# Secular Humanism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 14, 2011, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688 "2011-10-14T08:32:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/241 "2011-10-21T04:47:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why, it’s the same exact proposed test by scientific process, including all proper controls for certainty, that can prove or disprove Santa Claus, don’tcha know? Well, if you’re thinking you will fight my ignorance, I have to clue you in that these glib derisive comments do not have much probative value to me. Enlighten me, I missed the Santa Claus experiments. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/242 "2011-10-21T05:23:15Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Post #226, this thread, but I’ll not again allow you to translate your lack of reading the thread carefully into my burden. > > You can claim it is my burden, but I won’t answer. On the other hand, if I make a mistake and I have made an incorrect statement about what’s in this thread, I’ll confess it. It is glaringly obvious he meant the written word alone. It is also glaringly obvious that you rather play word games than have an honest discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/243 "2011-10-21T05:27:31Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I believe that the first organisms we could call _homo sapiens_ were few in number. Adam and Eve? heck I dunno, I suppose that’s good enough names for the very first. There had to have been a first organism that qualified for the definition of _homo sapiens_ and I can only suppose there must have been a second for the first to breed with, as evidenced by the fact that we exist. No, there’s no requirement for there to have been only a few or for there to have been any sharp transition between species. > [@David42](#): > > Why would I think that the earth is a mere six thousand years old. The evidence is entirely against it. And against everything else you are claiming. Why believe one and not the other? > [@David42](#): > > But you thought these were proper red herrings to get around the challenge none of the defenders of secular humanism have felt up to answering: > > **WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSED TEST BY THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, INCLUDING ALL PROPER CONTROLS FOR CERTAINTY, THAT CAN PROVE OR DISPROVE GOD?** God violates the laws of physics and the claims made about him are mutually contradictory. Not that it matters; the logical default is that there is no god (or Santa Claus, or elves, or any other random baseless claim); it’s the job of those postulating such a creature to provide evidence. they’ve never even provided evidence that their god is _possible_, much less real. > [@David42](#): > > I would propose instead that Moses didn’t have access to modern technology, communication and tools or he might have written something else a bit better explained. For youse dunderheads who claim moses never existed, well, it is plain SOMEBODY put pen to parchment a long time ago and said his name was Moses. Nonsense. Someone made up some stories and put a character named Moses in them. By your “logic” we should believe that Frodo Baggins was real. > [@David42](#): > > Me, I think they both make a fundamental mistake, pro or con, that science has any means of proving or disproving the supernatural. It has plenty of means, and repeatedly has. This idea that the “supernatural” is untestable and undetectable is a recent invention. Historically religion has made plenty of testable claims; and been proven wrong again and again. Whenever religion makes a claim that can actually be tested, it proves to be wrong; so the believers at this point have in many cases retreated to what amounts to solipsism. They’ve been pushed into a tiny little corner of what religion used to claim and are trying desperately to pretend otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/244 "2011-10-21T06:02:21Z")
> [@David42](#): > > cite. And you can completely disregard anything you read because anything people wrote can’t be trusted, according to one Doper. You ask for a cite and then say to disregard anything I’ve read. Do you want cites or not? And when I provide them will you accept the preponderance of agreement from disparate quarters on the subject, or simply launch into another screed of convoluted illogic or, as in post #235, another exhibition of your almost embarrassing dismissal of the evolution of mankind to homo sapiens from protohumans by treating the allegorical story of Adam and Eve as fact? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/245 "2011-10-21T06:04:42Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I think there is a lot of evidence for floods. Evidence for a great flood at approximately the right time exists in the “legends” of most ancient cultures. I think that most of you folks confused about what makes a fact completely ignore cultural relevance which I recall my sociology professor stressing time and again–“You’re not going to understand another culture or it’s products if you don’t try to think as they did.” Now it’s fine to say, hey, they thought like rocks and I’m not going to bother. But if you don’t bother, PLEASE DON’T come to me arguing how well you understand anything about what it means. Before you can disprove something you have to know what it is you are disproving. Wow, this is amazingly wrong. I’ve read lots of flood stories - many