The Council for Secular Humanism is the * leading organization for non-religious people. A not-for-profit educational association, the Council supports a wide range of activities to meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god.

Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.

(Ref link : Council for Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/))

Some people here on this board claim Secular Humanism to be a religion.
The above statement by the Council for Secular Humanism clearly state differently.

Any comments?

.

Note :

* The link refers to the North America's Council for Secular Humanism.

Well obviously if it was a religion it would be sacred humanism, not secular humanism. Try to avoid splitting up into sects and warring factions over this though. That would be bad for you.

Hello Cred:

Of course I got a comment. Have you ever known me to keep my mouth shut?

I suppose I could be described as a secular humanist. I could also be described as just a plain old atheist. Then others might describe me as a non believing Jew. I could be any of those, or I could be none.

What I AM, is a non believer in religion. It doesn't take a group of people banned together for me to be what I am. As a matter of fact, what I am is an anathema to any organized group. In fact, the more organized a group is, the more religious is looks.

This council has books. I spells out a way of thinking that it says "brings out the best in people". It "serves the needs of non religious people". It has conferences and seminars...

In short, it walks like a church, and quacks like a church, all the while saying that it's not a church.

excon

Hello Cred:Of course I got a comment. Have you ever known me to keep my mouth shut?
No, not really! Never actually! Thanks for your views!

:D

===


Well obviously if it was a religion it would be sacred humanism, not secular humanism.
Thanks for your reaction!

:D

This council has books. I spells out a way of thinking that it says "brings out the best in people". It "serves the needs of non religious people". It has conferences and seminars...

In short, it walks like a church, and quacks like a church, all the while saying that it's not a church.



Looky - it even wants your money like a church Council for Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=subscribe&page=membership)

Hello again,

Even though THIS organization might or might not BE a church, it doesn't make secular humanisim a religion, any more than an understanding of evolution makes someone a scientist.

excon

.... it doesn't make secular humanisim a religion, any more than an understanding of evolution makes someone a scientist.
Indeed!!

"The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence."

Fred Edwords in "What Is Humanism?" (1989)

:rolleyes:

In that regard, it is very "religious."

How many doctrinal issues and splits have their been in Christianity?





Council Activities Include

Championing the Rights and Beliefs of Secular Humanists
The Council for Secular Humanism campaigns for a more secular and ethical society. It presents the case for understanding the world without reference to a god, and works to separate Church and State and defend the rights of people who do not accept religious beliefs.



So the belief is non-belief in God. ;)





Giving a Moral and Intellectual Lead
The Council for Secular Humanism promotes rational, human-based viewpoints on important social and ethical issues. In particular, it tackles issues where traditional religion obstructs the right to self-determination, for example, freedom of choice in sexual relationships. Reproduction, and voluntary euthanasia. The Council also promotes critical thinking about supernatural and paranormal claims. The Council conducts research, issues statements, and brings together leading thinkers for conferences and seminars.




Hmm... moral and intellectual lead... this is what you are suppose to believe and how you are to think... sounds religious to me.


Just giving you a hard time Cred

So the belief is non-belief in God
Not really. It is based on the lack of objective supported evidence for the existence of god.
The religious claims that god exists and that god is the creator has still not been objectively proved by any theist, so why should a Secular Humanist assume that to be "true"? The default is that nothing "is" until proven. No "belief" involved or required !


Hmm... moral and intellectual lead...this is what you are suppose to believe and how you are to think...sounds religious to me
There is a clear difference between general belief (as in for instance moral-ethical, philosophical, and/or political views) and supra-natural claims. Only the last ones can be called religious.

:rolleyes:

As a matter of fact, what I am is an anathema to any organized group. In fact, the more organized a group is, the more religious is looks.
Yeah, it's been my experience that people in groups behave about the same no matter what the stated purpose of the group is. I think you're right. If the essence of religion is to emphasize the difference between US and THEM, most organizations would qualify.

If the essence of religion is to emphasize the difference between US and THEM, most organizations would qualify.
But that is not the essence of religion.
It guess that the true essence of religion is the inner need by most people for the feeling of security , the hope on seeing back all those who we loved and have fallen away during out lifetime, and to counter the fear for the unknown, specially for death.

:rolleyes:

But that is not the essence of religion.
It guess that the true essence of religion is the inner need by most people for the feeling of security , the hope on seeing back all those who we loved and have fallen away during out lifetime, and to counter the fear for the unknown, specially for death.

:rolleyes:
Nah, it's the need to feel special, chosen, one of the elect. Just about any organization will do. Mensa is one of the best.

