Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[Afghanistan2010]

This agnostic atheist is confused about his person,like ****mater RTR who is changing his religion as like soldat amir every few days....

[DaZahroJaam.]

shut up

[ozymandias]

I'm still waiting for your proof, Mr. atheist man. Please respond back with your own experiences and writing.

Thanks

Please read my posts. I have actually explained why I am not answering this question to you several times. Look at the definition of agnostic, and you will see why I will not answer your question.

[ozymandias]

How do you explain verses in the Holy Quran, or Bible, that have been verified today. For example,

أَلَمۡ تَرَ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُسَبِّحُ لَهُ ۥ مَن فِى ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٲتِ وَٱلأًرۡضِ وَٱلطَّيۡرُ صَـٰٓفَّـٰتٍ۬*ۖ كُلٌّ۬ قَدۡ عَلِمَ صلاتَهُ ۥ وَتَسۡبِيحَهُ ۥ*ۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَلِيمُۢ بِمَا يَفۡعَلُونَ

Earth is described as egg-shaped (not a perfect circular globe), a fact which was discovered recently in the human history.

Lucky turn of phrase. The fact that the Earth is nearly spherical has been known for a long, long time (several centuries BCE), and eggs were common spherical items historically speaking.

It's also an unlucky turn of phrase for several reasons, the most damning in that it is completely wrong. The Earth is *not* egg shaped. Eggs have a larger diameter through the tips than it does around the middle -- the exact opposite of the Earth -- the equator is longer than the polar diameter.

It's also a more modern translation -- older translations do not use the term egg shaped -- and these translations have come long after the ellipsoid shape of the Earth was known.

As a final note, a quick search indicates that there seems to be a lot of disagreement that the word used in Arabic can even be considered accurately translated to 'egg shaped' at all.

Do you feel like these were mere predictions?

I don't think they rate as high as 'prediction' at all. You put enough words on paper, especially flowery, allegorical words, and you are occasionally going to get some things right. Keep in mind, that you can cherry-pick verses of the Koran that directly contradict that one, which state the Earth is flat -- and this verse, in *several* of the translations I checked don't disagree with those verses. This verse appears to be mostly translated as 'spread the Earth' or 'expanded the Earth', neither of which rule out a flat Earth interpretation of the Koran.

Also, Quick-sort or Tim sort?

The language I tend to use most frequently defaults to a variant of heapsort, and I tend to stick with the default -- most of our massive sorts are done in batch mode in non-peak hours, so efficiency is not critical. When doing peak-hours sorting of data, we typically are using small enough datasets with proper indexing, so the sort time is negligible -- it's the retrieval time that is the most painful, by far, with our data.

Of the two choices, though (since I seem to get accused of avoiding answering questions a lot...) Timsort is by far the better choice. It's slowest speed, with worst-case data is equal to the best-case speed of quicksort.

[ozymandias]

"Ask an agnostic and atheist man..." you can be agnostic AND atheist?

Yes. The two terms describe different things. Just like you can be a Muslim (religion) man (gender), you can be an agnostic (believes that you can neither prove, nor disprove, the existence of a god, or gods) atheist (does not see enough evidence to have faith in a god, or gods).

[ozymandias]

He is no different than us,he blindly believes in the words of other men,

Looks like you need to look into what it means to be a scientist.

we he thinks believe in a madman same crap we heared from the pagans of makkah.

I actually would not go so far as to claim 'madman'.

[ozymandias]

You can't have proof for something you don't believe in.

Not only can you, many do. There is a lot of proof that evolution is true, and people still reject that.

You can't be agnostic if you are an atheist

Sure you can. I am an atheist -- I do not believe in a god or gods. I am an agnostic, I do not believe that I can prove the non-existence of god, or gods with 100% certainty, due to the slippery definition of a god.

and not an agonistic if you are an atheist.

Actually, I have met many gnostic atheists. These are the people that don't have a grasp of science, and tend to think that you can somehow use science to disprove something that by it's very nature is defined as 'outside science'.

