This video just goes from one misunderstanding to the next. Secular Humanism is not the same as religious humanism.
Religion is widely described as being a supernatural belief system, this would include beliefs such as (some) Buddhism but not beliefs like Secular Humanism.
This is just another video trying to make out that Christianity is having a hard time in America; it isn't.
@TeachSecularHumanism Secular Humanism has NO philosophical backbone. The intellectually honest atheist is a nihilist. Secular Humanists prefer certain values, but those preferences are subjective.
@TeachSecularHumanism David Hume famously deduced that "it is logically impossible to get an ought from an is." Secular Humanism does not have the authority to prescribe value to certain actions over others. When a secular humanist says something is a "moral law", it is really is just their subjective preference. Science can tell us what their is but not what we ought to do. Nihilism is the recognition that nothing has value. I know it's depressing. We can't give value.
@TheDavid2222 I have an unusual defence in terms of morality. Our subjective experiences of pain and pleasure and all the things inbetween refer to things that are happening in the brain (materialism wrt matters of mind). This (to me at least) bridges the gap in the is-ought problem. Essentially people's subjective feelings are something objective!
Besides Hume's is-ought referred to nature at large, with individuals it's easy to derive an ought from an is.
@TeachSecularHumanism your begging the question. One person's pain can be another's pleasure. Secular Humanism does not have the authority to lay down rules of any kind. Look up nihilism on youtube or something. Every important philosopher since the mid 1800's has at least addressed nihilism. Your pain pleasure measuring device is definitely utilitarian. You will certainly eventually notice that lots of people are not utilitarians. Myself included.
@TheDavid2222 It's hardly begging the question, it's neuroscience! There are some whose neurological makeup is a bit different from others so we can treat them accordingly; no problem there. You keep going on about authority, why is that? I'm used to hearing that argument from the theistic side but you don't appear to be a theist so I'm confused as to where that's coming from. My view is very utilitarian granted and utilitarianism has its problems but I still think it works well.
@TeachSecularHumanism I suggest that you look at my statements again and look over them. I'm not trying to be rude, but you are bypassing my statements. I'm talking about metaphysics here, not science. Every system of thought needs justification outside of experience. Secular Humanism doesn't have justification. Theists actually do have more of a point than you realize. I suggest you take them more seriously when it comes to their criticisms of Secular Humanism.
@TheDavid2222 I know you're talking about metaphysics but I'm providing a different basis for morality than the usual. If it is the case that pain/pleasure etc are products of the brain then there is potentially a real world basis for morality. You were saying how Humanists can't say something is a moral law and that it is subjective preference, I've given reasons why that isn't the case.
The theists give divine command theory as their answer for morality, I can't take that seriously!
@TeachSecularHumanism Pain and pleasure do not provide the materials upon which a morality can be established. Values are something that must come from outside of the human subject. I can't take a scientist seriously when they say they know what people should believe or do based off of scientific discovery. Besides, scientific knowledge is dependent on time and place. Science does NOT say that life is sacred. We have chosen to believe that. Science could endorse genocide.
@TheDavid2222 Tell me this then, without brains capable of feeling pain/pleasure would we even have morality?
You keep saying that the grounding has to be metaphysical and now you're saying it has to be not bound by time/space. Why is this? You've only asserted it so far.
Science has always been amoral, it couldn't justify genocide! Morality will always be a philosophical topic but that doesn't mean that it can't have a basis in the real world.
Religion is threatened by secular humanism, and by atheism in general. Different religions may disgaree with each other, but they seem to have a sort of understanding. All religious are equally unprovable, equally unreasonable. A Christian can look at a Muslim, and take some comfort in that shared unsubstantiality. But doesn't play by the rules. The only way a religious person can handle it is to make humanism and/or atheism into a religion. That makes it all "okay".
"Secular humanism cannot provide a definition of religion that excludes secular humanism, but includes other non-theistic religions."
Nonsense. How about a definition specifying that religions must include reliance on faith, and an admission of some form of transcendent aspect which continues on after death? Confuscianism, taoism, and Buddhism all have these traits: secular humanism does not.
@guitarplaya1990 "Secularity" is not Secular Humanism. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about. One is an adjective used to describe something outside of religion. The other is the philosophy that this video references. It is a well developed and organized philosophy, and this video is making the case that it should be classified as a religion, which is a legitimate argument.
@acts541 No secularity is not Secular Humanism, but Secular Humanism is secular. Hence why they bother using the term in the first place. The term secular means being separate from religion, so for Secular Humanism to be classified as a religion would be contradictory.
@jymbo1969 - Religion is defined by morality, and defines morality. Ethics on the other hand is defined by philosophy. Ethics is the system our governments use, and should continue using.
what scares me about this religion is the dogma of reductionism, that limits scientific knowledge, I think of the expression, "religion prevents one from having their own spiritual experience", so what does that say for a religion that proclaims science as its truth? Its dogma has in many occasions rejected advanced sciences such as fractal & quantum, & practiced revisionist history, rewriting the lives of scientific people or negating their importance, do to the conflict with secularism.