Nah, it's the need to feel special, chosen, one of the elect. Just about any organization will do. Mensa is one of the best.
Not true. I have been Mensa member for many years. I have no need to feel special. I feel not chosen. I feel not elected. And surely no members I know feel their Mensa membership as something religious or related to religion.

:rolleyes:

Mensa, demensia who cares. Is there a secret handshake? How about a club tie? That will bring them in.

ASPCA is always looking for members. They could use the extra money to help all the animals that they take in. They will send you a really cool sticker to put on your car.
They make me feel real special, never make me feel stoopid or tell me I'm going to hell :eek:. You never have to attend a meeting.
ASPCA: Register (http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=register)

Mensa, demensia who cares. Is there a secret handshake? How bout a club tie? That will bring them in.
How about Densa, for people with low IQ's? It would put the "special" in "Special Education".

And since ther're more of us than there are of them, we rule!

I have been a Secular Humanist for about a year and a half-officially and declared. I do "belong" to Paul Kurtz's organization; he is one of my favorite human beings, I just love him.

One of the big problems of secular humanist groups is that it is very difficult to get non-god believers to agree on anything! There are always differences on issues and values because everyone thinks for him or herself. Your general summary does apply to all secular humanist, and I thank you for posting. :)

Anyway, since Secular Humanism rules out the Supernatural, it really isn't a religion. It is barely even a club or group! In AMerica, lots of Secular Humanists fly under the radar by going to church... only for business reasons, in my opinion.

The Council for Secular Humanism is the * leading organization for non-religious people. A not-for-profit educational association, the Council supports a wide range of activities to meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god.

Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.

(Ref link : Council for Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/))

Some people here on this board claim Secular Humanism to be a religion.
The above statement by the Council for Secular Humanism clearly state differently.

Any comments?

.

Note :

* The link refers to the North America's Council for Secular Humanism.
How many types of humanism are there and what makes "secular" humanism superior to the others?

The Council for Secular Humanism is the * leading organization for non-religious people. A not-for-profit educational association, the Council supports a wide range of activities to meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god.

Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.

(Ref link : Council for Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/))

Some people here on this board claim Secular Humanism to be a religion.
The above statement by the Council for Secular Humanism clearly state differently.

Any comments?

.

Note :

* The link refers to the North America's Council for Secular Humanism.
The Church of Reality is a religion based on the practice of Realism, which means believing in everything that is real.
Church of Reality (http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/)

What relationship does this Church of Reality hold with the Council of Secular Humanism?
Church of Reality (http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/humanism/humanist/what_is_secular_humanism.html)

How many types of humanism are there and what makes "secular" humanism superior to the others?
There are Secular Humanists and Religious Humanists. Two rather different views, that share certain similarities.
There is no cause to suggest any superiority for either view. Just a different approach within the Humanistic world view. Similar to the views that Baptists (Protestants) and Roman Catholics share and divide. Both are Christians, but have major differences in their religious views.


The Church of Reality is a religion based on the practice of Realism, which means believing in everything that is real. What relationship does this Church of Reality hold with the Council of Secular Humanism?

I would never ask Baptists to defend or support the views of Roman Catholics or any other religious views than their own.
The "Church of Reality" website represents people who support the views posted there.
The Council of Secular Humanism is not responsible for the views people within the "Church of Reality" may have, even when some of their views may show similarities.
Just like certain similar views Baptists and Roman Catholics share do not make them responsible for the specific views of the other !

:rolleyes:

There are Secular Humanists and Religious Humanists. Two rather different views, that share certain similarities.
There is no cause to suggest any superiority for either view. Just a different approach within the Humanistic world view. Similar to the views that Baptists (Protestants) and Roman Catholics share and divide. Both are Christians, but have major differences in their religious views.


I would never ask Baptists to defend or support the views of Roman Catholics or any other religious views than their own.
The "Church of Reality" website represents people who support the views posted there.
The Council of Secular Humanism is not responsible for the views people within the "Church of Reality" may have, even when some of their views may show similarities.
Just like certain similar views Baptists and Roman Catholics share do not make them responsible for the specific views of the other !

:rolleyes:

I didn't ask you to defend their beliefs. I just asked you how they were related.
:rolleyes:

However, since they claim to share your beliefs, why wouldn't you be able to defend them? There are many views which Baptists and Catholics have in common and I when I defend one I defend the other, because they are one and the same.

Anyway, you mean that the Council and the Church are not the same entity nor related in any way.

The only reason I was curious is because they share or at least refer to secular humanism beliefs yet the Church claims to be a religion. And you say that secular humanism is not a religion.

So, would it be fair to say that some people who believe as secular humanists believe do consider their beliefs to constitute a religion?