of them have the survivors in a boat or on a mountain top. They come down when the flood recedes, and find some other band coming over the hill, demonstrating the flood was local. Sure there were floods, just no global one. Visit talk.origins for more details, but some of the problems are that there wouldn’t be enough people to populate certain ancient civilizations, to get the diversity we see now would require a type of hyper-evolution which would make a creationist’s head explode, that if the water fell from orbit its potential energy would cook everything on earth (which you can see with some simple freshman physics) and of course that there is no geological or fossil evidence. I’d also recommend a trip to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. There they have examples of pottery from China that shows a clear line of artistic development, and which starts well before the Flood supposedly happened. Odd that the descendants of Noah would wander to China and take up the same artistic style as the dead former residents. > [@](#): > > I believe that the first organisms we could call _homo sapiens_ were few in number. Adam and Eve? heck I dunno, I suppose that’s good enough names for the very first. There had to have been a first organism that qualified for the definition of _homo sapiens_ and I can only suppose there must have been a second for the first to breed with, as evidenced by the fact that we exist. Why you’d take issue with one record of their names is beyond me–do you have a more reliable record of their names? Doesn’t bother me in the least if the first humans were named something else or Adam and Eve. I fail to see where you’re going with this or what it may prove to argue over their names. Or do you want to argue that there were actually six simultaneous first humans? Maybe. But the likelihood is that they weren’t born in a litter. What evidence do you have that bears on the question? I mean, do you argue that there wasn’t a first organism that qualifies as homo sapiens? Do you seriously argue that their names or lack thereof prove anything at all? If you know anything about evolution or biology (which I’m guessing you don’t) you’ll know that there is no time when a small population suddenly becomes homo sapiens. A population group would be slowly evolving from the predecessor species. And I’m not arguing about names. There is a genetic Eve, and a genetic Adam, but they lived thousands (probably tens of thousands) of years apart. > [@](#): > > Why would I think that the earth is a mere six thousand years old. The evidence is entirely against it. Nowhere does scripture say this–it is the doctrine of idiots who don’t understand the writing of the scripture any better than you. Why you might attribute it to me is beyond me. I never said such a thing, and if you think raising the irrelevant beliefs of some has something to do with my arguments you are sadly mistaken. You see, I just plain didn’t argue anything at all about a flood, Adam and Eve, or the earth being six thousand years old. But you thought these were proper red herrings to get around the challenge none of the defenders of secular humanism have felt up to answering: You said, and I quote: > [@](#): > > It’s the absolute certainty that the scripture is false that I take issue with. Are you now saying that it is indeed absolutely certain that Scriptures are false? The 6,000 year people were not guessing - the genealogies are very clear about years. And don’t give me the day = 1 million years bit. I’ve read Genesis 1 in Hebrew, and it is clear that days are meant - as in it was the evening and the morning, the third day. Very beautiful in Hebrew, by the way. > [@](#): > > **WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSED TEST BY THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, INCLUDING ALL PROPER CONTROLS FOR CERTAINTY, THAT CAN PROVE OR DISPROVE GOD?** > > I know that’s a toughie, but all you impartial skeptics ought to be able to back up the claim that science disproves God with that since you are so certain that these tests have been performed, right? You clearly either did not read or understand what I said. Which god? Your god doesn’t seem to have created the world 6,000 years ago, but Billy Bob Nitwit, the fundamentalist pastor, has a god who did. You people have so many versions of god we can’t keep them straight. So, try again. > [@](#): > > instead of a correct answer to the question I keep hearing about some book written by some guy with alleged credentials claiming he knows what happened way back when. I’m skeptical, but I am listening if you want to explain his evidence other than “we didn’t find anything.” Tens of thousands of people supposedly camped for about 40 years in an environment which is excellent for preserving relics. Hell, they found the camps of the people who built the pyramids. Nobody finding the slightest sign of it is plenty of evidence for me. What other evidence of their non-existence do you want? > [@](#): > > I would propose instead that Moses didn’t have access to modern technology, communication and tools or he might have written something else a bit better explained. For youse dunderheads who claim moses never existed, well, it is plain SOMEBODY put pen to parchment a long time ago and said his name was Moses. You’re deep in denial if you claim the documents weren’t written. Why it’s not plausible his name was Moses I can’t figure out. Since he said his name was Moses, and I don’t have a better