@dbes02 Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to truths and values,so i say this is religion weather or not it believes in a great architect,it is two sides of the same coin.
@yespresents Religion is premised on the supernatural, hence humanism is not a religion. When you realise that religion is mired in make-believe, you might realise that your reference to "truths" is a farce. And the fact that so many religions have an abysmal track record in valuing humans, and that religion tends to be inherently discriminatory, makes your comparison with humanism ridiculous.
@dbes02 hmmm,basically yes religion was premised on the supernatural when we knew nothing of the world but i argue that religion is also a study much like science,it is a study of spirituality of where we came from,thousands of years have we interpreted how the world works in the form of mystical beings,and generation after generation we have modified our way of thinking because of new knowledge acquired,and without religion human culture would have not evolved scientifically.
@yespresents Well it's more that ideas about gods and goddesses and fairies and leprechauns have landed up in the same bin. Theology is a study -- about make-believe. People can imagine all sorts of mystical beings if they want -- so ? We have indeed modified our thinking with new knowledge -- that religious belief is nonsense.
Religious belief about the world has always been an argument from ignorance -- and was hardly "necessary" for the development of science. Even if it was... so what?
Guaranteed, if secular humanists ( about as secular as the Federal Reserve is federal) where detached from the teet of Gov't funding by voter awareness, they would immediately apply for tax exempt status as a religion. I would have no problem with that.
The guys argument has nothing to do with their being a god or not. His argument is whether the philosophical ideologies is static or not. Secular humanism is not static, it is susceptible to change and alteration with new evidence and time. The same can not be said about any recognized religious faith. This is the core reasoning of why secularism is not a religion.
a1mint, You quote on ur channel "perhaps intelligent design is possible, but again, it doesnt have to be anti science: ok, so why on your comment did you try and say that "allabout" websites are "SUPPOSED" flaws? im 18 and even i see that its impossible that all of this "just happened"... and many theist and the alll about sites arent anti science at all... actually they are science based.. they use science to prove a divine being... contradictions contradictions... typical atheist...
I should have said something like "if someone contemplates intelligent design, it shouldn't be done in a way that tries to invalidate science.". Thanks for pointing this out.
As for theism, it can't be scientific because science is proving theories by looking for evidence. You can't prove the existence of God or intelligent design, hence, these things are not science. It just doesn't meet the definition, that's all.
I could respond with something like "typical ignorant moron", but let's not.
well lets get this right, the "allabout" sites still arent invalidating science.. they simply provide theories by lookin 4 evidence.. u seem 2 kno ur stuff but maybe u can provide us all with an answer with why evolution theories r so flawed wit tons of gaps n why advances in PRECIOUS science r proving Darwin wrong?how come scientist r always left saying"were workin on the answer?" convince us all that nothin exploded into somethin using nothin 2 create everythin!oh wait ur workin on it! HAHA!
These series are not science. They have no evidence to go on. Science is about trying to prove things by finding evidence. Creation science is not science because none of it is provable.
The evolution theory is not flawed and does not have tons of gaps. These are lies from frauds such as Cameron, Comfort, and Hovind. They count on their audience not knowing any better. Well it doesn't wash at all because they're wrong. Their missing link theory is a lie.
excuse me? so they have no evidence? i suggest u review them cuz they provide plenty of it. n science is what? KEYWORD "trying" to prove things by finding evidence. newflash! they havent theyre "working on it".They have provided tons of theories and speculation, but as time is revealing, a lot of these theories r being exposed for what they are.They are actually pointing to a creator more n more. N how come somethin that doesnt support an exposed false science is a lie even wit evidence against?
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution. There is no evidence at all to support creationism or intelligent design.
Creationism is not science, period.
What theories are being "exposed for what they are"? Theories like the evolution theory are only getting stronger, because more is learned about it, and new discoveries supporting it are found all the time.
There are always aspects that haven't been complete understood, so scientists look for further answers. Just because something isn't known, doesn't invalidate everything that is known, and it certainly doesn't validate creation science (which isn't science).
The something from nothing explosion thing is also intended for a stupid gullible audience. It's oversimplified and stupid.
Consider billions and billions of years with denser elements forming and chemical reactions.
Exactly and my bible tells me that we arent created to know everything, we were created to love and only the almighty knows. you quote "and just cuz something isnt known, doesnt invalidate everything that is known" exactly science isnt know it still cant answer tons of questions the bible does. where does love come from a scientific view? it was just put there after all these chemical reactions "just happened?" pull out ur microscope n tell an element you love it and let me know how it responds.
You're restricting your mindset to a bronze age doctrine.