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Council for Secular Humanism is the * leading organization for non-religious people.

What is the difference between the Council and these atheist organizations:

American Atheists (http://www.atheists.org/)

Atheist Alliance International (http://www.atheistalliance.org/)

And why is this council superior to them? Or what does the word "leading organization" mean if not superior in some way?

So, would it be fair to say that some people who believe as secular humanists believe do consider their beliefs to constitute a religion?Hello again, De Maria:

Sure. And, that means what, exactly?? Some Christians believe in starving their children instead of seeking medical help for them. Am I to draw a conclusion about Christians from THAT?

excon

Hello again, De Maria:

Sure. And, that means what, exactly??

Excon

Am I ruffling your feathers excon?

It's a simple question. I guess your answer to the question is "sure".


Some Christians believe in starving their children instead of seeking medical help for them. Am I to draw a conclusion about Christians from THAT?

I believe this has been discussed in another thread. Perhaps you could refer to the answers you received in that thread. Otherwise, this is about secular humanism and since I've heard a great deal about this but I don't quite understand the difference between that and simple atheism, I'll stick to this subject, if you don't mind. And even if you do.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hello again, De Maria:

You are slipperier than a snake. But, your rope a dope defense don't phase me none.

YOU are apparently attempting to make some conclusion about secular humanists from the action of ONE secular humanist. I wondered WHAT conclusion that might be??

You didn't say. You attack me instead. Maybe there ISN'T a conclusion to be drawn from the actions of a single individual, as YOU are suggesting. To bolster my claim, I suggested that there isn't ANY conclusion to be gained from ONE really bonkers Christian.

Then you have cojones to suggest that I stick with the subject?? You don't have a clue what the subject is... But, I'll continue to reveal your slipperiness and your hypocrisies. That's my JOB.

excon

However, since they claim to share your beliefs, why wouldn't you be able to defend them?
What a nonsense! Why should I defend the opinions of others? Get real !


The only reason I was curious is because they share or at least refer to secular humanism beliefs yet the Church claims to be a religion. And you say that secular humanism is not a religion.
Secular Humanism is indeed not a religion. What the people in that "Church" believe or not believe is their "business", not mine!


So, would it be fair to say that some people who believe as secular humanists believe do consider their beliefs to constitute a religion?
No, incorrect. Secular Humanists do not (religious) believe. Religious Humanists do.

·

What a nonsense! Why should I defend the opinions of others? Get real !

I was pretty sure they listed secular humanism beliefs as their own. But maybe I didn't understand. We can move on.



Secular Humanism is indeed not a religion. What the people in that "Church" believe or not believe is their "business", not mine!


No, incorrect. Secular Humanists do not (religious) believe. Religious Humanists do.

·

Gotcha! You have nothing to do with that Church.

I was pretty sure they listed secular humanism beliefs as their own. But maybe I didn't understand.
The belief in God and Jesus Christ are (should be) common to all Christians.
Still the RCC and other Christians (say for instance Protestants) are not defending each others specific views.
So why should I defend the ideas of others who support the Secular Humanist views?
Just ask me on my views in respect to Secular Humanism. And do not try to wiggle out or sidestep issues as soon as you notice that you lack any true valid arguments !

:rolleyes:

·

De Mensia! We rule! I'm a little sleep deprived. If I could turn back time, if I could find a waaaay!

Hello wild:

I've been accused of demensia before. Does that count?

excon

Yeas SH is a religion SCOTUS declared it so and we know they are never wrong. Torcaso v. Watkins

yeas SH is a religion SCOTUS declared it so and we know they are never wrong. Torcaso v. Watkins
Tomder : I do not give a cent for your local laws. We are talking here about something that stands far above whatever these politically appointed judges decide on local issues in your country.
Religious Humanism has certain religious features embedded in their world view.
Secular Humanism certainly has no such features of any kind as part of their world view.

But of course you are free to SPECIFY whatever you (and those involved in that court decision) ASSUME to be support for the claim Secular Humanism to be a religion.

:rolleyes:

·

I guess the sarcasm in my reply wasn't obvious enough.

I guess the sarcasm in my reply wasn't obvious enough.
Not at all. But I know you and your ways now already for about 8 years on different boards, and I know when to ignore your acidic and conceited remarks and when to reply in a responsive way related strictly to the subject.
I even wondered why you even condescend to follow a lead on Secular Humanism : not religious and very liberal - if not "left wing"... What is this world coming to if even you show up here ?