suggestion, I am fine with that. Dr. Watson said his name. Is that evidence that he and Holmes actually existed. And, in fact, nowhere in the Torah, as far as I recall, does it say Moses actually wrote them. Another fun fact. The Torah is the most important thing in Judaism, giving history and rules to live by. Life centers around it, in a very real way. Read Judges, and Chronicles, and Kings. The Ark is very present in these stories - the Torah not at all. Then it was “discovered” much later. That is about as believable as someone “discovering” the real version of the Constitution in a closet in the Supreme Court building and trying to pass it off as written by Madison. > [@](#): > > I find it curious that amongst these “fake” writings by a man allegedly that didn’t exist, there are rules about eating food that modern science has backed up to a fine point in the aspect of a diet for good health. Strange isn’t it? Or maybe Moses was a primitive scientist who recorded the concensus of the day that uncooked pork kills…no, that must not be valid because Moses didn’t have a vocabulary that included the word “trichinosis.” Right? That bubbemeiser. The prohibition on pork was an old tribal taboo. Plenty of other cultures did eat pork and shellfish and did just fine. It’s not like they hadn’t invented fire, after all. Plus there is a whole lot more to the dietary laws than these prohibitions. What are the health aspects of not mixing meat and dairy? > [@](#): > > And since the defenders of secular humanism love scientists, why are you ignoring the book written by Francis S. Collins? Remember him? The leader of the human genome project? I suppose his credentials are worthless and he’s a crackpot…and I’ll believe you when you’re heading something as serious as the human genome project, right? He doesn’t say Scripture is 100% correct. He kind of accepts evolution and biology. > [@](#): > > Me, I think they both make a fundamental mistake, pro or con, that science has any means of proving or disproving the supernatural. No, you didn’t really address any of my points. Want to try again? Couldn’t Rhine have “proven” (actually demonstrated) ESP. Your use of prove and disprove shows that you don’t have any real understanding of how science operates. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/246 "2011-10-21T06:16:30Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Post #226, this thread, but I’ll not again allow you to translate your lack of reading the thread carefully into my burden. > > You can claim it is my burden, but I won’t answer. On the other hand, if I make a mistake and I have made an incorrect statement about what’s in this thread, I’ll confess it. Here is the quote from **Novelty Bobble** > [@](#): > > As I’m sure you know, the most up-to-date studies on that subject conclude that eye-witness testimony is riddled with error and shouldn’t be trusted. So not only is the written word not to be trusted, nor is the anecdote from which it comes. Here is your mistranslation of it. > [@](#): > > And you can completely disregard anything you read because anything people wrote can’t be trusted, according to one Doper. Not trusting something is not at all the same as disregarding it. It just means that critical and skeptical reading skills are required. Few documents from ancient history are trusted. Historians examine the motives of the writer and look for supporting evidence, especially of extraordinary claims. When I review technical papers, even by people I know and trust, I sure as hell read critically also, and try to catch them when they go beyond what the evidence warrants. They do the same for me, and I’m glad they do. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/247 "2011-10-21T06:22:51Z")
> [@David42](#): > > cite. And you can completely disregard anything you read because anything people wrote can’t be trusted, according to one Doper. You’re implying that said doper meant _no_ written words can ever be trusted? OK, is your counterpoint that _all_ written words should be trusted? I’m pretty sure it won’t be. So the question is: how should we rigorously determine _which_ written words we should trust? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/248 "2011-10-21T10:38:41Z")
> [@David42](#): > > cite. And you can completely disregard anything you read because anything people wrote can’t be trusted, according to one Doper. Pretty much everyone else has taken my comment in the correct way David42. I thought it was fairly clear what I meant. In case you need clarification let me do that for you. The fact that something is simply written down says nothing about its veracity. If there is nothing else backing it up then you be wary of trusting it and be very careful what actions you take on the basis of that alone. If what backs it up is merely anecdote at second, third or fiftieth-hand, then again, that adds pretty much nothing to the truth of the written statement. If what backs it up is stand-alone evidence that the reader can verify for themselves, then the written statements can be given more weight. (note-if that evidence is self referencing and circular then again, it adds nothing). ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/249 "2011-10-21T11:03:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It is glaringly obvious he meant the written word alone. It is also glaringly obvious that you rather play word games than have an honest discussion. Well, reviewing that post, I believe he also said you can’t trust what people said they see either. Play word games? From the guy who can’t actually devise a test but instead suggests there have been scientific tests for Santa Claus? Playing word games is what the secular humanist defenders on this board are doing. You’re all dismissing a historical document arbitrarily claiming it means nothing, and you STILL can’t identify why. Not a single one of you measure it in terms of social relevency to the Hebrew others, which means you can’t understand it. It’s accuracy is indisputable for historical fact even if one takes the supernatural parts for wishful thinking. If you SIR were interested in an honest discussion, you’d confess the scripture has at least _some_ archeological value, for instance, the finding of Jericho. But it’s entirely dismissed because Moses didn’t have a microscope and wasn’t peer reviewed, with no acknowledgment that what you demand from this document wasn’t possible at that time. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/250 "2011-10-21T11:13:53Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > You’re implying that said doper meant _no_ written words can ever be trusted? > > OK, is your counterpoint that _all_ written words should be trusted? I’m pretty sure it won’t be. So the question is: how should we rigorously determine _which_ written words we should trust? First the doper said you can’t trust a witness, then he said you can’t trust the written word. He’s the one who said no more no less. If he meant only the scripture he could have said so. Regarding ancient documents and how to analyze them: First you could admit the need for cultural relevancy instead of acting like it was a Stephen King novel written yesterday. That’s your first step. Secondly, you can quit interpreting every single word as literal like the fundies do, and take notice of these things called literary devices. Thirdly, you can admit that ancient archeological sites have been found with scripture ALONE as the guide. But finding Jericho has “no value” to you guys apparently, which really means that your interest isn’t in honestly determining what value scripture has, but instead want to diss religion. By the eivdence of the board I don’t think anyone here even knows what “cultural relevancy” is, since it’s been completely ignored. It means you view the document on the culture’s terms that produced it, rather than your own. Ever heard that phrase “One man’s magic is another man’s science?” ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/251 "2011-10-21T11:14:08Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Well, reviewing that post, I believe he also said you can’t trust what people said they see either. I did, and I stand by it. Let me repeat it for you. “you can’t trust what people say they have seen” And why? because people lie and even the honest ones can be fooled and their perception is individual and subjective. Of course some people do indeed report anecdotes accurately and tell the truth but how do you know which is which? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/252 "2011-10-21T11:24:39Z")
> [@David42](#): > > You’re all dismissing a historical document arbitrarily claiming it means nothing, and you STILL can’t identify why. No, we’ve pointed out over and over why. Multiple reasons why. > [@David42](#): > > Not a single one of you measure it in terms of social relevency to the Hebrew others, which means you can’t understand it. It’s accuracy is indisputable for historical fact even if one takes the supernatural parts for wishful thinking. More nonsense. Its “social relevancy” to the Hebrews or anyone else has nothing to do with its historical accuracy. And as has been pointed out, it has been _demonstrated_ to be inaccurate. > [@David42](#): > > But it’s entirely dismissed because Moses didn’t have a microscope and wasn’t peer reviewed, with no acknowledgment that what you demand from this document wasn’t possible at that time. No, he was imaginary. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/253 "2011-10-21T11:30:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Here is the quote from **Novelty Bobble** > > Here is your mistranslation of it. > Not trusting something is not at all the same as disregarding it. It just means that critical and skeptical reading skills are required. Few documents from ancient history are trusted. Historians examine the motives of the writer and look for supporting evidence, especially of extraordinary claims. > When I review technical papers, even by people I know and trust, I sure as hell read critically also, and try to catch them when they go beyond what the evidence warrants. They do the same for me, and I’m glad they do. The point has been made that your side of this argument is not that of skeptics because, apparently, everyone on the secularist human side believes in COMPLETE AND UTTER FALSITY, not a matter of mere distrust and verification. It’s being compared to Harry Potter, sheesh, and you call that critical skepticism? THe claims are insane, even claiming that the author didn’t exist with no explanation for how the document got here if that is so. I’ve seen what the secular humanists do with “extraordinary claims.” First they presume it couldn’t have happened, then date it on that basis, then use their dating to “prove” it couldn;t have happened, which is plain and simply circular reasoning. Others who are willing to admit that though it is extraordinary in some places, it may be true, come up with different