The Bible is not answering *any* questions. It's a fabble, much of which has been completely and utterly debunked. Much of it is also ridiculous, like the tower of babel, the talking snake, eve from adam's rib, guy splitting ocean in half, guys getting *really* old, a flood killing everything except what got on an ark, this insanity goes on and on.
There is nothing you can learn about the earth from the Bible, absolutely nothing.
Its amazing how this bronze age "crappy collection of documents" explians how something is gonna happen it does.. Prophesized the messiah would come, he came! Prophesized, israel will become a nation, it did. Prophesized there will be a huge knowledge boom, happening. Prophesized, there will be false doctrine happening, prophesized a great fall through the anti christ, will happen politically, prophesized 2 witness wil die n rise again, will happen made possible by international broadcast! can
geeze! ha! but no thats funny im sure u have encountered crybaby xtians that revert to blaming challenges on "anti-christ"? thats a krutch but the proof is inside of me cuz he dwells within but thats somethin we can just agree to disagree on. so question, if someone held a gun to ur head n was gonna murder u, would u plead for ur life? im assuming yes? why? do u fear death? as an atheist what do u look forward to everyday? ur ordinary right? lifes hard why live it if u have no purpose?
imagine that this "crappy collection of documents" nof documents making sense thousands of years ago? it made less sense back then.. but all of this prophecy the bible talks about now makes more sense than ever with the advances in technology.. Its amazing actrually it blows my mind that this book was written over 100's of years by many different author from different parts of the world and it just all ... FITS? and brings fulfillment to what it says? woah...
Crafty stories of God and his wrath easily made sense to a superstitious gullible audience. There wasn't the knowledge back then that we have today. Some people like you choose to ignore all that knowledge, and maintain that these wacky ancient stories hold more truth than todays evidence. You actually think evidence is false. Must be really hard to keep lying to yourself like that.
Took them an awful long time to write such a idiotic book.
well amuse me with an answer 4 existing. ur not a celebrity or someone of great importance to the ppl u follow. they dont even kno ur name, ur just a statistic. So with this being said, ur atheist beliefs point out that all ur research in trying to defend atheism was 4 nothing cuz it means nothin if u have no purpose. why r we talking if its wasting my life?? ur a life wasted! i now pronounce you "statistic" congratulations u have no purpose in life! how are u gonna live with this new discovery?
You're sound really stupid with the abbreviated spelling. It makes it sound you have a hard time speaking and need pauses in between each word. "ur" for instance sounds like "yur" or "yer". People don't talk that way. "r".
It's all so childish and sloppy. Do you wear baggy pants? Goes hand in hand with that. Slopville. Like you don't care.
A careless individual with no goals that thinks the world is just a party. Underachiever by choice.
I've never claimed to be a celebrity but I'm flattered that apparently I'm coming across as such, which in turn seems to be getting you really upset.
You still fail to understand the notion of science. Science is about looking to proof concepts and theories. Science gives us life saving medicine and procedures. Science gave you your computer you're reading this on. How is that wasteful?
What does your Bible contribute? Nothing but made up stories.
Thank you i will consider it. cough* cough* but not once, but twice my question of whats "YOUR purpose" was avoided? n im not upset, nor am i scientist but i am asking u simple questions that science cant explain. i am just very amused how u beat around the bush wit why we exist, why YOU exist, and how u couldnt explain a simple concept "love" why do we love? who put this together? im impressed that u havent given me the "it just happened" tho. whats the purpose of existence? why r u here? why
We could be the simple product of billions of years of evolution through natural selection.
All what we do and are, are all driven to make us function, including love, care, etc. Caring and loving could simply be the product of us wanting to survive and be recognized and wanted socially. The ones that do best are the ones that are most likely to procreate.
Evolution and natural selection makes all this perfectly explainable.
However, there is one aspect of life that doesn't quite compute. We are aware we exist. In the enormous vastness of the universe, and knowing how very old the universe is, we right here, right now, are aware that we exist.
In my eyes that does not lead to a God, but something other thing where things can operate beyond what's possible through electrical impulses in cells. Again, the string theory comes into play. Perhaps it can carry a mechanism to which we interface.
Thank you i will consider it. cough* cough* but not once, but twice my question of whats "YOUR purpose" was avoided? n im not upset, nor am i scientist but i am asking u simple questions that science cant explain. i am just very amused how u beat around the bush wit why we exist, why YOU exist, and how u couldnt explain a simple concept "love" why do we love? who put this together? im impressed that u havent given me the "it just happened" tho. whats the purpose of existence? why r u here? why
You again are showing how simple you are. As you are laughing at someone making a joke about the big bang creating everything, you are again showing how dumb you really are by expecting someone to see life being created from chemicals under a microscope.
I wonder if it is possible at all to make you understand anything about anything, because you're starting to look like you're just not functioning well enough in that little noggin of yours.
If someone laughs at the big bang theory as if one tries to create a living being by exploding dynamite in a field, that shows how dumb and simple minded that individual really is.
