Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ډګروال]

I'm sorry if it came off arrogant, but faye is not even putting up a struggle here. Why would I need someone's support?

well,your arrogance is obvious ,as you dont even answer people and calling their questioning of you.So far you havent been logical and all you did was being arrogant and acting liek you have figured out there is no God.


Why do you think I implied I have a monopoly on science? I'm not sure what gave that impression.

Everything you say backs it up.
anyone who doesnt agree with you is somehow against science or doesnt know how science works.right?


AH!

dont act like you dont know what im talking about.
it is yet another attempt to skirt away.
you say there is no physical evidence of existance of God so he doesnt exist according to you.

A misunderstanding! Please, go back and read a few of my posts. I have stated several times that religion and science can live together, and that it is impossible to prove that gods do not exist. I think I may have been lumped into your pre-existing opinion of atheists and scientists, here.

you are just continueing with the same tactic "i may have been lumped into your pre exiting........" and keep in mind i didnt mention scientist yet you lumped atheists and scientist in the same category.get to show your delusion that atheists hold monopoly on science.


Extraordinary claims require evidence. I am holding your allah to the same standard I hold anything to.

like your extraordinary claims and no evidence to back it up.
Believer sdont need any physical evidence of God and closed minded atheist(keep in mind not all atheists are closed minded) such as you has a hardtime to have a sincere approach.

[ډګروال]

Are you sure this is a native English speaker? This seems like a language barrier issue. I'm not convinced that he made up that claim as much as I believe it likely that he did not understand something I *did* say.

are you sure that pashtuns are arabic speakers that you put arabic in your signature.

see, you arent that smart as you thought,anything is possible.

btw im not native english speaker and you are asking this from a guy who is native english speaker yet has hard time with spelling.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

like your extraordinary claims and no evidence to back it up.
Believer sdont need any physical evidence of God and closed minded atheist(keep in mind not all atheists are closed minded) such as you has a hardtime to have a sincere approach.

That's a circular argument.

explain how his posts or responses do as you allege.

[ozymandias]

Normally, I wont bother to fix other people's tags to reply...

well,your arrogance is obvious ,as you dont even answer people and calling their questioning of you.

Could I have an example? Even the flawed questions, once I point out the flaws, I answer as best I am able.

So far you havent been logical and all you did was being arrogant and acting liek you have figured out there is no God.

No, I have simply never seen any reason to believe in a god. There is no logical reason, nor evidence that I have seen. There is a difference.

Everything you say backs it up.
anyone who doesnt agree with you is somehow against science or doesnt know how science works.right?

Not really -- just when they describe what they think science is, and are wrong in the description. Like you. You described scientists as blindly taking things as fact because another scientist said it was so. This is not true, and shows that you have no understanding of how the scientific method works.

A comparison would be if someone came in here and said that Islamic prophets are elected, and since the word of God is not a matter of public opinion, Islam is wrong. Since that's not how Islam works, you would be inclined to believe that that person did not understand what they are talking about.

dont act like you dont know what im talking about.

This is one of the few cases I think you were very clear in what you stated.

it is yet another attempt to skirt away.

I'm not skirting away -- you are claiming I stated something the opposite of what I have actually stated -- repeatedly.

you say there is no physical evidence of existance of God so he doesnt exist according to you.

No, that's according to you. I have *repeatedly* stated the opposite. You are either misunderstanding what I am saying, or you are deliberately ignoring what I am saying. I am an agnostic -- I believe that there is no possible way to prove the existence, or lack of existence of a god.

you are just continueing with the same tactic "i may have been lumped into your pre exiting........" and keep in mind i didnt mention scientist yet you lumped atheists and scientist in the same category.

It appears you are lumping me with someone else, as I have never made the claims you accuse me of.

get to show your delusion that atheists hold monopoly on science.

Please do -- I would love to understand why you think I hold that position.

like your extraordinary claims and no evidence to back it up.

