Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[Admin Khan]

If you feel like anyone is demeaning, or insulting you, contact me via PM or by reporting the post. DO NOT take it upon yourself, or else I usually like to punish both sides.

[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 respond to rest later - but what I will say is that you are wrong about the papers addressing circumcision itself as a prophylaxis tool against HIV. After all, a paper to address the safety of circumcision would be irrelevent since billions of people have been doing it safely for thousands of years- so that is not what they are trying tos ay.

Moreover, this effect seems to also go for other viruses like HPV which causes cancers:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22249298

"This meta-analysis shows a robust inverse association between MC and genital HPV prevalence in men. However, more studies are needed to adequately assess the effect of MC on the acquisition and clearance of HPV infections. MC could be considered as an additional one-time preventative intervention likely to reduce the burden of HPV-related diseases both in men and women, particularly among those countries in which HPV vaccination programs and cervical screening are not available."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16231970

"Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa. (Preliminary and partial results were presented at the International AIDS Society 2005 Conference, on 26 July 2005, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.)."

http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-a...No+local+token

The evidence was enough to allow for the American Academy of Pediatrics to release the following:

"After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs."

But the issue behind the secular humanist motif is to simply take the popular liberal stance that its "barbaric" which is not at al a scientific statement to make not a balanced one, right?

And generally I think this is the issue with the practice of secular humanism... like many faiths it sounds ideal - but what makes it a religion in an of itself is that it seeks to "perfect man" in a philosophical way. It relies on that bit of faith that says man, devoid of a theological history would have come to the same set of conclusions that end up being the most proper and advanced parts of doctrinal religions. We are asked to trust, based on the works of Plato, etc that tis not man by the will of God but rather an obscenity of sorts: that the divine emanated from man.

Because of the complex thought processes that underlie science, advanced logic, and philosophy - a large portion of the adherents of this nouveau faith end up take the core doctrine and bending it to their will as opposed to bending their will to science and higher philosophy. These then end up being militant secularists (not that you fall into this category!). This then puts it on par with religion because you have many people walking around not understanding what it is that they are preaching or talking about and then claiming that science supports their approach to various aspects of life that science has not yet commented on - and that philosophists of the past may not have ever felt comfortable with these mores that these folks are pushing onto the masses.

Huxley was so very wise my friend - I think he forecast the birth and advocacy of this religion in his Brave New World - an amazing book that should be required reading for everyone.

[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 respond to rest later - but what I will say is that you are wrong about the papers addressing circumcision itself as a prophylaxis tool against HIV. After all, a paper to address the safety of circumcision would be irrelevent since billions of people have been doing it safely for thousands of years- so that is not what they are trying tos ay.

Moreover, this effect seems to also go for other viruses like HPV which causes cancers:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22249298

"This meta-analysis shows a robust inverse association between MC and genital HPV prevalence in men. However, more studies are needed to adequately assess the effect of MC on the acquisition and clearance of HPV infections. MC could be considered as an additional one-time preventative intervention likely to reduce the burden of HPV-related diseases both in men and women, particularly among those countries in which HPV vaccination programs and cervical screening are not available."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16231970

"Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa. (Preliminary and partial results were presented at the International AIDS Society 2005 Conference, on 26 July 2005, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.)."

http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-a...No+local+token

The evidence was enough to allow for the American Academy of Pediatrics to release the following:

"After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs."

But the issue behind the secular humanist motif is to simply take the popular liberal stance that its "barbaric" which is not at al a scientific statement to make not a balanced one, right?

And generally I think this is the issue with the practice of secular humanism... like many faiths it sounds ideal - but what makes it a religion in an of itself is that it seeks to "perfect man" in a philosophical way. It relies on that bit of faith that says man, devoid of a theological history would have come to the same set of conclusions that end up being the most proper and advanced parts of doctrinal religions. We are asked to trust, based on the works of Plato, etc that tis not man by the will of God but rather an obscenity of sorts: that the divine emanated from man.

Because of the complex thought processes that underlie science, advanced logic, and philosophy - a large portion of the adherents of this nouveau faith end up take the core doctrine and bending it to their will as opposed to bending their will to science and higher philosophy. These then end up being militant secularists (not that you fall into this category!). This then puts it on par with religion because you have many people walking around not understanding what it is that they are preaching or talking about and then claiming that science supports their approach to various aspects of life that science has not yet commented on - and that philosophists of the past may not have ever felt comfortable with these mores that these folks are pushing onto the masses.

Huxley was so very wise my friend - I think he forecast the birth and advocacy of this religion in his Brave New World - an amazing book that should be required reading for everyone.

