Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[کیش]

Feel free to believe that.


And the lorax said he spoke for the trees.


I'm making no excuses. Please prove that Mohammad is the most evil person to ever live. Again, I don't believe that, nor do I think you do -- I'm asking you to prove something you don't believe, exactly what you are asking me to do.

Your question is dull and lacks a structure to strengthen the wall. What does proof that there is no God have any correlation with proofing Muhammad was the most evil person? I could tell you that Muhammad was just another slave of god. He was human like everyone else but was assigned a specific message to spread out. You could say his soul was luckily picked out of the billions to be the few prophets.

Your Agnostic/Atheists, your whole swag of life is that you don't believe in god. Your bemuse and confused when someone asks you to explain why you believe in such views.

[ozymandias]

Your question is dull and lacks a structure to strengthen the wall. What does proof that there is no God have any correlation with proofing Muhammad was the most evil person?

When you ask me to prove god does not exist, you are asking me to prove something I do not believe.

When I ask you to prove Mohammad is the most evil person in history, I am asking you to prove something you do not believe.

In that respect, they are exactly the same.

I could tell you that Muhammad was just another slave of god. He was human like everyone else but was assigned a specific message to spread out. You could say his soul was luckily picked out of the billions to be the few prophets.

And here is where you would be accusing me of avoiding answering the question.

Your Agnostic/Atheists, your whole swag of life is that you don't believe in god.

Actually, that's a *very* small part of my life.

Your bemuse and confused when someone asks you to explain why you believe in such views.

No, that's not what you are doing. You are demanding I prove something *I DO NOT BELIEVE* and refuse to listen when I try and tell you *THAT IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE*.

[کیش]

Then it just goes to my first post on here. Your a blind follower of scientists, and follow their experiments and original ideas.


You just prooved what I was saying you were. It's sad really, an educated person who throws a fallacious excuse and lives by it.

Happy Holidays, from one American to another.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Sorry about the *long* delay -- I got side tracked at work, and never found time to come back...

Human decency.
Compassion.
The ability to see, and relate to suffering in others.
The unwillingness to live in a society that allows that behaviour.
The golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto them"
Common sense.

Take your pick. The only difference between a theist and an atheist when it comes to motivations is that the atheist doesn't fear the reprisals of an all-knowing deity -- and thus can actually be altruistic -- well that, and the fact that atheists don't do truly immoral acts because they believe that their religion commands them to.

Do you define this as secular humanism?

[ozymandias]

Then it just goes to my first post on here. Your a blind follower of scientists, and follow their experiments and original ideas.

And you can keep blindly repeating that, despite me providing evidence you are wrong, and you not providing any evidence you are right.

You just prooved what I was saying you were. It's sad really, an educated person who throws a fallacious excuse and lives by it.

Happy Holidays, from one American to another.

Again, despite your ignorance as to what is going on, I am not 'proving you right' but refusing to answer your question. If anything, you are simply proving you don't understand the words being used -- since you don't understand the fallacy of asking my to prove something I don't believe.

[ozymandias]

Do you define this as secular humanism?

I would not say that that *is* secular humanism. Secular humanism is based of of these ideas, but tends to build up a bit more. Secular humanism is more than just these values, but I would say that from what I have seen and understand of secular humanism, that these values are core to that.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I would not say that that *is* secular humanism. Secular humanism is based of of these ideas, but tends to build up a bit more. Secular humanism is more than just these values, but I would say that from what I have seen and understand of secular humanism, that these values are core to that.

Thank you. Glad to meet you and very interested in your thought processes. I think this will be a fruitful discussion for the both of us - without preaching. It shall be an exchange of ideas.

Where do you feel these values are coincident with our biological programming and where do you feel they fall short?

For instance, mate gaurding behavior is suggested by social scientists and evolutionary biologists as a mechanism by which man, who is unable to smell when his prospective mate is ovulating versus other primates that can do so, enhances his sexual fitness and propagation of genetic heritage. It is a process that enhances our overall darwinistic fitness.

