ChatterBank9 mins ago
Humanists
39 Answers
Do humanists believe in God
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by matron 22. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What you going tell me that Most sciences courses focus on the adaptation and survival of life-forms instead of on the more central question of the very origin of life. You may have noted that attempts to explain where life came from are usually presented in generalizations such as: ‘Over millions of years, molecules in collision somehow produced life.’ Yet, that is not really satisfying.
It would mean that in the presence of energy from the sun, lightning, or volcanoes, some lifeless matter moved, became organized, and eventually started living—all of this without directed assistance. What a huge leap that would have been! From nonliving matter to living!, is that better for you than a chocolate cake, simple.
It would mean that in the presence of energy from the sun, lightning, or volcanoes, some lifeless matter moved, became organized, and eventually started living—all of this without directed assistance. What a huge leap that would have been! From nonliving matter to living!, is that better for you than a chocolate cake, simple.
@goodlife. No apology for misrepresentation then? No apology to the author of the quotation you attempted to pass off as your own in your post? No acknowlegement that you were quoting out of context, had completely misunderstood his point, and were just following the church line where they resolutely carry on with the policy of lying for jesus?
Typical. You stand there for all to see as dishonest.
What you present as "science" is, of course a summarised short-hand - an overview. The fact that you think that what you have quoted actually represents "science" betrays the depth of your ignorance, not any fault of science itself.
There is evidence aplenty if you drill down and read the papers and some of the books, like Jerry Coynes "Why Evolution is True" , or Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable", or even Brysons " A short history of nearly everything"
For me it comes down to probability. Which is the more improbable- a divinity fo some description able to throw out universes on a whim, but who does not do anything else and leaves no evidence; or. a naturalistic explanation of the creation of the universe, the subsequent accretion and cooling of matter, the formation of stars and solar systems and subsequent jump from self-replicating inorganic compounds to simple life ?
For me it is simple - one has some actual evidence to support it, the other, the idea of a supernatural deity, is based entirely upon faith...
Typical. You stand there for all to see as dishonest.
What you present as "science" is, of course a summarised short-hand - an overview. The fact that you think that what you have quoted actually represents "science" betrays the depth of your ignorance, not any fault of science itself.
There is evidence aplenty if you drill down and read the papers and some of the books, like Jerry Coynes "Why Evolution is True" , or Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable", or even Brysons " A short history of nearly everything"
For me it comes down to probability. Which is the more improbable- a divinity fo some description able to throw out universes on a whim, but who does not do anything else and leaves no evidence; or. a naturalistic explanation of the creation of the universe, the subsequent accretion and cooling of matter, the formation of stars and solar systems and subsequent jump from self-replicating inorganic compounds to simple life ?
For me it is simple - one has some actual evidence to support it, the other, the idea of a supernatural deity, is based entirely upon faith...
goodlife # clergymen today teach not what the Bible really says, but what they say it says. #
Precisely ! You are right , because every word in the bible was written by clerics, interpreted by clerics and fellow travellers. Every word you copy and paste is an interpretation of interpretations of translations written by
clerics received orally from illiterate ancients thousands of years ago.
Precisely ! You are right , because every word in the bible was written by clerics, interpreted by clerics and fellow travellers. Every word you copy and paste is an interpretation of interpretations of translations written by
clerics received orally from illiterate ancients thousands of years ago.
You can say what you like, but nearly 20 centuries ago the Bible foretold not only the present polluting of the earth but also pollution’s end.
It will come, not from “scientist/philosophers” or other men, but from God himself. He is the one foretold “to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”—Rev. 11:18. The Bible was not written for nothing,simple.
Pattern matching.
It is not so difficult to understand the process of making a prediction and then looking for hundreds of years until something vaguely resembles it, and then claim that was what the prediction was. Success is a forgone conclusion if one waits long enough and looks widely enough. However it is rather unconvincing.
It is not so difficult to understand the process of making a prediction and then looking for hundreds of years until something vaguely resembles it, and then claim that was what the prediction was. Success is a forgone conclusion if one waits long enough and looks widely enough. However it is rather unconvincing.