I am making no extraordinary claims. I do not claim their is no god, I just do not accept your claims there is one. It's a subtle, but important point.

Believer sdont need any physical evidence of God

You're right. That's what faith is for.

and closed minded atheist(keep in mind not all atheists are closed minded) such as you has a hardtime to have a sincere approach.

Again, why are you calling *me* close minded? Of the two of us, I am the only one willing to look at the evidence for both sides. I am the only one willing to understand both sides. I am the only one trying to make an honest attempt to communicate, and read what you post. You are the one that ignore what I post, don't understand what science is, and refuse to look at anything outside your predetermined opinion.

[ozymandias]

are you sure that pashtuns are arabic speakers that you put arabic in your signature.

It was my understanding, when I put that there, that most Muslims speak at least *some* Arabic, since the Koran is not supposed to be translated. It is an attempt to have a short signature that most here can understand, nothing more.

see, you arent that smart as you thought,anything is possible.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean...

btw im not native english speaker and you are asking this from a guy who is native english speaker yet has hard time with spelling.

I thought as much. Your word choice and cadence are a little 'off' -- not that there is anything *wrong* with that. Think of it like a written 'accent'. You are doing very well communicating, as a whole, you just make an occasional mistake, or misunderstanding. You are doing far better than I do in my second language. I can barely write in spanish, but I can hold a decent (if slow) verbal conversation.

[Afghanistan2010]

Normally, I wont bother to fix other people's tags to reply...



Could I have an example? Even the flawed questions, once I point out the flaws, I answer as best I am able.



No, I have simply never seen any reason to believe in a god. There is no logical reason, nor evidence that I have seen. There is a difference.



Not really -- just when they describe what they think science is, and are wrong in the description. Like you. You described scientists as blindly taking things as fact because another scientist said it was so. This is not true, and shows that you have no understanding of how the scientific method works.

A comparison would be if someone came in here and said that Islamic prophets are elected, and since the word of God is not a matter of public opinion, Islam is wrong. Since that's not how Islam works, you would be inclined to believe that that person did not understand what they are talking about.



This is one of the few cases I think you were very clear in what you stated.



I'm not skirting away -- you are claiming I stated something the opposite of what I have actually stated -- repeatedly.



No, that's according to you. I have *repeatedly* stated the opposite. You are either misunderstanding what I am saying, or you are deliberately ignoring what I am saying. I am an agnostic -- I believe that there is no possible way to prove the existence, or lack of existence of a god.



It appears you are lumping me with someone else, as I have never made the claims you accuse me of.



Please do -- I would love to understand why you think I hold that position.



I am making no extraordinary claims. I do not claim their is no god, I just do not accept your claims there is one. It's a subtle, but important point.



You're right. That's what faith is for.



Again, why are you calling *me* close minded? Of the two of us, I am the only one willing to look at the evidence for both sides. I am the only one willing to understand both sides. I am the only one trying to make an honest attempt to communicate, and read what you post. You are the one that ignore what I post, don't understand what science is, and refuse to look at anything outside your predetermined opinion.

So you must see something before you can believe in it amazing
You never saw a Blackhole why do believe in it, we never saw gamma rays we still believe in their existence...we never saw power but we can define power....

[ozymandias]

So you must see something before you can believe in it amazing

Nope. I must see evidence for it, not the thing itself. I don't merely accept people's word.

You never saw a Blackhole why do believe in it, we never saw gamma rays we still believe in their existence...we never saw power but we can define power....

Indeed -- and each of those things have piles of evidence pointing to their existence. They fit the current theories, they explain all known evidence, and they do so within the confines of science.

Furthermore, each of those three things can be used to make predictions about the world. In the case of black holes, one of the implications is that light can, and does bend in response to the existence of black holes -- this is something we not only predicted, but can observe. Not only did black holes fit the known evidence, they could be used to successfully predict new evidence to research.

