Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[faye]

Every religion is nothing more than speculation founded on speculation and wishful thinking.

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.

and what is the evidence you SEE, to come to the conclusion that religion is what you say it is?

[کیش]

You totally misunderstood my statements and generalized it all. I apologize for being vague and perhaps paradoxical. But as you generalized my statements, you are generalizing the creators signs:

The concept of a soul has been around for thousands of years (longer than modern science). It has been discussed by Prophets throughout history like a Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and Muhammad. Simply downgrading it by claiming "Lack of evidence" is blindly following your favorite scientists opinion (not trying to insult).

Science is the study of God's work. Spirituality is the focus of the creator itself. The knowledge of both completes a human. Ignoring one is ignorance; correlating both is genius.

I admit I disliked science as I believed it was a field of douchebags. But it has truth to it. Nothing is random, as destiny is preordained by the lord. For a purpose that is the knowledge of the unseen. You have to wake from stubbornness so you can attain enlightenment

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

There was a time when people understood nothing about the skies, the earth and themselves. It was to fill these gaps in their knowledge that they came up with the idea of souls, spirits and demons. After all, man is a rational animal. He needs an explanation for everything.

Even the most basic civilizations did not want to believe that when their loved ones died, they turned into worm food. So each civilization came up with its own explanation to dignify their fellow humans and elevate their status above that of the animals they lived with - the Vikings invented Valhalla, the Hindus concocted the concept of reincarnation, the Egyptians came up with the idea of an Afterlife and so on.

Now we understand how every emotion is triggered, enhanced or suppressed through increases and decreases of activity in certain sections of the brain. Previously, we believed that this was the realm of the mysterious soul. However, the more we study ourselves, the more we relegate our beloved souls to the story books.

[کیش]

^^

That doesn't make sense bro. Please reread my post

Your evaluation of the soul can be applied to the history of science. Since nobody knew anything about the sky, earth and life forms, humans drastically created science to make themselves feel better.

^
This statement makes no sense as much as your post does.

Animals and humans all life forms have souls. It looks like Atheists/Agnostics view scientists as Prophets. And science textbooks, holy scriptures. I say this because atheists read science books, and believe everything in it is infallible and pure. They don't check and experiment on their own; just accepting whatever they're reading. Sounds like a religion. A "science" based one

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

^^

That doesn't make sense bro. Please reread my post

Your evaluation of the soul can be applied to the history of science. Since nobody knew anything about the sky, earth and life forms, humans drastically created science to make themselves feel better.

^
This statement makes no sense as much as your post does.

^ It actually makes a lot of sense. The only issue I have with it is that science is not and cannot be created. Science is based on observation, experimentation, repeating those experiments (the Scientific Method). Hence, science is derived through a process of rigorous research, experimentation, rationalization, etc and cannot simply be 'created'.

The ancient Greeks were some of the first people that we know of who looked at the skies and the earth and realized that this universe was not some magical fairyland but a place that is based on certain laws that can be understood through thinking and logic. Since nobody knew anything about the heavens and the earth, finding out about the stars, the plants and the animals made us feel a lot better.

And yes, our scientific progress literally makes us feel better because of advances in medicine, communication (the internets that you are using right now), transport, etc.

Animals and humans all life forms have souls. It looks like Atheists/Agnostics view scientists as Prophets. And science textbooks, holy scriptures.

There is a huge difference between how Prophets and scientists are viewed. The works of Prophets cannot be undone or rewritten even when new evidence comes to light. However, the work of some of the greatest scientific minds known to us (Aristotle, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc) can be either modified or completely rewritten in the light of new evidence.

[faye]

There was a time when people understood nothing about the skies, the earth and themselves. It was to fill these gaps in their knowledge that they came up with the idea of souls, spirits and demons. After all, man is a rational animal. He needs an explanation for everything.

Even the most basic civilizations did not want to believe that when their loved ones died, they turned into worm food. So each civilization came up with its own explanation to dignify their fellow humans and elevate their status above that of the animals they lived with - the Vikings invented Valhalla, the Hindus concocted the concept of reincarnation, the Egyptians came up with the idea of an Afterlife and so on.

Now we understand how every emotion is triggered, enhanced or suppressed through increases and decreases of activity in certain sections of the brain. Previously, we believed that this was the realm of the mysterious soul. However, the more we study ourselves, the more we relegate our beloved souls to the story books.

speak for yourself.
nice little fairystory, lol. why would a basic civilisation be prejudiced against the body becoming worm food?

you have no proof nor insight as to what the people of bygone days may have known about the construct of the known and unknown universe. you do not know that reincarnation is just a concoction.
it is what you CHOOSE to believe.
you guys are so funny with your arrogant attitudes that assume that everything said by you and scientists, is the be all and end all of what is.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

^^

That doesn't make sense bro. Please reread my post

Your evaluation of the soul can be applied to the history of science. Since nobody knew anything about the sky, earth and life forms, humans drastically created science to make themselves feel better.

so humans developed a system of experimentation and analysis to test whether if claims or assumptions have evidence that supports them rather than blindly believing things on false assumptions ......to make themselves feel better?


Talk about not making sense.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

speak for yourself.
nice little fairystory, lol. why would a basic civilisation be prejudiced against the body becoming worm food?

you have no proof nor insight as to what the people of bygone days may have known about the construct of the known and unknown universe. you do not know that reincarnation is just a concoction.
it is what you CHOOSE to believe.
you guys are so funny with your arrogant attitudes that assume that everything said by you and scientists, is the be all and end all of what is.

Well Evolutionarily we have an intrinsic fear of dying because physiologically our bodies , despite decaying want to increase their maximum survivability So it ascends up into our cognitive realm , the idea of surviving in some way after death allows us to offset the shock of death. and thus we developed these various comfort tales to cope with dying and death and that got jumbled up with other things.

