# 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:** 14
**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, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/261 "2011-10-21T12:57:57Z")
> [@David42](#): > > By no means do I mean to claim all atheists lack any morals. But I have a specifc example of some atheists who have a moral problem, even while claiming they don’t. > > No Christian claims pixies exist, or zombies. But some atheists often build this strawman to belittle believers while patting themselves on the back that they’ve crafted their own set of morals. They are glad to point out a lack of murder, rape and theft as proof of their moral code, but these are all no-brainers. > > In my moral code, I have a tenet “You shall not bear false witness.” I find these kinds of strawmen to be false witness. In short, a person knowing that Christians do not believe in reanimated corpses that continue to rot (and usually are portrayed as having a hunger for BRAAAAAIIIIINS) yet this is how Jesus is often portrayed by these atheists who have no problem claiming they are moral. > > Where is your love of truth? Isn’t that in the secular moral code? > > Now, I’m not taking anyone to task who wants to draw legitimate metaphors and admit they are metaphors. But when the beliefs of Christians are twisted into absurdities, I do have an issue, because at that point you are claiming that I worship a rotting corpse that wants to eat brains. > > This certainly is not true and I have high doubts as to the morals of anyone who claims that I do. > > Further, i’d cut more slack to people who claim this if they want to describe the people who have been clinically dead but came back to life as “zombies,” which really wouldn’t be very kind to said living humans. If that’s your understanding of zombism, fine, call Jesus a zombie, but don’t be surprised when a real life once dead person thinks your more than rude when you also describe him that way. If a person has one small speck of life in him he is not truly dead, and if he has no spark of life he cannot be brought back, so in reality he/she was or is not dead, just near death. In some cases a persons brain activity is so low it doesn’t register on the eeg,but can in very rare cases return to a stronger activity. Just like in many cases a small child can be brought back after it has been in cold water. some animals have a simular thing when they hibernate! At least that is what I have heard from peopel who took care of such things! ---
**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, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/262 "2011-10-21T13:08:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Your example is solidifying a bad thing. I can see religious people refusing to believe evidence that there is no life after death, that gives hope. But not wanting evidence that their greatest dream is true? That’s like refusing to believe you’ve won the lottery because you enjoy the dreams of winning more. Anyone who won the lottery,has the money in it’s hand and refuses to belive it, needs a mental check up. Some times the truth hurts but it still is the best thing in the long run ,in my estimation. ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/263 "2011-10-21T13:14:46Z")
> [@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. **David42** , let’s just look at the aforementioned flood myth. \*If \*Moses penned the Book of Genesis then he was a plagarist rather than historian. Please refer to the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which pre-dates Genesis by 700 years. The story can be found in [The Epic of Gilgamesh, Book XI](http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm), which is a fast read, but if you’d rather hit the highlights, below are three sites with summaries (none of which is atheist in origin or tone): [Religious Tolerance.org comparison of the two flood myths.](http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm) [Creation based site compares flood myths.](http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/) [Sparknotes summary of the Epic of Gilgamesh, Book XI.](http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/gilgamesh/section9.rhtml) ---
**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, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/264 "2011-10-21T13:17:21Z")
> [@BunnyTVS](#): > > Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the Cottingley Fairies? > > And yet these have all been done, not only _by_ Christians, but in the name of their god. > > I have seen/heard the Jewish zombie line before. However I have never seen it used factually, only fatuously. It’s a lanyard used to hoist up the apparent absurdities of a core tenet of Christian doctrine. > > . > > My secular opinion is that “truth” is a subjective state. A person can tell the truth, and yet be factually in error. That’s why we constantly bang on about ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’. > > Metaphor time: > > Believing in Jesus Christ is like Believing in Santa Clause. You only get the reward (eternal bliss/presents) if your worship is of pure intent. If you worship Jesus/Santa simply because of the rewards offered he will see through your subterfuge and grant you nothing. If come christmas day you don’t get the present you wanted off Santa it’s either because he knew you were only worshipping him to get that present. Or the present he gave you ws what you _really_ wanted. You may not even realise your true present when you see it, bacause _Santa works in mysterious ways_. > > Please! There is quite a difference between a momentary cessation of heartbeat and breathing, and being nailed up to a plank of wood by your wrists/stabbed with a spear/shut in a tomb for three days. > > And before you start, no I’m not saying that all clinical deaths are “momentary cessations”, but I borrowed your brush and it was wider than I’m used to. It wasn’t really 3 days but about 36 hours,and for some reason the 2 thieves lived longer than Jesus was said to have lived,plus there are people even today who live after a lot of doctors find it hard to see how they survived, we have much to learn about the human system! I find it hard to see how the people Jesus was supposed to see every day didn’t recognize him, and what happened to the dead that arose and walked around;why did they have to die again? ---
