Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[کیش]

isn't the correct logic what should matter here?

He's using others logic and passing it off as if he is the enlighten one. That's fraud.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

He's using others logic and passing it off as if he is the enlighten one. That's fraud.

but if it's correct .....why does it matter ..I mean seeing that logic is apart of the universe, not apart of people; but regardless ...if it works . isn't that what matters?

isn't enlightenment just realizing something is correct ....I mean even your ideas aren't unique to you; they're said by every ignorant uneducated nutjob for thousands of years. so why does he have to?

What matters is his argument is correct not how unique it is.

[ozymandias]

Oh wow what a horrible response, if you answered it multiple times, answer again within your own logic. Your running away from answering this question.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You have asked this question and ignored my answers multiple times. I see no reason you won't do it again, so I'm not wasting the effort.

Jews were right so what Muhammad. Jews being Moses, of course and not the ones who are today.

Let me rephrase. Asking an agnostic to disprove the existence of a god is like asking a modern Muslim to prove that the modern Jews are right, and Mohammad was wrong.

It's a stupid question.

Einstein and Newton faith are important because you follow their findings yet have allergies against god. Must be from a bad childhood experience?

That doesn't make sense. Their faith is not important to the science they did. Their science work stands, or falls, independent of their religion.

'Allergies against god'? That doesn't make sense, nor does it describe my attitude at all. I am not 'allergic', I simply see no evidence a god exists.

As for a childhood experience, now I think you are grasping at straws.

[ozymandias]

He's using others logic and passing it off as if he is the enlighten one.

Wow. It's getting pretty pathetic that you can't address what I am actually saying, so you are making up things to pretend I say and do.

That's fraud.

It's a fallacy to create straw men to argue with because you can't actually have a rational discussion with me. I've never claimed their work as my own. I'm proud of the fact that I am standing on the shoulders of giants, and have fully admitted that science is built on the work of others.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

He did this to me too when I explained to him that I don't believe the parts of the Qur'an regarding the creation of Adam and Eve are literal and why I accept the FACT of evolution. His brain breaks down when he's faced with a mental challenge greater than his knowledge base; so he goes through this default loop.

That's one irony is that this kid ACTS like a robot who just repeats himself when he can't process things. Then he accuses others of not having independent thoughts

[ozymandias]

He did this to me too when I explained to him that I don't believe the parts of the Qur'an regarding the creation of Adam and Eve are literal and why I accept the FACT of evolution. His brain breaks down when he's faced with a mental challenge greater than his knowledge base; so he goes through this default loop.

That's one irony is that this kid ACTS like a robot who just repeats himself when he can't process things. Then he accuses others of not having independent thoughts

I'm not suprised. He is having a hard time grasping that agnostic does not mean atheist -- and keeps asking an agnostic to *prove* the non-existence of god.

Put simply, an agnostic (when discussing theism) believes you cannot prove the existence *OR NON EXISTENCE* of a god, or gods.

[DaZahroJaam.]

I'm not suprised. He is having a hard time grasping that agnostic does not mean atheist -- and keeps asking an agnostic to *prove* the non-existence of god.

Put simply, an agnostic (when discussing theism) believes you cannot prove the existence *OR NON EXISTENCE* of a god, or gods.

If agonistic doesn't mean atheist(which is clearly doesn't) then why do you claim to be an agonistic atheist man?? How can you be both at the same time??

[ozymandias]

If agonistic doesn't mean atheist(which is clearly doesn't) then why do you claim to be an agonistic atheist man?? How can you be both at the same time??

The two terms are unrelated. Atheism and agnosticism are separate terms, and describe completely different things. They can both be used, or neither, to describe someone. It's like describing someone as a 'male pashtun', or describing an object as 'wet hair' . Being male neither implies, nor contradicts being pashtun, just like 'wet' neither implies the object is, or is not 'hair'.

A theist believes there is a god, or gods.

An atheist believes there is no god, or gods.

A gnostic believes that you can *PROVE* the existence, or non existence of the object of discussion.

An agnostic believes that you can *NOT* prove the existence or non existence of the object of discussion.

A gnostic theist not only believes that a god, or god exists, but that that existence can be *proven* in logical and scientific terms beyond all possibility of doubt.

An agnostic theist believes in a god, or god, but believes that it cannot be proven - and that faith is required.

A gnostic theist believes that no god, or gods exist, and that it can be conclusively proven.

