What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said they are both faith-based claims, neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

False on all three counts.
1. they are not both faith-based; only creationism is

2. evolution is observable (try every agricultural program)

3. evolution happens in lab setting (like the E. coli one where one of the populations evolved the ability to grow on citrate and evolved a completely novel metabolic pathway to accomodate for it)


But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your crusade

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, speciation is observed in nature and in the fossil record, what I'm calling "rapid speciation", for example, could be the many dogs that are seen in the modern era derived from only several breeds or dogs in nature.

The various breeds of dogs, aren't new species.
Didn't you ever wonder why people talk about breeds when referring to specific dog types and never about species?

"Macroevolution" does not refer to speciation but to creations giving birth to anything but their kind.

lol

If any member of species X would give birth to anything but a member of species X, then evolution would be falsified.

As so many folks have already told you: macro-evolution refers to any evolution above the species level.

ie, speciation and beyond. It covers vast periods of time and many many generations.
Whereas "micro evolution" refers to evolution within a species or even just a population.

ie: single mutations or traits achieving fixation in a population or species.


You might want to read up before continuing. But you won't, will you?
Instead, you're just going to double down on your already exposed mistakes and ignorance, will you?

I bet you will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say "observation supports creationism over naturalistic evolution". I said they are both faith-based claims, neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

And those errors of yours were explained multiple times.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is the humanist position on the basic character of humans?

There is no official humanist organization or doctrine. You probably know that humanism is a rejection of faith-based and authoritarian systems of thought, which results in empirical epistemology and a rational ethics based in constructive and communal moral intuitions. The humanist position on humanity is that man has a capacity for nobility, and can create communities that can maximize human development and social opportunity. Of course, not all people will be noble.

Humanism is a naturalistic worldview. It's not a doctrine. One doesn't join it or study it like a religion. In fact, I was a humanist before I knew the word. I left Christianity about the time I entered university to study medicine. I abandoned faith-based thought and became more skilled in critical thought. I abandoned received morals and developed a set of moral rules by trial and error based in applying reason to inherent moral intuitions. That's what happens when religion is removed. Eventually, I discovered the Affirmations of Humanism, and saw my own perspective there. The closest I ever came to a humanist society was a subscription to Free Inquiry about fifteen years after leaving Christianity, which I let expire after about three years.

One last point. Humanism doesn't exclude all forms of theism. There is a theistic strain we see here on RF - theists who are skilled critical thinkers, and apart from a god belief, don't seem to have any opinions that sound foreign to the atheistic humanist.

So my answer to you has to be MY opinion of the character of humanity, which is that collectively, we lack character, but individually, many if not most people are well-meaning, and that those who are antisocial have been made that way by injustices and bigotries.

I am coming to the conclusion that it may be best just to address the flawed reasoning even if the points are literally the ancient dead for others anyway. Then leave it at that, unless I am in a mood to deal with the insistent denial.

I don't actually see these discussions with creationists as dialectic, so there really is not much hope of imparting information when in discussion. The faith-based thinker makes a comment, it gets rebutted, the rebuttal is ignored, and the original comment repeated unchanged. The creationist doesn't benefit at all, and if that were one's purpose, he might as well leave discussion boards with creationists. There has to be another reason to participate in this activity. For me, apart from entertainment, it is practice evaluating arguments, identifying and naming their fallacies, constructing arguments, and writing, as well as sharing ideas amongst critical thinkers, like this one - your comment and my reply.

Incidentally, you're one of the people I consider a theistic humanist. I virtually never read anything from you that isn't reasonable or decent by my standards, yet you have a god belief. It's common among liberal theists including dharmics and pagans. Among Christians, I see it more with Catholics than Protestants, but that's an American perspective. There needs to be a respect for education and critical thought, as well as some native sense of right and wrong to evaluate the dogma, else one serves as a blank slate for religious indoctrination, and the more of that, the worse the thinking. We are wrapping up a long thread on the Baha'i and its homophobic doctrine, with several believers participating, and they were all willing to defend it despite being otherwise decent people. That's what I mean by too much religion, and the need to reject irrational and destructive religious bigotries. You did. They didn't.