:D

·

Hello wild:

I've been accused of demensia before. Does that count?

excon
Yeah, we'll let you in. But don't tell the others, or we'll need a bigger social hall.:eek:

Credo, come on over from the dark side already. You know we're right. Our plan doesn't even need a giant rogue comet, Cause if all the land is in one piece on the sunny side of the street the ocean would be one big snowball on the dark side. Start that baby turning and you're in for a flood of Biblical proportions. You know the photosynthetic process known as the dark reactions doesn't actually need darkness. With eternal sunlight all those biological reactions would take half as much time. THEY have known this for years... haven't THEY been telling us the key to a lot of the world's problems is in saving the Amazon rainforests? Those are daylength neutral plants that are not reliant on darkness. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Credo, come on ....
Are you really serious ? Your post seems to be posted while you were under the influence of "mind stimulating products"... With all respect : what a total nonsense...

:rolleyes:

·

Yes I'm serious. And just High on life, my friend. You remind me a lot of St. Paul, do you know that? How he persecuted the early Church until he suddenly saw the light. And look what a pillar of the Church he turned out to be, because he wasn't a poor fisherman but a scholarly man. He wrote nearly half of the New Testament by himself.

Look, you can have a comet if you really want one. Since this was in the past I don't see any reason to argue for or against in order to have faith. We can't change the past, just who we are and where we're going.

Yes I'm serious. And just High on life, my friend. You remind me a lot of St. Paul, do you know that? How he persecuted the early Church until he suddenly saw the light. And look what a pillar of the Church he turned out to be, because he wasn't a poor fisherman but a scholarly man. He wrote nearly half of the New Testament by himself.
Look : if you were serious with your post # 37, can you than repeat that in normal English that can be understood ?


Look, you can have a comet if you really want one. Since this was in the past I don't see any reason to argue for or against in order to have faith. We can't change the past, just who we are and where we're going.
?? Who ever stated he/she wants a comet? What the heck are you referring to?

:confused:

·

I'm assuming your reluctance to get on board with the Earth being created in seven days has something to do with you not getting a big comet to destroy the dinosaurs or something. If you don't need a comet, that's fine, cause they're a little expensive environmentally. I'm giving evidence to support the six days, the Earth is rotating veeeerrryyy slowly which would support what I assume is your eons of time theory. It's a win win scenario, you can pick your reality, doesn't make mine false. And only mine leads to eternal life.

The Council for Secular Humanism is the * leading organization for non-religious people. A not-for-profit educational association, the Council supports a wide range of activities to meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god.

Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.

(Ref link : Council for Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/))

Some people here on this board claim Secular Humanism to be a religion.
The above statement by the Council for Secular Humanism clearly state differently.

Any comments?

.

Note :

* The link refers to the North America's Council for Secular Humanism.

And the definition of religion;

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

Secular humanism seems to have some aspects of a religion, but not enough to make it a religion. I don't know allot about Secular humanism, I'll take what you said at face value cred. Having said that, nope they shouldn't be considered a religion, but they are close, at least that's my opinion.

Please, anyone, feel free to disagree, like I said, just my opinion, more than happy to hear others arguments and opinions. :)

I'm assuming your reluctance to get on board with the Earth being created in seven days has something to do with you not getting a big comet to destroy the dinosaurs or something. If you don't need a comet, that's fine, cause they're a little expensive enviromentally. I'm giving evidence to support the six days, the Earth is rotating veeeerrryyy slowly which would support what I assume is your eons of time theory. It's a win win scenario, you can pick your reality, doesn't make mine false. And only mine leads to eternal life.
At least now I start to understand what you were saying...

I never used any comet impact as an argument for evolution. But the historical data and the fact such impacts take place regularly, and - in the referred case it seems to have almost been at the same time - is one of many excellent possibilities how and why that extinction may have happened. Evolution is not based on the extinction of dinosaurs. That was only one item out of many influences over the approx. 3.500.000.000 years long period of evolution.

What scientific data is there that the universe was created in 6 days? On what do you base that?

Eons of time - with that I refer to the approx. 14.500.000.000 year period between the origin of the universe and modern times.

I do not say that anything you believe in is incorrect. All I stated many times on this and other boards is that what you believe in has never so far been objectively supported by evidence.

And that by you claimed to exist "eternal life" is also one of these claims that are not covered by objectively supported by evidence.

:D

·

There is also no money back guarantee with the eternal life package option.

Whether you agree or not.. Secualar Humanism is a religious organisation. They even have the same tax exempt status as religious organisation.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.. it is a Duck. Like it or not S.H is a RELIGION.

:)

There is also no money back guarantee with the eternal life package option.
As far as I know there is not even an eternal life package... Some people CLAIM that there is...