@goodlife Still you refuse to acknowledge or apologise for your dishonest misrepresentation of Henry Gee. Shameful behaviour.
You are correct that bible was not written for nothing - But so what? It becomes less and less relevant with each passing year. The inconsistencies and errors remain.
It should be acknowledged that the bible has been an extremely influential book, and permeates much of our cultural references - but its social and cultural commentary is outmoded.
The bible offers a simple and simplistic view of creation and society. To rely on it as a literal truth is a huge mistake. What it says to me is that fundamentalists are incapable of dealing with uncertainty or complexity and are inflexible in their moral and cultural views. I can see that they might find a comfort in the bible. Does not make anything it says true though.
And finally - using a lookback, hindsight approach to try and justify a piece of verse as some kind of fulfilled prophecy is the kind of dishonest misrepresentation that even a child can see through. Thats why I am not surprised that you cannot see the error and continually promote such nonsense.
You are correct that bible was not written for nothing - But so what? It becomes less and less relevant with each passing year. The inconsistencies and errors remain.
It should be acknowledged that the bible has been an extremely influential book, and permeates much of our cultural references - but its social and cultural commentary is outmoded.
The bible offers a simple and simplistic view of creation and society. To rely on it as a literal truth is a huge mistake. What it says to me is that fundamentalists are incapable of dealing with uncertainty or complexity and are inflexible in their moral and cultural views. I can see that they might find a comfort in the bible. Does not make anything it says true though.
And finally - using a lookback, hindsight approach to try and justify a piece of verse as some kind of fulfilled prophecy is the kind of dishonest misrepresentation that even a child can see through. Thats why I am not surprised that you cannot see the error and continually promote such nonsense.
Well, not many of Jesus’ disciples were considered “wise in a fleshly way.” (1 Corinthians 1:26) In fact, those schooled in the philosophies of the day thought that what the Christians believed was simply “foolishness” or “sheer nonsense.”
So you just seen a fulfilled Prophecy today,and will every day if your not blind,and Jesus reaction to those who opposed him? Speaking to his apostles, he said: “Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14) so do you see Jesus’ wise advice was: ‘Let them alone.’ In due time it would be evident what they were.
So you just seen a fulfilled Prophecy today,and will every day if your not blind,and Jesus reaction to those who opposed him? Speaking to his apostles, he said: “Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14) so do you see Jesus’ wise advice was: ‘Let them alone.’ In due time it would be evident what they were.
I wish I could remember who it was who said "There are no real opponents of evolution, merely people who don't understand it" a truth that the likes of goodlife demonstrate every time they open their mouths on the subject.
Yet my experience is that if you try to help by pointing them towards those Richard Dawkins books which are so lucid on the subject the response often is "What ! That atheist! I wouldn't have his books in the house."
And so the ignorance continues. A great shame.
goodlife, evolution is not concernd with the oriigins of life (a subject which is being researched separately) but has clearly, satisfactorily, even stunningly explained how that primitive life evolved into the complex life that exists today. I wish you would avail yourself of the wonder of it - far more interesting and fascinating than boring old "God did it".
Yet my experience is that if you try to help by pointing them towards those Richard Dawkins books which are so lucid on the subject the response often is "What ! That atheist! I wouldn't have his books in the house."
And so the ignorance continues. A great shame.
goodlife, evolution is not concernd with the oriigins of life (a subject which is being researched separately) but has clearly, satisfactorily, even stunningly explained how that primitive life evolved into the complex life that exists today. I wish you would avail yourself of the wonder of it - far more interesting and fascinating than boring old "God did it".
Adam would had been a zoologist, the assignment to study and name the animals. After Adam observed their characteristics, he provided names, many of them being descriptive. (Genesis 2:19) you could see one example of how humans would use their talents and abilities in line with God’s purpose, like Henry Gee could been.
goodlife #What a huge leap that would have been! From non living matter to living!#
Yes ! Now YOU tell me what proof YOU have of how it happened.
What caused it to happen.?
Not an assumption . Not wishful thinking. Not how you hoped it happened.
I want YOU using YOUR own words to describe the evidence and proof of how this #huge leap # happened.