An agnostic theist believes that no god or god exists, but that the non-existence cannot be proven. I fall into this category, since I understand that in order to disprove the existence of all gods, you must first come up with a falsifiable definition of all gods. Since there are, for all intents and purposes an infinite number of unfalsifiable definitions of god or gods, this cannot be done. While some definitions can be disproven, it's impossible to prove, or disprove them all.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

If agonistic doesn't mean atheist(which is clearly doesn't) then why do you claim to be an agonistic atheist man?? How can you be both at the same time??

the agnostic part means, he doesn't know for certain; the Atheist part means, based on what we do know with a relatively high degree of certainty (not absolute), that he sees no reason to believe. Thus has a lack of belief (weak atheism)

[ozymandias]

Posted again, to clarify the description.

[کیش]

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You have asked this question and ignored my answers multiple times. I see no reason you won't do it again, so I'm not wasting the effort.



Let me rephrase. Asking an agnostic to disprove the existence of a god is like asking a modern Muslim to prove that the modern Jews are right, and Mohammad was wrong.

It's a stupid question.

That doesn't make sense. Their faith is not important to the science they did. Their science work stands, or falls, independent of their religion.

'Allergies against god'? That doesn't make sense, nor does it describe my attitude at all. I am not 'allergic', I simply see no evidence a god exists.

As for a childhood experience, now I think you are grasping at straws.

I'm "getting tired" of you saying you answered it multiple times but the reality is you said you have answered it multiple times and haven't even done any answering.

All directions lead to something in your childhood. Most likely when you found out there is no santa clause or something.

Answer my question: where's the proof of no God using your own logic, not someone else's. It does matter if you using someone else's findings, please don't circle around.


It's funny oh you have your boyfriend jumping in to save you every time and thanking all your post. All he's doing is gassing you up, lol

[ozymandias]

the agnostic part means, he doesn't know for certain; the Atheist part means, based on what we do know with a relatively high degree of certainty (not absolute), that he sees no reason to believe. Thus has a lack of belief (weak atheism)

I hate that term, since 'weak' has multiple meanings. Many people like to deliberately pretend to misunderstand that term and believe that my atheism is somehow not resolute, or that I am 'wishy-washy' on my stance.

I have a firm stance, and it is not 'weak' in the commonly used sense of the word.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

even if you were what they call a Strong Atheist, all a Strong ATheist means is that they DO NOT believe in God, it doesn't mean they think they are ABSOLUTELY certain.

I don't want to make any false assumptions but there is a common pattern with many of the debaters here; now these patterns MAY NOT be relevant or pertinent but they strike me none the less

1.) Kais and Dagarwal also known as CommodeofEmpires(their names are written in Arabic font which I can read) are avid users of drugs, now I'm not saying all users of drugs are all like them, but I do believe there is evidence that excessive use of mind altering substances can cause some serious damage to the brain and its cognitive ability.

2.) They were both raised heavily influenced by Rap-Culture and music; Now again I'm not suggesting that everyone who listens to rap or may have some influence from this subculture is the same. However RAP as a culture promotes shallowness, materialism, lack of achievement, criminal behavior, ignorance, hatred for knowledge or academic work. Laziness, incompetent, living off benefits while expressing animosity towards the society that provides them., disinterest in working hard etc etc etc

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I hate that term, since 'weak' has multiple meanings. Many people like to deliberately pretend to misunderstand that term and believe that my atheism is somehow not resolute, or that I am 'wishy-washy' on my stance.

I have a firm stance, and it is not 'weak' in the commonly used sense of the word.

I think weak atheism does carry the wrong connotation, maybe soft atheism is better?

[ozymandias]

I'm "getting tired" of you saying you answered it multiple times but the reality is you said you have answered it multiple times and haven't even done any answering.

You just keep ignoring it. I *JUST* answered it again.

All directions lead to something in your childhood. Most likely when you found out there is no santa clause or something.

Answer my question: where's the proof of no God using your own logic, not someone else's. It does matter if you using someone else's findings, please don't circle around.

No. Read the definition of agnostic, and then try and explain how your question makes *any* sense at all.

It's funny oh you have your boyfriend jumping in to save you every time and thanking all your post. All he's doing is gassing you up, lol

Eh, I actually think he is not 'saving' me, so much as making this more difficult at times. When he starts name calling, or posting incorrect definitions it makes it harder to have a civil conversation.