Justice? Don't make me laugh. There is no justice, but our opinions, which are praised by more or less people. Right now more people listen to lady gaga than to bach. So it means her music is better? People are idiotic, people are blind, we all know no shit. But when we realize that we are almost useless, for then we begin to truly love life. that is the time when we will truly acknowledge our price. and there is no price to one's life. There is only Life to live. and something worth to die for.
I do not think that it is a matter of "being" or "becoming" a secular humaist. Secular just means seperated from religion (essentially being atheist) and humanism and how humanistic someone is, is more of a gradient. Everyone is humanistic to some extent. So I dislike how people say I am or am not a secular humanist because as part of my beliefs - I dislike categorisation in such a way. Anyways just a small point, and just to say I do support most of the ideas that SH involves :)
You know, it's kind of funny when those secular liberals are calling for freedom while they are oppressing the freedom by over-insulting religious people for example about how they dress. well as you have the freedom not to wear something, I have the freedom to wear what I want.
and what makes me laughing more is the two top comments. really? well according to your "free" dogma, you can do anything immoral, because simply "you're free".
@X3BOOODYX2012 I dont know how everything works in your country, although surely the liberals are opposing the restrictions that some religions have about dress, not the clothing itself. Theyre not opposing freedom... unless by some twisted logic you could say they are opposing religious freedom by denying religions the right to restrict freedom o.0
well, it's a fact that your freedom is an other human's non-freedom, in democracy a few percentage won't have their right to judje, get over it, there's no ultimate freedom, if we allow everyone to do what ever they want we'll go back almost like dark ages or paganism ages, no one would be safe from anyone, well, what's the harm in restricting the bad thing? they're helping you not to get into it.
@X3BOOODYX2012 Also on your second point; yes - freedom does suggest that you have the ability to do anything immoral - there is no problem with this. Although that doesnt encourage you to do it. It is up to yourself weather you are 'moral' or not and everyone has their own morals. The law restricts this system from going too far (not religion).
@246Hades ... Freedom can both mean either in a moral, or physical (material) way. Everything material is shit. So material freedom includes that one can do anything (YEAH ANYTHING!) that he/she wants to. Moral (spiritual, or overall) freedom means the stillness and enlightment of one's both soul and reason. If a man is truly free, with both soul and flesh, he won't do anything brutal. That is life. law is the best we have. and still its the worst thing in the world.
The thing that swayed me to become a secular humanist is that atheism is just the rejection of gods or deities, while secular humanism is involving science and ethics. If you consider yourself an atheist you should consider becoming a secular humanist because it is a very enlightening path in life.
@TheQjd LOL PATH IN LIFE. Its not even funny. There is no such thing as ways to the enlightment. THere is only Enlightment. and there are you. LOL WHY THE FUCK people sort other people like: this guy is atheist. that guy is secular humanist. ARE YOU out of your mind? this fuckin world is more damn complex than that idiotic child's play. BLACK? WHITE? WHATTA Hell are ya gonna do when it's grey? AND IT IS NEVER PURE BLACK AN WHITE! its always gray. i hate this sorting and idiotic opinions.
@phosphore222 I never said anything about the path to enlightenment. I meant that it is a nicer way to see the world through the eyes of knowledge rather than ignorance.
I think you secular humanists are cool. Your doing something thats good in your opinion and I share your opinion that what your doing is good. But I still think the universe does not share our opinion and still has an unwavering apathy towards any and all of these 'good' deeds. Which is why i'm not a human secularist atheist and more of a nihilist atheist.
Most of my beliefs fit into Secular Humanism, although I DO have respect for the viewpoints and beliefs of others--so long as they do not attempt to force those beliefs on anyone else, just as I do not wish to force mine on them.
Please join the Global Secular Humanist Movement on Facebook. This is not my group, it is a group I belong to and really believe is excellent. Please thumbs up this comment so everyone joins it. It is at 18,690 humanists now, and we want to get it to 20,000 by New Years. Help what you know is a good cause.
Morals derived from science? This is the only part of the video, that I did not love. Also, your incorrect pronunciation of pseudo-science made me chuckle.
To say that ALL theists do not consider other religions is quite a substantial statement. He doesn't seem to be very open to consider any other schools of thought himself, and is attacking religions as a way to emphasize his beliefs.That is a low blow to shoot when debating that your beliefs are the "correct" ones, and only shows ignorance and insensitivity to other people's beliefs.
i don't think we can say that moral values can be based upon human nature.saying that palces too much 'faith' in humanity by assumeing that human nature is basicaly 'good'.
@baimeng1 If we don't base our morality on human nature (including the ability to reason), then what do we found morality on? Religion? The presumed will of an invisible being? If so, which religion? Which god? Each religion has its own form of "absolute morality". And what if we are right, and religion is man made? All religion gives us is the illusion that our group's social mores are absolute and divinely-inspired. Why not just cut the crap and use our brains?
@PokeyMeansBusiness I thought you were just a foolish liberal, secularist. Being you just insulted, instead of providing an actual point of disagreement. Then I saw you wer 14, and felt very sorry for you. Your parents have done you a gross injustice. But, you have already exhibited"correct " thinking. You will go far in this world. In the end, you will sleep with your Godless comrades in the dirt. I will pray for you. Socialism kills. And ALWAYS FAILS. Grow up to reality soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And actually, my father is a zeitgeitest and I am a Marxist-Leninist. My mother doesn't care about politics or economics. Also, since when did I say I was a socialist? Also, what reason should I have to believe in your "god?"
@PokeyMeansBusiness It's obvious what you are. A little brainwashed, lockstep commie fool. At 14, not having a developed mind to form your own opinions, The logical conclusion is you have fools for parents. Bingo!! Professors or politico's? Grow a mind after you grow some pubic hairs, you little communist puke.
@PokeyMeansBusiness It's obvious what you are. A little brainwashed, lockstep commie fool. At 14, not having a developed mind to form your own opinions, The logical conclusion is you have fools for parents. Bingo!! Professors or politico's? Grow a mind after you grow some pubic hairs, you little communist puke. And"Oh God this is hilarious"?...I thought there was no God , comrade douchebag.
For the love of fuck, I already told you that my parents have different political views than I. You're just stereotyping that I have no interest in economics, politics and religion from my age. Also, I do have pubic hairs. And yes, there is no god from the lack of evidence, though I was merely using it as a figure of speech, not literally you little shit.
@PokeyMeansBusiness God will deal with your ignorant, arrogant ass. You are a product of parents that have never lived in a real free society. I hope you are sterile, so you don't procreate little bolshevics like your self. It's sad you're14, and already a communist robot. Mommy and Daddy did a great job. The State should be proud. Fuck you, Godless Scum.
Actually, most of the communists I've seen today call themselves Marxists because he was what really got it started. But yeah, a lot of people hide their government beliefs because of the Red Scare.
@PokeyMeansBusiness But communism is for the most part a failed poltical system that can work only under special conditions and in truth there has never been pure marxists state. the values of marxism can better be aplied to sociology rather then political systems. socialism is a much more practical economic and political system
@PokeyMeansBusiness 'politics' as the study of collective decision making in relation to state government, citizens, and behaviors. yes, somewhat of an attempt at creating a communists state. as my father would say it was all over for the ussr when trotsky was exilled.
There is nothing wrong with valuing human empathy, but I do think most Secular Humanists are a bit short sighted in declaring objective values from human nature or history. We cannot derive what ought to be done (that is, a system of ethics) from what is. That aside I do agree with most of what is being said here, but in my own subjective opinion.
@roflBrownies I would say based upon understanding and empathy, we can say anything having a negative impact on humans and sentient beings is objectively wrong. This is on the basis that we can empathise with others and understand that we wouldn't want those things done to us. Morality is subjective to the indivdual (evident because different people believe in different right and wrong), but the action of harming is objectively wrong, and the act of caring/helping is objectively right.
this is me i think i followed this believe even when i was a christian i did not even like god then (shocking )i did not think that morality was based on him anyway this is just a few thoughts
This video is exactly the problem with secular humanism, I am a secular humanist, I believe 110% what the narrator says, but he somehow sounds so dry and nerdy and... well... uncool. Somehow we have to introduce ritual, spark, symmetry, rhythm, humour, into the whole thing....
Why would this set of morals and laws even matter if the world is going to end anyways?
Why not do whatever the fuck you want?
I myself have no idea what philosophical ideology I'm in, but I'm sort of leaning towards Secular humanism. It just seems that to leave a peaceful, good life we need to show empathy towards others. Not just pleasuring yourself, let others feel happiness. I'm really confused.
Humanism, that's pathetic. They might as well call it a religion without a god.
It's for people who have thrown away god and religion but can't come to terms with themselves on how meaningless, utterly pointless and useless they are.
It makes me sick, we move from one religion to another.
A religion demands a supernatural belief of life beyond death, along with doctrine and rituals. Secular humanism has none, therefore it cannot be labeled a religion. It's also sad that you think that lives are 'meaningless and utterly pointless' as any knowledgeable person will tell you it's simply not true: we choose a purpose for ourselves, and what we do today has meaning today. I hope you someday realize this simple observation.
Your chosen purpose is irrelevant to the universe, you are irrelevant to the universe. Your purpose is no more valuable than the Marquis De Sade's purpose and in fact it is far less logical.
What you do only has meaning for yourself, a worthless organism, or for others such as yourself, all of whom will eventually be wiped out and leave no trace remembering neither pleasure, pain, achievement or disgrace.