I repeat ''evolution is false because of entropy". Prove me wrong.

How? You don't do critical thinking. There is no burden of proof when dealing with somebody who decides what's true about the world by faith, because the critical thinker only has evidence and reason in his toolbox. Proving is a form of teaching, and it is a cooperative effort between two people. The "student" must be willing and able to evaluate an argument for soundness, to recognize a compelling argument, and to be convinced by it. Is that you? Earlier, you wrote, "I don't know what to think about academics. They baffle me." This is academics. These are the values and methods of academics and academia.

Because of this, not only can I teach you nothing, you can't teach me anything, either.

Without intelligent design, the evolutionary changes wouldn't happen because entropy wouldn't function properly.

However you came to this position, it wasn't through critical thought. Entropy wouldn't function properly? That statement is as flawed as saying that under certain circumstances, gravity doesn't function properly.

I didn't say "observation supports creationism over naturalistic evolution". I said they are both faith-based claims, neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

Evolutionary theory is not a faith-based claim. It is a belief supported by reason applied to evidence. Creationism isn't. *IT* is faith, not science. Evolution is observed in nature, but supernaturalism isn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, speciation is observed in nature and in the fossil record, what I'm calling "rapid speciation", for example, could be the many dogs that are seen in the modern era derived from only several breeds or dogs in nature.

"Macroevolution" does not refer to speciation but to creations giving birth to anything but their kind.

Wrong again. The person that comes up with a term is the one that gets to define it.

And even worse you just used an undefined nonsense term. Creationists can not even properly define what a kind is. You have to know this. You have been corrected on this endlessly. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. You, for example, are still a monkey.

 

[F1fan]

I'll go back to the seed in the ground. It's a small thing (usually). I am not sure if energy usage or loss has been calculated, so I don't want to say anything about that much, but it seems pretty clear to me that it didn't "just happen" without a Grand Maker. Yes a God. "The" God. Does this mean it is clear to everyone? Obviously not. Just like someone thinking or believing he is the handsomest person on earth is not seen that way by everyone.

Could it be that your religious indocrination is WHY you think there was a creator behind nature? Notice experts in science do not back up your assumptions abnd beliefs, so can you examine what you believe and why you believe it to eliminate the influence of religion?

The supernatural claims made by members here are not backed up by any facts. They are coincidentally made by religious believers who have been influenced by their religions.

There are theists who get science right, and leave their religious beliefs at the door. Can you?

 

[F1fan]

Gods don't mess with natural laws.

Which suggests gods are imaginary.

Rain is self-evident because when you are walking home minding your own business and it starts raining you can't avoid being aware of it.

There is nothing self-evident for any of the many gods that humans claim exists.

It's notable that these discussions about evolution isn't about science, it is about correcting the errors and disinformation that certain religious people have decided is true. The well educated just report the science, and correct the errors by those indoctrinated by religious disinformation. We try to make them understand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Entropy.

lol?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Honey, all you say is gibberish. I repeat ''evolution is false because of entropy". Prove me wrong.

Don't shift the burden of proof.

If all you have is an empty claim with no reason, argument or evidence behind it, then other people get to simply reject it at face value.

If you disagree with that, then allow me to demonstrate:

An undetectable dragon is going to eat you unless you wrap yourself in tinfoil.
"prove me wrong".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

from wikipedia

''Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.''
''Entropy is a scientific concept, as well as a measurable physical property, that is most commonly associated with a state of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty.''

Ok.

These two combined lead unavoidably in intelligent design.

???

Why?

Don't skip any steps. Explain your reasoning.

Now, entropy needs intelligent design. By definition.

If it is "by definition", then you should have no problem explaining it.
So, please explain.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An undetectable dragon is going to eat you unless you wrap yourself in tinfoil. "prove me wrong".

Would a photo of me partially digested and floating belly high while wrapped in tinfoil suffice to falsify that claim?

"Macroevolution" does not refer to speciation but to creations giving birth to anything but their kind.

It looks like you forgot the creationist argument about macroevolution, what the term means to them, and what they say never happens. Scientists and the theory both agree with the above, saying that organisms don't give birth to anything but their own species.

I said gods are self-evident.

