Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[faye]

The word for that is not 'open minded', it's 'gullible'. If you are willing to accept any claim as true, with out evidence.

call it what you will but i don't accept any claim as true for myself, but if someone else claims it to be true for them and i have no way of disproving their claim, then i bear in mind that it is a possibility.
i mean, there is no proof that when you concieved of a purple people eater in your garage, that you didn't in fact, bring one into existence or that he wasn't there already.
many possiblities are possible.

[ozymandias]

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?

I'd say that overall, they fit quite well, evolutionarily speaking. For the vast majority of people, they are better off with a stable, rational society. It is only the tyrants that benefit from tyranny.

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).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. As far as I am aware, secular humanism does not advocate against mate guarding behavior. At best, it leaves individuals to determine their own sexual behavior, as long as it harms no one else.

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.

Who says just because it is derived it is wrong, or false? All of mathematics is derived from first principles. All of physics can be rebuilt from first principles.

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

You might need to complete it, since I am not seeing where you are trying to go.

[ozymandias]

"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,

No I don't. I don't believe in the supernatural -- however, if supernatural entities *did* exist, by definition, they are outside the realm of science. Supernatural, as a word, means 'outside nature' or 'beyond science'.

I do not believe the supernatural exists, because I have never seen, nor heard, reliable evidence that *anything* is beyond the scope of nature and science.

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??

Again, I think you may have misunderstood my comments. I don't believe in the supernatural, but Manzareh questioned my statement that supernatural, by definition, is outside science. I don't promote that it exists, but it is a word, with a definition...

[ozymandias]

Ok you believe in supernatural powers, you have no evidence for it,

I do no such thing.

so heres your chance to prove something you do exists.

Bull****. You are not allowed to claim I believe something, *that I stated I do not believe* and then demand I prove it.

I stated, and I *quote myself*:

I am agnostic, because I understand that the supernatural exists outside of science, and thus cannot be proven *NOR DISPROVEN* by science.

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.

I never stated I believed in the supernatural, I stated that *BY THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD IT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE*.

If something can be explained with science, it is not supernatural. If something cannot be explained with current science, we don't know enough science. If it cannot be explained with any possible science *it might be supernatural* -- *AND IT MIGHT NOT BE*.

[ozymandias]

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."

No, you keep asking me to provide proof there is no god, and my answer is *I DO NOT BELIEVE SUCH PROOF IS POSSIBLE, NOR EXISTS*.

Huge difference there.

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

You are the only one imagining it, because everyone else seems able to understand you keep asking me a stupid question, that I cannot possibly answer.

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.

When you understand the relationship (which I have spelled out for you) you will understand why your question is so stupid.

You are asking me to provide proof of something *I DO NOT BELIEVE*.

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

I cannot answer that question *BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE TO PROVE YOUR GOD DOES NOT EXIST*

I have been saying this over and over. From here on out, I refuse to address this question from you. If you are so ignorant that we can go page after page of you demanding an answer and then ignoring it when I give it, I see no point in wasting the keystrokes to repeat myself.

[ozymandias]

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

The two are not mutually exclusive. You can attend a church and a school, both, as a child. One forces the indocrination of children into religion, and the other teaches the child about the world.

Additionally, just because I was forced to attend church, and religious education doesn't mean I ever believed it, or accepted it.

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

Because that is the definition of the word, as I have already provided. The supernatural are things outside nature and science, by definition. If science can explain it, it's not supernatural.

That's not to say supernatural things exist. A definition exists for 'unicorn', 'leprechaun' and 'pixies' and none of those exist, either.

[ozymandias]

science is also created by a higher intelligence.

Higher than somethings, yes. But since science is a manmade construct, clearly not higher than all..

[ozymandias]

call it what you will but i don't accept any claim as true for myself, but if someone else claims it to be true for them and i have no way of disproving their claim, then i bear in mind that it is a possibility.
i mean, there is no proof that when you concieved of a purple people eater in your garage, that you didn't in fact, bring one into existence or that he wasn't there already.
many possiblities are possible.