:rolleyes: :D :p :D ;)

·

As far as I know??? there is not even an eternal life package .... Some people CLAIM that there is ....



·

What You mean to say is as far as you BELIEVE.. there is no after life.
You CLAIM there is no eternal life but you can not prove it. :rolleyes:

What You mean to say is as far as you BELIEVE.. there is no after life. You CLAIM there is no eternal life but you can not prove it. :rolleyes:
I always stated that there is no evidence for the Christian carrot swinging from a stick : the eternal afterlife. And as far as I am concerned it therefore is an irrelevant claim.

The Christian afterlife claim has the same value as the Hindu reincarnation claim, or the Spaghetti Monster claim of a daily plate of fresh pasta into eternity for every one : none of them is supported by any objective supporting evidence what-so-ever!!

:rolleyes:

·

Well even if someone should rise from the dead, that would be subjective evidence, since you'd have to take that person's word for what happened to him or the word of people who witnessed it. Which is the case for Jesus and the Apostles and what they did long ago. Objective would seem to be a very large subjective, and if everyone has to be dead and ressurrected before you personally have enough evidence, it would be a moot point by then. Presumably you believe in the universe, that it is infinite? But you have never seen the whole thing.

Presumably you believe in the universe, that it is infinite? But you have never seen the whole thing.
No, not really. We know from science that although the universe is very, very big, it still is an expanding area, and as such it has a limit to it´s (constantly increasing') size.

:rolleyes:

·

Homework: Define the universe and give three examples.

Define the universe and give three examples.
Although this is not the correct board to do so, and lacking the time to go deeper into this, I use Wikipedia for a nice definition (note : just the following blue lines only) :

"The Universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. ".

===

I would like to slightly amend that to : "everything that physically exists for everyone within this universe". That to make it clearer for those who do not realize that "space and time" already means that this "everything that physically exists" is limited to all that within this universe.

Reason : for us the universe will always be the only universe we will know to exist. If there are more universes outside our own universe is unknown and will always be unknown to us. But it is not impossible that there are other universes outside our own universe. Actually there is no reason not to expect the existence of other universes.

Note that I do not refer to other "universes" here as mentioned in "multiple dimension" proposals : these parallel universes are a sort of dimensional copies of our own universe within the universe, and allow for different physical laws to be valid.

===

No need to provide three examples of our universe. For us within this universe there will never be another universe.

===

As to the limits of our universe : it is limited by space and time. There is no time AD/BC variant from before the Big Bang. There is neither a space limit other than the outer "shell" - which is not an actual shell. (Note : just a poor 3D representation within a 4D reality). The actual outer shell refers to the area where the expansion of our universe is just reaching.

:rolleyes:

·

I always stated that there is no evidence for the Christian carrot swinging from a stick : the eternal afterlife. And as far as I am concerned it therefore is an irrelevant claim.

The Christian afterlife claim has the same value as the Hindu reincarnation claim, or the Spaghetti Monster claim of a daily plate of fresh pasta into eternity for every one : none of them is supported by any objective supporting evidence what-so-ever !!!


·

Lol Credo.. you are so ignorant in so many subjects. You need to do some research before you embaras yourself with your empty UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS.

There is OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED SCIENTIFIC evidence for Life after death.

Read this
BBC News | HEALTH | Evidence of 'life after death' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/986177.stm)

The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life after Death.(Book review) - The Journal of Parapsychology | Encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-149213503.html)

Even Dawinsist like yourself believe in there is life after death..
AFTERLIFE- DOES IT EXIST? THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE (http://www.victorzammit.com/)

So Please we know you are zealous believer in such things a magical big bang and you claim it is FACT without evidence but please don't make ignorant remarks that there is no scientific evidence for life after death when in reality there is.

I think you just struggle with reality.. :D
Get with the program!

you are so ignorant in so many subjects.
You know sassyT : you so frequently post statements like the one I refer to here.
But every time you fail to provide the objective supporting evidence you CLAIM to provide in some link.

I followed the BBC link. That article is NOT about the Christian claim on the existence of life after death.
It states : "Scientists investigating 'near-death' experiences say they have found evidence to suggest that consciousness can continue to exist after the brain has ceased to function."
TO SUGGEST : so you call that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE?

I followed the Afterlife link. That article is NO evidence for life after death. It is about a book someone wrote about that.
A BOOK : so you call that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE?

And once again : what are "Dawinsist"?? Whatever they are, I surely am not one of them.

sassyT : all your posts indicate clearly that it is you who is so ignorant in so many subjects. It almost is too sad for words...

