Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ozymandias]

i am not interested to learn your type of thinking, dear. i make up my own as i go along.

That's clear.

i left school at 14 so i missed being conditioned like you have been, fortunately.

I'm sorry you feel that way. You call it 'conditioned', I call it 'educated' or 'informed'.

lol, i just happened to remember that fallacy you use, from something i read.

Where did I use that fallacy?

so, still we get no proof from you, that there is no need for a creator.

I'm sorry you choose to ignore my replies and pretend I have not answered this question repeatedly. What further proof would you like to see? I have already shown that a godless solution exists, which should be sufficient proof to show that a godless solution *can* exist.

your use of scientific knowledge which is not necessarily correct, is your 'fallacy'.

Please show me where this occurred. You keep saying it occurred, but refuse to do anything more than state it as a generalization.

you have no knowledge or idea of your own to put forward as proof, so you create deviations and excuses.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Could you please point out where I made 'deviations and excuses'?

scientific information about the origin of creation, is only a curiosity for me, to see if they ever get it right.

How could you ever possibly know if they get it right? If it coincides with your preexisting wild guesses, and opinions?

Right now, there are two basic ideas:
1) The ones that fit the observed evidence
2) The ones that at best fit the observed evidence -- but then add complexity in the form of religion on top of it -- and opens as many new unanswered questions as it resolved

Science answers the questions, religion just creates new questions that it can't answer.

[faye]

*sigh*
there's that fallacy again..'SCIENCE' answers the questions'...(inference being, that therefore it must be true)
for YOU, because you have a mind conditioned to believe in science to explain everything for you, so don't bother thinking for yourself.
very lazy.
scientism is YOUR personal choice of religion. you have your FAITH in science to give you your answers.

i'm sorry you DON'T think, like that.

[faye]

*sigh*...and i have repeatedly pointed out, that according to you, science is still not sure about the cause of creation and you thereby have no base from which to say that creation does not need a creator. you have no proof, so stop pretending that you gave proof.

[ozymandias]

*sigh*
there's that fallacy again..'SCIENCE' answers the questions'...(inference being, that therefore it must be true)

I'm sorry you made that inference. I did not intend to imply that. I forgot who I was talking to. I intended to imply "therefore it's the closest answer we have at this time, and is the best fit to the known facts, and is subject to revision if a better answer, or contradicting facts are discovered".

for YOU, because you have a mind conditioned to believe in science to explain everything for you, so don't bother thinking for yourself.

Please stop lying about what I do and say.

very lazy.

Indeed. Making up something to pretend I did or said because you find it too hard to refute what I actually say *is* lazy.

scientism is YOUR personal choice of religion.

You have not shown that I am a 'scientismist', nor that it is a religion, nor that I *HAVE* a religion.

you have your FAITH in science to give you your answers.

Still with the lies? It was a mistake the first few times you claimed that. Now it's an intentional lie.

i'm sorry you DON'T think, like that.

I have no idea what you are referring to. The lack of context makes this unclear.

[ozymandias]

*sigh*...and i have repeatedly pointed out, that according to you, science is still not sure about the cause of creation and you thereby have no base from which to say that creation does not need a creator.

Wow. Just... Wow.

You really think that since science has *multiple* answers that fit, none of which require magic or gods, that it's the same as having no answers that fit without magic or gods?

you have no proof, so stop pretending that you gave proof.

I'm not pretending. I pointed out that science has provided one or more non-magical answers to the question of the origin of the universe. You choose to ignore that proof, and then lie about what I said -- that's not me pretending. That's you lying. Again.

[ozymandias]

Hypothetical: If you claimed books did not exist, and I brought a book and showed it to you, gave it to you, opened it up, showed you the pages, pointed out the words on the page, and the material composition of the book -- would you still be arguing that I did not provide evidence books exist?

I'm having a hard time understanding how showing you something exists is not proof to you that the thing does exist -- let alone *could* exist.

To me, if something *does* exist, it is proof that it *could* exist. That's just obvious, to me.

[faye]

you call what science says PROOF, even though they are still not certain of their conclusions?
and you say other believe blindly.

*sigh*

i'm sorry you think that.

[faye]

WOWJUSTWOWOWOW...science has it's explanations but who knows for sure if any of the many, are correct.
do we have independent verification on their conclusions?

i guess if you have that much FAITH in their conclusions, you will then PRESUME that an intelligent creator is not NEEDED.

[faye]

not into hypos. if we are talking about a certain subject and one is trying to create diversion, hypotheticals are what people use.

[ozymandias]

you call what science says PROOF, even though they are still not certain of their conclusions?

Now you are changing the topic.

I stated that you do not *need* a creator to explain the origin of the universe. The fact that alternative explainations exist that do not resort to a creator is proof that you do not *need* a creator to explain the universe's origin.

I never said that any one theory is 100% correct, I stated that non-religious theories exist, and that they fit the observed evidence. This *IS* proof that a creator is *not* needed.

and you say other believe blindly.

I think with you it is wilfully as well as blindly. You are working *very* hard to ignore the obvious here.

*sigh*

i'm sorry you think that.

I'm sorry I have seen so much evidence that no other conclusion is possible.

[ozymandias]

WOWJUSTWOWOWOW...science has it's explanations but who knows for sure if any of the many, are correct.

You stated that they could not exist. I stated they exist. No need to change the topic when you are shown to be wrong -- be an adult and admit your mistake.

do we have independent verification on their conclusions?

Yes.

i guess if you have that much FAITH in their conclusions, you will then PRESUME that an intelligent creator is not NEEDED.

No need to 'presume' anything, or even have faith. You stated a god is needed to explain the origin of the universe. Since godless explanations exist, it is blindingly obvious that a god is not needed. Right, or wrong, godless explanations *do* exist -- in fact, they are the only explanations that exist that don't just shuffle the question around, and 'answer' it by creating more questions than you started with.

[ozymandias]

not into hypos. if we are talking about a certain subject and one is trying to create diversion, hypotheticals are what people use.

Ah, who is avoiding the question now? The hypothetical situation I gave is directly analogous to this conversation. You stated godless explanations can't exist, and I showed you that they *DO*, and you insist that they do not exist. In fact, now you are trying to say a theory only exists if it is true -- despite the obvious problems with that belief.

[faye]

like i said it is just another deviation.
if you can't deal with the issue directly, forget it.

anyways, why don't you just join in the forum like a human being, instead of needing your own platform, with special rules and a format that helps you avoid getting too close to others?
be a devil, ozy, let your hair down and join in with the masses.

[DaZahroJaam.]

mhum..*** I think he is sad. You should give him a hug.

[faye]

[QUOTE=ozymandias;663572]Now you are changing the topic.
I stated that you do not *need* a creator to explain the origin of the universe. The fact that alternative explainations exist that do not resort to a creator is proof that you do not *need* a creator to explain the universe's origin.
I never said that any one theory is 100% correct, I stated that non-religious theories exist, and that they fit the observed evidence. This *IS* proof that a creator is *not* needed.[QUOTE]


*sigh* more deviations.
stop making excuses. i haven't changed the subject and you have not given proof, that a creator is not needed.

sorry, but that is NOT PROOF, just because you and science STATE that they have OBSERVED some evidence and then come to a conclusion (which can change any time soon).
why should i believe you and them without any observable proof?



man, if that is what you call being logical......god save us!!!!!