Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[RevolutionThroughReason]

yes we all know some prunish hypocritical white privileged 60 year old who parasitically trolls on the internet and gets antsy whenever people do not accept her warped hocus pocus leads a far superior existence than someone who's educating themselves.

because knowledge is gained through lazy acts like smoking dope with the shaman not hard work and effort.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

lol, getting really desperate now, aren't you, loser?

you're an expert at being desperate

[Admin Khan]

Keep it mature guys, consider this a warning.

[faye]

yes we all know some prunish hypocritical white privileged 60 year old who parasitically trolls on the internet and gets antsy whenever people do not accept her warped hocus pocus leads a far superior existence than someone who's educating themselves.

because knowledge is gained through lazy acts like smoking dope with the shaman not hard work and effort.

gone fishing and swimming. catch you later.

[DaZahroJaam.]

and your perpetual bitching reminds me of a female suffering from permanent PMT.
get your hormone balance tested, dear.

***comes at you with a pickle***
Run Faye, ruuuuuuuun!

[کیش]

I have the strong feeling you just learned the term "Lateral Thinking" like two days ago and because Lateral Thinking uses an unconventional way of looking at problems ,....you thought somehow that means that Anyone who peddles unsubstantiable claims that lack evidence in support of them is using lateral thinking. But that's the completely wrong rendition of the ternm. Lateral thiniking is USING Unconventional Ways to demonstrate EVIDENCE.

For example Who'd ever think of usng the root system of a TREE to build a NEW Computer Networking Architecture, but like the Tree, it sends signals effectively with maximum efficiency and minimum loss. Then that's evidence a computer networking can do the same. THAT is Lateral Thinking Your thinking is neither LATERAL or VERTICAL ....it's mindless blind following

the very thing you're claim others are doing, that is parroting other peoples writings blindly is actually WHAT you are doing here. You're going by ALLEGED texts by people and saying because THEY CLAIMED so and so exists IT MUST BE TRUE.

checkmate.

Only someone who is insecure says "Checkmate," on an online discussion.

It looks like you haven't found God, and is confused between his faith and his science books. One cannot find God reading book; it comes from personal experiences and not from others. reading helps explore, searching discovers.

I can't make someone believe in god just how the Prophet could not. It's up to each individual to come to the conclusion.

[کیش]

For example Who'd ever think of usng the root system of a TREE to build a NEW Computer Networking Architecture, but like the Tree, it sends signals effectively with maximum efficiency and minimum loss. Then that's evidence a computer networking can do the same. THAT is Lateral Thinking Your thinking is neither LATERAL or VERTICAL ....it's mindless blind following

That is definitely Lateral Thinking. But not from you. Like I said earlier, that is someone else's Lateral thinking and you science religion followers claim that just because you read that, It makes you smarter. Just an example

I have the strong feeling you just learned the term "Lateral Thinking" like two days ago and because Lateral Thinking uses an unconventional way of looking at problems ,....you thought somehow that means that Anyone who peddles unsubstantiable claims that lack evidence in support of them is using lateral thinking. But that's the completely wrong rendition of the ternm. Lateral thiniking is USING Unconventional Ways to demonstrate EVIDENCE.

That's funny, I must mentioned Lateral Thinking two days ago and now your telling me what it is. smh

[ozymandias]

but you said yourself that philosophical, religious questings are not for the scientific agenda.

That does not mean you cannot, or should not apply logic to them.

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.

Huh?

[ozymandias]

so what if you said that?

Please stay on one topic please. You accused me of stating that 'we are all scientists, even you', when I said no such thing. I clarified your misquote.

not all the scientific designs and creations are beneficial. many disastrous mistakes have been made by scientists.

Indeed. The same can be said of *all* human endeavors, especially religion.

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

[ozymandias]

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.

Not at all. It's just a little tiresome to try and have a discussion with you when you consistently make up straw men, and pretend I said something I never said. It's a shame you have nothing against lying.

I never stated all people, even you, are scientists -- but you claim I stated that. I never stated that anything that cannot be proven is thereby imaginary, but once again, you lie, and pretend I did.

why would we need scientists to disprove that which some of us know from our own experience, exists?

You don't disprove something to show that it exists. Disproving shows that something is false.

Just because you believe you experienced something doesn't make it real. The brain is an amazing organ, and can produce convincing hallucinations that appear real -- to the person experiencing them, but are far from real. Just because you see something doesn't mean it was really there.

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.

It's strange that you think I am needy for scientific approval -- where did you get that idea?

why is imagination not reality?

....? Seriously?

if it exists then is it not also reality?

Sure, you can imagine things that happen to exist, and they are reality. I can picture the the keyboard I am typing with, even when I am not looking at it, or touching it. It's real regardless of my imagining it. I can also imagine an 80 foot tall ape rampaging through downtown Manhattan -- and the act of imagining it does not make it real. It is merely an image in my brain -- one that can actually be measured and monitored.

what you don't know, is what imagination, fantasy, hallucination, mystical experience, telepathy, psychic phenomena, actually are.

These are fairly well understood phenomena of the brain. While it is not my area of expertise, it's quite easy to see that some people 'experience' non-real events.

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.

*sigh*

[ozymandias]

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.

My guess is that it appears robotic to you, simply because you are ignoring anything I say that you disagree with and doesn't fit inside the mold you are shoving me into.

[ozymandias]

i believe there are some truths in all the books i have read concerning religion. in fact, i believe the prophet mohammad, jesus, buddha and others are teachers for the heightening of consciousness, but i don't believe in everything in those books.
i get information from many sources including from my own meditations on the reason and meaning for existence. it is ongoing contemplation for me and my favourite subject. each day brings new revelations.

Then why not add science into the mix? Learn a little about it, see what it has to say, and see how well it explains the world? You are dismissing science before you even understand what it is.

[ozymandias]

in other words, scimitar, you are a LIAR and that is why you have no evidence.

you see, my little man, i LOVE it when science changes it's conclusions.

So do scientists -- that's what science is, after all, rejecting that which does not fit the evidence in favor of that which does -- and always seeking more evidence.

it puts a smile upon my dial, because the arrogance and false self assurance i have seen in those, like ozy, yourself and scientists, in interviews etc....... gets dented.

See, that's where you are wrong. Since you don't understand what science is, you think that overturning one part of science weakens it, or harms it in some way, when what it really is, is an act of improvement. Each time we disprove something, we know a little more, and have a better idea to replace it with.

also because i believe a lot of what scientists believe, is faulty and limited, due to their lack of imagination and personal experience, in some fields.
as we all know, many of their creations are just plain stuff ups.

You should put what you 'believe' scientists thing, and hoe you 'believe' they work on a shelf for a second, and learn a little bit more about it before you dismiss it.

[ozymandias]

so you are in reaction against being force fed religion. i thought as much.

Again, I have no problem putting my own words into my mouth. Please refrain from making up words to put in there for me.

[ozymandias]

never said it was a bad thing that science changes it's mind. as my previous comment will explain to you. that is your false assumption that i think it is bad.

Yet you keep acting like it is a problem, or embarrassing to science and scientists when something is disproven.

You can't have it both ways.