conclusions. Please quit comparing ancient religious text with modern technical papers. there is no comparison. The lack of a rigorous scientific process and the language of science didn’t exist back then, so quit condemning it for that fact. \*\*And for those of you who won’t even contemplate believing the scripture without accompanying video evidence, please explain just exactly what form of evidence WOULD be acceptable to you to further a belief in an extraordinary claim. \*\* I find there is some extrordinary evidence in the bible, but it’s not easily explained because it requires deep study of the scripture to understand, which no-one here appears willing to do without first determining it to be wrong. Decision first, study afterwards is Alice-In-Wonderland reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/254 "2011-10-21T11:31:31Z")
> [@David42](#): > > First the doper said you can’t trust a witness, then he said you can’t trust the written word. He’s the one who said no more no less. If he meant only the scripture he could have said so Not sure why you having so much trouble with this very simple concept. Maybe it is a definition of “trust” which in this context I take to mean as “accept as 100% true” I’m betting even you don’t take a single writing or a single eye-witness account as completely accurate and would look for evidence to back it up. That is all that is being meant here. Scripture is to be looked upon with great mistrust due to translation errors, contextual errors, transcription errors, transference errors, length of time between incident and recording and the supernatural nature of the claims. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/255 "2011-10-21T11:36:08Z")
> [@David42](#): > > It’s being compared to Harry Potter, sheesh, and you call that critical skepticism? And in what way is that unfair? Except perhaps to Harry Potter. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/256 "2011-10-21T11:39:56Z")
> [@David42](#): > > The point has been made that your side of this argument is not that of skeptics because, apparently, everyone on the secularist human side believes in COMPLETE AND UTTER FALSITY, not a matter of mere distrust and verification. It’s being compared to Harry Potter, sheesh, and you call that critical skepticism? THe claims are insane, even claiming that the author didn’t exist with no explanation for how the document got here if that is so. > > I’ve seen what the secular humanists do with “extraordinary claims.” First they presume it couldn’t have happened, then date it on that basis, then use their dating to “prove” it couldn;t have happened, which is plain and simply circular reasoning. Others who are willing to admit that though it is extraordinary in some places, it may be true, come up with different conclusions. > > Please quit comparing ancient religious text with modern technical papers. there is no comparison. The lack of a rigorous scientific process and the language of science didn’t exist back then, so quit condemning it for that fact. > > \*\*And for those of you who won’t even contemplate believing the scripture without accompanying video evidence, please explain just exactly what form of evidence WOULD be acceptable to you to further a belief in an extraordinary claim. \*\* > > I find there is some extrordinary evidence in the bible, but it’s not easily explained because it requires deep study of the scripture to understand, which no-one here appears willing to do without first determining it to be wrong. > > Decision first, study afterwards is Alice-In-Wonderland reasoning. This is such an incredible misstating of what has been discussed so far that I can only make one of two conclusions, but I think I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you seem to be totally incapable of understanding what is being discussed here. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/257 "2011-10-21T11:47:10Z")
> [@David42](#): > > The point has been made that your side of this argument is not that of skeptics because, apparently, everyone on the secularist human side believes in COMPLETE AND UTTER FALSITY, not a matter of mere distrust and verification. It’s being compared to Harry Potter, sheesh, and you call that critical skepticism? THe claims are insane, even claiming that the author didn’t exist with no explanation for how the document got here if that is so. You know, we could dance around forever trying to argue about what everybody else really meant, against each others’ protestations that it wasn’t. Why don’t you just pick a piece of scripture that says something interesting, preferrably extraordinary, and tell your opponents exactly why you think they should accept its veracity? Instead of arguing generalities, why not look at some details. Maybe we can work back to generalised methods if we can actually compose one that works on a specific bit of scripture. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/258 "2011-10-21T11:59:14Z")