"Your chosen purpose is irrelevant to the universe"
That statement is unsustainable and irrelevant. My purpose matters to me, and I am part of the universe. That is enough to make it *not irrelevant* (at least to me and my siblings).
"What you do only has meaning for yourself, a worthless organism, or for others such as yourself,"
You JUST said it: it has meaning. If it has meaning to others, it is more than enough. Maybe not enough for you, but it is enough for me.
@gininginin That's not necessarily true, some religions spoke of oblivion "no afterlife" for those who died.
But as far as meaningless lives. It's sad that so many can't accept that. Yeah, you give meaning to your life. It doesn't mean your life has meaning anywhere else but your own brain. Life is worth as much as a grain of dirt. Meaningless objects can't give meaning or purpose to other meaningless objects. Anyone who can see past their own desires can see that.
That's all it takes. See, the claim "my life has meaning because I give meaning to my life" is a tautology. I make it true, and you can't make it false. You probably are referring to some 'intrinsic meaning' in life and thus it's 'meaningless' to that standard, but that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter with God either, because God causes meaning, the same way that *I* cause meaning in my life. So I don't need God for my life to have meaning.
@gininginin Well in that regard, you might as well believe and do whatever you want. It's not going to make a difference one way or another. Either way it will all be in your head. So I might as well believe that when I die I'll wake up from a video game or dream. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong because when I die I won't know it. Yes I was referring to intrinsic meaning.
Absolutely not, God can't give meaning to life even if one existed. The only thing that can do that is a CPE.
Thank you for being open and clear about this, I understood what you mean and agree with you on all almost points, I believe. So yes, the meaning is in my head, and in the head of my family (hopefully :P). I would just say that I cannot imagine 'meaning' outside of someone's head, besides a 'conscious post existence' as you say. So, bye and good luck in what you do!
Logically you should have no care for the world, after you die the universe might as well not exist. And what of the suffering and well being of others? Their petty pains and pleasures will cease in a blink of the universe when their accidentally created consciousness is annihilated. All trace of man will be annihilated, all human conscious will be annihilated and no one will be there to remember pain or pleasure, humanist or sadist. In short, your world view is for simple minded sheep.
@RaynauddeChatillon We accept that there is no pre-determined purpose to life and like a good movie, a good book, a nice vacation, etc it will end but we can enjoy it while it lasts. Out of curiosity, what's your world view?
Just because one realizes that there is no meaning, purpose, or standard morality for mankind does not mean that one should kill oneself as you ridiculously proposed. On the contrary, it allows one to live infinitely freer than a person enslaved to a God, or most pitifully, a sheep like you who without logical reason, chooses to be a slave to society. It allows one to perform any act without scrupple for why should anyone waste their time grieving over bacteria?
Everyone has desires. Without an intelligent creator there is obviously no valid moral or ethic standard or purpose in life so that allows one to do whatever he wants without scrupple. Sure it is pointless to rape and torture children, but it's also pointless to be nice to them. So logically you should spend your short time in this universe doing whatever you want, even if it is considered depraved by the masses of sheep.
I really hope you don't have children if you consider that. I am pretty sure that most atheists know that empathy *has* value even if there is no God. We are good for the sake of it, and because we know it causes happiness to ourselves and other people. There is really no need for a divine being imposing rules and demanding that we be good for fear of punishment. At least no need for most atheists, I am not sure about theists.
No, empathy does not have value without an intelligent creator. There is no fixed value. There is no logic in proclaiming that something that you find pleasurable is higher or lower than something that someone else finds pleasurable. You can't just say that because most humans, take pleasure in something it is inherently good. You have to ask yourself, what are humans? Humans are accidentally animated molded stardust. They have no greater worth than the ants they trample.
"No, empathy does not have value without an intelligent creator. "
False, because I do not believe in any creator and still assign value to empathy. *I* assign value to it. And it is easy to back my decision up scientifically, because it is a trait favored by evolution.
"You can't just say that because most humans, take pleasure in something it is inherently good."
I haven't, because we haven't defined 'good'. I just explained why it is not pointless to care about others.
It has value for yourself, but you don't make the rules, you don't have any authority over anything. You don't set the standards, no one does, and therefore nothing has a general value.
You haven't explained how it is not pointless to care for others. When we say that something has or doesn't have a purpose or value we mean so in the most general sense, not what you personally think, but what the universal law that governs all dictates.
"You haven't explained how it is not pointless to care for others."
Imagine 2 societies, one where people care for others and other convinced that it is pointless to care. In the 1st, visualize lonely, needy kids, leading to all kinds of psychological problems (depression, anger, etc), slowly decaying as nobody has a desire to improve anything. The other society raises sane, empathic adults willing to improve society. Which is more likely to survive?
You make the false assumption that a healthy society has value.
For some people it doesn't, some people prefer anarchy. There is no general rule that says a happy go lucky community of hippies with dancing dread locked children eating plentiful strawberries is the ideal of the universe. Most people are sheep and they are satisfied by their grass and enough laws to keep the wolves at bay, but others aren't. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with the wolves? Of course not!
I'm sorry, I don't think it is a false assumption if I happen to live in one. It has value to me, but that makes us return to our previous conversation about 'intrinsic value'. But I can tell you that an anarchic society is less likely to survive. Imagine those hippies without a hospital to go to (after all, hospitals are all about health and caring). From that point of view, it matters to them (to the universe, not so much).
The whole discussion is based on intrinsic value, not what you, or any other individual fancies.
As I said, the longevity of life has no intrinsic value. Perhaps some choose to sacrifice certain things to extend their life. Others take risks, gambling a bit of longevity, to seek some dangerous or forbidden ecstasy (to them) such as jumping off a high cliff or kidnapping a human being and torturing them
"The whole discussion is based on intrinsic value, not what you, or any other individual fancies."
I could say the exact phrase with 'personal value', it doesn't help the discussion. What you could do is first define what 'intrinsic value' and 'intrinsic meaning' is, because all you have said is that there is nothing in this universe that actually has those. I'm staying with what we all know exists: assigned meaning. For instance, the grass has meaning to a rabbit.
It's quite obvious what intrinsic value is, it means that specific values are of a universal norm and govern every man. If one person goes against these values he is definitely transgressing a natural law, even if his society does approves of his practice, such as the case of Pagua New Guinea Cannibals, or any of the parts of the world where incest or pedophilia were considered fine practices.
@RaynauddeChatillon So intrinsic value would be like finding there is some variation of what one would call 'the golden rule' in every belief system. (We know darn well we have no business treating someone in a way we would not have them treat us.)
@RaynauddeChatillon Although I agree with you about most of what you said, I don't think an intelligent creator could give meaning or purpose to us. The only thing that can do that is some form of CPE "conscious post existence" beyond death. Because even if an intelligent creator, a "god" created us, if there is nothing more then there is no point in listening to an intelligent creator. CPE is not dependent on a "god" and vise verse meaning you can have one without the other either way.
How many times do I need to explain it? What you are doing is hilarious, you're saying that logic is irrelevant when you choose to live an illogical lifestyle. When examining what lifestyle is most advantageous in this world, a world without an intelligent creator as you say, one can only conclude that your personal pleasure is the only thing that matters. Whether you derive pleasure from helping others, or from torturing others is irrelevant!
Again, you don't operate on logic so can't recognize it. The point is that there is no external meaning, purpose, or set of morals. Realizing that we are set free to choose whatever path we like. The Marquis de Sade was no better or worse of a human than Ghandi. One who realizes that human beings have no external value yet assigns internal value to them and curbs his desires to accommodate these externally worthless organisms is clearly not operating on logic!
The logic is quite clear, you just do not operate on logic so you cannot recognize it. You say that the meaning to life comes from "us" i.e we create our own meanings, i.e there is no fixed meaning. Consequently the purpose, meaning, and morals regarding life that individuals choose cannot be graded against a fixed standard since there is no standard. Hence no one's morals have more value than anyone else'. Therefore Sadism is as respectable as humanism.
No, the point is that values have no value in this world. Morality has no logical value other than for self preservation. How is it logical to repress yourself during your fleeting 80+- years of consciousness for the sake of animate stardust that will have no recollection of anything they enjoyed or suffered after their consciousness is annihilated? Their whole accidental existence is a purposeless insignificant blink in the lifetime of the universe.
If the discussion is about the logicality of secular humanism then actually yes, it has everything to do with logic.
As I have shown, secular humanism is an inherently illogical belief system.
Pleasure seeking is not the goal of most of you because you cling to silly illogical beliefs centered around the supposed great significance of the human race, which science, which you so praise, tells us exactly the opposite!
People create diverse purposes often based on the well being of others, of organisms who have no more significance than bacteria. Clearly it is illogical to dedicate your precious years of consciousness to serving a bacteria whose posterity will one day be utterly forgotten and whose pains and pleasures might as well have never happened once they die. The logical lifestyle is to pursue what you find pleasurable, to seek whatever ecstasy your heart secretly yearns for.
That's kind of you to care for others, but realize that your kindness means nothing in the grand scheme. It would be a pity if you died without acting on your desires to the furthest extent possible. Logically any work you do for the sake of others is time wasted.
In a world without an intelligent a subtle pedophile or a man like the Marquis de Sade lives an infinitely more logical lifestyle than someone who represses their desires.
Earth will eventually be destroyed and every trace of mankind with it. Why would you waste your precious time worrying about society, the feelings of others, or posterity?
