Quizzes & Puzzles0 min 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.
-- answer removed --
Thats why your future must appear very dark.
Because attacks upon the Bible continue to be made by atheists, agnostics, humanists and Unitarians. Scientific theories are expounded as scientific fact even though those theories keep changing and contradict each.
And yet all such have failed to diminish the distribution of the Bible ,giving vent to their feelings, they exclaim: “What a travesty of the Christian faith this idolatry of a book called the Bible has been! . . . How can one understand the Bible without knowledge of what the Bible really says? Unfortunately for you and ever so many others, clergymen today teach not what the Bible really says, but what they say it says. ~This is not what Jesus said, he said it is: the Word of his Father,
Because attacks upon the Bible continue to be made by atheists, agnostics, humanists and Unitarians. Scientific theories are expounded as scientific fact even though those theories keep changing and contradict each.
And yet all such have failed to diminish the distribution of the Bible ,giving vent to their feelings, they exclaim: “What a travesty of the Christian faith this idolatry of a book called the Bible has been! . . . How can one understand the Bible without knowledge of what the Bible really says? Unfortunately for you and ever so many others, clergymen today teach not what the Bible really says, but what they say it says. ~This is not what Jesus said, he said it is: the Word of his Father,
Goodlife, you really dont have a handle on life do you! Why would you think that atheists future appears "dark" mine isnt, im loving life with a great future ahead, I have no worries about death or heaven or hell,they are just stupid stories that you believe.
You do your faith no justice at all, you just come across as an obnoxious person in my view.
You do your faith no justice at all, you just come across as an obnoxious person in my view.
@ goodlife - you have enumerated the problem for believers perfectly well in your own post. The bible, itself riddled with inconsistency and error, cannot be taken as a literal truth of anything at all, especially when you consider that much of the bible appears to have been penned well after the events described. It would also appear to be the case that what is recognised as the bible was heavily edited for political reasons, in Constantines time.
You then make this ridiculous assertion that scientific theories are expounded as fact even though they keep changing and contradicting one another.
That is simply not an accurate assessment at all. Unlike religious certainty based entirely upon faith and with not a jot of evidence, Science relies upon hypothesis, experiment, observation, data collection and data analysis.
Unlike religion, which is slow or reluctant to change, and in so doing has to directly contradict some law or edict laid down in medieval times, It is perfectly acceptable for a scientific theory to be amended, if new evidence comes in that offers a model that better describes the real world. But those changes are not fundamental changes of direction - at least, not nowadays - they are usually amendments, minor changes to theories.
The fear of change typifies the religious mindset, it seems to me. Such a faith based world view can only deal with absolutes, which give a false description of the world and a false certainty.
Most of the fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and biology have not significantly changed in a long time, although there may have been minor tweaks in order to better reflect evidence and observation.
And I cannot think of any scientific laws or theories that directly contradict each other - how about you offer us some examples of that?
You then make this ridiculous assertion that scientific theories are expounded as fact even though they keep changing and contradicting one another.
That is simply not an accurate assessment at all. Unlike religious certainty based entirely upon faith and with not a jot of evidence, Science relies upon hypothesis, experiment, observation, data collection and data analysis.
Unlike religion, which is slow or reluctant to change, and in so doing has to directly contradict some law or edict laid down in medieval times, It is perfectly acceptable for a scientific theory to be amended, if new evidence comes in that offers a model that better describes the real world. But those changes are not fundamental changes of direction - at least, not nowadays - they are usually amendments, minor changes to theories.
The fear of change typifies the religious mindset, it seems to me. Such a faith based world view can only deal with absolutes, which give a false description of the world and a false certainty.
Most of the fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and biology have not significantly changed in a long time, although there may have been minor tweaks in order to better reflect evidence and observation.
And I cannot think of any scientific laws or theories that directly contradict each other - how about you offer us some examples of that?
How the future looks is not a reason to choose to believe something that paints a rosier picture. One looks for truth not comfort.
Scientific theories may change as new evidence indicates how the old theory didn't quite explain everything and needs modification, but that is its strength not a weakness. It is only by revisiting one's beliefs, and searching for evidence that they are correct, that one can zero in on reality.
Science does not seek to stop the distribution of anything. But those working in the field are likely to hope that those folk who read a book of conjecture will be savvy enough to know what a sensible level of faith in it is, and don't just believe it for 'feel good' factors.
Scientific theories may change as new evidence indicates how the old theory didn't quite explain everything and needs modification, but that is its strength not a weakness. It is only by revisiting one's beliefs, and searching for evidence that they are correct, that one can zero in on reality.
Science does not seek to stop the distribution of anything. But those working in the field are likely to hope that those folk who read a book of conjecture will be savvy enough to know what a sensible level of faith in it is, and don't just believe it for 'feel good' factors.
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Do You know why many can see truths about God, and are beyond the scope of science.