:D :D :D :D :D

·

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]You know sassyT : you so frequently post statements like the one I refer to here.
But every time you fail to provide the objective supporting evidence you CLAIM to provide in some link.

I followed the BBC link. That article is NOT about the Christian claim on the existence of life after death.
It states : "Scientists investigating 'near-death' experiences say they have found evidence[B] to suggest that consciousness can continue to exist after the brain has ceased to function."


Lol Credo.. you in such denial. This is an independent study that was not done by Christians so we know it is not biased. Let me quote part of the article and you tell me if this does not sound like a spiritual life AFTER DEATH.

BBC Evidence of 'life after death'

The researchers interviewed 63 patients who had survived heart attacks within a week of the experience

Of these 56 had no recollection of the period of unconsciousness they experienced whilst, effectively, clinically dead.
However, seven had memories, four of which counted as near-death experiences.
They told of feelings of peace and joy, time speeded up, heightened senses, lost awareness of body, seeing a bright light, entering another world, encountering a mystical being and coming to "a point of no return".


Scientists have done studies and have come up characteristics of near death experiences where people who have been clinically dead have reported seeing light, out of body experiences, feeling a spiritual relm. Read this study
Characteristics of a Near-Death Experience (http://www.iands.org/nde_index/ndes/characteristics.html)
Homepage for IANDS (http://www.iands.org/journal.html)



TO SUGGEST : so you call that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE?

YES





sassyT : all your posts indicate clearly that it is you who is so ignorant in so many subjects. It almost is too sad for words...

Apparenly you are the one who is BLIND to all evidence unless it supports your own wild unsupported CLAIMS. :rolleyes:

4 of 63? That's your evidence? The evidence you present actually suggests the opposite of what you propose.

You're in a master's degree? Really?

This is an independent study that was not done by Christians so we know it is not biased.
Based on WHAT do you know that it is not biased?
Because the study was not done by Christians?
Or because they claim it was an independent study?
What retarded argumentation is that ?

And you claim to have a degree in Biology ?
No wonder you refuse to mention where and when you got that "degree"...
You have not a single iota of understanding what scientific support, scientific evidence, and objective supported evidence is all about !

:rolleyes:

·

Based on WHAT do you know that it is not biased?
Because the study was not done by Christians?
Or because they claim it was an independent study?
What retarded argumentation is that ?

Lol.. lol... lol you seriously crack me up. Your denial of reality is such an entertaining specticle.. lol
I think everyone here knows BBC to be a credible source for News on new scientific research and the encyclopedia is too. Again like I said before, I think your zeal for you beliefs is good, but the problems is, it blinds you from reality. :rolleyes:

No wonder you refuse to mention where and when you got that "degree"...

You can ask till you are blue in the face and I won't tell you because unlike you... I do not share my personal life with strangers online. How do I know you are not going to buy a plain ticket to come and stalk me at my school. You have already shown that you have a lot time on your hands so I don't trust what idle people can do with information. :rolleyes:

You can ask till you are blue in the face and I won't tell you because unlike you... I do not share my personal life with strangers online. How do I know you are not going to buy a plain ticket to come and stark me at my school. You have already shown that you have a lot time on your hands so I don't trust what idle people can do with information. :rolleyes:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/adult-sexuality/ouestion-married-men-over-30-a-178171.html

I am a 26 year old model, considered very attractive, and have been married since June last year. My husband and I have been together for 5 years now and he is a good husband. He is very loving and caring and I have little to complain about in general except lately he has not had a strong sex drive as he normally does. He is not as aggressive as he used to be in bed. He some times does not get an errection from making out with me when I am naked and this never used to be the case. When we have sex he is good after one round where as before he used to like to go for 2-3 rounds. When we do go to 2 rounds it takes him ages to climax, if ever. I have been reading other people's posts on this issue and it seem like this is not unusuall, or is it? This has been this way for about a month now and I am to worry because it makes me feel very unsexy.
And I assume you are black because you are curious about skin lightening.

I think everyone here knows BBC to be a credible source for News on new scientific research and the encylopedia is too. Again like i said before, i think your zeal for you beliefs is good, but the problems is, it blinds you from reality.
BBC is indeed a news source. But neither the BBC nor any encyclopedia are centers of scientific research, nor are BBC news articles ever regarded as scientific research papers.

You obviously never have heard about the system of peer reviews... You are so ignorant...
And that for someone claiming to have a degree in Biology...


How do i know you are not going to buy a plain ticket to come and stalk me at my school. You have already shown that you have alot time on your hands so i dont trust what idle people can do with information.
You can´t be real on that... I buying a ticket from Europe to you? Why would I do that? I could be your grandfather in age... However : note I stated `in age´, because all my grandchildren are nice and intelligent instead...

