Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Let's not go there. Too many people here will get offended by that. It's enough to point out that Islam has a reputation in modern times of being proud of child abuse. We often hear of 'honor killings', or forcing girls to not get an education, or many, many variations of those themes.

well I don't believe that's Islam being proud; but individuals who use Islam as their excuse of these things

the point being Afghanistan2010 is an admirer of a man named Mullah Samiul Haq, he is a known child predator who because of his status is above the law.

for Afghanistan2010 to accuse me of such while considering this man a hero is nothing short of warped.

[Afghanistan2010]

child molester is the man you admire as hero ...mullah sandiwch

How is your teen stalk campaign going on....did you found a little child fo your yemeni bachabazi practices...

[ozymandias]

How is your teen stalk campaign going on....did you found a little child fo your yemeni bachabazi practices...

Can we drop the childish insults and at least *try* to stay on topic?

[Afghanistan2010]

Do you now anything about other organism on other planets?

[ozymandias]

well I don't believe that's Islam being proud; but individuals who use Islam as their excuse of these things

the point being Afghanistan2010 is an admirer of a man named Mullah Samiul Haq, he is a known child predator who because of his status is above the law.

for Afghanistan2010 to accuse me of such while considering this man a hero is nothing short of warped.

I suppose it may be true that it's individuals -- but it's fairly widespread -- there are whole countries that claim to be Muslim where these things are either legal -- or required by law. There was a case a while back where some government officials locked school girls into a burning school and allowed them to burn to death because, according to their interpretation (the officials, not the girls) it was better for them to suffer and die than to go out in public with heads uncovered.

It's no different than a Catholic accusing someone of child molestation -- the first thing that jumps to mind is the rampant child abuse by religious officials...

[ozymandias]

Do you now anything about other organism on other planets?

As far as I am aware, we do not have conclusive evidence of any such thing -- but there is mounting evidence that we just may not be looking in the right places.

[Afghanistan2010]

I suppose it may be true that it's individuals -- but it's fairly widespread -- there are whole countries that claim to be Muslim where these things are either legal -- or required by law. There was a case a while back where some government officials locked school girls into a burning school and allowed them to burn to death because, according to their interpretation (the officials, not the girls) it was better for them to suffer and die than to go out in public with heads uncovered.

It's no different than a Catholic accusing someone of child molestation -- the first thing that jumps to mind is the rampant child abuse by religious officials...

Comparing bodies....remember the terrrorism atheism in albania,the communists did from lenin to this day...i can only speak for islam but you whitass have killed many people whether it was on the cover of religion or not it was always for power actually you do not have a nationality cause you lived and survived by drinking the blood of other people.

[ozymandias]

Comparing bodies....remember the terrrorism atheism in albania,

Sure, I remember terrorism in Albania -- and the incidents I am recalling were not *because* of atheism.

the communists did from lenin to this day...

Again, this is due to political ideology, not lack of a religious ideology.

i can only speak for islam but you whitass

What is this word?

have killed many people whether it was on the cover of religion or not it was always for power actually you do not have a nationality cause you lived and survived by drinking the blood of other people.

Huh? I have never drank human blood, and I have a nationality.

There is a huge difference between being a religion (or atheist) and doing immoral acts, and doing the immoral acts *in the name of your religion*. If a man kills his neighbour because his neighbour painted his house an awful colour, that's one thing. Religion does not come into play. If he killed his neighbour because his religion states 'those who paint their house blue shall be put to the sword, kill them for they are evil', religion matters.

Lenin did what he did for political power, not to promote atheism. Contrast that with the aforementioned government agents murdering school girls because their religion forbid them from letting them out of the building uncovered. See the difference? It's not exactly a subtle one.

[Afghanistan2010]

Sure, I remember terrorism in Albania -- and the incidents I am recalling were not *because* of atheism.



Again, this is due to political ideology, not lack of a religious ideology.



What is this word?



Huh? I have never drank human blood, and I have a nationality.

There is a huge difference between being a religion (or atheist) and doing immoral acts, and doing the immoral acts *in the name of your religion*. If a man kills his neighbour because his neighbour painted his house an awful colour, that's one thing. Religion does not come into play. If he killed his neighbour because his religion states 'those who paint their house blue shall be put to the sword, kill them for they are evil', religion matters.

Lenin did what he did for political power, not to promote atheism. Contrast that with the aforementioned government agents murdering school girls because their religion forbid them from letting them out of the building uncovered. See the difference? It's not exactly a subtle one.

Whenever a muslim does something wrong,it must be not his personell or political view but his religion thought him to do so hein? You are same racistwhiteboy.

But you know it that muslim are thought evil by their religion pendejo....?