Is it to "be a good person", or some other irrational reason? If you choose not to believe in an intelligent creator than the only logical lifestyle is extreme hedonism. The only rational reason to restrain your self is for self preservation.
In a universe without God ethics have no legitimacy. Humans and all other organism have no intrinsic value. They have no greater worth than bacteria. Why should I respect laws created by bacteria?
The only logical reason is for self preservation.
Pathetic is the man who dies with regrets, never tasting the ecstasy he sought. Most admirable is the man who heeds no one and strives for what he desires, trampling the sheep without remorse and seizing his ecstasy in this brief dream of existence.
DEFINITION: Humanist; among the most naive and superstitious of all human beings, who believe that science and education will save us from our sins, in spite of the historical evidence after a so-called "age of enlightenment", there arose global imperialism and slavery, the American, French, Russian, Chinese and scores of other violent bloody revolutions, WWI, WWII, Vietnam and continuing, global mass pollution and a looming WWIII, perhaps the real "war to end all wars", who can say for sure?
@kazath Causation requires explanation, otherwise you have nothing but a bullshit theory. The reason you can't satisfy causation is, that atheism is an obviuos lie.
You state that morality is based on human nature and experience. Can you please define just what human nature is? If there is no Creator, then who determines the nature of humanity? If there is no divine source of knowledge, then who really determines what is good and right for humanity?
Do Secular Humanists have beliefs on how we humans were made? I refuse to believe in any God or how we were created, because I need some damn good massive proof. But I also accept other peoples religions and views, and believe that it's up to every person to decide on what they believe in. It would be nice to find something that matches what I believe in, because that would be a way of giving people my opinions, rather than avoid Religion like I'm currently doing.
Well, as for humanity, we evolved. That's pretty easy. However, as far as the beginning of life and the beginning of the universe, we tend to simply shrug and say, "I dunno." Secular humanism isn't really about how we began or anything like that, though. It's more of a moral code of conduct, showing you what we think is the best way to go about living the life you do have.
I always describe myself as a Secular Humanist because it says more about what I do believe in, rather than what I do not believe in. Secular Humanism is the only way for Humanity to progress.
I am a secular humanist, and I will not subscribed to the idea of a perfect being, because I believe that all sentient beings are equal in their glory and magnificence. We, all of us, are beautiful, intelligent, and strong, and we don't need a celestial nanny to save us, because we have the will to save our own damn selves. God, as described in the Bible is not perfect, and even if he was, I still want nothing to do with him.
All of the scientific discoveries and potential are there for the theist as well as the humanist. Saying "God did it, so lets go find out what He did" will cause you to discover the same things as if you said "I don't know where this world came from, so lets explore" They may interpet the origin differently but the present state of things is undeniable.
What you're saying makes sense, and has happened (look at the european renaissance, and all the beautiful discoveries that came about during that period by deists and theists like michaelangelo, Da Vinci, etc.) Unfortunately, in this day and age, if you look at the number of published scientific papers by the religious community as opposed to the secular or atheistic community, you will see that the religious community...well, to put it frivolously, ain't got shit.
@SirKickz Im sure a scientist could submit a paper about something without mentioning that he or she believes in God or declaring that they are submitting it on behalf of the "religious community". Its not like theist scientists are doing nothing these days. I think there were theists who took part in the mapping of the human genome. Also, the number of papers put out by those of a similar world view does not make the things they say more accurate.
@SirKickz I actually wouldnt be surprised if many scientist remain silent about their beliefs in order to avoid drama from their peers. That movie Expelled talked alot about the hostility that believers are at risk of facing if they are "discovered" to be theists.
Well, here's the deal. Obviously, science doesn't have a complete understanding of how the world works (it likely never will, which is a beautiful thing, to me), and if a theist scientist wants to fill in the gaps of our knowledge with the doings of God, he can, and if that motivates him to discover things and do research, I say rock on, dude. However, if the scientists theological beliefs motivate him to ignore scientific or logical evidence (cont)
(Ex New Earth Creationists, and people like them who believe that God created human beings 10,000 years ago), then that person's credibility as a scientist has been demolished, and the scientific community is right to ostracize him. The reason why is because in order to be a scientist you have to be objective (which is to say, take all evidence into account, and not allow your personal feelings to affect your judgement), and someone who ignores the mountains of evidence that (cont)
the earth is many billions of years old (I forget the exact number) cannot be taken seriously by a community that values objectivity. If, hypothetically, the scientific community were a religion, the greatest sin one could make within it is to willfully ignore, tamper with, or falsify evidence, and they will rightfully oust anyone who commits that crime from their ranks. It's not descrimination against religion, it's descrimination against willful ignorance.
@SirKickz Ya i agree with most of what you said. Just remember that people who don't believe in a god are not immune to being willingly ignorant when it comes to following the evidence where it leads. Its a slippery slope when you start limiting how you can interpet the evidence based on your worldview. For example, in the bible it says that in the end times, people will start to interpet the world without taking into account that there has been a global flood.....(cont)
The reason is that you cannot discover the truth by looking at it from just one perspective. I recognize that. However, once a theory endures the incredibly rigorous peer review process, as the theories of evolution and carbon dating have, it becomes accepted by the scientific community as truth. Now, it's not that they, or I, aren't open to the possibility that we are wrong and that the Earth is young, there was a flood, etc...(cont)
@SirKickz as far as I know, many of the young earth creationist are saying that many of the features of our planet are due to a huge catastophe, and not a sign of great age. Like many cases of mass errosion, they claim happened quick and others say slow. Im not here to argue for a young earth. Im pointing out that there is more then one way to interpet what we see. There are hundreds of flood legends from different cultures. not just the bible.
I wouldn't deign to say that the scientific community is absolutely perfect, and I'm sure mistakes have been. I do know, though, that punishment to people who harm the evidence isn't just limited to religious folk. Take the guy that claimed he discovered cold fusion, for instance. Now, when it comes to the unknown, like the origins of life and the universe, etc, scientists are actually encouraged to interpret evidence in different ways...(cont)
but if you make the claim that we are wrong in our understanding of the truth, you are competing against mountains of scientific and theoretical evidence, and, as such, you had best have your own mountain of extraordinary evidence. The thing is, a creationist has allowed his world view to motivate a blatant disregard for evidence. I don't trust someone who does that to do real research, because I can't know he isn't fudging things just so that they fit with his views.
@SirKickz The creationists have tons of evidence. They are looking at the same world that the evolutionists are. Both sides bring assumptions based on their worldview to the table. The creationists look at the world with the assumption that a world wide flood took place and the evolutionist assume that one did not. Creationist are still hard at work doing research and making new theories. The problem is the evolution side has declared victory and the general public has bought into it.
@SirKickz I actually think that their self proclaimed victory is to an extent that many have closed their minds to the possibility of a global flood and they simply laugh at anyone who tries to suggest otherwise. Its actually so bad that even intelligent design supporters are mocked and accused of having a hidden agenda. Im glad you have been polite though :D
Thanks, and to your credit, you're thoughts are quite coherent. Still, though, each individual has different views, but science, as a community, isn't mocking creationists or descriminating against them. It simply rejects their claims, because the little evidence that exists for the flood is no where near as strong as the evidence for evolution is.
Um...carbon dating of certain fossils put them at over 300 million years old. The discovery of DNA pretty much cemented the evolutionary theory as fact. The fields of modern genetics and biology were founded on the concepts of evolutionary theory. Hell, we can witness organisms evolving to this day. There exist mosquitoes that have developed a tolerance to pesticides. If evolution had no evidence behind it, there would be no such thing as a geneticist, or evolutionary biologist.
@SirKickz Translation: "We don't have a clue why this animal is the way this animal is. But it *somehow* proves evolution." A blind of faith is a blind faith, whether it's blind when discussing gradual evolution or abiogenesis. When evolutionists say: "I don't know how it happened, but I do know it *did happen* by natural causes and not because of God", that's faith that they're confusing for science.
lol, you're just hilarious. I do feel a little bit bad for anyone who has to put up with you on a regular basis, though, as I imagine that your idiocy would only be amusing for a little while. It would become really annoying very quickly. Anyways, scientists know exactly why animals are the way they are. If you don't like science, fine. Go live in the dark ages with all your fundamentalist friends, but leave me out of it.
@SirKickz I have allowed you 10 minutes YT privilege per week, so put them to good use. When you feel like the emotional anguish you're suffering from at being a second string blowhard is too much for your uneducated God-Hating self, or if the silverware is piling up too much during polishing day, put your keyboard time to good use and discuss your problems with a professional.
Unable to make any sort of real argument, so you try to trample on my right of free speech? What a classic strategy of indoctrinated sheep.. Hate to break it to you, but I love the life I live, and nothing you can do will ever silence me. By the way, if I were to discuss my problems with a professional, that guy would be a SCIENTIST. Wanna know who designed the software your using to bash science? ANOTHER SCIENTIST. Cheers.
@SirKickz Wanna know who gave you the lights in your home? A THEIST! If I'm feeling creative I could start to turn people against you, by being cruel, maybe starting rumors in order to make people more cautious of your miserable existence. The world is a crazy place,And I need to understand evil people exist for a reason, and that's because the world let People like you down. (or genetics). There isn't much more I can do, question is what will you do?
I don't want to be a jackass, but I would like to point out that Edison actually ripped off the person who actually invented the light bulb, who was NikolaTesla. Edison stole the credit for Tesla's work.