Gamma rays, and 'power[ ( I assume you mean electricity) have a similar history. The math behind them fits. We can observe the impact of these things, and in the case of electricity, we have successfully harnessed it to do our bidding in every day life.

When I flip the switch, and the lights go on, it's due to electricity, not magical fairies.

[Afghanistan2010]

That is the joke i want to tell you in your thinking.

God created All the things and gave the human knowledge and understanding for some matters and some they don't understand and we will be never able to understand cause our thinking is restricted our brain is restricted...like in cryptology there are codes which will outlive us there is knowledge of something we can not understand even if we try to understand it for billions of years.

God created these things to give you an explanation only a rough explanation of those things to which it matters us....but he can not be described with the things he created cause he is the most high,nothing resembles him,that means there is no physical model of him,nor God can be described by it.

In physic we describe everything in the nature through models and experiments to understand how it works and such things,but somethings are out there they can only be thought,but never described.

Think about it.

[ozymandias]

That is the joke i want to tell you in your thinking.

God created All the things and gave the human knowledge and understanding for some matters and some they don't understand and we will be never able to understand cause our thinking is restricted our brain is restricted...like in cryptology there are codes which will outlive us there is knowledge of something we can not understand even if we try to understand it for billions of years.

God created these things to give you an explanation only a rough explanation of those things to which it matters us....but he can not be described with the things he created cause he is the most high,nothing resembles him,that means there is no physical model of him,nor God can be described by it.

In physic we describe everything in the nature through models and experiments to understand how it works and such things,but somethings are out there they can only be thought,but never described.

Think about it.

Ah. You just give up then. In your mind, if it's hard, it's not worth doing? I'm the other way around -- some of the most worthwhile things are the hardest. Better not have a kid -- I hear they are hard work. While we are at it, better give up on finding a cure for cancer -- that seems pretty darn hard.

There is no evidence that your description of reality is even partially correct, anyway. Science is advancing all the time. Who's to say that in a few hundred years we will not have a better picture of physics? 100 years ago we knew nothing of atomic power. 200 years ago, people were regularly dying of vitamin C deficiency -- scurvy was barely understood, and the cures were based on random chance. 300 years ago, calculus was understood enough to found all of modern physics. 400 years ago? Still working out heliocentric models.

Just because something is hard is no reason to avoid it, quite the opposite. Time has shown again and again, that we *can* understand that which was once thought beyond the grasp of man.

[Afghanistan2010]

I don't know giving up.

[ozymandias]

I don't know giving up.

If that's not what you were saying, could you clarify? You made it sound like since we could not understand god, we should not even bother.

[DaZahroJaam.]

hey agonistic atheist man, will I ever become a ballerina??

[Afghanistan2010]

Wrong,in contrary,you will never find any resembling for God in his creation,alone the creation is reason enough to believe that it came not from Nowhere but must have a creator.

One should always strive to get as much knowledge as one can,don't you know our history of muslims,we strived and saved knowledge and shared the knowledge not as like the European-

I as myself i have been working to get as much knowledge as i can of chemistry,and i want to be oneday a successful scientist-.

[ozymandias]

Wrong,in contrary,you will never find any resembling for God in his creation,

We are in agreement there, for different reasons.

alone the creation is reason enough to believe that it came not from Nowhere but must have a creator.

Again, that is fallacious logic. I see no evidence that reality required a creator -- in fact, a creator would go contrary to logic.

One should always strive to get as much knowledge as one can,

Then why reject science?

don't you know our history of muslims,we strived and saved knowledge and shared the knowledge not as like the European-

Historically, that may be true, but many modern Muslims reject science and education, so it is far from true in modern times.

I as myself i have been working to get as much knowledge as i can of chemistry,and i want to be oneday a successful scientist-.

Good luck with that. It will be interesting to see how your views of the world change as you begin to learn how science works.

[ozymandias]

hey agonistic atheist man, will I ever become a ballerina??

I flipped a coin. It said yes. Congrats!