Posted on Nov 25, 2015
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support secular humanism. Why are they still around?
1.45K
11
20
2
1
1
Secular Humanist enjoy claiming they are the ' Rational Philosophy' yet everything about their belief system is man made with no basis in natural law. They enjoy using scientific theories against religious followers as a weapon but they dont seem to understand these same scientific theories do not support their beliefs in anyway. Evolutionary theory actually does more harm to their beliefs than it does to religious belief. Do they not understand evolutionary theory? Or are they just making things up as they go along?
It is not limited to Evolutionary theory, There is nothing in Quantum Mechanics, M-Theory, Complexity Theory, Relativity, Chaos Theory, Cosmology or any of the top scientific theories that we use to better understand the universe we live in, nothing at all that lays claims to their beliefs. So how do these humanist continue to find recruits?
It is not limited to Evolutionary theory, There is nothing in Quantum Mechanics, M-Theory, Complexity Theory, Relativity, Chaos Theory, Cosmology or any of the top scientific theories that we use to better understand the universe we live in, nothing at all that lays claims to their beliefs. So how do these humanist continue to find recruits?
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
There really isn't any basic belief system that is falsifiable. The only system that has any edge is agnosticism as it assumes we can never actually know, but even that has problems. The basic problem with proving/disproving the existence of an enormously powerful, hyper intelligent being is that they are under no obligation to play along with our empirical attempts to identify them.
I personally believe that there is a God and that Jesus Christ was exactly what the Bible claims him to be, but I am under no illusion that this is something I could ever prove using a double blind experiment that relied only on quantifiable results. I think there are some great logical arguments and interesting pieces of evidence, but that only gets you so far.
I personally believe that there is a God and that Jesus Christ was exactly what the Bible claims him to be, but I am under no illusion that this is something I could ever prove using a double blind experiment that relied only on quantifiable results. I think there are some great logical arguments and interesting pieces of evidence, but that only gets you so far.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Discussing the basis of one’s moral code is like taking apart one of those wooden Russian eggs, each of which encloses a still smaller one: “I believe it is wrong to kill people.” “Why?” “Because I have respect for humanity.” “Why?” “Because I am human and recognize my brother’s kinship.” “Why?” etc., etc. If one believes in God, one finally gets down to an ultimate egg that is solid and so ends the taking-apart (analytical) process. God is simply and logically an absolute, an end and not a means, unique in our—that is, some of us—experience. But an unbeliever gets down to an egg that is hollow like the rest, but that contains no further egg. One’s belief turns out to rest, ultimately, on air—“I just feel it to be so.” This doesn’t bother me too much emotionally, but it is undeniably awkward from a logical point of view. 13
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Why is any belief system still around? Scientific evidence only extends so far. No matter how large the telescope or how powerful the microscope, many can only see so far and no farther. There is always another mystery just beyond our powers of observation, another unanswerable question and man simply can't abide leaving those unanswered. Some choose God and others No-God as an answer, and they will argue. It's simply our nature.
(1)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
taking apart one of those wooden Russian eggs, each of which encloses a still smaller one: “I believe it is wrong to kill people.” “Why?” “Because I have respect for humanity.” “Why?” “Because I am human and recognize my brother’s kinship.” “Why?” etc., etc. If one believes in God, one finally gets down to an ultimate egg that is solid and so ends the taking-apart (analytical) process. God is simply and logically an absolute, an end and not a means, unique in our—that is, some of us—experience. But an unbeliever gets down to an egg that is hollow like the rest, but that contains no further egg. One’s belief turns out to rest, ultimately, on air—“I just feel it to be so.” This doesn’t bother me too much emotionally, but it is undeniably awkward from a logical point of view. 13
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google