Hard to tell with that guy, since he was a bit of a hermit. However, he did write a little bit on his thoughts about religion and he describes himself as "not a believer, in the orthodox sense." That said, he spends a good paragraph or two commending religion. I think he was an atheist, but he certainly wasn't anti-theistic.
@XGralgrathor Faraday did it. Thanks to him, your software is based off of the computer you depend on, and the telephone you depend on in your miserable lifestyle.
The world hasn't let me down at all. What will I do? I will continue to live a proud and happy life, and it's great, because there's nothing you can do to stop me. You may have given up your self worth to your celestial dictator, but I won't, and you can't make me. By the way, Faraday was also ANOTHER SCIENTIST, even if he was a theist, and he sure as hell didn't make any of his discoveries by praying. Have a nice day.
@SirKickz dictator? Is this a magic "evolutionary" word ?
Tell me about whales. (Funny, I always thought of whales as one of the thousands of arguments against evolution. But I guess I don't have that ol' evolutionary faith do I hear an amen?)
You are absolutely hilarious. This sounds like it could be as funny as the banana man, and he's just a riot. Alright, I'll play. How are whales an argument against evolution?
@SirKickz I guess you better look again, you daft fuck. This is why it's so obvious that you're almost always reading & posting drunk,It is also why you more often than not make a complete ass of yourself. That's three times on this page alone where you kicked your own ass. Way to go, drunk.
Well, dude, I don't know if you're honestly that stupid, or if you're just a troll, but all I did was ask an honest question. "How are whales an argument against evolution?"
If you can't even answer that, I would contend that I'm not the one who needs to "look again."
You don't have to do my homework for me at all. Just post the link or links of articles which support your point. I'll go over them myself. I personally think you're full of shit. I would think you'd be happy to prove me wrong.
@SirSLURPY And now, if you're going to paste in web links, all that
shows is that you don't know what you're talking about. So now, I will respond and you are required to discuss this issue, point by point, in detail, IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Or does all of your "vast knowledge" consist of web link pasting? Real Science states that there are no such thing as vestigial legs in whales and anyone who tells you that, is either lying, or is ignorant of their whale anatomy
Real science states that there are no such thing as vestigial legs in whales?...Alright, fine. So where did you get this information? What's the title of the scientific study that shows whales don't have vestigial limbs? If you don't have a source, I'm going to call bullshit on that, because every scientific source I've checked shows that whales do indeed have an undeveloped set of hind legs, and that they are descended from the order Artiodactyla.
Again, where's your information? If this is real science, give your source. You say I'm clueless, so go ahead and prove it to the ignorant masses. I'm waiting.
@SirKickz Translation: Ill sling accusations hoping that no one will notice my noviceness. I havent a clue about evolution and how its suspossed to work but Ill fake it because after all darnit...Im an evolutionist.
Well, afar1, here's the deal. I'm not entirely certain if you are a troll, or just an unbelievably stupid human being, but in either case, I'm done with this conversation until such a time as you provide a reference to your scientific source that supports the claim that there is no occurrence of vestigial hind legs in any species of whale. So, unless you're ready to put up your intellectual dukes, so to speak, take care.
@SirKickz Here's the real deal you can be sure that youre an idiot of magnitude proportions.Since you are NOT qualified, all your statement amounts to, is saying that only those who believe as YOU do, are considered to be "qualified" by you,the idiot.That bone is not a vestigial leg. Muscles attach to that bone and to be polite and avoid vulgarity, it is used in the reproductive process of whales. I.e., No bone, no baby whales.-CONTINUED
@afar1 -CONTINUED So what did they do before? They walked, but couldn't reproduce and yet, they somehow evolved? -chuckle- You personal attack on me, is done because you know you are bagged and you know that
That's some interesting....uh...findings you got there. All I'm asking is something very, very simple. Cite the title or link of the scientific source where you got your information. Anything that has gone through the peer review process will work just fine, and, since this is apparently REAL SCIENCE, that should be easy for you. I genuinely look forward to being proven wrong, so that I can modify my beliefs to suit the truth. All you have to do is cite a credible source...
@SirKickz Thought you were leaving? Thus far all youve done is give vague opinions as to why you have faith in your religion. You're a waste of my valuable time.It is also noted that you have now been posting one message after another, in which you have thrown personal insults at me and now wish to
lie and try to convince someone else that I am avoiding your inane repitions for facts. It is you who runs away from the truth. I exposed you fantasy as a fantasy and you didn't like that much.
@afar1 Hey... here's what that guy was asking for: ^ Bejder L, Hall BK (2002). "Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss". Evol. Dev. 4 (6): 445–58. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142X.2002.02033.x. PMID 12492145.
You are wrong when you said that religious people think they have all the answers and have stopped looking. Many religious people claim to know there is a God. But thats not the answer to all questions. There are even more questions to ask after you establish that you belive there is a God. Such as Gods purposes for making things the way they are.
Justice? Don't make me laugh. There is no justice, but our opinions, which are praised by more or less people. Right now more people listen to lady gaga than to bach. So it means her music is better? People are idiotic, people are blind, we all know no shit. But when we realize that we are almost useless, for then we begin to truly love life. that is the time when we will truly acknowledge our price. and there is no price to one's life. There is only Life to live. and something worth to die for.
phosphore222 5 days ago
So many titles for ways of thinking my head turns.
Good13Vibes 1 week ago
I do not think that it is a matter of "being" or "becoming" a secular humaist. Secular just means seperated from religion (essentially being atheist) and humanism and how humanistic someone is, is more of a gradient. Everyone is humanistic to some extent. So I dislike how people say I am or am not a secular humanist because as part of my beliefs - I dislike categorisation in such a way. Anyways just a small point, and just to say I do support most of the ideas that SH involves :)
246Hades 1 week ago
You know, it's kind of funny when those secular liberals are calling for freedom while they are oppressing the freedom by over-insulting religious people for example about how they dress. well as you have the freedom not to wear something, I have the freedom to wear what I want.
and what makes me laughing more is the two top comments. really? well according to your "free" dogma, you can do anything immoral, because simply "you're free".
Democracy isn't everything...
X3BOOODYX2012 1 week ago
@X3BOOODYX2012 I dont know how everything works in your country, although surely the liberals are opposing the restrictions that some religions have about dress, not the clothing itself. Theyre not opposing freedom... unless by some twisted logic you could say they are opposing religious freedom by denying religions the right to restrict freedom o.0
246Hades 1 week ago
@246Hades
well, it's a fact that your freedom is an other human's non-freedom, in democracy a few percentage won't have their right to judje, get over it, there's no ultimate freedom, if we allow everyone to do what ever they want we'll go back almost like dark ages or paganism ages, no one would be safe from anyone, well, what's the harm in restricting the bad thing? they're helping you not to get into it.
X3BOOODYX2012 1 week ago
@X3BOOODYX2012 Also on your second point; yes - freedom does suggest that you have the ability to do anything immoral - there is no problem with this. Although that doesnt encourage you to do it. It is up to yourself weather you are 'moral' or not and everyone has their own morals. The law restricts this system from going too far (not religion).
246Hades 1 week ago
@246Hades ... Freedom can both mean either in a moral, or physical (material) way. Everything material is shit. So material freedom includes that one can do anything (YEAH ANYTHING!) that he/she wants to. Moral (spiritual, or overall) freedom means the stillness and enlightment of one's both soul and reason. If a man is truly free, with both soul and flesh, he won't do anything brutal. That is life. law is the best we have. and still its the worst thing in the world.
phosphore222 5 days ago
Im a deist humanist but. I still have a lot in common with secularists.
TheCaptainjuicy 2 weeks ago
The thing that swayed me to become a secular humanist is that atheism is just the rejection of gods or deities, while secular humanism is involving science and ethics. If you consider yourself an atheist you should consider becoming a secular humanist because it is a very enlightening path in life.
TheQjd 2 weeks ago 3
@TheQjd LOL PATH IN LIFE. Its not even funny. There is no such thing as ways to the enlightment. THere is only Enlightment. and there are you. LOL WHY THE FUCK people sort other people like: this guy is atheist. that guy is secular humanist. ARE YOU out of your mind? this fuckin world is more damn complex than that idiotic child's play. BLACK? WHITE? WHATTA Hell are ya gonna do when it's grey? AND IT IS NEVER PURE BLACK AN WHITE! its always gray. i hate this sorting and idiotic opinions.
phosphore222 5 days ago
@phosphore222 I never said anything about the path to enlightenment. I meant that it is a nicer way to see the world through the eyes of knowledge rather than ignorance.
TheQjd 3 days ago
Very nice!
But is secular humanism against spirituality?
BayAreaOrBust 3 weeks ago
@BayAreaOrBust yes.
TheQjd 2 weeks ago
Man is born a secular humanist.
nyckid9002 3 weeks ago
I've just discovered that I am a secular humanist
ShadowPancake117 4 weeks ago
I think you secular humanists are cool. Your doing something thats good in your opinion and I share your opinion that what your doing is good. But I still think the universe does not share our opinion and still has an unwavering apathy towards any and all of these 'good' deeds. Which is why i'm not a human secularist atheist and more of a nihilist atheist.
