Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[BarakzaiAbdali]

But, by definition, it cannot be tyranny to allow the masses to decide the laws -- it's only when you deviant from democracy that government can become cruel and oppressive. Either you have a flawed voting system, or a flawed educational or informational system. If it was a true, educated, and informed democracy any cruel and oppressive government could be corrected.


By way of the poem, yes.



And, in their own way, they are right. I would agree that if an omnipotent god existed, science could not override their decrees. That's the definition of omnipotent -- but in order to use that excuse, you need to provide reason, justification, and evidence that such a being exists.



But that's not what they are doing. They are pointing out the fact that you don't need a god to tell you murder is wrong, you can look at the impact and consequences of a society that allows murder and *see* that it is sub-optimal.



I'm not sure I understand the problem you are trying to describe here.



Again, I am not sure why using science and statistics to validate the efficacy of various punishments constitutes a 'religion'.



So, who is to say that homosexuality is more than two standard deviations beyond the mean -- *OR* that it inflicts deleterious effects of any sort?

Ask any homosexual out there what the worst part of being gay is? They will almost universally state that it is the abuse and irrational fear and hate they face from bigots. Most of them express that they are far happier with themselves, and far more comfortable with their lives once they are open -- it's only the bigots that cause problems.



Of the three openly homosexual men I have had this conversation with, not one of them engages in anal sex. It's a obsession of the straight folks that assumes that all homosexuals engage in it.

Let's also not ignore the fact that the rates for anal transmission in homosexual monogamous couples is exactly the same as vaginal transmission in monogamous couples. Your statistics only come into play when you look at people sleeping around -- something homosexuals used to do far more frequently, since historically speaking, it was harder for them to pair-bond and build a life with a single partner.



You are also ignoring the fact that children are better off in a family style household, than they are in the foster system -- and the foster system is nowhere near able to place all the children they take in. For your argument to have *any* merit, you would need to have absolutely no surplus of children.



Quite the opposite -- the presence of homosexual couples actually insures that their are more adult caregivers -- 'spares', if you will, to fill in if the biological parents are unable to do so.

[/B][/B]

Because there is nothing faith based about their results?



And I think you are comparing apples to oranges here.



You may wish to re-read the subject material. That study has long been debunked as flawed. There is little to no evidence that circumcision is anything other than a barbaric ritual, and all modern medical associations recomend against it as an everyday occurrance, and suggest only doing it when medical need arises.

The difference being, any adult male, of sound mind can still choose to (or not to) get circumcised if they desire. Why not allow adults to decide to be gay, or not? Neither of them is an actual medical condition by any definition I have ever seen.

[/B][/B]

Will get back to you on the rest next weekend, but here you are regarding the circumcision info from world health organization:

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

These were 3 randomized control trials (the gold standard) that actually do not substantiate what you said above regarding no benefits.

Also regarding rates of homosexuals and and proclivity (secondary to the aforementioned practice) to acquire HIV;
http://health.usnews.com/health-news...e-to-hiv-study

And the anecdotal sayings about said practice being less resorted to amongst gays is actually debunked by the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6014a1.htm

"A total of 4,403 (54%) participants reported having unprotected anal sex with a male partner during the past 12 months. Of the 8,175 participants, 37% reported having unprotected anal sex with a main male partner, and 25% reported having unprotected anal sex with a casual male partner. Anal sex with main male partners was most common in younger age groups and among men who identified themselves as homosexual."

Also, re-refer to my post regarding HPV and not simply HIV infections amongst this population (hence the anal pap smear becoming an advocated screening too for doctors to use).

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm

"Gay and bisexual men (who have sex with other men) are about 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than men who only have sex with women."