Again, con artists such as Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, and Kent Hovind count on their audience being that gullible, ignorant, and stupid. They know they're not fooling anyone intelligent, so they don't even try. Seriously, browse for Kirk Cameron, and see for yourself.
And were not talking about Kirk, Kent, or Ray.. kirk is too fluffy like Joel olsteen, that crap wont work if you come head on with a demonic spirit! u need the old school power of the holy spirit!! Kent had interesting stuff but after a while i was like... huh?? dont agree wit a lot, n never even heard of the other guy?? But my point, theyre ppl jus like u n me , i dont stand in their defense.. I stand for King of Kings, the Alpha n Omega, Lord or lords, my saviour, My Father! God bless
It seems it was very appropriate to bring up Banana / peanut butter man and crocoduck boy, because you're showing that these people are at the same intelligence level as you are.
Kent did not have anything interesting except entertainment how he was selling the Bible verbatim in his theme park in Florida. The guy is in jail now by the way - Gold told him to not pay any taxes and to lie to the government.
Perhaps, instead of wrestling with primates over humanism's unrecognized religious status, the focus should be upon the insanity of their own stated assertions & resultant actions
Indeed, it is insane that the autonomously self deified "humanists", should ironically & inevitably proceed to the regressively degenerative assertion of their ape animal status
Despite the humanist's "manifestation" of their deluded proclamation of being the highest authority. They've proved to inevitably be subject
to a divinely emplaced universal law. For in exalting themselves as the ascended occupiers of the position of highest authority. They have themselves determined their own descention from their naturally ordered status, down to that of mere animals. Just as their unseen dictator of humanism exalted himself above all, which lead to his descended demotion
Their insanity manifested in their acts can be seen from when after they condescendingly complain of that America is populated by a overwhelming
majority of religious people. They then proceed in systematically "cleansing" the tax payer supported institutions with the disemploying, EXPULSIVE injustice perpetrated upon all those whom they perceive to have the same view as do those very same tax payers
Paul Kurtz says humanism is an interpretation of nature based upon science. Richard Dawkins says that science cannot disprove the existence of God. One must be wrong, thus spreading danger. Which one gets the EXPELLING due punishment?
This video just goes from one misunderstanding to the next. Secular Humanism is not the same as religious humanism.
Religion is widely described as being a supernatural belief system, this would include beliefs such as (some) Buddhism but not beliefs like Secular Humanism.
This is just another video trying to make out that Christianity is having a hard time in America; it isn't.
This really is not hard...
TeachSecularHumanism 1 month ago 4
@TeachSecularHumanism Secular Humanism has NO philosophical backbone. The intellectually honest atheist is a nihilist. Secular Humanists prefer certain values, but those preferences are subjective.
TheDavid2222 1 month ago
@TheDavid2222 Well that came out of nowhere. Feel free to explain why that's the case.
TeachSecularHumanism 1 month ago
@TeachSecularHumanism David Hume famously deduced that "it is logically impossible to get an ought from an is." Secular Humanism does not have the authority to prescribe value to certain actions over others. When a secular humanist says something is a "moral law", it is really is just their subjective preference. Science can tell us what their is but not what we ought to do. Nihilism is the recognition that nothing has value. I know it's depressing. We can't give value.
TheDavid2222 1 month ago
@TheDavid2222 I have an unusual defence in terms of morality. Our subjective experiences of pain and pleasure and all the things inbetween refer to things that are happening in the brain (materialism wrt matters of mind). This (to me at least) bridges the gap in the is-ought problem. Essentially people's subjective feelings are something objective!
Besides Hume's is-ought referred to nature at large, with individuals it's easy to derive an ought from an is.
TeachSecularHumanism 1 month ago
@TeachSecularHumanism your begging the question. One person's pain can be another's pleasure. Secular Humanism does not have the authority to lay down rules of any kind. Look up nihilism on youtube or something. Every important philosopher since the mid 1800's has at least addressed nihilism. Your pain pleasure measuring device is definitely utilitarian. You will certainly eventually notice that lots of people are not utilitarians. Myself included.
TheDavid2222 1 month ago
@TheDavid2222 It's hardly begging the question, it's neuroscience! There are some whose neurological makeup is a bit different from others so we can treat them accordingly; no problem there. You keep going on about authority, why is that? I'm used to hearing that argument from the theistic side but you don't appear to be a theist so I'm confused as to where that's coming from. My view is very utilitarian granted and utilitarianism has its problems but I still think it works well.
TeachSecularHumanism 1 month ago
@TeachSecularHumanism I suggest that you look at my statements again and look over them. I'm not trying to be rude, but you are bypassing my statements. I'm talking about metaphysics here, not science. Every system of thought needs justification outside of experience. Secular Humanism doesn't have justification. Theists actually do have more of a point than you realize. I suggest you take them more seriously when it comes to their criticisms of Secular Humanism.