NekoD3m0n 1 month ago
Good video, i am going to read more on this topic.
aldojr86 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
Most of my beliefs fit into Secular Humanism, although I DO have respect for the viewpoints and beliefs of others--so long as they do not attempt to force those beliefs on anyone else, just as I do not wish to force mine on them.
ckildegaard 1 month ago
Please join the Global Secular Humanist Movement on Facebook. This is not my group, it is a group I belong to and really believe is excellent. Please thumbs up this comment so everyone joins it. It is at 18,690 humanists now, and we want to get it to 20,000 by New Years. Help what you know is a good cause.
TheMessiersAndromeda 2 months ago
Morals derived from science? This is the only part of the video, that I did not love. Also, your incorrect pronunciation of pseudo-science made me chuckle.
ThisSaturatedMind 2 months ago
@ThisSaturatedMind I think morals will derive more from philosophy. now is philosophy a science?
Jzarecta 2 months ago
@ThisSaturatedMind Ethical and societal constructs are already present, scientific morality is an interesting concept but hardly necessary.
unkledanbot 2 months ago
To say that ALL theists do not consider other religions is quite a substantial statement. He doesn't seem to be very open to consider any other schools of thought himself, and is attacking religions as a way to emphasize his beliefs.That is a low blow to shoot when debating that your beliefs are the "correct" ones, and only shows ignorance and insensitivity to other people's beliefs.
KatieHaines718 2 months ago
i don't think we can say that moral values can be based upon human nature.saying that palces too much 'faith' in humanity by assumeing that human nature is basicaly 'good'.
baimeng1 3 months ago
@baimeng1 If we don't base our morality on human nature (including the ability to reason), then what do we found morality on? Religion? The presumed will of an invisible being? If so, which religion? Which god? Each religion has its own form of "absolute morality". And what if we are right, and religion is man made? All religion gives us is the illusion that our group's social mores are absolute and divinely-inspired. Why not just cut the crap and use our brains?
Ashiman12 2 months ago
@Ashiman12 religions are man made.
morality has little to do with reason so much as methods to control human behavior.
baimeng1 2 months ago 8
read Sam Harris - the moral landscape
millie123tck 1 week ago
@millie123tck I have, and I disagree in that science of morality is utilitarinism at heart.
baimeng1 1 week ago
Religion of the State. Good day, comrades. See you in hell.
Stickmodee 3 months ago
@Stickmodee
Why so foolish?
PokeyMeansBusiness 3 months ago
@PokeyMeansBusiness I thought you were just a foolish liberal, secularist. Being you just insulted, instead of providing an actual point of disagreement. Then I saw you wer 14, and felt very sorry for you. Your parents have done you a gross injustice. But, you have already exhibited"correct " thinking. You will go far in this world. In the end, you will sleep with your Godless comrades in the dirt. I will pray for you. Socialism kills. And ALWAYS FAILS. Grow up to reality soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stickmodee 3 months ago
@Stickmodee
Oh god, this is hilarious.
I hope you're just a troll.
And actually, my father is a zeitgeitest and I am a Marxist-Leninist. My mother doesn't care about politics or economics. Also, since when did I say I was a socialist? Also, what reason should I have to believe in your "god?"
PokeyMeansBusiness 3 months ago
@PokeyMeansBusiness It's obvious what you are. A little brainwashed, lockstep commie fool. At 14, not having a developed mind to form your own opinions, The logical conclusion is you have fools for parents. Bingo!! Professors or politico's? Grow a mind after you grow some pubic hairs, you little communist puke.
Stickmodee 3 months ago
@PokeyMeansBusiness It's obvious what you are. A little brainwashed, lockstep commie fool. At 14, not having a developed mind to form your own opinions, The logical conclusion is you have fools for parents. Bingo!! Professors or politico's? Grow a mind after you grow some pubic hairs, you little communist puke. And"Oh God this is hilarious"?...I thought there was no God , comrade douchebag.
Stickmodee 3 months ago
@Stickmodee
For the love of fuck, I already told you that my parents have different political views than I. You're just stereotyping that I have no interest in economics, politics and religion from my age. Also, I do have pubic hairs. And yes, there is no god from the lack of evidence, though I was merely using it as a figure of speech, not literally you little shit.
PokeyMeansBusiness 3 months ago
@PokeyMeansBusiness God will deal with your ignorant, arrogant ass. You are a product of parents that have never lived in a real free society. I hope you are sterile, so you don't procreate little bolshevics like your self. It's sad you're14, and already a communist robot. Mommy and Daddy did a great job. The State should be proud. Fuck you, Godless Scum.
Stickmodee 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stickmodee
Yeah... you're just trolling now.
You won't listen.
PokeyMeansBusiness 3 months ago
@PokeyMeansBusiness Lol at the idiot you were arguing with.
TheAssesKicker 3 months ago
@TheAssesKicker
Yeah, this is pretty funny.
PokeyMeansBusiness 3 months ago
@PokeyMeansBusiness A marxists, realy? thats odd. not too many are willing to call themselfes a marxists these days.
baimeng1 3 months ago
@baimeng1
Actually, most of the communists I've seen today call themselves Marxists because he was what really got it started. But yeah, a lot of people hide their government beliefs because of the Red Scare.
PokeyMeansBusiness 3 months ago
@PokeyMeansBusiness But communism is for the most part a failed poltical system that can work only under special conditions and in truth there has never been pure marxists state. the values of marxism can better be aplied to sociology rather then political systems. socialism is a much more practical economic and political system
baimeng1 3 months ago
@baimeng1
"politics"
Leninism and direct democracy don't allow politics.
There has been a somewhat of a pure marxist and leninist state, as shown in the Soviet Union, which was ruined by Stalin.
PokeyMeansBusiness 3 months ago
@PokeyMeansBusiness 'politics' as the study of collective decision making in relation to state government, citizens, and behaviors. yes, somewhat of an attempt at creating a communists state. as my father would say it was all over for the ussr when trotsky was exilled.
baimeng1 3 months ago
Thank you for clarifying! I did not know that I fall into this category for years!
krautbeer100 3 months ago
There is nothing wrong with valuing human empathy, but I do think most Secular Humanists are a bit short sighted in declaring objective values from human nature or history. We cannot derive what ought to be done (that is, a system of ethics) from what is. That aside I do agree with most of what is being said here, but in my own subjective opinion.
roflBrownies 4 months ago
@roflBrownies I would say based upon understanding and empathy, we can say anything having a negative impact on humans and sentient beings is objectively wrong. This is on the basis that we can empathise with others and understand that we wouldn't want those things done to us. Morality is subjective to the indivdual (evident because different people believe in different right and wrong), but the action of harming is objectively wrong, and the act of caring/helping is objectively right.
deathblackthrashing 4 months ago
this is me i think i followed this believe even when i was a christian i did not even like god then (shocking )i did not think that morality was based on him anyway this is just a few thoughts
MacMan5555 5 months ago 6
why would anyone vote down on this?
PomonaPunkRock 5 months ago
This video is exactly the problem with secular humanism, I am a secular humanist, I believe 110% what the narrator says, but he somehow sounds so dry and nerdy and... well... uncool. Somehow we have to introduce ritual, spark, symmetry, rhythm, humour, into the whole thing....
thorkelson 5 months ago
Why would this set of morals and laws even matter if the world is going to end anyways?
Why not do whatever the fuck you want?
I myself have no idea what philosophical ideology I'm in, but I'm sort of leaning towards Secular humanism. It just seems that to leave a peaceful, good life we need to show empathy towards others. Not just pleasuring yourself, let others feel happiness. I'm really confused.
PokeyMeansBusiness 5 months ago
So much trololol
MrRightfootleftfoot 5 months ago
Humanism, that's pathetic. They might as well call it a religion without a god.
It's for people who have thrown away god and religion but can't come to terms with themselves on how meaningless, utterly pointless and useless they are.
It makes me sick, we move from one religion to another.
14sJakeB190 5 months ago
@14sJakeB190
A religion demands a supernatural belief of life beyond death, along with doctrine and rituals. Secular humanism has none, therefore it cannot be labeled a religion. It's also sad that you think that lives are 'meaningless and utterly pointless' as any knowledgeable person will tell you it's simply not true: we choose a purpose for ourselves, and what we do today has meaning today. I hope you someday realize this simple observation.
gininginin 5 months ago
@gininginin
Your chosen purpose is irrelevant to the universe, you are irrelevant to the universe. Your purpose is no more valuable than the Marquis De Sade's purpose and in fact it is far less logical.
What you do only has meaning for yourself, a worthless organism, or for others such as yourself, all of whom will eventually be wiped out and leave no trace remembering neither pleasure, pain, achievement or disgrace.
RaynauddeChatillon 5 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon
"Your chosen purpose is irrelevant to the universe"
That statement is unsustainable and irrelevant. My purpose matters to me, and I am part of the universe. That is enough to make it *not irrelevant* (at least to me and my siblings).
"What you do only has meaning for yourself, a worthless organism, or for others such as yourself,"
You JUST said it: it has meaning. If it has meaning to others, it is more than enough. Maybe not enough for you, but it is enough for me.
gininginin 5 months ago
@gininginin That's not necessarily true, some religions spoke of oblivion "no afterlife" for those who died.
But as far as meaningless lives. It's sad that so many can't accept that. Yeah, you give meaning to your life. It doesn't mean your life has meaning anywhere else but your own brain. Life is worth as much as a grain of dirt. Meaningless objects can't give meaning or purpose to other meaningless objects. Anyone who can see past their own desires can see that.
14sJakeB190 5 months ago
@14sJakeB190
>>Yeah, you give meaning to your life.