Just YOUR personal proof of the cause which resulted in the effect 'Life '.
No scientist or atheist has ever claimed to know the answer. So your explanation will be unique.
I know you can't/won't answer . You never do.
Please don't quote any garbage from the bible that doesn't explain it either.
Yes ! Now YOU tell me what proof YOU have of how it happened.
What caused it to happen.?
Not an assumption . Not wishful thinking. Not how you hoped it happened.
I want YOU using YOUR own words to describe the evidence and proof of how this #huge leap # happened.
Just YOUR personal proof of the cause which resulted in the effect 'Life '.
No scientist or atheist has ever claimed to know the answer. So your explanation will be unique.
I know you can't/won't answer . You never do.
Please don't quote any garbage from the bible that doesn't explain it either.
@Modeller Like you, I would welcome the prospect of goodlife posting their own words, their own thoughts, their own arguments - Even posts offering links to the original site, instead of a cut and paste screed would be welcome. Even a cut and paste screed with the proper attribution would be an improvement.
Sadly, despite being asked to do this many times, by many different posters, we still get the same approach.
The problem with this approach of goodlife is that it is intellectually dishonest. They still have not apologised for their intellectual dishonesty in misrepresenting Prof. Henry Gees quotation. To continue to ignore requests to acknowledge and apologise are just ignored, which is a form of cowardice.
JWs - Lying for jesus.
Sadly, despite being asked to do this many times, by many different posters, we still get the same approach.
The problem with this approach of goodlife is that it is intellectually dishonest. They still have not apologised for their intellectual dishonesty in misrepresenting Prof. Henry Gees quotation. To continue to ignore requests to acknowledge and apologise are just ignored, which is a form of cowardice.
JWs - Lying for jesus.
No proof is the very opposite of true faith. Of course, the dictionary may be referring to visible proof. But, where there is no proof at all, such belief is properly described as credulity. It flies in the face of the Bible definition of faith, as given at Hebrews 11:1: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” Note that faith has to do with actualities, things that are assured and that are demonstrated as to their reality. Faith has the firmest of foundations, is based on an abundance of proof,so pull the other one is got bell on.
//You may have noted that attempts to explain where life came from are usually presented in generalizations such as: ‘Over millions of years, molecules in collision somehow produced life.’ Yet, that is not really satisfying.//
….. so …. you say a supernatural entity that no one has ever seen, or has any evidence for, did it. That makes sense. ;o)
….. so …. you say a supernatural entity that no one has ever seen, or has any evidence for, did it. That makes sense. ;o)
i have copied this from wiki, but can't see where it says about accidental damage, whatever that means
Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism), over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The term humanism can be ambiguously diverse, and there has been a persistent confusion between several related uses of the term because different intellectual movements have identified with it over time.[1] In philosophy and social science, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (contrasted with anti-humanism). In modern times, many humanist movements have become strongly aligned with secularism, with the term Humanism often used as a byword for non-theistic beliefs about ideas such as meaning and purpose.
Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism), over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The term humanism can be ambiguously diverse, and there has been a persistent confusion between several related uses of the term because different intellectual movements have identified with it over time.[1] In philosophy and social science, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (contrasted with anti-humanism). In modern times, many humanist movements have become strongly aligned with secularism, with the term Humanism often used as a byword for non-theistic beliefs about ideas such as meaning and purpose.
See? Once again goodlife displays resolute cowardice in refusing to acknowledge their intellectual dishonesty when attempting to pass off Prof. Henry Gees words as their own.
The latest screed from goodlife is more cut and paste, and meaningless with it. It attempts to redefine the word faith - without actually providing any compelling argument in favour of such a redefinition.
Believers are credulous. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.
More lying and distortion of the facts from our resident JW. More unattributed cut and paste. Still no apology.
The latest screed from goodlife is more cut and paste, and meaningless with it. It attempts to redefine the word faith - without actually providing any compelling argument in favour of such a redefinition.
Believers are credulous. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.
More lying and distortion of the facts from our resident JW. More unattributed cut and paste. Still no apology.