TheDavid2222 1 month ago
@TheDavid2222 I know you're talking about metaphysics but I'm providing a different basis for morality than the usual. If it is the case that pain/pleasure etc are products of the brain then there is potentially a real world basis for morality. You were saying how Humanists can't say something is a moral law and that it is subjective preference, I've given reasons why that isn't the case.
The theists give divine command theory as their answer for morality, I can't take that seriously!
TeachSecularHumanism 1 month ago
@TeachSecularHumanism Pain and pleasure do not provide the materials upon which a morality can be established. Values are something that must come from outside of the human subject. I can't take a scientist seriously when they say they know what people should believe or do based off of scientific discovery. Besides, scientific knowledge is dependent on time and place. Science does NOT say that life is sacred. We have chosen to believe that. Science could endorse genocide.
TheDavid2222 1 month ago
@TheDavid2222 Tell me this then, without brains capable of feeling pain/pleasure would we even have morality?
You keep saying that the grounding has to be metaphysical and now you're saying it has to be not bound by time/space. Why is this? You've only asserted it so far.
Science has always been amoral, it couldn't justify genocide! Morality will always be a philosophical topic but that doesn't mean that it can't have a basis in the real world.
TeachSecularHumanism 1 month ago
Correction: "But ATHEISM doesn't play by the rules".
Ashiman12 2 months ago
Religion is threatened by secular humanism, and by atheism in general. Different religions may disgaree with each other, but they seem to have a sort of understanding. All religious are equally unprovable, equally unreasonable. A Christian can look at a Muslim, and take some comfort in that shared unsubstantiality. But doesn't play by the rules. The only way a religious person can handle it is to make humanism and/or atheism into a religion. That makes it all "okay".
Ashiman12 2 months ago
@Ashiman12 Correction: "But ATHEISM doesn't play by the rules."
Ashiman12 2 months ago
Anybody who thinks that "Secular Humanism" means the same thing as "Religious Humanism" doesn't understand what "Secular" means.
FiverBeyond 2 months ago
Secular Humanism is NOT a religion. Don't confuse Religious Humanism with Secular Humanism.
Redbloodedsky 2 months ago
Secularism:
Plato L666: Titanic virtues oust ethics
Aristotle Nvi.vi.vi: passions prior to reason; P6.6.6 might-as-right democracy replaces meritocracy
Hegel P666 Shared values
Darwin O6.6.6 deletive might-as-right decrementalism for perfection; D6.6.6 humans as beasts
Popper OS6.66 virtues≥know your place
Wittgenstein PU66.6 picture evidence prior to logic; WTP666 avoid causation
RawlsTJ66.6 meaning-well virtues≯riots
Friedman CF6.6.6 values teaching ousts state rule
A bestial plot confessed!
cloudbusterman 6 months ago
"Secular humanism cannot provide a definition of religion that excludes secular humanism, but includes other non-theistic religions."
Nonsense. How about a definition specifying that religions must include reliance on faith, and an admission of some form of transcendent aspect which continues on after death? Confuscianism, taoism, and Buddhism all have these traits: secular humanism does not.
FiverBeyond 6 months ago
"Secularity (adjective form secular) is the state of being separate from religion"
By definition, this video has no idea what it's talking about
guitarplaya1990 7 months ago
@guitarplaya1990 "Secularity" is not Secular Humanism. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about. One is an adjective used to describe something outside of religion. The other is the philosophy that this video references. It is a well developed and organized philosophy, and this video is making the case that it should be classified as a religion, which is a legitimate argument.
acts541 4 months ago
@acts541 No secularity is not Secular Humanism, but Secular Humanism is secular. Hence why they bother using the term in the first place. The term secular means being separate from religion, so for Secular Humanism to be classified as a religion would be contradictory.
guitarplaya1990 4 months ago
@wyatt9600 Morality is the opposite of religion. Religion is the method of ignoring mores when it suits the believer.
jymbo1969 11 months ago
@jymbo1969 - Religion is defined by morality, and defines morality. Ethics on the other hand is defined by philosophy. Ethics is the system our governments use, and should continue using.
Rapoirier 3 months ago
Right....Look up the Church of American Secular Humanism.
philnoll 11 months ago
what scares me about this religion is the dogma of reductionism, that limits scientific knowledge, I think of the expression, "religion prevents one from having their own spiritual experience", so what does that say for a religion that proclaims science as its truth? Its dogma has in many occasions rejected advanced sciences such as fractal & quantum, & practiced revisionist history, rewriting the lives of scientific people or negating their importance, do to the conflict with secularism.
AfterFauve001 1 year ago
@wyatt9600 I don't think you understand our beliefs. Thanks for calling them bullshit.
iversonmatthew 1 year ago
scribd (dot) com/nb812
DreamsofMajesty 1 year ago
Humanism isn't premised on supernatural entities messing with the world. Hence it's not a religion.