That's all it takes. See, the claim "my life has meaning because I give meaning to my life" is a tautology. I make it true, and you can't make it false. You probably are referring to some 'intrinsic meaning' in life and thus it's 'meaningless' to that standard, but that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter with God either, because God causes meaning, the same way that *I* cause meaning in my life. So I don't need God for my life to have meaning.
gininginin 5 months ago
@gininginin Well in that regard, you might as well believe and do whatever you want. It's not going to make a difference one way or another. Either way it will all be in your head. So I might as well believe that when I die I'll wake up from a video game or dream. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong because when I die I won't know it. Yes I was referring to intrinsic meaning.
Absolutely not, God can't give meaning to life even if one existed. The only thing that can do that is a CPE.
14sJakeB190 5 months ago
@14sJakeB190
Thank you for being open and clear about this, I understood what you mean and agree with you on all almost points, I believe. So yes, the meaning is in my head, and in the head of my family (hopefully :P). I would just say that I cannot imagine 'meaning' outside of someone's head, besides a 'conscious post existence' as you say. So, bye and good luck in what you do!
gininginin 5 months ago
@raunaud...it's like you're reading my mind.
TheDizzleHawke 5 months ago
yes i am a secular humanist
kruulz 6 months ago
Logically you should have no care for the world, after you die the universe might as well not exist. And what of the suffering and well being of others? Their petty pains and pleasures will cease in a blink of the universe when their accidentally created consciousness is annihilated. All trace of man will be annihilated, all human conscious will be annihilated and no one will be there to remember pain or pleasure, humanist or sadist. In short, your world view is for simple minded sheep.
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon We accept that there is no pre-determined purpose to life and like a good movie, a good book, a nice vacation, etc it will end but we can enjoy it while it lasts. Out of curiosity, what's your world view?
MisterCommentCritic 6 months ago
Wait, nevermind I just read your other comments. I see where you stand.
MisterCommentCritic 6 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon
Might work for sociopaths/psychopaths... Normal people with emapthy and feelings, however, do not behave the way you described..
imarchello 5 months ago
@TheCrimeofInnocence
Just because one realizes that there is no meaning, purpose, or standard morality for mankind does not mean that one should kill oneself as you ridiculously proposed. On the contrary, it allows one to live infinitely freer than a person enslaved to a God, or most pitifully, a sheep like you who without logical reason, chooses to be a slave to society. It allows one to perform any act without scrupple for why should anyone waste their time grieving over bacteria?
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon Well there is no point in living. It seems like the most logical thing to do.
Watching someone die has about as much meaning as witnessing the birth of a baby.
Both are utterly meaningless.
14sJakeB190 5 months ago
@14sJakeB190
Everyone has desires. Without an intelligent creator there is obviously no valid moral or ethic standard or purpose in life so that allows one to do whatever he wants without scrupple. Sure it is pointless to rape and torture children, but it's also pointless to be nice to them. So logically you should spend your short time in this universe doing whatever you want, even if it is considered depraved by the masses of sheep.
RaynauddeChatillon 5 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon
" but it's also pointless to be nice to them"
I really hope you don't have children if you consider that. I am pretty sure that most atheists know that empathy *has* value even if there is no God. We are good for the sake of it, and because we know it causes happiness to ourselves and other people. There is really no need for a divine being imposing rules and demanding that we be good for fear of punishment. At least no need for most atheists, I am not sure about theists.
gininginin 5 months ago
@gininginin
No, empathy does not have value without an intelligent creator. There is no fixed value. There is no logic in proclaiming that something that you find pleasurable is higher or lower than something that someone else finds pleasurable. You can't just say that because most humans, take pleasure in something it is inherently good. You have to ask yourself, what are humans? Humans are accidentally animated molded stardust. They have no greater worth than the ants they trample.
RaynauddeChatillon 5 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon
"No, empathy does not have value without an intelligent creator. "
False, because I do not believe in any creator and still assign value to empathy. *I* assign value to it. And it is easy to back my decision up scientifically, because it is a trait favored by evolution.
"You can't just say that because most humans, take pleasure in something it is inherently good."
I haven't, because we haven't defined 'good'. I just explained why it is not pointless to care about others.
gininginin 5 months ago
@gininginin
No,
It has value for yourself, but you don't make the rules, you don't have any authority over anything. You don't set the standards, no one does, and therefore nothing has a general value.
You haven't explained how it is not pointless to care for others. When we say that something has or doesn't have a purpose or value we mean so in the most general sense, not what you personally think, but what the universal law that governs all dictates.
RaynauddeChatillon 5 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon
"You haven't explained how it is not pointless to care for others."
Imagine 2 societies, one where people care for others and other convinced that it is pointless to care. In the 1st, visualize lonely, needy kids, leading to all kinds of psychological problems (depression, anger, etc), slowly decaying as nobody has a desire to improve anything. The other society raises sane, empathic adults willing to improve society. Which is more likely to survive?
gininginin 5 months ago
@gininginin
You make the false assumption that a healthy society has value.
For some people it doesn't, some people prefer anarchy. There is no general rule that says a happy go lucky community of hippies with dancing dread locked children eating plentiful strawberries is the ideal of the universe. Most people are sheep and they are satisfied by their grass and enough laws to keep the wolves at bay, but others aren't. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with the wolves? Of course not!
RaynauddeChatillon 5 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon
I'm sorry, I don't think it is a false assumption if I happen to live in one. It has value to me, but that makes us return to our previous conversation about 'intrinsic value'. But I can tell you that an anarchic society is less likely to survive. Imagine those hippies without a hospital to go to (after all, hospitals are all about health and caring). From that point of view, it matters to them (to the universe, not so much).
gininginin 5 months ago
@gininginin
The whole discussion is based on intrinsic value, not what you, or any other individual fancies.
As I said, the longevity of life has no intrinsic value. Perhaps some choose to sacrifice certain things to extend their life. Others take risks, gambling a bit of longevity, to seek some dangerous or forbidden ecstasy (to them) such as jumping off a high cliff or kidnapping a human being and torturing them
RaynauddeChatillon 5 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon
"The whole discussion is based on intrinsic value, not what you, or any other individual fancies."
I could say the exact phrase with 'personal value', it doesn't help the discussion. What you could do is first define what 'intrinsic value' and 'intrinsic meaning' is, because all you have said is that there is nothing in this universe that actually has those. I'm staying with what we all know exists: assigned meaning. For instance, the grass has meaning to a rabbit.
gininginin 5 months ago
@gininginin
It's quite obvious what intrinsic value is, it means that specific values are of a universal norm and govern every man. If one person goes against these values he is definitely transgressing a natural law, even if his society does approves of his practice, such as the case of Pagua New Guinea Cannibals, or any of the parts of the world where incest or pedophilia were considered fine practices.
RaynauddeChatillon 5 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon So intrinsic value would be like finding there is some variation of what one would call 'the golden rule' in every belief system. (We know darn well we have no business treating someone in a way we would not have them treat us.)
jonssweetlady 4 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon Although I agree with you about most of what you said, I don't think an intelligent creator could give meaning or purpose to us. The only thing that can do that is some form of CPE "conscious post existence" beyond death. Because even if an intelligent creator, a "god" created us, if there is nothing more then there is no point in listening to an intelligent creator. CPE is not dependent on a "god" and vise verse meaning you can have one without the other either way.
14sJakeB190 5 months ago
@14sJakeB190
You're right, I completely agree. I mistakenly attributed Abrahamic attributes to a general intelligent creator.
RaynauddeChatillon 5 months ago
@TheCrimeofInnocence
How many times do I need to explain it? What you are doing is hilarious, you're saying that logic is irrelevant when you choose to live an illogical lifestyle. When examining what lifestyle is most advantageous in this world, a world without an intelligent creator as you say, one can only conclude that your personal pleasure is the only thing that matters. Whether you derive pleasure from helping others, or from torturing others is irrelevant!
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
Over the past few months, I've been looking for videos on belief Blah blah ect. And it always comes back to you, You just got SUUUBBBBSCRIBBBEEEDDD!
faecenation 6 months ago
@TheCrimeofInnocence
Again, you don't operate on logic so can't recognize it. The point is that there is no external meaning, purpose, or set of morals. Realizing that we are set free to choose whatever path we like. The Marquis de Sade was no better or worse of a human than Ghandi. One who realizes that human beings have no external value yet assigns internal value to them and curbs his desires to accommodate these externally worthless organisms is clearly not operating on logic!
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
@TheCrimeofInnocence
The logic is quite clear, you just do not operate on logic so you cannot recognize it. You say that the meaning to life comes from "us" i.e we create our own meanings, i.e there is no fixed meaning. Consequently the purpose, meaning, and morals regarding life that individuals choose cannot be graded against a fixed standard since there is no standard. Hence no one's morals have more value than anyone else'. Therefore Sadism is as respectable as humanism.
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
@TheCrimeofInnocence
No, the point is that values have no value in this world. Morality has no logical value other than for self preservation. How is it logical to repress yourself during your fleeting 80+- years of consciousness for the sake of animate stardust that will have no recollection of anything they enjoyed or suffered after their consciousness is annihilated? Their whole accidental existence is a purposeless insignificant blink in the lifetime of the universe.
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
@TheCrimeofInnocence
If the discussion is about the logicality of secular humanism then actually yes, it has everything to do with logic.
As I have shown, secular humanism is an inherently illogical belief system.