So I will flesh out a response in greater detail, but I think the evidence is quiet clear scientifically that this practice can be viewed as both pathological and predisposing to acquiring further pathology. Therefore, enlightened secular humanists who prefer to make decisions via rational thought and science alone and not self derived ethics cannot simply brush it all under the rug. But rather, they will take the liberal leftist stance regarding this issue not base on science and rationalism but their own self derived ethics (hence its a religion of man where liberal leftism is deemed "god" with a small g).

More to come next week.

[ozymandias]

Will get back to you on the rest next weekend, but here you are regarding the circumcision info from world health organization:

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

I think you missed the fact that the WHO *only* recommends *voluntary* circumcision -- which is what I stated. They do *not* recommend forcing circumcision upon anyone.

These were 3 randomized control trials (the gold standard) that actually do not substantiate what you said above regarding no benefits.

Actually, the link you provided states that the *circumcision* provided by trained and equipped *medical professionals* is not unsafe. The three trials referenced on that page regarded the safety of circumcision, and not the efficacy of using it to prevent HIV.

I may have been off the mark on my comment that circumcision did not reduce the chance of HIV, the last time I had looked at the issue, no reliable studies had been done to support the conclusion that it did.

Also regarding rates of homosexuals and and proclivity (secondary to the aforementioned practice) to acquire HIV;
http://health.usnews.com/health-news...e-to-hiv-study

And the anecdotal sayings about said practice being less resorted to amongst gays is actually debunked by the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6014a1.htm



"A total of 4,403 (54%) participants reported having unprotected anal sex with a male partner during the past 12 months. Of the 8,175 participants, 37% reported having unprotected anal sex with a main male partner, and 25% reported having unprotected anal sex with a casual male partner. Anal sex with main male partners was most common in younger age groups and among men who identified themselves as homosexual."

Actually, that study does not debunk my claim. Only 54% of the participants had anal intercourse in the last 12 months. That leaves 46% that have not had anal intercourse in the last 12 months -- it's possible that some, or all of them do not engage in it at all.

Also, re-refer to my post regarding HPV and not simply HIV infections amongst this population (hence the anal pap smear becoming an advocated screening too for doctors to use).

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm

"Gay and bisexual men (who have sex with other men) are about 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than men who only have sex with women."

I'm going to guess that based on the wording, they are only referring to men that engage in anal sex. I could be wrong -- but if they are not enaging in anal sex, how could their risk be increased?

So I will flesh out a response in greater detail, but I think the evidence is quiet clear scientifically that this practice can be viewed as both pathological and predisposing to acquiring further pathology.

Not at all. Is it pathological to drive a car? Car drivers are *far* more likely to be in a car accident. What about biking? Bike riders are far more likely to receive head injuries. Playing tennis? Tennis elbow is named after the sport... Linking a behaviour or choice with increased risk is not all that is needed to determine it is pathological. You also need to weigh in the *benefits* the person receives, and the cause of the risk, and the methods for resolving the risk.

Going by pure risk alone, it was pathological to be black in 1960s Alabama -- but since there is no reasonable remedy, that was not considered pathological. There is no reasonable remedy for homosexuality -- there is no legitimate, recognized 'treatment'.

People at risk for heart problems also do not get increased enjoyment out of a defective heart -- homosexuals *do* -- they are allowed to live their life as they choose, and love and marry the person of their choice.

You are focusing on the negatives and pretending that the predisposition towards homosexuality and satisfaction they get out of their life style does not matter.

Therefore, enlightened secular humanists who prefer to make decisions via rational thought and science alone and not self derived ethics cannot simply brush it all under the rug.

And they make no effort to do so. You are pretending that they are willing (and able) to decree how other people live their life, even when the choices don't impact others. The rational though involves weighing people's enjoyment, the harm they do to others, the harm they do to themselves, and their informed consent. You are proposing to take away their right of choice due to the harm they do themselves, and ignore that they get enjoyment out of it, and harm no one else.

But rather, they will take the liberal leftist stance regarding this issue not base on science and rationalism but their own self derived ethics (hence its a religion of man where liberal leftism is deemed "god" with a small g).

