Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ScimitarXEdge]

and you are nto even a Pashtun let alone being part of Pashtun community.

taliban are core part of PAshtun community,get used to it.

haha I'm being accused of not being Pashtun by a Pakistani; that's like Donkey sayng a human being isn't a homo sapien sampien


If they're a core part of the Pashtun community, why do they hide in Pakistan?

[graveyardofempires]

I wouldn't be the one going to hell; I don't support crimes against Muslims, you do.

i dont knwo if i will be going to hell or heaven neither do yuo know,only Allah can judge about that..

one thing is sure you just lied again.

[ScimitarXEdge]

i dont knwo if i will be going to hell or heaven neither do yuo know,only Allah can judge about that..

one thing is sure you just lied again.

well I know that the Qur'an says that such crimes against the Muslims will be punished with hell, and you support those crimes, and I know the Qur'an speaks the truth

you do the math

[graveyardofempires]

well I know that the Qur'an says that such crimes against the Muslims will be punished with hell, and you support those crimes, and I know the Qur'an speaks the truth

you do the math

you are not the judge as i said and you lie.

dont talk to me

[ScimitarXEdge]

you are not the judge as i said and you lie.

dont talk to me

Apparently you disbelieve in the Qur'an; so I don't know what to say; you'll see what happens.

[ozymandias]

you are not the judge as i said and you lie.

dont talk to me

You are welcome to stop posting in this thread if you don't want people to talk to you about the topics in this thread.

[graveyardofempires]

Apparently you disbelieve in the Qur'an; so I don't know what to say; you'll see what happens.

you are not Allah neither do you knwo the Quran and i dont rust you since you are a big fat liar and you constantly lie,even about the holy Quran.

[graveyardofempires]

You are welcome to stop posting in this thread if you don't want people to talk to you about the topics in this thread.

lets see

you told me to ignore your thread or ask you question but than you tell me to leave the thread when an off topic discussion is going on with your supporter?

[ozymandias]

lets see

you told me to ignore your thread or ask you question but than you tell me to leave the thread when an off topic discussion is going on with your supporter?

No, I told you that you are welcome to leave in response to your repeatedly griping about the opinions other people expressed in this thread.

[tor_khan]

Reminders

Staff Message:

Please avoid straying from the topic. Personal insults are not tolerated and will be deleted. For efficiency use the report tool for any comments that are in breach of forum postings rules rather than launching personal counter attacks.

[ScimitarXEdge]

you are not Allah neither do you knwo the Quran and i dont rust you since you are a big fat liar and you constantly lie,even about the holy Quran.

There's an afghan joke where two Arab guys walk into a bathroom and there two other Afghan guys there too, the two Arab guys are there speaking Arabic to each other and when they leave the Afghan guys say "astaghfrullah ....onha Qur'an-e-Karim tilawat kaardand dar hamam ...toba toba"

that's basically your understanding of the Qur'an.

[Admin Khan]

Hi,

And like I said before, that is outside the Wager. The Wager is equally valid if you were to plug the word 'Zeus' in for god, it would equally argue that one should worship Zeus. You are drawing in additional material *not* related to the Wager.

I'm not quite familiar with this 'wager' to be honest with you. What I am trying to explain to you is that no Muslim can deny their past. You asked me about Moses, Zeus, and long story short, all I am trying to tell you is that they could arguably be prophets of their generation. Prophet Muhammad on the other hand, sealed the prophethood. Prior to him, there is no denial that we had Jesus, Moses, or perhaps someone of your blood lineage as a prophet. Islam very triumphantly mentions that there were 100,000+ different types of messengers, for different areas of the world of which 25 I believe are mentioned explictly in the Quran.

You are starting to get off track here. You are ignoring the fact that the Torah, and Bible also describe *versions* of gods.