[ozymandias]

Will respond to rest later - but what I will say is that you are wrong about the papers addressing circumcision itself as a prophylaxis tool against HIV. After all, a paper to address the safety of circumcision would be irrelevent since billions of people have been doing it safely for thousands of years- so that is not what they are trying tos ay.

That's not true at all. Circumcision has a relatively high rate of complications, *especially* when done by either non-medically trained people, or where the post surgery hygiene is not maintained -- such as places with poor water. I'll grab the links when I get home.

You are also ignoring the fact that circumcision reduces sensitivity in the penis, reducing sexual gratification. As a final note on that, proper sexual education and access to condoms are both *far* more effective at reducing HIV *AND ALL OTHER STDs*, with no negative downsides. While there may be a few places where condoms and education are not available, but that's a problem that should be fixed anyway.

Moreover, this effect seems to also go for other viruses like HPV which causes cancers:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22249298

"This meta-analysis shows a robust inverse association between MC and genital HPV prevalence in men. However, more studies are needed to adequately assess the effect of MC on the acquisition and clearance of HPV infections. MC could be considered as an additional one-time preventative intervention likely to reduce the burden of HPV-related diseases both in men and women, particularly among those countries in which HPV vaccination programs and cervical screening are not available."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16231970

"Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa. (Preliminary and partial results were presented at the International AIDS Society 2005 Conference, on 26 July 2005, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.)."

http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-a...No+local+token

The evidence was enough to allow for the American Academy of Pediatrics to release the following:

"After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs."

But the issue behind the secular humanist motif is to simply take the popular liberal stance that its "barbaric" which is not at al a scientific statement to make not a balanced one, right?

Permanent, irreversible mutilation of a child *without their consent* without clear medical need *is* barbaric. I'm not talking just sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV is out of control, and we ought to be doing anything we can to stop it (starting with education and condoms), but in the first world, as well.

All these studies are based off of places where accurate medical information and personnel, educational, and contraceptive materials are in short supply -- and even these studies say it should not be a universal practice.

And generally I think this is the issue with the practice of secular humanism... like many faiths it sounds ideal - but what makes it a religion in an of itself is that it seeks to "perfect man" in a philosophical way. It relies on that bit of faith that says man, devoid of a theological history would have come to the same set of conclusions that end up being the most proper and advanced parts of doctrinal religions.

I disagree that this is part of secular humanism. It's not advanced of religion to think that murder, theft, or false accusations are a bad thing for society -- or that charity, compassion, and education are good things for it. In fact, many religions come to 'advanced' conclusions that immoral things are moral, such as honor killings, or oppressing a sex, or withholding education and equal rights.

We are asked to trust, based on the works of Plato, etc that tis not man by the will of God but rather an obscenity of sorts: that the divine emanated from man.

No, we are asked to look at the evidence. There *is* evidence that man created gods, there is, as yet, no evidence that gods created man. No one asks you to trust the evidence, at least no rational thinker -- they all say that if you don't trust the evidence, research it yourself.

Because of the complex thought processes that underlie science, advanced logic, and philosophy - a large portion of the adherents of this nouveau faith end up take the core doctrine and bending it to their will as opposed to bending their will to science and higher philosophy. These then end up being militant secularists (not that you fall into this category!). This then puts it on par with religion because you have many people walking around not understanding what it is that they are preaching or talking about and then claiming that science supports their approach to various aspects of life that science has not yet commented on - and that philosophists of the past may not have ever felt comfortable with these mores that these folks are pushing onto the masses.

Sure, it's on par with a religion, if your claims and interpretations are true -- but that still not enough to make it a religion. By definition religion is the belief, worship, and study of supernatural beings or events. The study of the natural world and philosophies derived from that are not a religion.

Huxley was so very wise my friend - I think he forecast the birth and advocacy of this religion in his Brave New World - an amazing book that should be required reading for everyone.

Indeed it should be, as well as Animal Farm, and 1984.

[faye]

scientists supply the perfect tools for the big brother, mindcontrollers and bodycontrollers of today.
don't you agree, ozy?

some scientists, as devotees of your new religion, 'scientism', are gathering momentum, to impose their rigid mindset upon the masses.

eg;http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/ge...iism-body.html

[ozymandias]

scientists supply the perfect tools for the big brother, mindcontrollers and bodycontrollers of today.
don't you agree, ozy?

Huh? All of technology is developed by science, pretty much by definition.

some scientists, as devotees of your new religion, 'scientism', are gathering momentum, to impose their rigid mindset upon the masses.

I think you are confused. I am not religious, and have no religion, new, or old. Who was this comment directed to?

eg;http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/ge...iism-body.html

[faye]

it's a shame that so many of the scientists are prostituting themselves to negative purposes and multinational companies that are destroying our planet.

well, you are the only representative for the new religion of 'scientism', on the thread, so who else would i be talking to?