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02 Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to truths and values,so i say this is religion weather or not it believes in a great architect,it is two sides of the same coin.
yespresents 11 months ago
@yespresents Religion is premised on the supernatural, hence humanism is not a religion. When you realise that religion is mired in make-believe, you might realise that your reference to "truths" is a farce. And the fact that so many religions have an abysmal track record in valuing humans, and that religion tends to be inherently discriminatory, makes your comparison with humanism ridiculous.
dbes02 11 months ago
@dbes02 hmmm,basically yes religion was premised on the supernatural when we knew nothing of the world but i argue that religion is also a study much like science,it is a study of spirituality of where we came from,thousands of years have we interpreted how the world works in the form of mystical beings,and generation after generation we have modified our way of thinking because of new knowledge acquired,and without religion human culture would have not evolved scientifically.
yespresents 11 months ago
@yespresents Well it's more that ideas about gods and goddesses and fairies and leprechauns have landed up in the same bin. Theology is a study -- about make-believe. People can imagine all sorts of mystical beings if they want -- so ? We have indeed modified our thinking with new knowledge -- that religious belief is nonsense.
Religious belief about the world has always been an argument from ignorance -- and was hardly "necessary" for the development of science. Even if it was... so what?
dbes02 11 months ago
Finally a video that discloses and exposes the truth. The truth the majority either deny or are ignorant of.
BT3701 1 year ago
Guaranteed, if secular humanists ( about as secular as the Federal Reserve is federal) where detached from the teet of Gov't funding by voter awareness, they would immediately apply for tax exempt status as a religion. I would have no problem with that.
MeyerG4Indiana 1 year ago
The guys argument has nothing to do with their being a god or not. His argument is whether the philosophical ideologies is static or not. Secular humanism is not static, it is susceptible to change and alteration with new evidence and time. The same can not be said about any recognized religious faith. This is the core reasoning of why secularism is not a religion.
ashunga543 1 year ago
there is no god.
bettyloutumor 2 years ago
The church dollars has been bombarding the internet lately with propaganda websites such as allaboutscience and a bunch of allaboutxxx websites.
It's full of messages and hints how various scientific works are supposedly flawed. It tries to inject doubt, and steer you to creationism.
Everything you see and every that's related to it, linked to, it's a bunch of churchy propaganda.
Hovind failed. Comfort failed. Cameron failed.
This is a more elaborate attempt to indoctrinate.
a1mint 2 years ago
a1mint, You quote on ur channel "perhaps intelligent design is possible, but again, it doesnt have to be anti science: ok, so why on your comment did you try and say that "allabout" websites are "SUPPOSED" flaws? im 18 and even i see that its impossible that all of this "just happened"... and many theist and the alll about sites arent anti science at all... actually they are science based.. they use science to prove a divine being... contradictions contradictions... typical atheist...
06sr55Rex 2 years ago
I should have said something like "if someone contemplates intelligent design, it shouldn't be done in a way that tries to invalidate science.". Thanks for pointing this out.
As for theism, it can't be scientific because science is proving theories by looking for evidence. You can't prove the existence of God or intelligent design, hence, these things are not science. It just doesn't meet the definition, that's all.
I could respond with something like "typical ignorant moron", but let's not.
a1mint 2 years ago
well lets get this right, the "allabout" sites still arent invalidating science.. they simply provide theories by lookin 4 evidence.. u seem 2 kno ur stuff but maybe u can provide us all with an answer with why evolution theories r so flawed wit tons of gaps n why advances in PRECIOUS science r proving Darwin wrong?how come scientist r always left saying"were workin on the answer?" convince us all that nothin exploded into somethin using nothin 2 create everythin!oh wait ur workin on it! HAHA!
06sr55Rex 2 years ago
Yes do let us get this right.
These series are not science. They have no evidence to go on. Science is about trying to prove things by finding evidence. Creation science is not science because none of it is provable.
The evolution theory is not flawed and does not have tons of gaps. These are lies from frauds such as Cameron, Comfort, and Hovind. They count on their audience not knowing any better. Well it doesn't wash at all because they're wrong. Their missing link theory is a lie.
a1mint 2 years ago
excuse me? so they have no evidence? i suggest u review them cuz they provide plenty of it. n science is what? KEYWORD "trying" to prove things by finding evidence. newflash! they havent theyre "working on it".They have provided tons of theories and speculation, but as time is revealing, a lot of these theories r being exposed for what they are.They are actually pointing to a creator more n more. N how come somethin that doesnt support an exposed false science is a lie even wit evidence against?
06sr55Rex 2 years ago
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution. There is no evidence at all to support creationism or intelligent design.
Creationism is not science, period.
What theories are being "exposed for what they are"? Theories like the evolution theory are only getting stronger, because more is learned about it, and new discoveries supporting it are found all the time.
a1mint 2 years ago
There are always aspects that haven't been complete understood, so scientists look for further answers. Just because something isn't known, doesn't invalidate everything that is known, and it certainly doesn't validate creation science (which isn't science).