··:D ····:D ····:D ····:D ····:D ····

·

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]BBC is indeed a news source. But neither the BBC nor any encyclopedia are centers of scientific research, nor are BBC news articles ever regarded as scientific research papers.

You obviously never have heard about the system of peer reviews... You are so ignorant...
And that for someone claiming to have a degree in Biology...

**sigh*** Credo BBC was reporting on the New Scientific descoveries that scientists reasearched and wrote research papers on. No one said BBC did the research... **sigh** Why are simple concepts so hard for you to grasp. :rolleyes:



You can´t be real on that... I buying a ticket from Europe to you? Why would I do that? I could be your grandfather in age... However : note I stated `in age´, because all my grandchildren are nice and intelligent instead...

Hey, you never know what pschos are online. Some people call me sassy at school so I wouldn't want strangers online to know what school I attend lest they find me and kill me or something.. lol, considering I am discussing controversial topics that I am highly opinionated on.

Hello again, sassy:

We are sentient beings. I'll bet that's a term you've never heard of. It means that we can contemplate our own existence. That makes us smarter than all the other species.

During our contemplative times, we observed that we die. Then some people made up a story, so they can deny it. I guess death scares 'em.

Dogs don't know they're going to die. At least they can't be blamed for their lack of knowledge. You, however, can be.

excon

Why is that Ex? "I think therefore I am."

Why among all creatures are we the only ones, that we know of, that can philosophize, worship whatever, ponder the origins of the universe?

What genes lead to this? What is the selective advantage of this ability?

Why is that Ex? "I think therefore I am."

Why among all creatures are we the only ones, that we know of, that can philosophize, worship whatever, ponder the origins of the universe?

What genes lead to this? What is the selective advantage of this ability?

Lol good question
I am also curious to know why, out of ALL the millions of species that have ever existed, why only ONE of those millions (humans) are the ONLY species that evolved and developed such specialised qualities.

Hello again:

Why, you ask? I don't know why. All I know is what's so.

excon

Why among all creatures are we the only ones, that we know of, that can philosophize, worship whatever, ponder the origins of the universe? What genes lead to this? What is the selective advantage of this ability?
We mammals were lucky that an asteroid hit earth approx. 65 Millions years ago, causing extinction of almost all dinosaurs, making the way of life free for mammals to grab that opportunity to grow and diversify.

We humanoids were lucky that nature allowed us to evolve into vertical transportation, allowing our hands to become better tools to do work for us and to defend us. It also allowed our brains to grow and develop further.

We humans were lucky that evolution allowed all that, and made us the only species that can philosophize, worship whatever, and ponder the origins of the universe.

:rolleyes:

·

i am also curious to know why, out of ALL the millions of species that have ever existed, why only ONE of those millions (humans) are the ONLY species that evolved and developed such specialised (specialized) qualities.
Because all those who lacked that capacity were bypassed by evolution and became extinct for whatever reason it was. Nature looks for a slightly changed life form that fits the conditions of that moment. It either finds one and continues the experiment, or that species gets extinct. It is as simple as that !

:rolleyes:

So you Cred have come out of the closet as a Darwinist!

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]We mammals were lucky that an asteroid hit earth approx. 65 Millions years ago, causing extinction of almost all dinosaurs, making the way of life free for mammals to grab that opportunity to grow and diversify.

This is Your BELIEF unless if you can prove that you were there 65 million years ago to witness this.



We humanoids were lucky that nature allowed us to evolve into vertical transportation, allowing our hands to become better tools to do work for us and to defend us. It also allowed our brains to grow and develop further

So why out of millions of species, is the humaniod the ONLY one that develop specailized features? Lets here what you believe on that matter.


We humans were lucky that evolution allowed all that, and made us the only species that can philosophize, worship whatever, and ponder the origins of the universe.

So credo attributes our existence to a big bang that just came from no where and created a little warm soup where this little mythical one cell creature crawled out and morphed into flowers, insects, fish, pigs, lions etc and with a touch of "luck" humans apeared.
Nice.

So you Cred have come out of the closet as a Darwinist!

Lol.. he is finally out of the closet. Its about time. :D

...this is Your BELIEF unless if you can prove that you were there 65 million years ago to witness this ...
Stated by someone who suggests that the universe can be some 5000 trillion years old...

Yeah, sure...

:D

·

Stated by someone who suggests that the universe can be some 5000 trillion years old ...

Yeah, sure ...