More to come next week.

I still don't see why you are saying it is a religion.

[faye]

But such evidence could be found, or your belief could be disproven. Since anarobic bacteria exist, your belief has been disproven.
Again, such evidence can be found -- all such claims of fairies/unicorns/etc in the past have been disproven, thus it is rational to expect claims of their existence to come with some sort of proof.
Again, such evidence can, and does exist -- you are just ignorant of it. Depends on the experience. Looking at the physical evidence is a starting point. Looking at how their claims fit into our understanding of how the mind works is another.
Of course not. As already stated, your experiences are filtered by your mind, and thus you may believe you have experienced something that was nothing more than a hallucination.

lol. how does the existence of anaerobic bacteria disprove what i said?

the rest of your rave just proves what i said previously. those, like yourself, want to dictate to the masses, what is real/truth and what is not. thanks for that evidence.

[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.

BTW, you still have not proven this claim.

since you, yourself, are still unsure of whether there is an intelligent creator or not, how can you make such claims, as fact?

you are basing this claim on an assumption, only.

[faye]

No -- you claim to have seen them. You have not yet provided any sort of proof of this claim.

what kind of evidence would you like for his claim?
since we have no cameras for taking a picture of an insight, dream,' hallucination' or vision, how can he give you proof and why would he need to?

[faye]

yeah I know right because people who claimed to have these so-called visions never hallucinated things that never actually happened. How arrogant for logical people not to accept personalized claims of viisions which can easily be fabricated or deluded as having merit without evidence to support them.

lol..why would we people, who have experiences that you can't disprove, give a damn whether you believe it or not?
since you can't disprove them, and do not know what they actually are, then you are unable to make a judgement, unless you ASSUME a conclusion as to what you want to think they are.

[ozymandias]

lol. how does the existence of anaerobic bacteria disprove what i said?

the rest of your rave just proves what i said previously. those, like yourself, want to dictate to the masses, what is real/truth and what is not. thanks for that evidence.

Sorry, I misread what you posted. Since you are not making any effort to read my replies, I am not making much effort to read and reply to yours. It's not worth the effort to feed a troll like you.

[ozymandias]

BTW, you still have not proven this claim.

What claim? You are the one claiming that wind is intelligent, not me.

since you, yourself, are still unsure of whether there is an intelligent creator or not, how can you make such claims, as fact?

There is no evidence that wind is intelligent, nor does intelligent wind fit into any logical or scientific theory of how the world works. It's quite easy to reject your claim that wind is intelligent, given the fact that there is no evidence for your claim.

Also, it's not that I am 'unsure', it's that I admit that you cannot scientifically disprove the existence of a god, since no one can create an accurate, falsifiable definition of 'god'. That's different than 'unsure'.

you are basing this claim on an assumption, only.

Nope.

[ozymandias]

what kind of evidence would you like for his claim?

Any will do.

since we have no cameras for taking a picture of an insight, dream,' hallucination' or vision, how can he give you proof and why would he need to?

How? No idea. But it's up to the person making the claim to provide the proof. Scientifically speaking, a vision and a dream are about the same as a hallucination -- figments of his mind. If these creatures actually did exist, though, they would not just exist in his mind, and thus *some* sort of evidence could be found.

Why? He presumably wants to be taken seriously, or use these things as evidence themselves.

[ozymandias]

lol..why would we people, who have experiences that you can't disprove,

Actually, it's quite easy. They have done repeated studies showing that hallucinations are caused by electrical or chemical imbalances in the brain, while no evidence exists that these hallucinations are real. Since we can show evidence that they are imaginary only, and you cannot show otherwise... well, it's pretty clear what's going on...

give a damn whether you believe it or not?

