Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ozymandias]

Are you willing to take your believes to the grave?

Of course. I'm quite proud of being an intelligent, logical being. I am unwilling to be anything other than the most I can be. To ignore rational thought, to turn my back on reality would be a disgrace, and something I am unwilling to do.

With the possibilities that your questioning awaits.

I'm not sure we are on the same page. I don't think there is any evidence that *anything* awaits me after death. There are no realistic 'possibilities' awaiting, only death.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Are you willing to take your believes to the grave? With the possibilities that your questioning awaits.

pascal's wager?

[ozymandias]

yes he's right because light is defined as a visible form of electromagnetic radiation


do you mean visible electromagnetic radiation?

I'm going to pay attention to this thread to make sure your premises are scientifically correct.

I'm willing to let it slide. Even redefining the question in terms of visible light, it makes no sense. Either there is visible light, or there is not visible light (i.e. darkness) -- you still can't have both.

[ozymandias]

pascal's wager?

It's quite possibly one of the most thoroughly flawed arguments for faith -- and it's still a favourite, especially with Muslims. Again, I think it is a world-view issue. Every time it has come up on these forums, it boils down to the fact that some people can't wrap their head around the possibility that their religion might not be the right one. Pascal's Wager only makes sense when there is only one possible religion, and that gets ignored.

[کیش]

I'm starting to think your a blind follower of your beliefs. There is no "scientific" evidence of your soul dying off with your body, just as much as your soul moving on to the next phase of existence. But the latter has been a topic of several religions while the former is speculation on your part

I would like to say I'm no Muslim boy. But a believer of one creator.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I'm starting to think your a blind follower of your beliefs. There is no "scientific" evidence of your soul dying off with your body, just as much as your soul moving on to the next phase of existence. But the latter has been a topic of several religions while the former is speculation on your part

I would like to say I'm no Muslim boy. But a believer of one creator.

that doesn't make sense because, wouldn't a lack of evidence of soul flying off into eternity .....actually demonstrate the contrary?

[ozymandias]

I'm starting to think your a blind follower of your beliefs.

You are welcome to think that. You have had very little contact with me, and have not had an opportunity to gather much information to support that, but you are free to do so.

There is no "scientific" evidence of your soul dying off with your body, just as much as your soul moving on to the next phase of existence.

In one respect, you are quite right. There is no scientific evidence that your soul dies when your body dies -- but that's because there is no legitimate scientific evidence that a soul even exists, nor is there any evidence to support the ideas of 'phases of existence'.

But the latter has been a topic of several religions while the former is speculation on your part

This makes no sense. Every religion is nothing more than speculation founded on speculation and wishful thinking. Science, by it's very nature is *not* merely speculation. It's the result of observation, study, hypothesis, experimentation and revision.

I would like to say I'm no Muslim boy. But a believer of one creator.

That's all fine, and dandy for you -- but some of us are not satisfied with taking the easy way out and ignoring the evidence we see.

[ozymandias]

that doesn't make sense because, wouldn't a lack of evidence of soul flying off into eternity .....actually demonstrate the contrary?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The lack of evidence for a soul just implies that if there is a soul, it does not fit into the current understanding of biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and the rest of science.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The lack of evidence for a soul just implies that if there is a soul, it does not fit into the current understanding of biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and the rest of science.

yes I'm aware of that

What I am saying is that, when we test whether a soul flies off, shows there's a lack of evidence of this happening. This is evidence that we have no evidence of a soul doing such a thing or whether there is a soul to begin with.

[ozymandias]

yes I'm aware of that

What I am saying is that, when we test whether a soul flies off, shows there's a lack of evidence of this happening. This is evidence that we have no evidence of a soul doing such a thing or whether there is a soul to begin with.

Fair enough. I'm just amused that someone tried to point out that there is no evidence of a soul as somehow supporting religion...

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Fair enough. I'm just amused that someone tried to point out that there is no evidence of a soul as somehow supporting religion...

I think Kais was trying to say that "since there's no evidence that there isn't a soul that means there must be a soul"


he's using a variation of "God of the Gaps"

[ozymandias]

I think Kais was trying to say that "since there's no evidence that there isn't a soul that means there must be a soul"


he's using a variation of "God of the Gaps"

Fair enough. There is also no evidence that there is not an invisible wizard riding a giant purple unicorn living in my garage. So there's that, I guess....

[ozymandias]

Beyonce or Shakira?

Neither. They both are unappealing to me, and neither of them appear to have much actual musical talent. I prefer artists that have more skill, such as writing/preforming their own original works, and rely more on their musical abilities and less on their physical appearance to generate appeal.

I'm much more of a Johnny Cash man -- but I am not limited to one style. Pink Floyd, Queen, Smashing Pumpkins, Deadmau5, Rammstien, Bruce Springsteen, are all in the upcoming songs on my playlist.

[faye]

well it is a fallacy since it is based on flawed reasoning, the evidence of something to the contrary is ...a red herring. in this context. The point being, do we need to implore the notion of "meaning" or "reason for life" as an explanation. And if we don't then it has no relevance. It is not the question which is a logical fallacy but the assumptions of the question which are.

you have chosen to be indoctrinated with the logic that considers this question, 'what is the purpose of life?' as a logical fallacy. i haven't.
so that is your problem. your limitations.
scientists tell us daily, of the purpose of this flower in relation to that insect etc etc etc..so, my belief, is that this question is a valid question and probably, THE most valid question that a human being could wish to find the answer to.
so whether a couple of mentally colonised uni students wish to label it fallacious, illogical, irrational or whatever other dismissive label you have in your brainwashing, to impose on this question, is totally invalid to one who has not accepted the limiting indoctrination that you have.

[faye]

I think the real problem here may be a one of world-view. While some of us are completely comfortable knowing that not everything has a purpose, or reason, some may have a difficulty understanding that concept -- and can't see why that is a flawed assumption.

so, you have FAITH that not everything has a purpose.
you have FAITH in the logical reasoning that you apply to 'life, the universe and everything'.
but no proof that your faith has a basis in fact.