That answers your question on "why"

We actually have many evidences of what people of bygone days have thought, Notice for example in Egyptian Tombs, they had rooms for the dead with THEIR stuff, believing that these people would need this stuff for later. Or Kurgan burial mounds with similar things. Some even with freshly killed young women who would go on to "serve" in the "other worlds".

The framework which defines reincarnation itself is rather nebulous. LIke what is it that actually reincarnates. Is it the Soul? Well what is the soul? Is it the seat of of our conscious existence? our "life force"? The Sum-total of our Gibb's Free Energy in our bodies? Is it some sort of electrical field inside the body?

The question you pose applies similarly for proponents. They themselves do not know what it is that they speak of. Their terms breakdown under examination.

What we have though is evidence; if reincarnation is an actual event where the brain's conciousness or faculties of personal identity and awareness, is the soul and it transmigrates. well then look at Alzheimers patients. Their brains work on some level, they're conscious but many don't even know who they are or or who anyone in their life is, many lose motor functions,, many can't do the things they were able to do. So that scratches that out of our candidates.

Or let's say that reincarnation is a "lifeforce"; lifeforce ....like some sort of vital capacity that drives the organism? Well look at people who become braindamaged after a coma, in terms of their brain they are dead, their brain isn't alive, the electrical activity has more or less shutdown. So why does this "lifeforce" persist, its not migrating, it should have migrated. Yet the body still lives despite the person being effectively dead.

Ok the whole "energy" or the "electricity" angle; which appears to be the most superficially consistent with scientific semantics. Well Ok we do carry this body electric field and yes our bodies carry energy in them. But When we die this is what happens. Yes the electrical processes of our central nervous system stops ...BUT molecules in our body are still channeling electrons, we still have an electric field. If we're reincarnating why does this electricity remain? Same with energy. w know that the body still retain some of that energy. So what's going on here are we only partially reincarnated?. Even when that body decays these electrical forces in our atoms and/or molecules still persist. They mix with others and yes sometimes that matter gives rise to plant life and other forms of life but the matter that went into making them goes comes from so many sources. So if we claim that this is reincarnation what are they a reincarnation, of this person/plant/animal and or that person/plant/animal or maybe an amalgamate? And if we change goal posts and say that "the whole universe is interconnected and it's all really one thing" as a way to salvage the idea of reincarnation. Then that nullifies reincarnation at its core, since this would no longer be a "reincarnation" but an already present state, there would be no "re", it would just be the standard cycles of thermal and electromagnetic energy transferrence that we see all around us in living and non-living bodies alike

so you see ....we don't know everything, but Based on the evidence we do have , that ALL the models of reincarnation are falsified.

So it's not at all what we CHOOSE to see, it's what nature has revealed to us freely.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

hahahah did Afghanistan2010 thank a post which was advocating reincarnation!?!?!?!?

the desperate will latch on to anything to salvage their failed ideas even if that thing contradicts their belief system.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

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.

faiath means belief without evdence; logic is a system of developing a conclusion based on ascertainable variables
thus your assertion is incoherent.

[ډګروال]

faiath means belief without evdence; logic is a system of developing a conclusion based on ascertainable variables
thus your assertion is incoherent.

faiath? evdence?

plz elaborate.

[ozymandias]

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.

Whether you agree with reality or not, it's still reality.

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.

There you go confusing the terms again. When discussing the relation between a flower and an insect, they may use the term 'purpose' (but very rarely do), but they are describing why something evolved the way it did -- not some higher purpose. The purpose of thumbs is to provide a better grip, and an evolutionary advantage -- not some supernatural purpose. Terms often have multiple, and subtly different, meanings.

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.

Except that's not true at all. The fact that it's a fallacy is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of logic, semantics, and language. Admit it, or not, it's still a deeply flawed assumption to assume that everything in reality has a deeper meaning and purpose beyond the fact that it exists.

[ozymandias]

so, you have FAITH that not everything has a purpose.

No I don't. I simply have not seen a purpose behind everything, and don't make assumptions. It may have a purpose I have not seen -- but I have seen no evidence of that.

you have FAITH in the logical reasoning that you apply to 'life, the universe and everything'.

It's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of accepting the evidence. The fact that there is evidence makes it not faith, as does the willingness to reject my beliefs in the face on contradicting evidence.

but no proof that your faith has a basis in fact.

That's quite true -- since I don't have faith, there is no proof about it.

[ozymandias]

and what is the evidence you SEE, to come to the conclusion that religion is what you say it is?

The evidence I see? The fact that no religion is unflawed, the fact that no religious book actually reflects the real world and is scientifically accurate. I see a huge interconnected, and consistent world of science -- one that religion contributes nothing but contradictions to.

I see a logical world, one that is satisfactorily complained with science -- and I see no evidence, or need, to complicate the picture by shoving a religion into the mix. Gravity explains why things fall to the ground -- no need to complicate the matter using magic.

The strongest evidence, is that there is no evidence against science -- if there were, science would investigate it, and rework itself to be inclusive of the new knowledge. That's what science *IS*.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

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.

well this is simply a straw man argument since I never said the question is a logical fallacy, but the premises OF the question is a logical fallacy. the question presumes that something must have a purpose simply because we do things on basis of purpose. Accusing others of limitations or brainwashing as the basis of their disregard is merely an ad-hominem and scapegoating tactic which tries to obfuscate the inherent short comings within the question itself. When scientists speak of the "purpose" of the insect they're speaking in terms of function. Not a metaphysical postulate of why living beings exist. Thus your argument is an equivocation fallacy.

Thus this isn't a response but an emotional black mail scheme in attempt to legitimize fallacy and accuse others of limitation for their unwillingness to validate clearly bad reasoning.