Pleasure seeking is not the goal of most of you because you cling to silly illogical beliefs centered around the supposed great significance of the human race, which science, which you so praise, tells us exactly the opposite!
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
@TheCrimeofInnocence
People create diverse purposes often based on the well being of others, of organisms who have no more significance than bacteria. Clearly it is illogical to dedicate your precious years of consciousness to serving a bacteria whose posterity will one day be utterly forgotten and whose pains and pleasures might as well have never happened once they die. The logical lifestyle is to pursue what you find pleasurable, to seek whatever ecstasy your heart secretly yearns for.
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
@LancelotSE
That's kind of you to care for others, but realize that your kindness means nothing in the grand scheme. It would be a pity if you died without acting on your desires to the furthest extent possible. Logically any work you do for the sake of others is time wasted.
In a world without an intelligent a subtle pedophile or a man like the Marquis de Sade lives an infinitely more logical lifestyle than someone who represses their desires.
So Secular Humanism is inherently illogical
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
intelligent creator*
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
@LancelotSE
Earth will eventually be destroyed and every trace of mankind with it. Why would you waste your precious time worrying about society, the feelings of others, or posterity?
Is it to "be a good person", or some other irrational reason? If you choose not to believe in an intelligent creator than the only logical lifestyle is extreme hedonism. The only rational reason to restrain your self is for self preservation.
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
In a universe without God ethics have no legitimacy. Humans and all other organism have no intrinsic value. They have no greater worth than bacteria. Why should I respect laws created by bacteria?
The only logical reason is for self preservation.
Pathetic is the man who dies with regrets, never tasting the ecstasy he sought. Most admirable is the man who heeds no one and strives for what he desires, trampling the sheep without remorse and seizing his ecstasy in this brief dream of existence.
RaynauddeChatillon 6 months ago
I am an alcoholic!!! Oh, hang on, wrong meeting!
tattoodfreeek 7 months ago
DEFINITION: Humanist; among the most naive and superstitious of all human beings, who believe that science and education will save us from our sins, in spite of the historical evidence after a so-called "age of enlightenment", there arose global imperialism and slavery, the American, French, Russian, Chinese and scores of other violent bloody revolutions, WWI, WWII, Vietnam and continuing, global mass pollution and a looming WWIII, perhaps the real "war to end all wars", who can say for sure?
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen Causation does not imply correlation.
kazath 7 months ago
@kazath Causation requires explanation, otherwise you have nothing but a bullshit theory. The reason you can't satisfy causation is, that atheism is an obviuos lie.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
I have been a secular humanist for a while, this video just confirms it :)
AlexLloydPowell 7 months ago
Can you call yourself a Secular Humanist, and be Agnostic?
Jacarter99 7 months ago
I'm a secular humanist, and proud of it.
CyeOutsider 7 months ago
I've been calling myself an atheist. If this video accurately defines and describes a secular humanist, I'm that, too.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
Atheist works fine for me. You either believe in leprechauns or you don't. I still don't kill people.
fatesaccomplice 7 months ago
You state that morality is based on human nature and experience. Can you please define just what human nature is? If there is no Creator, then who determines the nature of humanity? If there is no divine source of knowledge, then who really determines what is good and right for humanity?
Dhag01 8 months ago
Do Secular Humanists have beliefs on how we humans were made? I refuse to believe in any God or how we were created, because I need some damn good massive proof. But I also accept other peoples religions and views, and believe that it's up to every person to decide on what they believe in. It would be nice to find something that matches what I believe in, because that would be a way of giving people my opinions, rather than avoid Religion like I'm currently doing.
myinnerviolence 8 months ago
@myinnerviolence
Well, as for humanity, we evolved. That's pretty easy. However, as far as the beginning of life and the beginning of the universe, we tend to simply shrug and say, "I dunno." Secular humanism isn't really about how we began or anything like that, though. It's more of a moral code of conduct, showing you what we think is the best way to go about living the life you do have.
SirKickz 7 months ago
Logic will lead you to moral nihilism, not secular humanism Bwahahaha >:D
WarmongerWW3 8 months ago
I always describe myself as a Secular Humanist because it says more about what I do believe in, rather than what I do not believe in. Secular Humanism is the only way for Humanity to progress.
ACCSESS247 8 months ago
1)
Here is some unadulterated, unapologetic rationalism:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie Are you a Secular Humanist?????????
firethatsparkles 9 months ago
@firethatsparkles
I am a secular humanist, and I will not subscribed to the idea of a perfect being, because I believe that all sentient beings are equal in their glory and magnificence. We, all of us, are beautiful, intelligent, and strong, and we don't need a celestial nanny to save us, because we have the will to save our own damn selves. God, as described in the Bible is not perfect, and even if he was, I still want nothing to do with him.
SirKickz 8 months ago
All of the scientific discoveries and potential are there for the theist as well as the humanist. Saying "God did it, so lets go find out what He did" will cause you to discover the same things as if you said "I don't know where this world came from, so lets explore" They may interpet the origin differently but the present state of things is undeniable.
gutbolt 9 months ago
@gutbolt
What you're saying makes sense, and has happened (look at the european renaissance, and all the beautiful discoveries that came about during that period by deists and theists like michaelangelo, Da Vinci, etc.) Unfortunately, in this day and age, if you look at the number of published scientific papers by the religious community as opposed to the secular or atheistic community, you will see that the religious community...well, to put it frivolously, ain't got shit.
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz Im sure a scientist could submit a paper about something without mentioning that he or she believes in God or declaring that they are submitting it on behalf of the "religious community". Its not like theist scientists are doing nothing these days. I think there were theists who took part in the mapping of the human genome. Also, the number of papers put out by those of a similar world view does not make the things they say more accurate.
gutbolt 8 months ago
@SirKickz I actually wouldnt be surprised if many scientist remain silent about their beliefs in order to avoid drama from their peers. That movie Expelled talked alot about the hostility that believers are at risk of facing if they are "discovered" to be theists.
gutbolt 8 months ago
@gutbolt
Well, here's the deal. Obviously, science doesn't have a complete understanding of how the world works (it likely never will, which is a beautiful thing, to me), and if a theist scientist wants to fill in the gaps of our knowledge with the doings of God, he can, and if that motivates him to discover things and do research, I say rock on, dude. However, if the scientists theological beliefs motivate him to ignore scientific or logical evidence (cont)
SirKickz 8 months ago
@gutbolt
(Ex New Earth Creationists, and people like them who believe that God created human beings 10,000 years ago), then that person's credibility as a scientist has been demolished, and the scientific community is right to ostracize him. The reason why is because in order to be a scientist you have to be objective (which is to say, take all evidence into account, and not allow your personal feelings to affect your judgement), and someone who ignores the mountains of evidence that (cont)
SirKickz 8 months ago
@gutbolt
the earth is many billions of years old (I forget the exact number) cannot be taken seriously by a community that values objectivity. If, hypothetically, the scientific community were a religion, the greatest sin one could make within it is to willfully ignore, tamper with, or falsify evidence, and they will rightfully oust anyone who commits that crime from their ranks. It's not descrimination against religion, it's descrimination against willful ignorance.
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz Ya i agree with most of what you said. Just remember that people who don't believe in a god are not immune to being willingly ignorant when it comes to following the evidence where it leads. Its a slippery slope when you start limiting how you can interpet the evidence based on your worldview. For example, in the bible it says that in the end times, people will start to interpet the world without taking into account that there has been a global flood.....(cont)
gutbolt 8 months ago
@gutbolt
The reason is that you cannot discover the truth by looking at it from just one perspective. I recognize that. However, once a theory endures the incredibly rigorous peer review process, as the theories of evolution and carbon dating have, it becomes accepted by the scientific community as truth. Now, it's not that they, or I, aren't open to the possibility that we are wrong and that the Earth is young, there was a flood, etc...(cont)
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz as far as I know, many of the young earth creationist are saying that many of the features of our planet are due to a huge catastophe, and not a sign of great age. Like many cases of mass errosion, they claim happened quick and others say slow. Im not here to argue for a young earth. Im pointing out that there is more then one way to interpet what we see. There are hundreds of flood legends from different cultures. not just the bible.
gutbolt 8 months ago
@gutbolt
I wouldn't deign to say that the scientific community is absolutely perfect, and I'm sure mistakes have been. I do know, though, that punishment to people who harm the evidence isn't just limited to religious folk. Take the guy that claimed he discovered cold fusion, for instance. Now, when it comes to the unknown, like the origins of life and the universe, etc, scientists are actually encouraged to interpret evidence in different ways...(cont)
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz
but if you make the claim that we are wrong in our understanding of the truth, you are competing against mountains of scientific and theoretical evidence, and, as such, you had best have your own mountain of extraordinary evidence. The thing is, a creationist has allowed his world view to motivate a blatant disregard for evidence. I don't trust someone who does that to do real research, because I can't know he isn't fudging things just so that they fit with his views.
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz The creationists have tons of evidence. They are looking at the same world that the evolutionists are. Both sides bring assumptions based on their worldview to the table. The creationists look at the world with the assumption that a world wide flood took place and the evolutionist assume that one did not. Creationist are still hard at work doing research and making new theories. The problem is the evolution side has declared victory and the general public has bought into it.
gutbolt 8 months ago
@SirKickz I actually think that their self proclaimed victory is to an extent that many have closed their minds to the possibility of a global flood and they simply laugh at anyone who tries to suggest otherwise. Its actually so bad that even intelligent design supporters are mocked and accused of having a hidden agenda. Im glad you have been polite though :D
gutbolt 8 months ago
@gutbolt
Thanks, and to your credit, you're thoughts are quite coherent. Still, though, each individual has different views, but science, as a community, isn't mocking creationists or descriminating against them. It simply rejects their claims, because the little evidence that exists for the flood is no where near as strong as the evidence for evolution is.