For the sixth time, those two contradict each other in definition.

And again, they only seem to contradict each other because you insist on using incorrect definitions of the words.

Definition of AGNOSTIC

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

Those are from Merriam-Webster, and represent an adequate common-use definition. When discussion theology or philosophy, the definitions are a little more expansive and strict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism "In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism "atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

[ozymandias]

This agnostic atheist is confused about his person,

Why would you say that? Because I am a native English speaker and understand what the words 'agnostic' and 'atheist' actually mean, and use them correctly?

like ****mater RTR who is changing his religion as like soldat amir every few days....

[Afghanistan2010]

There is a lot of proof that evolution is true, and people still reject that.

There is not,sorry.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

There is not,sorry.

haha .......oh but it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Theory_in_Crisis

Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said that Denton "details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other 'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle, but there are also some interesting points."[5] Mark I. Vuletic, in an essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.[6]

and of course

Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertations accompanied, more often than not, with scorn

oh yes and finally!

The fallacy in Denton's argument was that there is really no such thing as a "living fossil", all modern species are cousins.[13] A carp is not an ancestor to a frog; frogs are not ancestors to turtles; turtles are not ancestors to rabbits. The variations in cytochrome c structure were all relative to the common ancestor of these different organisms and it was not surprising that they showed a similar level of divergence.

tadaaaaaa!

[RevolutionThroughReason]

This agnostic atheist is confused about his person,like ****mater RTR who is changing his religion as like soldat amir every few days....

show me where did I change my religion ....find the quote.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

He is no different than us,he blindly believes in the words of other men,:

So you're admitting you blindly believe the words of other men.


I think you're confused about what Ozymandias is saying, he's not saying there is PROOF God exists, but because there is a lack of clear evidence which confirms the existence of God; that he LACKS belief in a THEISTIC deity.

Hence A-Theist

what is so hard for you to understand? I understand it and UNLIKE YOU< I'm Muslim.

[Afghanistan2010]

haha .......oh but it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...eory_in_Crisis




and of course




oh yes and finally!



tadaaaaaa!

[DaZahroJaam.]

Not only can you, many do. There is a lot of proof that evolution is true, and people still reject that.



Sure you can. I am an atheist -- I do not believe in a god or gods. I am an agnostic, I do not believe that I can prove the non-existence of god, or gods with 100% certainty, due to the slippery definition of a god.



Actually, I have met many gnostic atheists. These are the people that don't have a grasp of science, and tend to think that you can somehow use science to disprove something that by it's very nature is defined as 'outside science'.



And again, they only seem to contradict each other because you insist on using incorrect definitions of the words.

Definition of AGNOSTIC

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

Those are from Merriam-Webster, and represent an adequate common-use definition. When discussion theology or philosophy, the definitions are a little more expansive and strict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism "In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism "atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

I am using your own definition, how can it be wrong??

You as an agonistic believe that the complete knowledge of whether a higher power in the form of God does or does not exist. Then you claim that you are an atheist which is the belief that God does not exist.

HOW CAN YOU BE UNSURE AND SURE AT THE SAME TIME??

I don't believe in an agonistic atheist. If there are a bunch of them out there then there are a lot of confused people out there. Just because there are lots of them out there, doesn't mean they are right. I believe in evolution and I don't consider myself an atheist or an agonistic at this point. Belief in evolution or otherwise doesn't conclude anything. If you identify yourself by a term then you must fit in the complete definition of that term. You can't just pick and choose.

[Afghanistan2010]

So you're admitting you blindly believe the words of other men.


I think you're confused about what Ozymandias is saying, he's not saying there is PROOF God exists, but because there is a lack of clear evidence which confirms the existence of God; that he LACKS belief in a THEISTIC deity.

Hence A-Theist

what is so hard for you to understand? I understand it and UNLIKE YOU< I'm Muslim.

I believe in the trusthworthy,the mercy who came to all worlds,he is the most righteous,he is the beloved,he is RasulAllah (pbuh) for them this is blindly following.


You are a moron.