In exactly the same way angels are.

salami or bologna doesn't just come about by "natural selection."

Correct, and the theory predicts that. The reason is in part that cold cut don't experience genetic variation, reproduce, or compete for scarce resources. Deli selections are not the result of natural selection, which can't get past the livestock stage without intelligent oversight.

But gravity has its laws, and laws have a lawgiver. But that might seem like a silly little "creationist" argument to you.

Physical law needs no lawgiver. You're making an equivocation error here. You're using two different words there. Homonyms are words with different meanings that are spelled and pronounced alike, like a savings bank and a river bank.

evolution does say that it "just happened."

Evolutionary theory explains how it happened. It provides a self-evidently correct mechanism. Creationism just happened, by magic. Evolution was in the cards since the primeval substance that froze out and fractured into forces and particles that it did. Material evolution into galaxies of solar systems made of the elements was inevitable. Chemical evolution into life was inevitable because it was possible and thermodynamically favorable. Biological evolution into the tree of life was inevitable given the circumstances that life had to evolve. The emergence of consciousness in matter was inevitable for the same reasons, and later, the emergence of intelligence and technological civilization.

it just happened by magic type stuff.

Even if that were true, why would you object? Doesn't that describe what you believe happened with creation?

This does not mean there was not a Creator who instituted or made the laws that makes thing grow. Even if scientists attempt to analyze the processes it does not mean there is not a Lawmaker.

Why is that important or interesting? There is no evidence that interventionalist gods - gods that manifest in reality via revelation, miracles, prayer answered, whatever - exist. Regarding non-interventionalist gods, what difference does it make if they exist (or existed) and fine-tuned the universe before shuffling off from it forever, or are floating around unable or unwilling to be interventionalist gods. OK. Thanks. It might be interesting to know that if it were true, but not useful or important.

Even IF I were a scientist analyzing these things, it does not explain the natural selection process as purported by scientists regarding the evolution of plants and animals. Maybe to you. But not to me.

If you were an evolutionary scientist, you would understand the science. Shouldn't that mean something to you?

the selection theory is conjecture.

Natural selection self-evidently occurs. Some individuals outcompete others for scarce resources such as mates in the absence of intelligent oversight (artificial selection), and are selected for, while others are outcompeted.

 

[Alien826]

There is no official humanist organization or doctrine. You probably know that humanism is a rejection of faith-based and authoritarian systems of thought, which results in empirical epistemology and a rational ethics based in constructive and communal moral intuitions. The humanist position on humanity is that man has a capacity for nobility, and can create communities that can maximize human development and social opportunity. Of course, not all people will be noble.

Humanism is a naturalistic worldview. It's not a doctrine. One doesn't join it or study it like a religion. In fact, I was a humanist before I knew the word. I left Christianity about the time I entered university to study medicine. I abandoned faith-based thought and became more skilled in critical thought. I abandoned received morals and developed a set of moral rules by trial and error based in applying reason to inherent moral intuitions. That's what happens when religion is removed. Eventually, I discovered the Affirmations of Humanism, and saw my own perspective there. The closest I ever came to a humanist society was a subscription to Free Inquiry about fifteen years after leaving Christianity, which I let expire after about three years.

One last point. Humanism doesn't exclude all forms of theism. There is a theistic strain we see here on RF - theists who are skilled critical thinkers, and apart from a god belief, don't seem to have any opinions that sound foreign to the atheistic humanist.

So my answer to you has to be MY opinion of the character of humanity, which is that collectively, we lack character, but individually, many if not most people are well-meaning, and that those who are antisocial have been made that way by injustices and bigotries.

OK, thanks.

My own view includes Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and another unsupported idea that I'll throw in.

It appears that the human brain evolved in layers. At the lowest level we have "fight or flight" responses. At the highest level, we have all the nice things we observe in people from time to time. Unfortunately, according to Maslow, each level has to be satisfied before we can operate at the next level. So, we see perfectly reasonable people turn into raving crazies when their most basic needs are threatened. Rabble rousers throughout history have known this and manipulated the masses to their advantage through fear. When fear is in charge logic doesn't apply. The fear can be of the most ridiculous things (QAnon?), it doesn't matter.