Yet I find it a glaring contradiction that secular humanism claims to rely on scientific thought and reasoning but then defies the core potential basis of our biological behavior (such as mate gaurding behaviors). So then, as I tried to reconcile secular humanism with modernity I was unable to do so because I found that secular humanism was in and of itself a derived belief system.

Do you feel that this thought process is flawed or would you prefer I complete the thought?

[Manzareh]

Fair enough. I understand that many people value blind faith. I was raised to value logic, intelligence, and rationality over blind faith, to never assume something is true, just because someone told me it was.

While faith may be enough for you, it's not enough for me. If your god did exist (which I don't believe), and he did create me (again, for the quote miners, I don't believe that), I would require more than blind following due to how they created me (again, I don't believe that).

That's the definition of the word:
su·per·nat·u·ral

/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Adjective
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.



Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

I have never seen any evidence that anything supernatural exists.

"I understand that many people value blind faith. I was raised to value logic, intelligence, and rationality over blind faith, to never assume something is true, just because someone told me it was."

but you believe in supernatural existance beyond the realms of scientific understanding and laws of nature with no EVIDENCE, how can this be? doesnt that go against logic, ratonality and intelligence?? you have seen zero/ziltch of anything supernatural but you still believe in it, isnt that belief of yours blind faith??

[Manzareh]

When you ask me to prove god does not exist, you are asking me to prove something I do not believe.

You are demanding I prove something *I DO NOT BELIEVE* and refuse to listen when I try and tell you *THAT IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE*.

Ok you believe in supernatural powers, you have no evidence for it, so heres your chance to prove something you do exists.

[کیش]

I have been asking you a thousand times to prove to my why you don't believe in God, based on your own findings and evidence. And your brilliant answers is "I can't answer that question because i don't believe in such existence."

I'm I the only one who notices the ducking and dodging through fallacy?

By reversing roles and ignorantly say "proof to me that Muhammad was the most evil person in history." that's the textbook meaning of fallacy because you can't answer my question but instead, give me a completely random question that has no basis on this discussion.

If you can't Answer the question, be a man and admit it already. It is evident that you cant so why pretend and keep blindly respondimgL

[faye]

Fair enough. I understand that many people value blind faith. I was raised to value logic, intelligence, and rationality over blind faith, to never assume something is true, just because someone told me it was

I have never seen any evidence that anything supernatural exists.

i thought you said you were brought up with a religious indoctrination?

you make the claim that the 'supernatural exists outside of science'. why only outside of science?

[کیش]

i thought you said you were brought up with a religious indoctrination?

but didn't you claim that the supernatural exists beyond the understanding of science?

Science within itself is an explanation of motion after the supernatural trigger has been.

[faye]

science is also created by a higher intelligence.

[faye]

no you can say they're not truth because they lack evidence ...period; there's no "my eyes" ,because reality is independent of me. "evidence" is stuff independent of you, not dependent on you. Or else any idiotic claim of having hallucinating visions would be evidence. And we know that is flawed.

again logic fail.

'reality is independent of you'..and you claim to be into science.
so you are not made of atoms and cells, food water, etc etc etc?
your just a figment of your own imagination then, are you?
a possibility of course.
but is that what YOU believe?

lol. in your mind, YOU can CLAIM that others claims, are not truth because they lack evidence. you think every thought and experience is able to be evidenced?
how do you judge what is a hallucination and what is not?
since you don't actually have proof that a hallucination is not a true experience, then how is that flawed?
who is the one to judge all of this anyway? scientists with a particular belief system already in place?

please tell us WHO IS THIS ULTIMATE JUDGE OF OTHERS VIEW OF REALITY?

[faye]

Nope you believe blindly in the words of other men.

and you too believe blindly in the words of other men. scientists and supposedly, the muslim religion.
don't you have faith in the theory of evolution and a blind faith that science can only do good and need not be accountable for their mishaps because they are 'just working things out'?