:D

·

At least I am rational enough to admit my 5000 trillion year date is based on guess work.. which is just as good as your 14.5 billion guess. :rolleyes:

Atleast i am rational enough to admit my 5000 trillion year date is based on guess work.
5000 Trillion years is based on "Guess work" ??? And you claim to have a degree in biology ?

:D :D :D :D :D

5000 Trillion years is based on "Guess work" ??? And you claim to have a degree in biology ?



Yes I did claim to have a degree in biology, however I never claimed to have a degree guess work... lol
"the universe is 14.3 billion years old " FYI this Guess work. :D

Yes i did claim to have a degree in biology
If you would attend more to your studies in biology to get a real degree, and learned to understand what the essence is of scientific research, you would not post these preposterous statements...

:rolleyes:

·

Hello again:

You just can't argue with people who think an entire body of study is pretend. I can't imagine a life like that. Wouldn't you be afraid of falling off the edge of the earth? Why would you ever see a doctor, or get vaccinated? Why would you get into an airplane? I don't know. It's really weird to me.

excon

You just can't argue with people who think an entire body of study is pretend.
Indeed Excon ! But about what to do... Getting into a cell , isolated from the entire world, and having the key thrown away, is neither a positive alternative, isn't it?
Specially if that cell is located in New Orleans below water level... I really would worry there... And demand a glas-covered key box in my cell with escape key - just in case...

:D

·

If you would attend more to your studies in biology to get a real degree, and learned to understand what the essence is of scientific research, you would not post these preposterous statements ....


·

I know enough science to know that some fields of science i.e geochronology, rely on unverifiable ASSUMPTIONS as a premise therefore the out come of the finding can not be factual.
You obviously won't know anything about this because the last time you ever attended a science class was probably in the Renaissance period or something lol, this field of science did not exists in your day. :rolleyes:

You obviously wont know anything about this because the last time you ever attended a science class was probably in the Renaissance period or something lol, this field of science did not exists in your day. :rolleyes:I've seen a lot of these insults of yours in many of your posts. Is this the way born-again christians conducts themselves? If so then I hope people shy away from this sect that demeans people.

You obviously wont know anything about this because the last time you ever attended a science class was probably in the Renaissance period or something lol, this field of science did not exists in your day.
It is irrelevant what I attended to. What is relevant is that I at least know that the BASICS of science are research and check and recheck of all data from that research for possible mistakes and/or opposing conclusions, making the thesis invalid.

And from a student AD 2008 who claims to have a degree in biology I expect to have that same knowledge. But you don't sem to know that, and that shows you to be very unconvincing as suitable for - and incapable of - performing properly in any scientific field.

May I remind you that the topic here is Secular Humanism?

:)

·

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]It is irrelevant what I attended to. What is relevant is that I at least know that the BASICS of science are research and check and recheck of all data from that research for possible mistakes and/or opposing conclusions, making the thesis invalid.

And from a student AD 2008 who claims to have a degree in biology I expect to have that same knowledge. But you don't sem to know that, and that shows you to be very unconvincing as suitable for - and incapable of - performing properly in any scientific field.

Just because I don't share the same FAITH you do in unproven theories does not mean I lack understanding.


May I remind you that the topic here is Secular Humanism?

Okey, secular humanism is a belief system or religious organisation.

Sassy and Cred, I'm so glad you two have found each other. You're a perfectly matched set, like bookends or salt and pepper shakers.

Sassy and Cred, I'm so glad you two have found each other. You're a perfectly matched set, like bookends or salt and pepper shakers.
Naaaaahhhh : more like bookends of support : sassyT with subjective and I with objective supporting evidence... Only I do not claim to be a religious expert, while sassyT claimed to be a science degreed biologist...

:rolleyes:

·

Naaaaahhhh : more like bookends of support : sassyT with subjective and I with objective supporting evidence .... Only I do not claim to be a religious expert, while sassyT claimed to be a science degreed biologist ....
·

Again, these are among your many unproven beliefs.

Again, these are among your many unproven beliefs.
Not so : you lied already several times and got caught on that. And you wildly claim, and be shown so many times by many different people.
But you have never been able to prove I ever lied. Simply because I do not lie!!

:rolleyes:

·

Not so : you lied already several times and got caught on that. And you wildly claim, and be shown so many times by many different people.
But you have never been able to prove I ever lied. Simply because I do not lie !!! (we all know that is lie right there..lol)


·

Credo you have even lied in this post claiming you don't lie.. mmm I guess its another one of your claims.
But my work is done with you Cred, you have already given me what I wanted from you. A written confession that you do indeed have BELIEFS... lol priceless ;)

ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!

Credendovidis has made some valid points, but they have been demeaned, so thread closed.