You have no nationality,the land you live sweety belongs to the red indians you stole it from them,slaughtered their men raped their women,nothing different than your foreign policy today.

[ozymandias]

Whenever a muslim does something wrong,it must be not his personell or political view but his religion thought him to do so hein? You are same racistwhiteboy.

I made no such claim. The specific example I gave *was* motivated by religion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm

I never said *whenever a Muslim does something it is his religion*. I stated examples of immoral acts done specifically in the name of religion. If you are unaware of atrocities done in the name of Islam, either you live under a rock, or in a country where there is no free press, and these stories are covered up.

Here is a more recent example:
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/...artoons/524376 -- you can't honestly state that this law was *not* religious in nature.

What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai -- a girl shot in the head for 'being a symbol of the infidel and obscenity' -- can you blame me for pointing out that this was a immoral act done by a Muslim in the name of their faith? You may disagree with their interpretation of Islam, but it's not incorrect to say that these acts were religiously motivated -- when the very criminals that carried them out publicly stated these acts were religiously motivated.

There is no need to say all evil acts by Muslim people are caused by their religion, since there are plenty of cases where we *know* the acts were specifically carried out in the name of their religion. The same is *not* true about Lenin, Stalin, or Pol Pot, since their actions were politically motivated, and not done in the name of forcing atheism on people.

But you know it that muslim are thought evil by their religion pendejo....?

Calm down, and pretend to be an adult here. No need to start name calling. It would be nice if we could act like civilized people and have a rational conversation. Once you stoop to name calling and ranting, the conversation will fall apart, and be impossible to hold.

I never said all Muslims are evil -- there are many that are not, but there are some that are -- and there are some that are evil because they believe their religion requires them to be that way.

You have no nationality,the land you live sweety belongs to the red indians you stole it from them,slaughtered their men raped their women,nothing different than your foreign policy today.

I did no such thing. I am far less than 100 years old, let alone the 150 I would have to be to be guilty of those actions. I have not stolen any land (or any other thing that I am aware of), I have never raped a single person, nor have I committed murder (or even killed in self defence or a military action), nor do I make (or even support) every action of the current US foreign policy.

Looks like you are the racist bigot here, assigning blame for the actions of all Americans, living, or dead, to me. You even deem to blame me, personally, for actions that I am personally against, and personally work to stop and prevent from re-occurring.

If you want to find a racist, look in a mirror. You are the only racist I see around here right now.

[faye]

[QUOTE=ozymandias;656575]Easy. While it *might* be true, it is an unfounded assumption, thus it is a fallacy to *assume* it is true. While it might be true, it may also be false (since it has not been proven true), thus any conclusion reached while assuming it is true is suspect and potentially flawed -- thus, by definition, a logical fallacy.[/QUOTE

lol...is that supposed to be proof that the question is 'deeply flawed'.
just looks like someone playing word games and trying to baffle with bullsh**.

[faye]

Except, even using *your* definition, I don't have faith in anything. There is nothing I have complete trust in. I assume anything, and everything could be shown to be flawed or incomplete. You know, like all the other scientists out there.

well ozy, this is good news that you realise that you are still seeking and can own up to it.
giving yourself the tag of 'atheist' made it look as though you had cornered yourself already, into a set belief system.
the other tag of 'agnostic' AND atheist, makes it appear that you are confused.

[faye]

Nor is it evidence of existence.
No. It's up to those claiming something exists, or is true to prove it. You make the claims, you provide the evidence.

lol, tryhard. never said it was evidence of existence.

no ,if you want to dismiss a claim as nonexistent or impossible, it is up to you to prove it does not exist or is not possible. otherwise you have to keep in mind that the claim is a possiblity. that is; keep an open mind.

[ozymandias]

[QUOTE=faye;656623]

Easy. While it *might* be true, it is an unfounded assumption, thus it is a fallacy to *assume* it is true. While it might be true, it may also be false (since it has not been proven true), thus any conclusion reached while assuming it is true is suspect and potentially flawed -- thus, by definition, a logical fallacy.[/QUOTE

lol...is that supposed to be proof that the question is 'deeply flawed'.
just looks like someone playing word games and trying to baffle with bullsh**.

No, that's the reason why it is a logical fallacy. No word games needed. When having a logical discussion or debate, in order to come to conclusions you can trust as valid, you need to follow the rules of logic.

[ozymandias]

well ozy, this is good news that you realise that you are still seeking and can own up to it.

I've never denied it. I'm proud to be a scientist in mindset.

giving yourself the tag of 'atheist' made it look as though you had cornered yourself already, into a set belief system.

Only if you don't understand the rest of the words in the title...

the other tag of 'agnostic' AND atheist, makes it appear that you are confused.

Again, only if you don't know what those terms actually mean.