The other idea goes like this. Human intelligence simultaneously evolved and stopped evolution. Stupid people survived. We overpopulated areas of the world while "fixing" the natural mechanisms that should have cut our population back. And so on. So what we have is a prototype brain that hasn't had its rough edges rubbed off by natural selection.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I mean no offence by this, but I think all religions - revealed or non-revealed religions, past and present - are all man-made.

No gods create religions; people do. No gods wrote any scriptures, people did.

And I find that majority of priests, apostles, prophets, messengers, messiahs, etc, not the most trustworthy bunch of people.

As peaceful as the Baha'i Faith are, in the future, things can change, especially because of its connection with Islam and Christianity. And both have "history" that are not peaceful or loving.

Initially I struggled with the concept of the existence of God. That was 45 years ago. However now I find it very difficult to understand why people cannot see the signs of God all around us.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Initially I struggled with the concept of the existence of God. That was 45 years ago. However now I find it very difficult to understand why people cannot see the signs of God all around us.

Those signs were there when you were an atheist. They didn't suggest a god then. They didn't provide sufficient reason for you to believe. Then, something changed, and it wasn't reality or the evidence available. It was how you evaluated it. With time, you moved further from your starting place, and now you can't see anything but a god. You merely changed your standards for belief. If you were ever a critical thinker, and you were certainly closer to one then than now, you no longer are, at least when it comes to decisions about evidence means.

I'm imagining my critical thinking skills evaporating away over the next five years. I would soon be able to believe gods existed, and eventually, unable to believe anything else. And soon, it would be a mystery to me as well why everybody didn't see what I saw so clearly through my faith-based confirmation bias.

They say that Antony Flew found God in his last days. Earlier, he had been an atheist:

"During the time of his involvement in the Socratic Club, Flew also wrote the article "Theology and Falsification", which argued that claims about God were merely vacuous where they could not be tested for truth or falsehood. Though initially published in an undergraduate journal, the article came to be widely reprinted and discussed. Flew was also critical of the idea of life after death and the free will defense to the problem of evil. In 1998, he debated Christian philosopher William Lane Craig over the existence of God."

But he was somehow able to find God toward the end, although I believe his god was the deist god. Something changed in the way he evaluated evidence. Eventually, he passed away:

"Flew died on 8 April 2010, while nursed in an extended care facility in Reading, England, suffering from dementia."

 

[gnostic]

Initially I struggled with the concept of the existence of God. That was 45 years ago. However now I find it very difficult to understand why people cannot see the signs of God all around us.

I don’t think “seeing signs of God” is the same as “seeing God”.

There are problems with “seeing signs” that people interpret as coming from god or gods or spirits or fairies, their interpretations or reasoning are often faulty or wrong. I see such interpretations as no better than superstitions, examples “God did it” or the “spirit did it” or God found favor or become angry with a person’s action.

Some people of the Abrahamic faiths used to believe (and some probably believe them now, eg Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design) that god (or his angels) was the causes of some or all natural phenomena.

For instances, the fertility of the land for growing crops, required rain or water from a river being diverted through irrigation to water the plants, people used to believe that god brought the rain or god was responsible for the river’s creation. And when there are period of time of there being no rain for months or the river dried up, they would interpret all that as signs of God being angry with them.

Ancient Jews and Christians also used to believe God himself or God’s angels were responsible for the motion of the sun, moon and planets in the sky, or those stars were angels and arranging stars in patterns (constellations), and comets or falling stars (meteors) were fallen angels, and so on.

All these examples I presented, are all superstitions, made up by superstitious people with no understanding of natural phenomena, so they interpret as God did it.

But today with sciences, these superstitions of supernatural causes are all dispelled with testable natural explanations.

In this day and age, when people can understand natural phenomena through education or researches, there are no need to resort to silly beliefs of supernatural causes or supernatural origins of these phenomena.

And yet, we still see people refusing to get education, people still preferring the supernatural causes for natural phenomena, especially notable by people who advocate for pseudoscience Young Earth Creationism or for pseudoscience Intelligent Design.

If these creationists have their ways, astronomers will become astrologers and believing in the zodiac and horoscope nonsenses. It took millennium and centuries to separate astronomy and astrology, and yet there are still fringe groups that still believe in astrology.

