Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Religious Discussions (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=485)
-   -   Secular Humanism (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=228513)

  • Jun 27, 2008, 02:29 AM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wildandblue
    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 ?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wildandblue
    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:

    ·
  • Jun 27, 2008, 12:21 PM
    wildandblue
    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.
  • Jun 27, 2008, 04:48 PM
    Alty
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    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)

    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. :)
  • Jun 27, 2008, 05:19 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wildandblue
    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

    ·
  • Jul 2, 2008, 11:46 AM
    wildandblue
    There is also no money back guarantee with the eternal life package option.
  • Jul 2, 2008, 02:30 PM
    sassyT
    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.

    :)
  • Jul 3, 2008, 05:19 AM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wildandblue
    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 ;)

    ·
  • Jul 3, 2008, 10:28 AM
    sassyT
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    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:
  • Jul 3, 2008, 04:51 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sassyT
    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:

    ·
  • Jul 5, 2008, 10:08 AM
    wildandblue
    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.
  • Jul 5, 2008, 02:28 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wildandblue
    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 itīs (constantly increasing') size.

    :rolleyes:

    ·
  • Jul 6, 2008, 11:00 AM
    wildandblue
    Homework: Define the universe and give three examples.
  • Jul 6, 2008, 05:12 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wildandblue
    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:

    ·
  • Jul 7, 2008, 08:34 AM
    sassyT
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    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'

    The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life after Death.(Book review) - The Journal of Parapsychology | Encyclopedia.com

    Even Dawinsist like yourself believe in there is life after death..
    AFTERLIFE- DOES IT EXIST? THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE

    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!
  • Jul 7, 2008, 03:22 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sassyT
    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

    ·
  • Jul 8, 2008, 09:56 AM
    sassyT
    Quote:

    [[B]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 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
    Homepage for IANDS


    Quote:

    TO SUGGEST : so you call that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE?
    YES




    Quote:

    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:
  • Jul 8, 2008, 09:59 AM
    NeedKarma
    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?
  • Jul 9, 2008, 02:43 AM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sassyT
    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:

    ·
  • Jul 9, 2008, 10:12 AM
    sassyT
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    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:
  • Jul 9, 2008, 10:17 AM
    sassyT
    Quote:

    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:
  • Jul 9, 2008, 10:23 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sassyT
    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-...-a-178171.html
    Quote:

    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.
  • Jul 9, 2008, 05:17 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sassyT
    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...

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sassyT
    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 canīt 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 ageī, because all my grandchildren are nice and intelligent instead...

    ··:D ····:D ····:D ····:D ····:D ····

    ·
  • Jul 10, 2008, 10:03 AM
    sassyT
    [QUOTE]
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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:


    Quote:

    You canīt 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 ageī, 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.
  • Jul 10, 2008, 10:25 AM
    excon
    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
  • Jul 10, 2008, 02:54 PM
    inthebox
    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?
  • Jul 10, 2008, 03:07 PM
    sassyT
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox
    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.
  • Jul 10, 2008, 03:36 PM
    excon
    Hello again:

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

    excon
  • Jul 10, 2008, 04:09 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox
    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:

    ·
  • Jul 10, 2008, 04:17 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sassyT
    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:

  • Jul 10, 2008, 06:59 PM
    inthebox
    So you Cred have come out of the closet as a Darwinist!
  • Jul 11, 2008, 08:44 AM
    sassyT
    [QUOTE]
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.


    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.
  • Jul 11, 2008, 08:45 AM
    sassyT
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox
    So you Cred have come out of the closet as a Darwinist!

    Lol.. he is finally out of the closet. Its about time. :D
  • Jul 12, 2008, 06:11 AM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sassyT
    ...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

    ·
  • Jul 14, 2008, 02:05 PM
    sassyT
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    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:
  • Jul 14, 2008, 04:33 PM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sassyT
    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
  • Jul 15, 2008, 07:18 AM
    sassyT
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    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
  • Jul 15, 2008, 07:25 AM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sassyT
    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:

    ·
  • Jul 15, 2008, 07:29 AM
    excon
    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
  • Jul 15, 2008, 07:48 AM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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

    ·
  • Jul 15, 2008, 08:28 AM
    sassyT
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Credendovidis
    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:

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 AM.