A scientist may be able to describe every molecule in a chocolate cake, but will his analysis reveal why the cake was made or for whom? For answers to questions like that—which most people would regard as the more important ones—he needs to consult the person who baked the cake, simple.
yes, but most people who bake cakes are nice people who can be seen and spoken to...most would be more than happy to answer those questions, so the answers to why and for whom, are attainable.
most cake bakers are not megalomaniacs, they do not require the asker to spend their entire lives worshipping them, praying, and in fear of burning in hell for all eternity if they dont - and all the while have no evidence as to why they are going along with such an insane set of demands... all just so they find how why they baked thecake and who it was for
most cake bakers are not megalomaniacs, they do not require the asker to spend their entire lives worshipping them, praying, and in fear of burning in hell for all eternity if they dont - and all the while have no evidence as to why they are going along with such an insane set of demands... all just so they find how why they baked thecake and who it was for
A scientist can do better than chemical analysis of cakes, goodlife. A scientist can tell the origin of every single element in the periodic table. And of the sun. Your God's involvement is getting less; it's now back to just before the Big Bang. After that, everything has followed laws of physics; no doubt you would say these were laid down by God.
And if you think a line of fossils is taken as the sole evidence for evolution, your ignorance of science is abysmal
And if you think a line of fossils is taken as the sole evidence for evolution, your ignorance of science is abysmal
@goodlife
Thats just a typical nothing answer. Again, you offer no proof of gods existence, just the faith of believers. It is a circular argument; God exists because loads of people have faith, and loads of people have faith because god exists.
And you are slipping back into bad habits again - the first line of your last post, beginning "To take a line of fossils" is actually a direct quotation of Henry Gee - Once again, you have posted an unattributed quotation. This is intellectual dishonesty. Henry Gee, whose line that is, has complained vociferously about being deliberately misrepresented and selectively quoted before now - you just add to that tradition of lying for jesus that organisations like Answer in Genesis and The Discovery Institute typify.
Henry Gee was making the point that in a series of fossils selected to demonstrate the evolution of a species over time, there was no guarantee and indeed very little likelihood that such fossils represented a direct lineage, ie a grand-parent or great grand-parent. This is a trivial point and does not challenge the conventional thinking about evolution at all. Indeed, Henry Gee himself is a respected evolutionary biologist and more pertinently someone of religious faith. He does not challenge evolution and he definitely did not intend for his quote to be used in the manner you use it.
You still have not explained which scientific theories directly conflict with each other. Nor have you fully explained why it is a bad thing that scientific theories might be moderated in receipt of new evidence?
Your point about the cake is just risible, and not even particularly useful.
You have no evidence to support your assertions as fact that a deity exists. You have no evidence to support your rejection of science in favour of creationist myths about life.
You continue to lie and misrepresent people and facts in order to further your agenda of promoting your particular religion, which is distasteful and completely lacks any credibility.
Thats just a typical nothing answer. Again, you offer no proof of gods existence, just the faith of believers. It is a circular argument; God exists because loads of people have faith, and loads of people have faith because god exists.
And you are slipping back into bad habits again - the first line of your last post, beginning "To take a line of fossils" is actually a direct quotation of Henry Gee - Once again, you have posted an unattributed quotation. This is intellectual dishonesty. Henry Gee, whose line that is, has complained vociferously about being deliberately misrepresented and selectively quoted before now - you just add to that tradition of lying for jesus that organisations like Answer in Genesis and The Discovery Institute typify.
Henry Gee was making the point that in a series of fossils selected to demonstrate the evolution of a species over time, there was no guarantee and indeed very little likelihood that such fossils represented a direct lineage, ie a grand-parent or great grand-parent. This is a trivial point and does not challenge the conventional thinking about evolution at all. Indeed, Henry Gee himself is a respected evolutionary biologist and more pertinently someone of religious faith. He does not challenge evolution and he definitely did not intend for his quote to be used in the manner you use it.
You still have not explained which scientific theories directly conflict with each other. Nor have you fully explained why it is a bad thing that scientific theories might be moderated in receipt of new evidence?
Your point about the cake is just risible, and not even particularly useful.
You have no evidence to support your assertions as fact that a deity exists. You have no evidence to support your rejection of science in favour of creationist myths about life.
You continue to lie and misrepresent people and facts in order to further your agenda of promoting your particular religion, which is distasteful and completely lacks any credibility.
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
A quote from Henry Gee, head science writer of Nature, from his book, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999, page 126-127. there - unusually for you, goodlife, you have forgotten to credit your sources. I'll take your abject apology as read.
This quote was seized upon by creationists who proceeded to claim it said something other than that which it said. Eventually, Gee was so hacked off with this misrepresentation that he issued a clarification:
https:/
"That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from
the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course --
but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find.
Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid,
an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various
attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know
whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if
that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried
with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must
apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we
didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean
that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is
impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately,
many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be
traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this
view. However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great
scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live
by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a
mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN SEARCH OF
DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing
to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.
I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of
some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most
importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to
scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should
not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard
the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive,
sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith
generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized
quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their
position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals."
Wonder who that last sentence applies to, eh, Goodlife?
A quote from Henry Gee, head science writer of Nature, from his book, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999, page 126-127. there - unusually for you, goodlife, you have forgotten to credit your sources. I'll take your abject apology as read.
This quote was seized upon by creationists who proceeded to claim it said something other than that which it said. Eventually, Gee was so hacked off with this misrepresentation that he issued a clarification:
https:/
"That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from
the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course --
but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find.
Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid,
an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various
attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know
whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if
that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried
with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must
apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we
didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean
that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is
impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately,
many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be
traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this
view. However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great
scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live
by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a
mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN SEARCH OF
DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing
to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.
I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of
some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most
importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to
scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should
not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard
the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive,
sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith
generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized
quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their
position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals."
Wonder who that last sentence applies to, eh, Goodlife?