In the last 20 years, I understand sciences more with each passing years, letting go of what I used to believe to be true, like supernatural beings and supernatural phenomena, because there are no evidence for either.

Supernatural are great for fiction, and for entertainment, but I no longer believe that such things exist in the natural world.

Everyone are entitled to their belief. But for me education in sciences, that’s moving forward.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Those signs were there when you were an atheist. They didn't suggest a god then. They didn't provide sufficient reason for you to believe. Then, something changed, and it wasn't reality or the evidence available. It was how you evaluated it. With time, you moved further from your starting place, and now you can't see anything but a god. You merely changed your standards for belief. If you were ever a critical thinker, and you were certainly closer to one then than now, you no longer are, at least when it comes to decisions about evidence means.

I'm imagining my critical thinking skills evaporating away over the next five years. I would soon be able to believe gods existed, and eventually, unable to believe anything else. And soon, it would be a mystery to me as well why everybody didn't see what I saw so clearly through my faith-based confirmation bias.

They say that Antony Flew found God in his last days. Earlier, he had been an atheist:

"During the time of his involvement in the Socratic Club, Flew also wrote the article "Theology and Falsification", which argued that claims about God were merely vacuous where they could not be tested for truth or falsehood. Though initially published in an undergraduate journal, the article came to be widely reprinted and discussed. Flew was also critical of the idea of life after death and the free will defense to the problem of evil. In 1998, he debated Christian philosopher William Lane Craig over the existence of God."

But he was somehow able to find God toward the end, although I believe his god was the deist god. Something changed in the way he evaluated evidence. Eventually, he passed away:

"Flew died on 8 April 2010, while nursed in an extended care facility in Reading, England, suffering from dementia."

This is where you are dead wrong. You are not me and cannot evaluate my experiences, only I can. Assumptions, speculations and suppositions based on your own bias is all you can come up with as you can never know my reality because you are not me. What you see is through your own biased glasses not my reality as you are not me so it’s impossible through language alone for you to know what I’ve found and discovered.

You are placing too much trust in your own perception when the fact is you cannot ever really know me unless you are me. All else on your part is intellectual conjecture but so far removed from the truth that I can clearly see you are allowing your own mind to d3vive itself into thinking you can know my reality which is impossible.

I know myself and I’m absolutely certain 100% that God exists and Baha’u’llah is the Promised One foretold by all religions and His teachings will eventually unite humanity and catapult humankind into a golden age of peace and prosperity.

Unfortunately you cannot verify this as it is something that words cannot relate.

As relationship with God is a mystical thing you cannot intellectualise it so you deny it exists. That is the limitations of the human mind that it can never embrace the Divine just like a painting perceive the Painter.

And no words can convey this to you. Only by the Grace of God you may be guided to the truth.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made!

“Only heart to heart can speak the bliss of mystic knowers;
No messenger can tell it and no missive bear it”

(Baha’u’llah)

My sincerest apologies but I was not searching for this yet came across it by accident and opposed it just as vehemently as any but in the end I could not lie to myself and I remain so honoured and privileged to have accepted Baha’u’llah.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don’t think “seeing signs of God” is the same as “seeing God”.

There are problems with “seeing signs” that people interpret as coming from god or gods or spirits or fairies, their interpretations or reasoning are often faulty or wrong. I see such interpretations as no better than superstitions, examples “God did it” or the “spirit did it” or God found favor or become angry with a person’s action.

Some people of the Abrahamic faiths used to believe (and some probably believe them now, eg Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design) that god (or his angels) was the causes of some or all natural phenomena.

For instances, the fertility of the land for growing crops, required rain or water from a river being diverted through irrigation to water the plants, people used to believe that god brought the rain or god was responsible for the river’s creation. And when there are period of time of there being no rain for months or the river dried up, they would interpret all that as signs of God being angry with them.

Ancient Jews and Christians also used to believe God himself or God’s angels were responsible for the motion of the sun, moon and planets in the sky, or those stars were angels and arranging stars in patterns (constellations), and comets or falling stars (meteors) were fallen angels, and so on.