With all due respect, I'm not getting off track, nor am I ignoring anything. In fact, not only did I acknowledge it, but I gave you an explanation in regards to it. The Torah, and the Bible, are books we embrace and believe in. However, we feel as if they have been intentionally altered. That's why there are so many different versions of the Bible, and only one version of the Quran. I accept the messengers of the Torah and the Bible, as prophets of it's time. No denial here buddy.

You may believe they are compatible, but not all people agree.

To each their own, right? As I said, I would never look down upon an Atheist, that's just not me. We are humans, and we have to work on understanding each other, and clearing misconceptions about each other.

The Wager argues for the Baptist version of God equally well as the Allah version -- and to the Baptists, the two are incompatible.

Well, many Muslims have debated Christians to show them it does indeed make sense. I'm adhering to your rules, and not posting videos. So let's just say the point has already been made to the Christians.

And you are outside the Wager. The Wager needs to be able to stand on it's own, and address it's own flaws -- or it is flawed. In the larger scope of the world, your arguments have merit, but when discussing the Wager, they do not, as they are beyond what the Wager discusses.

Pardon my ignorance Ozy, please educate me on this 'wager'. I don't honestly know much about it.

Not to be insulting, but I simply do not find it to be any more amazing than any other historical document.

Have you read it?

It is a product of it's times, and to a scientific mind, does not contain anything that requires the 'divine' to have come about.

Before I comment, please elaborate further.

Most of the 'scientific discoveries' people claim existed in the Koran are vague and are not all that amazing, simply because they are so vague.

How so?

Thank's for your time J.

[Alchemist]

Ozy, I don't like going by a point by point formate of argumentation as we end up parsing so much, we end up losing focus on the main issue.

Therefore I will try to bring about the wider gist of your argument together by pointing out to you the flaws in your way of thinking.

Firstly, you were the one to take Admin khan's original question and rephrase it as Pascal's wager. Pascal believed that God may not be known through reason, and that reason was not enough. Admin doesn't believe this to be true. We believe that Allah can be known through reason, as Ibrahim learned of Allah through reason at a time when no one worshipped Him as He ought to be.

If you know of Pascal's wager, then you must know of his arguments in general?

I quote to you Pascal:

"What say [the unbelievers] then? "Do we not see," say they, "that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us," etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us"

Maybe you don't understand English, so I will paraphrase it for you. Pascal is saying that "if you desire with all your heart to know it" then you should study all the different religions, in details. Just wanting to know it is not enough, not for having a philosophical discussion on a forum. The stakes are high, and you can't have such a superficial reflection on the question, so as to muse over it with us, in passing. Inquire about all the religions, and discern for your self - which one is the one?
You are making the criticism against Pascal, because Voltaire reasoned that Pascal's wager would hold through for an Imam as well. For a Christian, Salvation can only be through Jesus Christ. We do not believe that salvation can only be through Mohammad (peace be upon them). And we believe that a monotheist, who worships The One God, be he Jewish (a follower of Moses), a unitarian Christain has just as much chance of success in the afterlife as a follower of Mohammad, peace be upon him. Only the people differ by the weight of their actions, and only God can judge us.
Your ignorance of our religion makes you seem shallow and condescending, which is why you get no love here. You give us an excuse that is obviously fowl.

More importantly, over and over again you have been using "Gravity" as a thing that is obvious in itself to believe, as if gravity can be "seen."
Here you are again exposing your ignorance, and the flaw in your argument.
There is no such thing as gravity. There is no proof for gravity. It is neither light, nor particle. In your own words, describe what gravity is? Why do things fall? Is it because of their masses? Then why does the earth not fall into the sun? Because centrifugal force is holding it back? Is that a real force? Do we have evidence for gravitons? So why do you believe in gravity?

Until newton had described the phenomena, nobody knew it as "gravity" or even had a concept of "force". So they believed something different in the same things you observed. Except they had a different understanding of it than you.