The something from nothing explosion thing is also intended for a stupid gullible audience. It's oversimplified and stupid.
Consider billions and billions of years with denser elements forming and chemical reactions.
Ha ha to you.
a1mint 2 years ago
Exactly and my bible tells me that we arent created to know everything, we were created to love and only the almighty knows. you quote "and just cuz something isnt known, doesnt invalidate everything that is known" exactly science isnt know it still cant answer tons of questions the bible does. where does love come from a scientific view? it was just put there after all these chemical reactions "just happened?" pull out ur microscope n tell an element you love it and let me know how it responds.
06sr55Rex 2 years ago
You're restricting your mindset to a bronze age doctrine.
The Bible is not answering *any* questions. It's a fabble, much of which has been completely and utterly debunked. Much of it is also ridiculous, like the tower of babel, the talking snake, eve from adam's rib, guy splitting ocean in half, guys getting *really* old, a flood killing everything except what got on an ark, this insanity goes on and on.
There is nothing you can learn about the earth from the Bible, absolutely nothing.
a1mint 2 years ago
Its amazing how this bronze age "crappy collection of documents" explians how something is gonna happen it does.. Prophesized the messiah would come, he came! Prophesized, israel will become a nation, it did. Prophesized there will be a huge knowledge boom, happening. Prophesized, there will be false doctrine happening, prophesized a great fall through the anti christ, will happen politically, prophesized 2 witness wil die n rise again, will happen made possible by international broadcast! can
06sr55Rex 2 years ago
There is no proof this messiah ever existed. It could all just be a story written after the fact.
Israel followed the religion and was sooner or later going to form a country, so no magic there either.
You probably believe that anything that challenges your beliefs, must be part of an "anti christ". You've been indoctrinated well, oh mental coward.
a1mint 2 years ago
geeze! ha! but no thats funny im sure u have encountered crybaby xtians that revert to blaming challenges on "anti-christ"? thats a krutch but the proof is inside of me cuz he dwells within but thats somethin we can just agree to disagree on. so question, if someone held a gun to ur head n was gonna murder u, would u plead for ur life? im assuming yes? why? do u fear death? as an atheist what do u look forward to everyday? ur ordinary right? lifes hard why live it if u have no purpose?
06sr55Rex 2 years ago
imagine that this "crappy collection of documents" nof documents making sense thousands of years ago? it made less sense back then.. but all of this prophecy the bible talks about now makes more sense than ever with the advances in technology.. Its amazing actrually it blows my mind that this book was written over 100's of years by many different author from different parts of the world and it just all ... FITS? and brings fulfillment to what it says? woah...
06sr55Rex 2 years ago
Crafty stories of God and his wrath easily made sense to a superstitious gullible audience. There wasn't the knowledge back then that we have today. Some people like you choose to ignore all that knowledge, and maintain that these wacky ancient stories hold more truth than todays evidence. You actually think evidence is false. Must be really hard to keep lying to yourself like that.
Took them an awful long time to write such a idiotic book.
The Harry Potter author is way more brilliant.
a1mint 2 years ago
well amuse me with an answer 4 existing. ur not a celebrity or someone of great importance to the ppl u follow. they dont even kno ur name, ur just a statistic. So with this being said, ur atheist beliefs point out that all ur research in trying to defend atheism was 4 nothing cuz it means nothin if u have no purpose. why r we talking if its wasting my life?? ur a life wasted! i now pronounce you "statistic" congratulations u have no purpose in life! how are u gonna live with this new discovery?
06sr55Rex 2 years ago
You're sound really stupid with the abbreviated spelling. It makes it sound you have a hard time speaking and need pauses in between each word. "ur" for instance sounds like "yur" or "yer". People don't talk that way. "r".
It's all so childish and sloppy. Do you wear baggy pants? Goes hand in hand with that. Slopville. Like you don't care.
A careless individual with no goals that thinks the world is just a party. Underachiever by choice.
a1mint 2 years ago
I've never claimed to be a celebrity but I'm flattered that apparently I'm coming across as such, which in turn seems to be getting you really upset.
You still fail to understand the notion of science. Science is about looking to proof concepts and theories. Science gives us life saving medicine and procedures. Science gave you your computer you're reading this on. How is that wasteful?
What does your Bible contribute? Nothing but made up stories.
You need to rethink everything you believe in
a1mint 2 years ago
Thank you i will consider it. cough* cough* but not once, but twice my question of whats "YOUR purpose" was avoided? n im not upset, nor am i scientist but i am asking u simple questions that science cant explain. i am just very amused how u beat around the bush wit why we exist, why YOU exist, and how u couldnt explain a simple concept "love" why do we love? who put this together? im impressed that u havent given me the "it just happened" tho. whats the purpose of existence? why r u here? why
06sr55Rex 2 years ago
We could be the simple product of billions of years of evolution through natural selection.