All these examples I presented, are all superstitions, made up by superstitious people with no understanding of natural phenomena, so they interpret as God did it.

But today with sciences, these superstitions of supernatural causes are all dispelled with testable natural explanations.

In this day and age, when people can understand natural phenomena through education or researches, there are no need to resort to silly beliefs of supernatural causes or supernatural origins of these phenomena.

And yet, we still see people refusing to get education, people still preferring the supernatural causes for natural phenomena, especially notable by people who advocate for pseudoscience Young Earth Creationism or for pseudoscience Intelligent Design.

If these creationists have their ways, astronomers will become astrologers and believing in the zodiac and horoscope nonsenses. It took millennium and centuries to separate astronomy and astrology, and yet there are still fringe groups that still believe in astrology.

In the last 20 years, I understand sciences more with each passing years, letting go of what I used to believe to be true, like supernatural beings and supernatural phenomena, because there are no evidence for either.

Supernatural are great for fiction, and for entertainment, but I no longer believe that such things exist in the natural world.

Everyone are entitled to their belief. But for me education in sciences, that’s moving forward.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by signs. For example , the sign of the existence of the sun is its light and heat. So science is accepted and superstition rejected.

But although the outward senses such as sight can confirm the existence of the sun, other realities exist which are not confirmed by the senses. These are called intelligible realities.

For example, the power of the mind is not sensible, nor are any of the human attributes: These are intelligible realities. Love, likewise, is an intelligible and not a sensible reality. For the ear does not hear these realities, the eye does not see them, the smell does not sense them, the taste does not detect them, the touch does not perceive them. Likewise, nature itself is an intelligible and not a sensible reality; the human spirit is an intelligible and not a sensible reality. (Baha’i Writings)

Acknowledging that intelligible realities do exist, therefore we cannot say God does not exist because He cannot be seen with the outward senses as He is an intelligible Reality.

The Holy Books of the past all deal primarily with spiritual matters, the virtues and man’s relationship with God meant to transform our character/society and adorn it with things like love, compassion, justice and forgiveness. But people’s education was very limited then so superstitions arose, however today we have science to guide and assist us in that regard.

But just as religion needs science to rid it of superstitious beliefs, science too needs a moral compass to keep it on a path of the betterment of humanity not its destruction. Science is a tool which can be used for both good or evil so we need for it to promote only that which is in our best interests not weapons of mass destruction.

Just to reiterate though. Although there are some superstitions which can be explained by science, intelligible realities do exist. It’s just a matter of which ones. I believe one of them is God and His Signs are the Suns of Truth Who appear in each age - Christ, Muhammad, Baha’u’llah etc. They each bring teachings relevant for each age and today the teaching is the unity of humanity and oneness of humankind as being viewed by God as essential for mankind to progress towards peace and prosperity.

But I do not think it wise to discount God as an intelligible Reality as we have many other such realities which are real but intelligible not tangible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, speciation is observed in nature and in the fossil record, what I'm calling "rapid speciation", for example, could be the many dogs that are seen in the modern era derived from only several breeds or dogs in nature.

"Macroevolution" does not refer to speciation but to creations giving birth to anything but their kind.

I see that others have informed you of your errors regarding speciation and macroevolution. Dogs evolved from wolves and the breeds are not separate species. Speciation is an example of macro-evolution. No one who understands the theory thinks that cats will give birth to dogs or hippos giving birth to lions or anything like that. As it has been said, such a bizarre and unprecedented occurrence would falsify the theory.

How is it that you come to think these things? Where are you getting your information? It isn't from a science source.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no official humanist organization or doctrine. You probably know that humanism is a rejection of faith-based and authoritarian systems of thought, which results in empirical epistemology and a rational ethics based in constructive and communal moral intuitions. The humanist position on humanity is that man has a capacity for nobility, and can create communities that can maximize human development and social opportunity. Of course, not all people will be noble.

Humanism is a naturalistic worldview. It's not a doctrine. One doesn't join it or study it like a religion. In fact, I was a humanist before I knew the word. I left Christianity about the time I entered university to study medicine. I abandoned faith-based thought and became more skilled in critical thought. I abandoned received morals and developed a set of moral rules by trial and error based in applying reason to inherent moral intuitions. That's what happens when religion is removed. Eventually, I discovered the Affirmations of Humanism, and saw my own perspective there. The closest I ever came to a humanist society was a subscription to Free Inquiry about fifteen years after leaving Christianity, which I let expire after about three years.