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz Evidence? Where???? There is zero evidence in the religion of evolution.
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1
Um...carbon dating of certain fossils put them at over 300 million years old. The discovery of DNA pretty much cemented the evolutionary theory as fact. The fields of modern genetics and biology were founded on the concepts of evolutionary theory. Hell, we can witness organisms evolving to this day. There exist mosquitoes that have developed a tolerance to pesticides. If evolution had no evidence behind it, there would be no such thing as a geneticist, or evolutionary biologist.
SirKickz 7 months ago
« carbon dating of certain fossils put them at over 300 million years old »
I think you mean Argon dating here; carbon dating only works between 500 and 60.000 years.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor
Yes, I do. Apologies for the inconsistency.
SirKickz 7 months ago
@SirKickz Translation: "We don't have a clue why this animal is the way this animal is. But it *somehow* proves evolution." A blind of faith is a blind faith, whether it's blind when discussing gradual evolution or abiogenesis. When evolutionists say: "I don't know how it happened, but I do know it *did happen* by natural causes and not because of God", that's faith that they're confusing for science.
Youre a blowhard with ZERO evidence little else.
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1
lol, you're just hilarious. I do feel a little bit bad for anyone who has to put up with you on a regular basis, though, as I imagine that your idiocy would only be amusing for a little while. It would become really annoying very quickly. Anyways, scientists know exactly why animals are the way they are. If you don't like science, fine. Go live in the dark ages with all your fundamentalist friends, but leave me out of it.
SirKickz 7 months ago
@SirKickz I have allowed you 10 minutes YT privilege per week, so put them to good use. When you feel like the emotional anguish you're suffering from at being a second string blowhard is too much for your uneducated God-Hating self, or if the silverware is piling up too much during polishing day, put your keyboard time to good use and discuss your problems with a professional.
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1
Unable to make any sort of real argument, so you try to trample on my right of free speech? What a classic strategy of indoctrinated sheep.. Hate to break it to you, but I love the life I live, and nothing you can do will ever silence me. By the way, if I were to discuss my problems with a professional, that guy would be a SCIENTIST. Wanna know who designed the software your using to bash science? ANOTHER SCIENTIST. Cheers.
SirKickz 7 months ago
Comment removed
afar1 7 months ago
@SirKickz Wanna know who gave you the lights in your home? A THEIST! If I'm feeling creative I could start to turn people against you, by being cruel, maybe starting rumors in order to make people more cautious of your miserable existence. The world is a crazy place,And I need to understand evil people exist for a reason, and that's because the world let People like you down. (or genetics). There isn't much more I can do, question is what will you do?
afar1 7 months ago
« Wanna know who gave you the lights in your home? A THEIST! »
Did he use the premise or hypothesis that "goddiddit" anywhere in his equations modelling electricity? Hm?
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
Comment removed
afar1 7 months ago
« I use the fact that edision did it. »
Did Edison use the hypothesis that "goddiddit" in his work on electricity and light?
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor
I don't want to be a jackass, but I would like to point out that Edison actually ripped off the person who actually invented the light bulb, who was NikolaTesla. Edison stole the credit for Tesla's work.
SirKickz 7 months ago
« Edison stole the credit for Tesla's work. »
I'm sure he did. Wasn't Tesla a christian as well?
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor
Hard to tell with that guy, since he was a bit of a hermit. However, he did write a little bit on his thoughts about religion and he describes himself as "not a believer, in the orthodox sense." That said, he spends a good paragraph or two commending religion. I think he was an atheist, but he certainly wasn't anti-theistic.
SirKickz 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor Faraday did it. Thanks to him, your software is based off of the computer you depend on, and the telephone you depend on in your miserable lifestyle.
afar1 7 months ago
« Faraday did it »
Did Faraday use the hypothesis that "goddiddit" in his work on electromagnetism?
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@afar1
The world hasn't let me down at all. What will I do? I will continue to live a proud and happy life, and it's great, because there's nothing you can do to stop me. You may have given up your self worth to your celestial dictator, but I won't, and you can't make me. By the way, Faraday was also ANOTHER SCIENTIST, even if he was a theist, and he sure as hell didn't make any of his discoveries by praying. Have a nice day.
SirKickz 7 months ago
@SirKickz dictator? Is this a magic "evolutionary" word ?
Tell me about whales. (Funny, I always thought of whales as one of the thousands of arguments against evolution. But I guess I don't have that ol' evolutionary faith do I hear an amen?)
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1
You are absolutely hilarious. This sounds like it could be as funny as the banana man, and he's just a riot. Alright, I'll play. How are whales an argument against evolution?
SirKickz 7 months ago
@SirKickz I guess you better look again, you daft fuck. This is why it's so obvious that you're almost always reading & posting drunk,It is also why you more often than not make a complete ass of yourself. That's three times on this page alone where you kicked your own ass. Way to go, drunk.
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1
Well, dude, I don't know if you're honestly that stupid, or if you're just a troll, but all I did was ask an honest question. "How are whales an argument against evolution?"
If you can't even answer that, I would contend that I'm not the one who needs to "look again."
SirKickz 7 months ago
@SirSLURPY Tell you what, I have evidence it is, present your evidence to the contrary. Im not doing your kindergarten homework for you.
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1
You don't have to do my homework for me at all. Just post the link or links of articles which support your point. I'll go over them myself. I personally think you're full of shit. I would think you'd be happy to prove me wrong.
SirKickz 7 months ago
@SirSLURPY And now, if you're going to paste in web links, all that
shows is that you don't know what you're talking about. So now, I will respond and you are required to discuss this issue, point by point, in detail, IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Or does all of your "vast knowledge" consist of web link pasting? Real Science states that there are no such thing as vestigial legs in whales and anyone who tells you that, is either lying, or is ignorant of their whale anatomy
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1
Real science states that there are no such thing as vestigial legs in whales?...Alright, fine. So where did you get this information? What's the title of the scientific study that shows whales don't have vestigial limbs? If you don't have a source, I'm going to call bullshit on that, because every scientific source I've checked shows that whales do indeed have an undeveloped set of hind legs, and that they are descended from the order Artiodactyla.
SirKickz 7 months ago
@SirSLURPY Tranlation: You're clueless.There is no such
thing as vestigial legs in whales and anyone who tells you
that, is either lying, or is ignorant of their whale anatomy
and the question remains, for how long will you fools use
outdated information, that has been refuted time and time
again? You obviously do not know that this bone is always found
in the same gender of whale and not in both genders.
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1
Again, where's your information? If this is real science, give your source. You say I'm clueless, so go ahead and prove it to the ignorant masses. I'm waiting.
SirKickz 7 months ago
@SirKickz Translation: Ill sling accusations hoping that no one will notice my noviceness. I havent a clue about evolution and how its suspossed to work but Ill fake it because after all darnit...Im an evolutionist.
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1
Well, afar1, here's the deal. I'm not entirely certain if you are a troll, or just an unbelievably stupid human being, but in either case, I'm done with this conversation until such a time as you provide a reference to your scientific source that supports the claim that there is no occurrence of vestigial hind legs in any species of whale. So, unless you're ready to put up your intellectual dukes, so to speak, take care.
SirKickz 7 months ago
@SirKickz Here's the real deal you can be sure that youre an idiot of magnitude proportions.Since you are NOT qualified, all your statement amounts to, is saying that only those who believe as YOU do, are considered to be "qualified" by you,the idiot.That bone is not a vestigial leg. Muscles attach to that bone and to be polite and avoid vulgarity, it is used in the reproductive process of whales. I.e., No bone, no baby whales.-CONTINUED
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1 -CONTINUED So what did they do before? They walked, but couldn't reproduce and yet, they somehow evolved? -chuckle- You personal attack on me, is done because you know you are bagged and you know that
your belief is a load of crap.Good riddance
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1
That's some interesting....uh...findings you got there. All I'm asking is something very, very simple. Cite the title or link of the scientific source where you got your information. Anything that has gone through the peer review process will work just fine, and, since this is apparently REAL SCIENCE, that should be easy for you. I genuinely look forward to being proven wrong, so that I can modify my beliefs to suit the truth. All you have to do is cite a credible source...
SirKickz 7 months ago
@SirKickz Thought you were leaving? Thus far all youve done is give vague opinions as to why you have faith in your religion. You're a waste of my valuable time.It is also noted that you have now been posting one message after another, in which you have thrown personal insults at me and now wish to
lie and try to convince someone else that I am avoiding your inane repitions for facts. It is you who runs away from the truth. I exposed you fantasy as a fantasy and you didn't like that much.
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1 Hey... here's what that guy was asking for: ^ Bejder L, Hall BK (2002). "Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss". Evol. Dev. 4 (6): 445–58. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142X.2002.02033.x. PMID 12492145.
lol enjoy :)
bbrizzy89 7 months ago
You are wrong when you said that religious people think they have all the answers and have stopped looking. Many religious people claim to know there is a God. But thats not the answer to all questions. There are even more questions to ask after you establish that you belive there is a God. Such as Gods purposes for making things the way they are.