I have no idea -- but you believers willingly jumped into this thread, and expect us to take your hallucinations seriously, or as evidence of anything other than an electrical or chemical problem in your brain -- obviously you care. If you didn't care, you would either not be posting about it here, or would accept the fact that we are not gullible and require more than your words on an online forum as proof the events you claim happen occurred.

since you can't disprove them,

We don't need to. You are the one claiming to have had them, you prove them. That's how things work in real life.

I can't claim to have a herd of living T-Rex in my basement, and demand that it be considered true until someone disproves it. No, the one making the claim (especially outrageous ones) to prove their claim (especially when asked).

and do not know what they actually are, then you are unable to make a judgement,

Given the huge body of science, and the basic understanding most people have of reality, it's actually quite easy and rational to make a judgment on these issues. It's far more likely that you hallucinated (which fits into modern science, biology, and rationality) than something supernatural happened (which does not fit into those things, and you provided no evidence for).

unless you ASSUME a conclusion as to what you want to think they are.

Since you failed to provide any evidence, we only have the evidence modern science has provided regarding these visions in general. In general, they are brain problems, and a few are illusions of some sort. Since no one has ever proven their hallucinations are real (pretty much by definition, actually), there is no reason to assume that your hallucinations are special, especially without any evidence from you.

Until you provide evidence otherwise, it's rational and reasonable to 'assume' there is nothing special about your hallucinations.

[Afghanistan2010]

You know what,we don't give a damn about you and your beliefs.
We will never leave our beliefs,cause we are happy to die with the belief there is a God,and there is no other God beside him.

Have you thought if we die and you die,if you were to be right (which i highly doubt)then nothing will happen to us,but Imagine if we were to be right and there is a God ? What will be your reply ?

[DaZahroJaam.]

speak for yourself dimwit. People don't necessarily exchange beliefs to get others to follow theirs but so we can understand each other better. Life would be so much easier if we didn't just go out of our ways to purposely offend other's religious beliefs..

[ozymandias]

You know what,we don't give a damn about you and your beliefs.

That's fine -- stop posting in this thread then.

We will never leave our beliefs,cause we are happy to die with the belief there is a God,and there is no other God beside him.

Good for you -- and good thing I am not here to deconvert anyone, then, huh?

As stated multiple times, I am here to get a glimpse of your world, and give you a glimpse of mine -- open a dialog and get rid of some of the false assumptions and animosity between our two camps.

Have you thought if we die and you die,if you were to be right (which i highly doubt)then nothing will happen to us,but Imagine if we were to be right and there is a God ? What will be your reply ?

Yes -- I have seen Pascal's Wager before. Imagine if you are wrong, and the only god is Thor, and he is pissed you have been worshipping the wrong god? What if your god is pissed you ignored the gifts of an intelligent mind and rational thought?

Pascal's Wager only makes sense if there is only one possible god, and only one possible way to worship them, and it falls apart anytime you look at it in the real world.

My reply to your imaginary situation? Hold my head up high, and tell your god I did the best I could, was the best person I could be, and used all the gifts I was given as best I could. I did not fear looking for the truth, and I did not neglect the abilities I was given.

Why assume your god is petty and doesn't want you to use the gifts he gave you?

[ozymandias]

speak for yourself dimwit. People don't necessarily exchange beliefs to get others to follow theirs but so we can understand each other better. Life would be so much easier if we didn't just go out of our ways to purposely offend other's religious beliefs..

Bingo. To expand on DaZahroJaam:

I have no interest in deconverting anyone. I'm here to expose myself to a culture that I know is inaccurately portrayed in the media, and that I did not have a communication channel with. I don't understand how you think, what motivates you, or why you do some of the things I heard you did -- and I don't trust the reports that I get to begin with.

I'm here to humanize you to me, and to humanize me, to you. Clearly it was needed, given the amount of hatred and misunderstanding I get, just for existing.

[Afghanistan2010]

Dear,you are trying to claim your supriority here,with im a scientist and we are some kind of goats here,who have to ask you for the right path or some kind of openning of our eyes to the truth.