Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ozymandias]

good of you to defend him but he needs to be more precise if he expects it of others.
he said 'sand is created by the action of waves'.

And it is. I never stated that it was the only action that creates sand -- I was pointing out that sand does not require an intelligent creator. Since sand *can* be formed without an intelligent creator, my point still stands.

[ozymandias]

how is pointing out a fallacy, a strawman.? you are the strawman.

What fallacy did you point out? All I saw was you making the argument that since wind is not the only thing that can create sand, wind cannot create sand -- I'm not sure there is a name for that one, but that's a fallacy...

[کیش]

What's your alma-mater Ozy?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

What fallacy did you point out? All I saw was you making the argument that since wind is not the only thing that can create sand, wind cannot create sand -- I'm not sure there is a name for that one, but that's a fallacy...

I think fallacy of division

[faye]

Sure, there is more to it than that, but since I was making a simple analogy, my point still stands.
Except, I don't need evidence to prove they are not -- you are the one claiming they are, I am simply rejecting that claim since you have presented no evidence.
Oh, I have an open mind -- I am willing to look at any evidence you present.

*sigh*

no, sorry you cannot be allowed that analogy since there is a fake claim involved there. that is the rules.

since i have, in actuallity, made no claim that waves are intelligent i have no need to provide evidence but even if i claimed that waves have intelligence, which they probably have, since everything is of the intelligence of the creator, then i would still not need to give evidence.

[faye]

checkmate

lol..what's this checkmate business? something from high school, i suppose.

[faye]

And it is. I never stated that it was the only action that creates sand -- I was pointing out that sand does not require an intelligent creator. Since sand *can* be formed without an intelligent creator, my point still stands.

but since you have an open mind and there is no proof that there is not an intelligent creator of sand, you just never know, do you?

[faye]

You can't really believe that, can you? Ethics and morals do *not* require religion. All it takes is logic, and/or compassion to build a system of morals.

Quite the opposite. The religious find it far easier to be evil and immoral, since they feel they will be rewarded in the afterlife. Not many atheist suicide bombers...

the word evil has the connotation of that which is created by the devil, from what i have heard from christians and read. so, as i don't believe in a devil i don't call extreme negativity, 'evil'.

are you going to pretend that. as a child who was forcefed a religion, you, as an atheist, agnostic whatever, have in no way been influenced by your childhood conditioning and rules and laws of the basically, christian society you live in?

do you have evidence that atheists are not doing worse than suicide bombings and the religious find it far easier to be extremely negative and immoral?

[ozymandias]

*sigh*

no, sorry you cannot be allowed that analogy since there is a fake claim involved there. that is the rules.

So waves cannot, and does not *ever create sand? I'd like to see a citation for that claim.

since i have, in actuallity, made no claim that waves are intelligent i have no need to provide evidence but even if i claimed that waves have intelligence,

I stated that waves are not intelligent, and your response was "there is no proof that waves are not intelligent". Lack of proof does not make it so -- you need to provide proof if we are going to consider them intelligent.

which they probably have,

Citation needed.

since everything is of the intelligence of the creator,

Citation needed.

then i would still not need to give evidence.

You make an outrageous claim, expect to provide evidence.

[ozymandias]

but since you have an open mind and there is no proof that there is not an intelligent creator of sand, you just never know, do you?

That's not how it works. Having an open mind means you are willing to look at evidence and re-asses your beliefs and opinions in the light of new evidence -- not that you believe anything without evidence.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

but since you have an open mind and there is no proof that there is not an intelligent creator of sand, you just never know, do you?

H never claimed that though, this is a straw-man fallacy ...why do you keep repeating that same false argument?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

, since everything is of the intelligence of the creator, then i would still not need to give evidence.

how do you know this without evidence?

[ozymandias]

the word evil has the connotation of that which is created by the devil, from what i have heard from christians and read. so, as i don't believe in a devil i don't call extreme negativity, 'evil'.

And 'gay' used to mean 'happy'.... It's almost like words in English change meanings over time...

are you going to pretend that. as a child who was forcefed a religion, you, as an atheist, agnostic whatever, have in no way been influenced by your childhood conditioning and rules and laws of the basically, christian society you live in?

I'm not stating that at all. I'm simply stating that one does not require religion to have morals and ethics, which means your claim that my morals and ethics are 'obviously a hangover from my childhood untrue. My current morality holds many things in opposite regards than the religion I was taught as a child.

do you have evidence that atheists are not doing worse than suicide bombings

Worse than suicide bombings? No, because many atheists have done things as evil, or more evil than that -- as have the religious. That was just a specific example of an immoral act predominantly done by the religious *because* of their religion.

I would like to see your list of atrocities done by atheists, in the name of atheism, or because of atheism. It's easy to come up with such a list about the religious.

and the religious find it far easier to be extremely negative and immoral?

Sure. It's not statistically analyzed, but just looking at the news, you can see many people being evil in the name of their religion, but not for atheism. There are numerous examples, even in modern times, of people being immoral in the name of their religion -- beating homosexuals, suicide bombings, repressing the rights of women and children, honour killings, etc.

Take a look at prison statistics -- while this does not indicate their crimes were caused by their faith, their faith was less effective at enforcing morals than not having faith would have been. Despite 10-15% of the US being atheist, only 0.21% of inmates are non-religious. Seems like the religious are at least more willing to be immoral and do bad things, whatever their motivation.

[ozymandias]

H never claimed that though, this is a straw-man fallacy ...why do you keep repeating that same false argument?

This is a common problem I run into -- this false dichotomy. They assume that either something is created with the help of a creator, or it is not. They are unable to even consider that their may be a mix -- what we understand through natural means *can* be caused by natural means, without disproving a creator, it just shows no creator was needed for that specific event.

[ozymandias]

how do you know this without evidence?

It appears she believes you only need evidence to back up things she disagrees with. The rest she seems to think falls under her misuse of the term 'open mind'.