You are a victim of the myths of popular culture. Your reality is one that is defined by television soap operas, the internet and movies. In the real world people do not necessarily develop agoraphobia because they have a traumatic experience. In most cases it arises spontaneously. Of course, you want reference because your psychology textbooks from the 80s are outdated.
Agoraphobia in adults: incidence and longitu... [Br J Psychiatry. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
You can still google it more.

Yes, you are a product of your environment, and sadly, your environment has had a corrosive effect on your ability to think clearly. And it has been designed to do so. (More on that later). No offence thought, but your point of view is not unique. It is a brand. People wear jeans because they think it makes them an individual, but really one jean is like any other. People eat at mcdonalds because they think they are expressing their individuality, their freedom of choice. But they are being conformists for preferring coke cola over pepsi. Your brand of belief is not unique. I can walk out of my door and everyone of you have it. Why would I ask you anything, as if you are something rare and unique.

All your arguments are rather silly though. That you would go to church in iran for hiding your atheism is an indication of your cowardice and stupidity. This goes to show that you wager being a christain pretender is safer for you than being an atheist - isn't this pascal's wager? Personally I don't think an iranian would care if you are atheist or christain, to whom both are the same, since christainity has slid off into idolatry and paganism, which carries just as bad a stigma for muslims as atheism. However your belief is based on your reasoning, which is faulty.






[QUOTE=ozymandias;524630]Many religions believe in a hierarchy or gods with no issues with that -- but that is not what I actually meant. I meant that any one of many gods could be the correct one.



Actually, no. It indicates that there are no supernatural actors, but that is a digression.



And what basis do you ground this assertion on? At my place of employment, I have many bosses, but we manage to have a consolidated, consistent approach to our business. Why would this *have* to be different?

This is in-line with what I meant. Which of the monotheistic gods is correct? In christianity alone, I could likely name several dozen distinct different gods. Add in the Jewish sects, and the Islamic denominations, and we are looking at a large number of gods, many of which are angered by someone following any one of the other versions.



Not at all. You still have not presented which version is the correct one, which is something that Pascal's Wager, by design, omits. It is outside the scope of the wager.



This was not my argument, but a straw many you have created.



Bingo.



Again, bingo. This is a *HUGE* flaw in the wager, as you evidently agree.



I'm not sure how you can follow up with agreeing with my main point by saying I did not think it through enough.



This is thoroughly and completely false. Belief is in no way a matter of choice. You can act as if you believe something, but let's not be silly. Either an argument is convincing to you, or not.



Not true. You can preform and an action that is the result of a hidden belief, or you can act contrary to your beliefs to hide them. For instance, were I to visit Iran, I would likely act as if I were a Christian, and attend a church. This is not an indication of my belief in the reality of the Christian faith, but an indication that I am concerned I would be attacked, legally or physically, for being an atheist.



You are horribly abusing the word 'choice' here. Agoraphobics, by definition, do not chose to be agoraphobic, and are a perfect example of my point. They have experienced something in their lives that provided sufficient evidence *TO THEM* to convince them of the dangers of the outside. It is far from a matter of choice, and the cure for them is *not* to tell them to change their minds, but rather to provide them with evidence of the safety of the outside world, and overcome their belief.



But they are not choosing to change their belief. They are choosing to examine evidence that might sway their existing belief. You appear to be fluent enough in English to catch the difference. Please let me know if you miss it.



I do not disagree that I am the product of my environment.



I do disagree with this statement.



Who is being a sage yoga? I am not claiming to have all the answers, and my intention with this thread is *NOT* to provide them for others. I thought I was fairly clear with the first post and explaining that the point was to provide an alternative viewpoint than one that you may have experienced before, and open a dialog. I am merely discussion what I believe, and expect to impart no wisdom. I expect to have thought provoking questions asked of me, and for *ME* to gain wisdom and insight into a world I cannot experience first hand.

[ozymandias]

Hi,


I'm not quite familiar with this 'wager' to be honest with you. What I am trying to explain to you is that no Muslim can deny their past. You asked me about Moses, Zeus, and long story short, all I am trying to tell you is that they could arguably be prophets of their generation. Prophet Muhammad on the other hand, sealed the prophethood. Prior to him, there is no denial that we had Jesus, Moses, or perhaps someone of your blood lineage as a prophet. Islam very triumphantly mentions that there were 100,000+ different types of messengers, for different areas of the world of which 25 I believe are mentioned explictly in the Quran.

Hence the source of this confusion. My comment was in regards to a person asking me about Pascals Wager, and not meaning anything beyond that.

The Wager is basically an argument for faith based on the idea that having faith, and no god exists, no harm done, but lacking faith when a god exists is a bad thing. It is often used to argue for religion, but is critically flawed in *many* ways.

With all due respect, I'm not getting off track, nor am I ignoring anything. In fact, not only did I acknowledge it, but I gave you an explanation in regards to it. The Torah, and the Bible, are books we embrace and believe in. However, we feel as if they have been intentionally altered. That's why there are so many different versions of the Bible, and only one version of the Quran. I accept the messengers of the Torah and the Bible, as prophets of it's time. No denial here buddy.

When you consider that I thought we were having a conversation about Pascal's Wager, you can easily see why I thought you were off-track. Now that I know you were not aware my comments were made in the scope of a Wager conversation, I see why you thought they were applicable. We can start a separate conversation about these points now.

To each their own, right? As I said, I would never look down upon an Atheist, that's just not me. We are humans, and we have to work on understanding each other, and clearing misconceptions about each other.

Again, in the context of the Wager, my comments have a completely different meaning, as I think you can get now. The Wager is equally applicable for *any* faith, even faiths that feel they are mutually incompatible with other faiths.

Well, many Muslims have debated Christians to show them it does indeed make sense. I'm adhering to your rules, and not posting videos. So let's just say the point has already been made to the Christians.

We will skip this point for a minute -- outside the Wager, I fully understand your points. Inside the Wager, they are irrelevant.

Pardon my ignorance Ozy, please educate me on this 'wager'. I don't honestly know much about it.

;-) It happens, and no need for a pardon. I gave a summary above. Here is a more detailed explanation:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

As you can see, there are several flaws, and several things that lie *outside* the wager, such as selecting Islam over any other religion. The Wager can be used to argue for worshiping Zeus just as well as Allah -- because it contains nothing specific to any god.

[quote]


Have you read it?

[quote]

Indeed I have, cover to cover, and several of the Hadiths. Before anyone brings the point up, it was an English translation with parallel text, but since I do not speak Arabic, yes, the translation was flawed, and I am aware of your beliefs regarding that matter.

Before I comment, please elaborate further.

How so?

I will cite two specific examples at this time. I have more, but these are arguments I see pop up fairly often:

1) The Koran predicted the modern view of the solar system. The verses dealing with this, however, tend to be fairly vague and open for interpretation. To say that they match modern cosmology is not a convincing point because even if modern cosmology resulted in something different than it currently states. The statements are so vague as to agree with most cosmological ideas -- and furthermore, were *not* novel at the time. Many of the basics of the current system were discovered by the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and were not uncommon knowledge.

Here is a sample argument to illuminate my point:

“He coils the night upon the day and the day upon the night.” Qur’an, 39:5
The original meaning of the verb kis to coil a turban around the head. This is a totally valid comparison; yet at the time the Qur’an was revealed, the astronomical data necessary to make this comparison were unknown. It is not until man landed on the moon and observed the earth spinning on its axis, that the dark half of the globe appeared to wind itself around the light and the light half appeared to wind itself around the dark.

Anyone whom has noticed night follows day, and vice versa could easily have made that comparison. I do not find this at all convincing, as mankind, though out it's entire history knew this fact.



2) The argument that the Koran correctly identifies modern embryology -- it simply does not *accurately* do so -- and what facts it gets right were commonplace knowledge to anyone that has had experience with livestock could discuss. In fact, the description in the Koran parallels writing from 150 CE, and appears to be based on that -- it even borrows words from this earlier texts to describe the stages observed. To add to the pot, modern embryologists quickly deny that the Koran is even accurate on this topic.


These are just two select examples, and I am not going into much detail at this time, but it gives a decent example of how things appear to a non-believer.

Thank's for your time J.

[ozymandias]

Ozy, I don't like going by a point by point formate of argumentation as we end up parsing so much, we end up losing focus on the main issue.

Therefore I will try to bring about the wider gist of your argument together by pointing out to you the flaws in your way of thinking.

Firstly, you were the one to take Admin khan's original question and rephrase it as Pascal's wager.

The original quote is "Wouldn't you agree that it's better to believe in a God, as opposed to rejecting him and finding out that he did indeed exist?" This argument *is* Pascal's Wager. It is not rephrasing it to apply it's common label to it.

Pascal believed that God may not be known through reason, and that reason was not enough. Admin doesn't believe this to be true. We believe that Allah can be known through reason, as Ibrahim learned of Allah through reason at a time when no one worshipped Him as He ought to be.

If you know of Pascal's wager, then you must know of his arguments in general?

I quote to you Pascal:

"What say [the unbelievers] then? "Do we not see," say they, "that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us," etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us"

Maybe you don't understand English, so I will paraphrase it for you. Pascal is saying that "if you desire with all your heart to know it" then you should study all the different religions, in details. Just wanting to know it is not enough, not for having a philosophical discussion on a forum. The stakes are high, and you can't have such a superficial reflection on the question, so as to muse over it with us, in passing. Inquire about all the religions, and discern for your self - which one is the one?
You are making the criticism against Pascal, because Voltaire reasoned that Pascal's wager would hold through for an Imam as well.

This is true, among many other points I raised.

For a Christian, Salvation can only be through Jesus Christ. We do not believe that salvation can only be through Mohammad (peace be upon them). And we believe that a monotheist, who worships The One God, be he Jewish (a follower of Moses), a unitarian Christain has just as much chance of success in the afterlife as a follower of Mohammad, peace be upon him. Only the people differ by the weight of their actions, and only God can judge us.

But the Wager is *NOT* limited to just one god, nor to monotheism at all -- and that is the flaw I pointed out.

[quote]


Your ignorance of our religion makes you seem shallow and condescending, which is why you get no love here. You give us an excuse that is obviously fowl.

[quote]

I apologize if you mistook my points for a misunderstanding of your religion, but it appears you misunderstood my points, and used that as an excuse to be offended. Take the original quote: "Wouldn't you agree that it's better to believe in a God, as opposed to rejecting him and finding out that he did indeed exist?" You can *easily* substitute many other gods into it, and that exact quote is equally valid for any of them: "Wouldn't you agree that it's better to believe in (Zeus, a flying purple unicorn, Odin, Thor, Osiris, etc), as opposed to rejecting him and finding out that he did indeed exist?"

This Wager is not an Islamic specific argument, so any offense you took from my reply is based on your mistaken assumption that I was only speaking of Islam.

More importantly, over and over again you have been using "Gravity" as a thing that is obvious in itself to believe, as if gravity can be "seen."
Here you are again exposing your ignorance, and the flaw in your argument.
There is no such thing as gravity. There is no proof for gravity. It is neither light, nor particle. In your own words, describe what gravity is? Why do things fall? Is it because of their masses? Then why does the earth not fall into the sun? Because centrifugal force is holding it back? Is that a real force? Do we have evidence for gravitons? So why do you believe in gravity?

Seriously? I am *not* going to go into basic, elementary physics at this time. Gravity is a very well known, and well understood concept in physics, and I see no reason to waste my time rehashing it simply so you can waste my time -- and it is irrelevant to the conversation. I brought gravity up as an example of something that all rational adults believe in because the evidence for it that they have seen in their lives is easily enough to convince them that it exists. The basics of how it works, or what you label the phenomena is moot.