And this is why it is impossible to have a rational conversation with you.

[faye]

And this is why it is impossible to have a rational conversation with you.

i am quite capable of a rational conversation but because your mind is so closed to possibilities, YOU have a problem and then blame me.

[faye]

And this is why it is impossible to have a rational conversation with you.

i am quite capable of a rational conversation but because your mind is so rigid and minimalistic, concerning possibilities, YOU have a problem and then blame me.

[faye]

That's not to say supernatural things exist. A definition exists for 'unicorn', 'leprechaun' and 'pixies' and none of those exist, either.

but you said the supernatural EXISTS.

are you making a claim that unicorns, leprachausn and pixies did not or do not exist?
citation needed.

[ozymandias]

i am quite capable of a rational conversation but because your mind is so closed to possibilities, YOU have a problem and then blame me.

Sorry, but your mind is so open, your brain appears to have fallen out. You are unable to discern between 'possible' and 'realistic or likely'.

[ozymandias]

but you said the supernatural EXISTS.

I'm done with you. I have stated clearly and repeatedly that this claim of yours is incorrect, but you choose to not read my posts. If you cannot be decent enough to read my replies, and insist on taking things out of context and pretending I said the complete opposite of what I actually stated, there is no point in conversing with you.

I do not believe that there is anything that exists outside the realm of science (which I have stated repeatedly), yet you insist on pretending that just because a word has a definition, I must believe that what is defined exists, when this is not the case.

are you making a claim that unicorns, leprachausn and pixies did not or do not exist?
citation needed.

You got me on that one. I forgot you like to nit-pick and dig at every little thing. I made a mistake, it happens. What I should have said was that "While the words 'unicorn','leprechaun', and 'pixies' all have definitions, there is no evidence or reason to believe that they exist, either."

I made an honest mistake. I am used to discussing with rational people, who understand the English language, and are native speakers, and understand when someone uses casual phrasing. Most native English speakers would have understood that the fact that describing something does not make it exist, and would have understood the point I was trying to make.

Then again, most native English speakers would not have been accusing me of believing in the supernatural, just because I know what the word means. That still baffles me -- I'm not sure how that is confusing to people.

[faye]

Sorry, but your mind is so open, your brain appears to have fallen out. You are unable to discern between 'possible' and 'realistic or likely'.

what do you mean by realistic?
your partner in LOGIC claims that science is now saying that all is 'information and NO THING'.
it was energy and a hologram, before that.
so exactly what does REAL mean to you?

[faye]

I'm done with you. I have stated clearly and repeatedly that this claim of yours is incorrect, but you choose to not read my posts. If you cannot be decent enough to read my replies, and insist on taking things out of context and pretending I said the complete opposite of what I actually stated, there is no point in conversing with you.
I do not believe that there is anything that exists outside the realm of science (which I have stated repeatedly), yet you insist on pretending that just because a word has a definition, I must believe that what is defined exists, when this is not the case.
You got me on that one. I forgot you like to nit-pick and dig at every little thing. I made a mistake, it happens. What I should have said was that "While the words 'unicorn','leprechaun', and 'pixies' all have definitions, there is no evidence or reason to believe that they exist, either."
I made an honest mistake. I am used to discussing with rational people, who understand the English language, and are native speakers, and understand when someone uses casual phrasing. Most native English speakers would have understood that the fact that describing something does not make it exist, and would have understood the point I was trying to make.
Then again, most native English speakers would not have been accusing me of believing in the supernatural, just because I know what the word means. That still baffles me -- I'm not sure how that is confusing to people.

i quoted what ypu said, 'supernatural exists'. i thought 'exist' means that it IS in existence.

lol. now you have become hysterical.

i have NEVER said you MUST believe anything. please don't keep resorting to lies. it is immature.
you are the one who keeps inferring or claiming, certain things are not possible because YOU and the scientists have no proof of their existence.

so, it is ok, for you to call others out, on what you consider fallacies and intellectually belittle them, but it is not ok, for others to do the same to you?
is that one of your rules?
bit one sided isn't it?