.
it is you who knowing very well that i ment you but tried to bring faye in and act funny(not really funny though).

I'm sorry you feel that way.

thats exactly what you do with many questions(if you dont dodge them).

Interesting that you will accuse me of dodging questions -- but refuse to answer my question about what questions you think I am dodging.

[ozymandias]

Quote: my question....
what proof do you have that only the scientific method is the correct and only method, to judge everything?

your answer...

The lack of a better system. If a better system existed, science would be using that system -- that's the whole point of science.

so, you DO think science is the correct and only method to judge everything.

Please stop lying.

scientism.

Not by definition. The definition of 'sciencism' is using science to discuss things that are not appropriate to discuss with science. Feel free to present a topic that cannot be analyzed with science, and then we can look at that term and when and where it is appropriate to use it.

but you have no proof that it is the correct and only method of judging everything, just that it is the one they use.

... ? I never said it is the only method. Once again, you lie about what I said. I never said it is the only system. I stated it was the current best, which not only implies that other systems *do* exist, but it also implies that other, *better* systems *could* exist. I also stated that I, like all scientists, would be willing to move to a newer, better system, once we have one that we understand.

If you can't be honest, could you please leave the thread? I spend more time correcting your lies about what I actually said than anything else.

[ozymandias]

that was a joke, sheldon.

Ah. I see. So *all* of your stupid comments are jokes now? That one where you repeatedly lied about what I said was *hilarious* then. Almost as funny as the time you pretended not to grasp basic concepts about science.

[faye]

so now your excuse is that i am lying, sheldon. constant evasion.
and still no proof that an intelligent creator, is not needed.

well, it looks as though you have not found any converts, to atheism, agnosticism nor scientism, here.
so what next for you?

[ozymandias]

so now your excuse is that i am lying, sheldon. constant evasion.
and still no proof that an intelligent creator, is not needed.

Either you are lying, or do not understand the word 'needed'. If a creator were *needed* it would be impossible to explain the origin of the universe without one. Since the universe *can* be explained without resorting to the use of a 'creator', an intelligent creator is not *needed* to explain the universe's origin. Since we *can* explain the universe without a creator, a creator is not needed. There still may be a creator, but it is *NOT NEEDED TO FIT THE EVIDENCE WE CURRENTLY HAVE*.

need
/nēd/
Verb
Require (something) because it is essential or very important: "I need help now".
Noun
Circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity: "the need for food".
Synonyms
verb. want - require - demand - lack
noun. want - necessity - requirement - poverty - lack

need
noun
1.
a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation: There is no need for you to go there.
2.
a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary: to fulfill the needs of the assignment.
3.
urgent want, as of something requisite: He has no need of your charity.
4.
necessity arising from the circumstances of a situation or case: There is no need to worry.

need
(nēd) pronunciation
n.
A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.
Something required or wanted; a requisite: "Those of us who led the charge for these women's issues ... shared a common vision in the needs of women" (Olympia Snowe).
Necessity; obligation: There is no need for you to go.
A condition of poverty or misfortune: The family is in dire need.

Definition of NEED
1
: necessary duty : obligation
2
a : a lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful
b : a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism
3
: a condition requiring supply or relief
4
: lack of the means of subsistence : poverty

Just like I don't *need* a straw to drink water, there is no *need* to use a creator to explain the universe. You can still use one if you want -- it's *OPTIONAL*.

well, it looks as though you have not found any converts, to atheism, agnosticism nor scientism, here.

Read the very first post on this thread. I've pointed you to that post on more than one occassion. You may wish to read it. It preemptively addresses comments like this one.

so what next for you?

Nothing changes, at all. I continue correcting your lies and mistakes in understanding while learning about the skewed way you view the world, and wait for an intelligent poster to come along and pick up the conversation, so I have someone worth actually talking to.

[ozymandias]

I know that you may have trouble with some of the terms on this link: Necessity and sufficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, but it's a good introduction and explanation that ought to help clear up your difficulty with the word 'needed'.

To rephrase, using terms from that page :
1) the existence of a creator is *not* necessary to explain the origin of the universe and meet all known evidence about that event.
2) using a creator is *not* suffiecient to explain the origin of the universe. While a creator could explain the known evidence and the origin of the universe, you then need to explain the existence and origin of the creator itself.
3) a creator *may* exist, but that is an optional addition to the answer, not the complete and total answer, in and of itself.

[faye]

lol...my skewed way of viewing the world? oh, excuuuuse me, for not thinking like an indoctrinated robot.

but you don't know that the conclusions you have come to about origin of creation is correct. so you therefore cannot make a definite conclusion as to whether a 'a god/intelligent creator, is not needed'.

[faye]

ARGUING FROM AUTHORITY. IS APPARENTLY CLASSIFIED AS A BAD DEBATING TACTIC.

- Argument from Authority. This is the fallacy that states: If an authority says something, it is obviously true, and it does not need to be evaluated on it's merits. e.g. (Re-elect nixon because he has a secret plan to end the war in SE Asia.) Since there is no way to evaluate this plan, there is no way to debate this. Additionally, "because Einstein said it, and he's an expert, it must be true."

RICHARD DORKINS USES THAT ONE, TOO.

[ozymandias]

lol...my skewed way of viewing the world? oh, excuuuuse me, for not thinking like an indoctrinated robot.

I'm sorry that you think that.

but you don't know that the conclusions you have come to about origin of creation is correct.

It meets all known facts and evidence. A creator is *not* needed to explain the universe we know.

so you therefore cannot make a definite conclusion as to whether a 'a god/intelligent creator, is not needed'.

Sure I can. It's easy to point out that a creator was not needed to explain the origin of the universe, since there are no facts or evidence that science cannot explain about the origin of the universe. The current theories are satisfactory to explain what we know about the universe. If new evidence comes up that contradicts the current theory, you would be right -- we could not make a conclusion based on that information alone.

[ozymandias]

ARGUING FROM AUTHORITY. IS APPARENTLY CLASSIFIED AS A BAD DEBATING TACTIC.

- Argument from Authority. This is the fallacy that states: If an authority says something, it is obviously true, and it does not need to be evaluated on it's merits. e.g. (Re-elect nixon because he has a secret plan to end the war in SE Asia.) Since there is no way to evaluate this plan, there is no way to debate this. Additionally, "because Einstein said it, and he's an expert, it must be true."

While I am glad you are brushing up on fallacies, what does this have to do with anything?

I am *not* saying that since scientists believe there is no god, there must not be a god. I am saying that since we understand the origin of the universe enough to have a theory about it that does *NOT* require the use of a creator, a creator is not required to explain the origin of the universe.

I am pointing out that non-magical theories do exist, so it is not required to use magic.

RICHARD DORKINS USES THAT ONE, TOO.

Name calling is a type of fallacy: Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Implying that everything Dawkins has said is wrong because he made one mistake is a fallacy: Converse accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Implying that I am wrong because someone that agrees with some of my points has made a mistake is a fallacy: Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What it boils down to is you are wrong, and know it, and are now flailing wildly to draw attention away from that fact.

[faye]

i am not interested to learn your type of thinking, dear. i make up my own as i go along.
i left school at 14 so i missed being conditioned like you have been, fortunately.

lol, i just happened to remember that fallacy you use, from something i read.

so, still we get no proof from you, that there is no need for a creator.

your use of scientific knowledge which is not necessarily correct, is your 'fallacy'.
you have no knowledge or idea of your own to put forward as proof, so you create deviations and excuses.

scientific information about the origin of creation, is only a curiosity for me, to see if they ever get it right.