[ozymandias]

it's a shame that so many of the scientists are prostituting themselves to negative purposes and multinational companies that are destroying our planet.

I'm sorry you see it that way.

well, you are the only representative for the new religion of 'scientism', on the thread, so who else would i be talking to?

Since your comment was directed to someone with a religion, it clearly is not directed to me. I do not represent any religion, nor, do I think, 'sciencism' is a real thing. You appear more confused than usual.

[faye]

take particular note of the last paragraph, my leetle scientismo.

http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html

[ozymandias]

take particular note of the last paragraph, my leetle scientismo.
http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html

Let's try a little better source for a reference:
Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take a look at the definition, provided there:

Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess".

I disagree that using science to describe the natural universe can be done 'in excess'. It's not going 'too far' to describe nature using science.



I also feel the need that that term is pretty much universally understood to be a pejorative, and not an actual academic term. It's neither a helpful, nor appropriate term to use in a civil conversation.

[faye]

well, I understand what the meaning there is of 'in excess' and i agree with the writer of the article.
it did not say that it was referring to what YOU describe as 'nature'. there are some who have a larger perspective than you of what is an aspect of natural universe.
you appear to not be reading the complete article or are in denial.

yes, it is used in a pejorative sense, because the actions and mindspace of your 'scientism' are negative and dogmatic.


did the big bang create from nature or the supernatural?
what is nothing? is it classified by scientists as nature?

[ozymandias]

well, I understand what the meaning there is of 'in excess' and i agree with the writer of the article.
it did not say that it was referring to what YOU describe as 'nature'.

Please provide an example of someone attempting to use science to describe something that is outside nature. I am not sure I understand your point.

there are some who have a larger perspective than you of what is an aspect of natural universe.
you appear to not be reading the complete article or are in denial.

I'm simply asking you to clarify.

yes, it is used a pejorative sense, because the actions and mindspace of your 'scientism' are negative and dogmatic.

It's not 'my' scientism. You are the one using that term. I disagree that it is an accurate, or appropriate term to use.

did the big bang create from nature or the supernatural?

Um... what?

what is nothing? is it classified by scientists as nature?

Again, I don't understand your question.

[faye]

if you read the articles and understood them, you would not need to ask me these questions.
you are obviously not able to understand anything, this evening/morning.

i will try again..how do you believe the universe and the human thinking mind, came into being?

[ozymandias]

if you read the articles and understood them, you would not need to ask me these questions.
you are obviously not able to understand anything, this evening/morning.

No, you are just deliberately being difficult and condensing very complex, complicated topics down into a single question, using vaguely defined words, in a transparent attempt to trap anyone that answers it, so I am refusing to answer until you come up with a better, clearer question.

i will try again..how do you believe the universe and the human thinking mind, came into being?

See? This is exactly what I am talking about. The origin of these two things are only very tangentially related, in that the mind developed inside the universe. Other than that, the development of these two things have almost nothing in common -- and this question has nothing to do with your previous questions this morning -- or if it does, the relationship is so tenuous that it makes no difference.

You claim to be 'trying again' -- what does this have to do with "did the big bang create from nature or the supernatural?" (which isn't even a grammatically correct, or complete sentence) , or "what is nothing? is it classified by scientists as nature? "?

"did the big bang create from nature or the supernatural?" -- obviously science can have only one answer for this, so it is either a nonsense question, or I misunderstand what you are trying to ask with this garbled pile of words. It's also possible that you are deliberately being confusing and vague, in an effort to be able to go back, regardless of my answer, and pretend to mean the opposite of what I respond with -- it's a pattern you have fallen into before.

"what is nothing? is it classified by scientists as nature? " -- depends on which scientists, what definition of 'nothing' and which definition of 'nature' you are using. Biologists, and geologists would likely say no. Chemists would say yes, for a different reason than a physicist would, or a linguist, even. Some scientists would say that there is no such thing as 'nothing', and others would say that it is only an abstract concept. Some would say that abstract concepts, since they don't appear in nature are not part of nature, and some would say that since there is nothing supernatural about an abstract concept, it must be natural.

I don't understand your questions, or what you are trying to ask, because you are asking nonsense, and thus, I cannot answer them intelligently.

[faye]

so, you make simple questions into an hysterical response. have you not taken you morning coffee?

i have read that science postulates that the big bang came from nothing. that is the nothing i am asking about.

the question was..how do YOU think the universe and the human thinking mind came into being?

it's interesting that an educated scientist can get so confused by such simple questions and finds them complicated.