All what we do and are, are all driven to make us function, including love, care, etc. Caring and loving could simply be the product of us wanting to survive and be recognized and wanted socially. The ones that do best are the ones that are most likely to procreate.
Evolution and natural selection makes all this perfectly explainable.
a1mint 2 years ago
However, there is one aspect of life that doesn't quite compute. We are aware we exist. In the enormous vastness of the universe, and knowing how very old the universe is, we right here, right now, are aware that we exist.
In my eyes that does not lead to a God, but something other thing where things can operate beyond what's possible through electrical impulses in cells. Again, the string theory comes into play. Perhaps it can carry a mechanism to which we interface.
a1mint 2 years ago
So that answers your question. Perhaps there is no why. Perhaps it just is the logical result of a path of evolution. This is very reasonable.
But given all that, there is that thing about the actual awareness of it all that doesn't fit in.
But, I think that maybe we connect to something outside of matter, on the strings level of some sort.
It's still just mechanisms, and the bearded angry biblical man god doesn't fit in at all.
a1mint 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank you i will consider it. cough* cough* but not once, but twice my question of whats "YOUR purpose" was avoided? n im not upset, nor am i scientist but i am asking u simple questions that science cant explain. i am just very amused how u beat around the bush wit why we exist, why YOU exist, and how u couldnt explain a simple concept "love" why do we love? who put this together? im impressed that u havent given me the "it just happened" tho. whats the purpose of existence? why r u here? why
06sr55Rex 2 years ago
Also, I'm not even necessarily disputing the notion of a God existing. You or I can't prove it regardless, but still, I don't know.
What I do know is that both the Bible and the Quran are full of shit. It's antiquated, and it's for the superstitious and gullible.
Here's a great video about it:
watch?v=STlYN5KCiWg
and don't miss this one:
watch?v=KjSjpNe1-Vc
and *especially* this one:
watch?v=aAXDUofIAzM
a1mint 2 years ago
You again are showing how simple you are. As you are laughing at someone making a joke about the big bang creating everything, you are again showing how dumb you really are by expecting someone to see life being created from chemicals under a microscope.
I wonder if it is possible at all to make you understand anything about anything, because you're starting to look like you're just not functioning well enough in that little noggin of yours.
a1mint 2 years ago
If someone laughs at the big bang theory as if one tries to create a living being by exploding dynamite in a field, that shows how dumb and simple minded that individual really is.
Again, con artists such as Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, and Kent Hovind count on their audience being that gullible, ignorant, and stupid. They know they're not fooling anyone intelligent, so they don't even try. Seriously, browse for Kirk Cameron, and see for yourself.
I invite you to
watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok
a1mint 2 years ago
And were not talking about Kirk, Kent, or Ray.. kirk is too fluffy like Joel olsteen, that crap wont work if you come head on with a demonic spirit! u need the old school power of the holy spirit!! Kent had interesting stuff but after a while i was like... huh?? dont agree wit a lot, n never even heard of the other guy?? But my point, theyre ppl jus like u n me , i dont stand in their defense.. I stand for King of Kings, the Alpha n Omega, Lord or lords, my saviour, My Father! God bless
06sr55Rex 2 years ago
It seems it was very appropriate to bring up Banana / peanut butter man and crocoduck boy, because you're showing that these people are at the same intelligence level as you are.
Kent did not have anything interesting except entertainment how he was selling the Bible verbatim in his theme park in Florida. The guy is in jail now by the way - Gold told him to not pay any taxes and to lie to the government.
Good luck with your imaginary friends.
Curious, have you been indoctrinated young?
a1mint 2 years ago
Perhaps, instead of wrestling with primates over humanism's unrecognized religious status, the focus should be upon the insanity of their own stated assertions & resultant actions
Indeed, it is insane that the autonomously self deified "humanists", should ironically & inevitably proceed to the regressively degenerative assertion of their ape animal status
Despite the humanist's "manifestation" of their deluded proclamation of being the highest authority. They've proved to inevitably be subject
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
to a divinely emplaced universal law. For in exalting themselves as the ascended occupiers of the position of highest authority. They have themselves determined their own descention from their naturally ordered status, down to that of mere animals. Just as their unseen dictator of humanism exalted himself above all, which lead to his descended demotion
Their insanity manifested in their acts can be seen from when after they condescendingly complain of that America is populated by a overwhelming
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
majority of religious people. They then proceed in systematically "cleansing" the tax payer supported institutions with the disemploying, EXPULSIVE injustice perpetrated upon all those whom they perceive to have the same view as do those very same tax payers
Paul Kurtz says humanism is an interpretation of nature based upon science. Richard Dawkins says that science cannot disprove the existence of God. One must be wrong, thus spreading danger. Which one gets the EXPELLING due punishment?
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago