Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[RevolutionThroughReason]

faiath? evdence?

plz elaborate.

faith*

evidence, you can demonstrate it somehow and it can be inferred or ascertained

[ozymandias]

You totally misunderstood my statements and generalized it all. I apologize for being vague and perhaps paradoxical. But as you generalized my statements, you are generalizing the creators signs:

The concept of a soul has been around for thousands of years (longer than modern science). It has been discussed by Prophets throughout history like a Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and Muhammad.

These are all religious people, not people of science. What they believed has no impact on whether it was real or not.

[/quote]

Simply downgrading it by claiming "Lack of evidence" is blindly following your favorite scientists opinion (not trying to insult).

[/quote]

It's not insulting -- because it is not true.

Science is the study of God's work.

Feel free to think that.

Spirituality is the focus of the creator itself. The knowledge of both completes a human. Ignoring one is ignorance; correlating both is genius.

No, correlating them is insanity, since they are contradicting areas of study.

I admit I disliked science as I believed it was a field of douchebags.

Fair enough -- but they don't hold a candle to the douchebags that promote religion.

But it has truth to it.

True.

Nothing is random,

Partially true.

as destiny is preordained by the lord.

Unvalidated assertion. There is no evidence to back this claim up.

For a purpose that is the knowledge of the unseen. You have to wake from stubbornness so you can attain enlightenment

Indeed you do. Most of the great intellectuals have had this problem -- and most of them succeed, and cast off religion in order to attain enlightenment. Strange you would end with a pro-logic sentence like that -- I suspect you don't realize what it means...

[RevolutionThroughReason]

One reason I love this thread, is that it makes people who blindly believe things very uncomfortable.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Animals and humans all life forms have souls. It looks like Atheists/Agnostics view scientists as Prophets. And science textbooks, holy scriptures. I say this because atheists read science books, and believe everything in it is infallible and pure. They don't check and experiment on their own; just accepting whatever they're reading. Sounds like a religion. A "science" based one

If atheists believe everything in Science infallible and pure .....why do they advocate science to do more research and learn about things more deeply throigh experiments and tests ......wouldn't believing something is infallible and pure imply that it needs no further modification or research, or that it is unchallengeable through scientific research and testing?

sort of like how we Muslims treat the Qur2an .....

[ozymandias]

^^

That doesn't make sense bro. Please reread my post

Your evaluation of the soul can be applied to the history of science. Since nobody knew anything about the sky, earth and life forms, humans drastically created science to make themselves feel better.

Except you are ignoring the fact that science embraces the unknown. Science looks for evidence about a theory -- and that evidence is embraced to improve and readjust the theory. Religion does not do that. Religion is dogmatic and rejects any evidence that does not agree with the assumptions.

^
This statement makes no sense as much as your post does.

Only because you blindly wrote a parody, not understanding what science is and does.

Animals and humans all life forms have souls.

You can believe that -- but there is no evidence it is true.

It looks like Atheists/Agnostics view scientists as Prophets.

If that's the way it looks to you, you don't understand the first thing about science, or prophets. Science does not decree -- it discovers. They do not reject evidence, they embrace it. They take glee in a theory being proven wrong -- because that means they came up with a better one, a better understanding of the world.

And science textbooks, holy scriptures.

Again, not even close to reality. No wonder you reject science -- you don't have a school child's understanding of what it is, or how it works.

I say this because atheists read science books, and believe everything in it is infallible and pure.

What atheists are you talking about? This only describes the religious I know, not a single atheist I have ever met worked that way.

They don't check and experiment on their own; just accepting whatever they're reading. Sounds like a religion. A "science" based one

HAHAHAHAHAHA. That's classic. By your logic, every Muslim is a terrorist. I mean, I could pretend to not know that most of them are peaceable, compassionate people. I could simply take an untrue stereotype, ignore the evidence to the contrary, and make broad, sweeping generalizations of millions of people based on flawed information, and an unwillingness to look at the truth.

Every Muslim is a terrorist is just as accurate as your claim that every atheist is a blind follower of some religion of science.

[ozymandias]

speak for yourself.
nice little fairystory, lol. why would a basic civilisation be prejudiced against the body becoming worm food?

People hate the unknown. Since they didn't have the ability to come up with scientific explanations, they made up something else.

you have no proof nor insight as to what the people of bygone days may have known about the construct of the known and unknown universe. you do not know that reincarnation is just a concoction.

What we *do* know, is that there is absolutely no evidence that it is real -- or any reason to believe it.

it is what you CHOOSE to believe.

Belief is not a matter of choice. Either the facts presented to you are convincing, or they are not. It's not a decision people make.

you guys are so funny with your arrogant attitudes that assume that everything said by you and scientists, is the be all and end all of what is.

Funny -- that's not what's going on here at all. Science is all about revision and new information. The arrogant ones are the ones claiming that not only do they know the nature of reality, but it was revealed to one of them 1,500 years ago, and he was given all the answers -- and if reality disagrees with what he was told, reality is wrong.

Really -- who is being arrogant here? Scientists are willing to inspect, investigate, and accept (if the evidence is convincing) any idea, including religion. It's the religious that refuse to understand science, and reject it, without even looking at it. Look at this very thread, and the inaccurate depictions of science we see here!

[ozymandias]

faiath? evdence?

plz elaborate.

He meant 'faith' and 'evidence' -- faith is belief without (or contrary to) evidence. If there was evidence, it would not be faith, it would be fact -- provably so.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You totally misunderstood my statements and generalized it all. I apologize for being vague and perhaps paradoxical. But as you generalized my statements, you are generalizing the creators signs:

The concept of a soul has been around for thousands of years (longer than modern science). It has been discussed by Prophets throughout history like a Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and Muhammad. Simply downgrading it by claiming "Lack of evidence" is blindly following your favorite scientists opinion (not trying to insult).

I find Christians often use this same line of argument; They say Christianity came before Islam so Islam is false because Christianity is older.

That something being older means it is more correct. This is actually a Logical Fallacy called Appeal to Antiquity If it's a fallacy when they use it, it will be a fallacy if you use it too but I digress.

Something isn't correct because it is new or old, it is correct because the evidence supports it. So it's not being "downgraded" by some scientist says "it lacks evidence", it's been downgraded because the evidence simply isn't there, this isn't a matter of one scientists opinion, it's not as if there actually is evidence and he thinks otherwise, it's that when people have looked for whether these things happen, they found that there's nothing that indicates that would be the case.

They're not claiming it is untrue, just unsupported; it's just religious fanatics who are insecure of their beliefs think anything except 100% affirmation that their claims are true is an insult.

Look at how people treated me simply because I said Muhammad made some stupid mistakes .....if I said a scientist made some stupid mistakes I'd simply be challenged to demonstrate it, not condemned or threatened.

[ozymandias]

One reason I love this thread, is that it makes people who blindly believe things very uncomfortable.

That's pretty much why I started this thread. I wanted to come face to face with some of these beliefs. I don't see much horribly blind faith in my daily life, and I wanted to touch base with a completely different mindset and world view -- both to share mine with them, and to learn theirs from them.

[کیش]

All you and your new best friend RTR is doing is responding quickly without reading between the lines.

You still fail to understand my statements, and are just responding as if this is a debate and it's not.

All leave you Scientologists again with this quote,

science is the study of God's work. Spirituality is the focus of the creator itself. The knowledge of both completes a human. Ignoring one is ignorance; correlating both is genius.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

That's pretty much why I started this thread. I wanted to come face to face with some of these beliefs. I don't see much horribly blind faith in my daily life, and I wanted to touch base with a completely different mindset and world view -- both to share mine with them, and to learn theirs from them.

Well it is important, recently a 14 year old girl i Pakistan was SHOT for wanting to go to school, by groups that certaiin members of this forum openly support as "heroes and freedom fighters" which is paradoxical because they want to deprive people of freedom.

It is because of that "certainty" in the justification for their actions that these actions persist. If people were less sure of such things, maybe they'd reconsider and take the time to think out their behavior more.

These beliefs have shown once again the real life collateral that arises because of them.

The necessity to challenge these ideas is more urgent than ever.

[کیش]

I find Christians often use this same line of argument; They say Christianity came before Islam so Islam is false because Christianity is older.

That something being older means it is more correct. This is actually a Logical Fallacy called Appeal to Antiquity If it's a fallacy when they use it, it will be a fallacy if you use it too but I digress.

Something isn't correct because it is new or old, it is correct because the evidence supports it. So it's not being "downgraded" by some scientist says "it lacks evidence", it's been downgraded because the evidence simply isn't there, this isn't a matter of one scientists opinion, it's not as if there actually is evidence and he thinks otherwise, it's that when people have looked for whether these things happen, they found that there's nothing that indicates that would be the case.

They're not claiming it is untrue, just unsupported; it's just religious fanatics who are insecure of their beliefs think anything except 100% affirmation that their claims are true is an insult.

Look at how people treated me simply because I said Muhammad made some stupid mistakes .....if I said a scientist made some stupid mistakes I'd simply be challenged to demonstrate it, not condemned or threatened.

You misunderstand me. It's funny how a supposed Muslim partners with a Scientologist Atheists against believers of one god, says a lot about you my friend.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

All you and your new best friend RTR is doing is responding quickly without reading between the lines.

You still fail to understand my statements, and are just responding as if this is a debate and it's not.

All leave you Scientologists again with this quote,

The problem with your quote, isn't whether one is ignored and another embraced.

it's that ONE is based on an assumption, something that cannot be determined naturally , that we cannot ascertain, It is speculative at best. with not even any sort of approachable foundation to base them on.

Even staunch Atheists (not all but some) say when there is evidence they accept the evidence and that evidence went towards the existence of a being such as God, then they'd accept it

that's the difference here ....you believe something first and then claim it as knowledge

Science gains something as knowledge first and then claims it as truth

this is why your advice does not realy advocate the balance of anything, because the process you advocate is unbalanced to begin with.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You misunderstand me. It's funny how a supposed Muslim partners with a Scientologist Atheists against believers of one god, says a lot about you my friend.

Scientology is totally different thing than science.

I'm not "partnering" with anyone ....I just want Muslims to be held to higher intellectual standards than merely going by flaky and weak assumptions.

[کیش]

The evidence is the thousands of Prophets who came a prophesized about the lord. That is the evidence of God right there. Ignoring this, is like ignoring top scientists of the past. Everything around us is the workings of God, so you see the compleed work not the worker.

Atheistsm should be called Scientology as they do claim science textbooks and science overall as infallible. Claiming otherwise is insecurity