Until newton had described the phenomena, nobody knew it as "gravity" or even had a concept of "force". So they believed something different in the same things you observed. Except they had a different understanding of it than you.

Since the details are irrelevant, and the only fact that matters is that they were exposed to enough evidence that something existed -- thanks for making my point for me.

You are a victim of the myths of popular culture. Your reality is one that is defined by television soap operas, the internet and movies. In the real world people do not necessarily develop agoraphobia because they have a traumatic experience. In most cases it arises spontaneously. Of course, you want reference because your psychology textbooks from the 80s are outdated.
Agoraphobia in adults: incidence and longitu... [Br J Psychiatry. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
You can still google it more.

I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me here, as you are easily fluent enough in English to understand my point. "They have experienced something in their lives that provided sufficient evidence *TO THEM* to convince them of the dangers of the outside." This does not mean that they actually have had a traumatic experience, only that they *perceive the evidence that the outside is dangerous as convincing* Regardless of if they had a traumatic experience, or their threshold for convincing changed, or as you put it 'spontaneously' occured, the fact of the matter is that it is *NOT* a matter of choice. You are not even arguing against my point -- you provided additional evidence to verify my point that it is *NOT* a choice. The exact mechanisms do not matter. What matters is that it was not a choice the agoraphobic made to decide to believe the outside world is dangerous.

Yes, you are a product of your environment, and sadly, your environment has had a corrosive effect on your ability to think clearly. And it has been designed to do so. (More on that later). No offence thought, but your point of view is not unique. It is a brand. People wear jeans because they think it makes them an individual, but really one jean is like any other. People eat at mcdonalds because they think they are expressing their individuality, their freedom of choice. But they are being conformists for preferring coke cola over pepsi. Your brand of belief is not unique. I can walk out of my door and everyone of you have it. Why would I ask you anything, as if you are something rare and unique.

Feel free to not ask anything then -- but it is *very* clear that at least some of the people here are not exposed to Americans, or atheists very often -- and to them, it is something new, and novel, and worth exposing them to.

All your arguments are rather silly though. That you would go to church in iran for hiding your atheism is an indication of your cowardice and stupidity. This goes to show that you wager being a christain pretender is safer for you than being an atheist - isn't this pascal's wager?

Not at all. Iran has laws against being an atheist -- atheists are required to declare a religion in order to receive all their rights, or so I have been lead to believe by the International Federation of Human Rights. To not declare myself one of the recognized religions leaves me unprotected by Iranian law, and subject to legalized discrimination.

This is not a form of Pascal's Wager, as it is not even a wager. The report I read states that only Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians are protected against short term and long term imprisionment on the basis of their religious affiliation, protection from the seizure of private property and assets, the right to assemble, and various other legal protections. To quote the report:
Of particular concern is the status of religious minorities who are not able to freely exercise their religion, are treated like second-class citizens, and are being discriminated against both in law and in practice.
Deprived of any legal status, the non-recognized religious minorities, as far as they are concerned, see their basic rights constantly violated by the authorities in total impunity.

If I were to travel to Iran, I would look into this in more detail, but those seem to be important rights to give away so freely.

Personally I don't think an iranian would care if you are atheist or christain, to whom both are the same,

Not legally speaking. Legally speaking, it appears the Christians have at least *some* rights.

since christainity has slid off into idolatry and paganism,

Since when? I know many Christians, and none of them have done either of those. I know it is common place for people with no actual knowledge of the religion to claim that -- but they are just showing their ignorance when they claim that about Christianity as a whole.

which carries just as bad a stigma for muslims as atheism. However your belief is based on your reasoning, which is faulty.

Feel free to show me some of these faults. I would be interested in you pointing them out if you ever have the time.