> [@David42](#): > > The point has been made that your side of this argument is not that of skeptics because, apparently, everyone on the secularist human side believes in COMPLETE AND UTTER FALSITY, not a matter of mere distrust and verification. It’s being compared to Harry Potter, sheesh, and you call that critical skepticism? THe claims are insane, even claiming that the author didn’t exist with no explanation for how the document got here if that is so. You are ranting and it is making your points difficult to follow. Lets try this bit by bit. Firstly, it is trivial for a piece of writing to be assigned to an imaginary author. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen what the secular humanists do with “extraordinary claims.” First they presume it couldn’t have happened, then date it on that basis, then use their dating to “prove” it couldn;t have happened, which is plain and simply circular reasoning. It is amusing for a religious apologist to accuse others of circular reasoning but never mind. You do realise that a secular humanist can be religious don’t you? That rather makes the rest of this point irrelevant. No-one is trying prove a negative here, that isn’t how it works. Your claim - your responsibility. If you have evidence for a biblical claim then lay it out in front of us and it’ll be judged on its merits. > [@](#): > > Please quit comparing ancient religious text with modern technical papers. there is no comparison. The lack of a rigorous scientific process and the language of science didn’t exist back then, so quit condemning it for that fact. So…let’s not take what was written at face value then? > [@](#): > > \*\*And for those of you who won’t even contemplate believing the scripture without accompanying video evidence, please explain just exactly what form of evidence WOULD be acceptable to you to further a belief in an extraordinary claim. \*\* It depends, the nature of the suitable evidence will change according to what you are claiming…what are you claiming? > [@](#): > > I find there is some extrordinary evidence in the bible, but it’s not easily explained because it requires deep study of the scripture to understand, which no-one here appears willing to do without first determining it to be wrong. Try us, seriously. There are some very smart people on these boards and I guarantee you that many on the further end of the atheist spectrum have studied religious texts very closely indeed. The problem you have with evidence, clearly seen in this last comment, is that you are unable to explain to us what it is. Or you resort to the courtiers reply that we haven’t studied the bible enough. I suspect that is because you know the evidence is tenuous and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and by refusing to present it to us you can keep pretending to yourself that “we won’t understand” > [@](#): > > Decision first, study afterwards is Alice-In-Wonderland reasoning. No-one has “decided” anything though. We take the default position that no gods exist and wait for suitable evidence to show otherwise. Your “decision first, study afterwards” is EXACTLY the religious position…i.e. “God exists, now let me find something that shows it to be true” ---
**Author:** ![BunnyTVS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BunnyTVS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BunnyTVS)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/259 "2011-10-21T12:35:53Z")
> [@David42](#): > > THe claims are insane, even claiming that the author didn’t exist with no explanation for how the document got here if that is so. Not one person here has ever claimed that the author of the book of Exodus never existed. What they claim is that all **evidence** found to date indicates that the stories in Exodus are false. They never happened. They also claim that Moses never existed. If you are honestly unable to tell the difference between the author, narrator or central characters of a story you have more of a problem than simple ateists. > [@David42](#): > > I’ve seen what the secular humanists do with “extraordinary claims.” First they presume it couldn’t have happened, then date it on that basis, then use their dating to “prove” it couldn;t have happened, which is plain and simply circular reasoning. Others who are willing to admit that though it is extraordinary in some places, it may be true, come up with different conclusions. Ok you got me on that one. If I don’t believe something happened, how do I come up with a date for that not-happening to happen. And if I set a date for the not-happen to have happened does that mean I’ve said it happened. And does that then mean that the happening I believe not-happened actually happened. In which case the date I set for the not-happening happening was incorrect because I based it on not-happening noy happening. But in that case if my date for the not-happening happening is incorrest then it never happened at that date in the first place so it’s a not-happening again… > [@David42](#): > > I find there is some extrordinary evidence in the bible. Then show us some. Oh no wait I know your reply already… “You’ve already made up your mind it’s not evidence” Another cite request if you don’t mind. > [@David42](#): > > Yet our secular courts put people to death in our secular society on the testimony of one person alone and call it evidence. Please provide an example of someone being executed **in our secular society** due to a single eyewitness testimony _and no other evidence_. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/260 "2011-10-21T12:43:06Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Is there any practical difference between obviating faith and destroying it though? I think it is up to the person who believes on how it helps or hurts. I don’t believe one can destroy the faith for another, if they now see reason to not believe, then that is up to them, or if they choose to believe that too is their personal choice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688.md?page=14)