**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, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/265 "2011-10-21T13:26:06Z")
> [@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. > > 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? > > 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: > > **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? > > 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.” > > 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. > > 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? > > 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? > > Read his book, too, not just Dawkins, if you’re gonna be fair. > > Me, I think they both make a fundamental mistake, pro or con, that science has any means of proving or disproving the supernatural. It is true, there was a great flood in the region,but not to the depth that is claimed in the OT. To cover the entire earth the water would have to be 29,000 feet to cover Mt. Everest, Ararat is 15,000 feet, so that much water would have no where to run off and would have to evaporate, the air would be so thick with water the people in the Ark(and animals) would drown just from that much moisture.There would be no palm branch for a dove to get, and many .many things to prove such a flood ever occur. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/266 "2011-10-21T13:58:16Z")
**David42** , I think you need to take a moment and breathe. Let us do as you suggest and disregard the supernatural claims in the bible and focus upon what is left. When you remove those accounts you have a collection of disparate cultural material. Including, but not limited to: Poems and songs, tribal laws dating over several periods in history that are often contradictory, Historical accounts (some corroborated by other sources some with no evidence at all), and some genealogical material (also fairly suspect). Let us examine them one at a time and decide upon their relevance to two assertions: One, that the material provides us with sufficient confidence to accept the claims of the rest of the material as accurate; and two: that this material further provides evidence of the existence of the supernatural claims made in the same document. Poems and songs: Obviously these relate on a myriad of subjects, but nearly all literate cultures have song and verse recorded. Valuable culturally certainly, but they have no bearing on our two criteria. We can ignore these. Tribal law: Now we are getting somewhere. There is evidence to suggest that this material was utilized by the Hebrews. Current Kosher laws are in a large part descended from this material. However, upon a detailed reading we find that these laws are often contradictory, and occasionally simply cribbed from other, earlier sources like Sumerian or Babylonian law. However, we still have problem in making this material relevant to our criteria. The fact exists that Jewish law is still practiced, but the existence of that does nothing to raise confidence in the accuracy of the supernatural claims at all. In fact, if could hurt them as it does not \*need \* the supernatural visitation of Moses to exist. Scientifically, it actually reads as if that story was tacked on later. Historical accounts: Mixed at best. We have corroborated the accuracy of some of the material with other sources known to be highly accurate as proved by archeology. Other accounts are simply false, muddled, cribbed from earlier events, or have no evidence to support them despite significant effort. This material is like the end result of the telephone game, where the message only bears a passing resemblance to the original source. In science we have to prove each event by itself, or at _least_ have proven a great deal of the other material to be highly accurate to have confidence in the unproven assertions. We don’t have that level of confidence in biblical accounts. We KNOW that many are wrong, borrowed, or most likely fabricated completely. Therefore, the proper mindset to approaching biblical claims as fact is one of extremely cautious skepticism. This does not inspire confidence in the veracity of the supernatural portions either. Taken as a whole, this document has been shown to be a garbled account of certain historical events mixed in with a bunch of mythology, cultural effluvia, and rather contradictory legal precepts. When you take a hard look, the reasonable person is left with the conclusion that supernatural claims made in this document have to taken purely on faith. The portions of it that are actually able to be looked at are not highly accurate, much less the extraordinary claims. Now, having said all that, what exactly other than faith makes you believe that this book is stronger proof of the supernatural than any other fairy story, myth, or tall tale? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/267 "2011-10-21T15:29:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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. Dial down the personal remarks, please. **David42** , you would be well served to take a step back and discussion this a bit more calmly. I realize these issues are important to people on both sides, but this is supposed to be a discussion of ideas and getting personally offended does not help either side. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/268 "2011-10-21T15:46:53Z")
> [@David42](#): > > 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 on the claim. Here’s an example. The case for the dinosaurs being killed off by a meteor impact began with a curious discovery – a worldwide layer of iridium-rich sediment. Geologists at first were baffled. How could local geological processes produce the same strange sediment in widely different locations? Then they realized that a global cloud of dust kicked up by a massive meteor impact could have done it. And the timing of that cloud of dust was curiously close to the extinction of the dinosaurs. The bible claims that a similar global die-off occurred not millions of years ago but a few thousand. If the Noahide flood had really happened, geologists should find a strange worldwide sediment layer that can’t be accounted for by local processes. If they did, THAT would be strong evidence for the veracity of the biblical account. And the fact that they DON’T (despite years of looking) suggests that the story of a worldwide flood is a gross exaggeration or outright fiction. ---
**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, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/269 "2011-10-21T16:10:41Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Dial down the personal remarks, please. **David42** , you would be well served to take a step back and discussion this a bit more calmly. I realize these issues are important to people on both sides, but this is supposed to be a discussion of ideas and getting personally offended does not help either side. I apologize for my giving in to frustration. ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/270 "2011-10-21T16:39:51Z")
> [@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. No one is claiming complete and utter falsity. Genesis, yeah pretty much. David? There is some evidence that David existed (not substantial) but the empire certainly didn’t. It is very common for cultures with little power fantasizing about the glory days of the past. The latter books are far more accurate, though they are written for a very different reason than to be accurate history. We are hardly immune from this, any politician’s memoir has to be critically read. As for authorship, I have a novel by Kilgore Trout. Does that prove he exists? In the ancient world it was common to attribute writing to someone famous. You are aware that Socrates didn’t actually say all the stuff Plato has him say, right? Think of it. The actual Jeremiah seems to have written at least some of the Torah. He wants people to read and obey. Does he say it is by him, some shmucky priest who half the people hate, or does he say it comes from the legendary Moses? > [@](#): > > 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. That you get an email saying you won the lottery is an extraordinary claim. Do you buy that one? We don’t say that these things can’t happen, just that we are pretty certain that they don’t unless presented with irrefutable evidence that they do. That time is not constant was one of the most extraordinary claims ever, but it got accepted, and fairly quickly, because of the preponderance of evidence. > [@](#): > > 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. As usual, you missed the point. All written work must be read critically, even that coming from trusted sources. > [@](#): > > \*\*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. Simple - independent primary and archeological evidence supporting the claims. When I was in college there were some people convinced that with deep study of Beatles records we could prove that Paul is dead. I, like many atheists, believed before I didn’t believe. My Hebrew school teachers were way too smart to ever claim that the first part of Genesis was true, but I learned that the rest of the stuff was. When I discovered what actual historians and scholars said about the authorship of the Bible, the scales fell from my eyes. Then I read the entire thing, from beginning to end, and I really became an atheist, seeing those absurd parts that don’t get shown to kids. Psychologically it is hard to see evidence against something you believe in, but you should really try it some time. ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/271 "2011-10-21T16:44:20Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Anyone who won the lottery,has the money in it’s hand and refuses to belive it, needs a mental check up. Some times the truth hurts but it still is the best thing in the long run ,in my estimation. I was thinking more of the case where the winner doesn’t confirm his win or collect his winnings because the dream is better - sorry for the confusion. Your reading is a reasonable one of what I wrote (and shows the need for critical reading. ) ---
**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, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/272 "2011-10-21T16:52:43Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > It depends on the claim. > > Here’s an example. The case for the dinosaurs being killed off by a meteor impact began with a curious discovery – a worldwide layer of iridium-rich sediment. Geologists at first were baffled. How could local geological processes produce the same strange sediment in widely different locations? Then they realized that a global cloud of dust kicked up by a massive meteor impact could have done it. And the timing of that cloud of dust was curiously close to the extinction of the dinosaurs. An excellent example. I saw Luis Alvarez speak about this before they found the actual impact site. While he was an advocate, of course, he didn’t go out on a limb. The leading candidate at the time was Iceland, but he clearly said the issues with the asteroid hitting there. He also predicted that the real site would be found, as it was. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/273 "2011-10-21T17:03:15Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > 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. Quoted for truth. The religious people in my life treat the Bible like a User Agreement, they just clicked ‘yes, I agree’ without every reading it much less understanding it. A real life debate between my Father-in-Law, his pastor and Dio would be a blood bath I’d pay to see. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/274 "2011-10-21T17:47:57Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Yet our secular courts put people to death on the testimony of one person alone and call it evidence. We ask yet again for a cite that this has ever happened. [QUOTE=David42] **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.** [/quote] Who here has asked for video evidence concerning scripture? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/275 "2011-10-21T17:53:06Z")
I’d say the type of evidence that would be accepted to further a belief in an extaordinary claim is commonly referred to as “any.” ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/276 "2011-10-21T17:58:43Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I’d say the type of evidence that would be accepted to further a belief in an extaordinary claim is commonly referred to as “any.” But saying that any evidence would be acceptable is _not_ the same thing as saying that anything would be acceptable as evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/277 "2011-10-21T18:25:58Z")
I’ve completely lost track of syntax, here, (I think I agree with you) but my point was … show me \*any \*evidence – as in real, honest, according-to-Hoyle, evidence – that an extraordinary claim is verified and I’ll believe it. As opposed to … here’s the Bible, there’s your evidence, put that in your incense ball and smoke it. ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/278 "2011-10-21T18:47:53Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I believe that the first organisms we could call _homo sapiens_ were few in number. Adam and Eve? heck I dunnodefinition 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 al > 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: > > \*\*WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSED TEST BY THE SCIENTIFIC PROC > > 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 wasMoses 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. > 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. > > But finding Jericho has “no value” to you guys > > Ever heard that phrase “One man’s magic is another man’s science?” So if someone claims his name is Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, O.Henry, Ann Landers, George Orwell, Abagail van Buren, or Voltair, you’re fine with that? ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/279 "2011-10-21T18:58:12Z")
Sorry, hit the post button by mistake; I’ll answer the rest of the above nonsense when I finish work. Also it’s Voltaire. ---
**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 23, 2011, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/280 "2011-10-23T07:58:16Z")
Well, it looks like this thread is on its way to the glue factory. If I may make one observation, for the record: Theists. It’s of no use at all if the entirety of your side of the dialogue is a complaint about how atheists wouldn’t believe something you might hypothetically argue, if you never actually get around to arguing it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688.md?page=13)