One last point. Humanism doesn't exclude all forms of theism. There is a theistic strain we see here on RF - theists who are skilled critical thinkers, and apart from a god belief, don't seem to have any opinions that sound foreign to the atheistic humanist.

So my answer to you has to be MY opinion of the character of humanity, which is that collectively, we lack character, but individually, many if not most people are well-meaning, and that those who are antisocial have been made that way by injustices and bigotries.



I don't actually see these discussions with creationists as dialectic, so there really is not much hope of imparting information when in discussion. The faith-based thinker makes a comment, it gets rebutted, the rebuttal is ignored, and the original comment repeated unchanged. The creationist doesn't benefit at all, and if that were one's purpose, he might as well leave discussion boards with creationists. There has to be another reason to participate in this activity. For me, apart from entertainment, it is practice evaluating arguments, identifying and naming their fallacies, constructing arguments, and writing, as well as sharing ideas amongst critical thinkers, like this one - your comment and my reply.

Incidentally, you're one of the people I consider a theistic humanist. I virtually never read anything from you that isn't reasonable or decent by my standards, yet you have a god belief. It's common among liberal theists including dharmics and pagans. Among Christians, I see it more with Catholics than Protestants, but that's an American perspective. There needs to be a respect for education and critical thought, as well as some native sense of right and wrong to evaluate the dogma, else one serves as a blank slate for religious indoctrination, and the more of that, the worse the thinking. We are wrapping up a long thread on the Baha'i and its homophobic doctrine, with several believers participating, and they were all willing to defend it despite being otherwise decent people. That's what I mean by too much religion, and the need to reject irrational and destructive religious bigotries. You did. They didn't.



How? You don't do critical thinking. There is no burden of proof when dealing with somebody who decides what's true about the world by faith, because the critical thinker only has evidence and reason in his toolbox. Proving is a form of teaching, and it is a cooperative effort between two people. The "student" must be willing and able to evaluate an argument for soundness, to recognize a compelling argument, and to be convinced by it. Is that you? Earlier, you wrote, "I don't know what to think about academics. They baffle me." This is academics. These are the values and methods of academics and academia.

Because of this, not only can I teach you nothing, you can't teach me anything, either.



However you came to this position, it wasn't through critical thought. Entropy wouldn't function properly? That statement is as flawed as saying that under certain circumstances, gravity doesn't function properly.



Evolutionary theory is not a faith-based claim. It is a belief supported by reason applied to evidence. Creationism isn't. *IT* is faith, not science. Evolution is observed in nature, but supernaturalism isn't.

I agree. Again. My expectations in these discussions have become so low, I long ago gave up on the idea of trying to help the creationists I encounter understand what they clearly do not. Now, I just post to have valid information and positions out there for anyone that might be reading these that may have an open and enquiring mind. Or to discuss things with folks like you.

 

[F1fan]

I don’t think “seeing signs of God” is the same as “seeing God”.

Theists in these debates will exploit anything they are given. They will exagerate. I see believers start off saying they believe God exists, and as their claims are shot to Vieces they get more aggressive, and may claim they KNOW their God exists.

There are problems with “seeing signs” that people interpret as coming from god or gods or spirits or fairies, their interpretations or reasoning are often faulty or wrong. I see such interpretations as no better than superstitions, examples “God did it” or the “spirit did it” or God found favor or become angry with a person’s action.

I have seen weak proof of God as simplistic as a sunset. Really? A sunset proves a God exists?

And yet, we still see people refusing to get education, people still preferring the supernatural causes for natural phenomena, especially notable by people who advocate for pseudoscience Young Earth Creationism or for pseudoscience Intelligent Design.

It's interesting to see how these believers will apply their assumption that a God exists in every way. They assume a creator exists, so science must be wrong. They don't seem willing to acknowledge there is a problem with their assumption. Frankly they don't even recognize their assumption as an assumption. They avoid intellectual accountability to help protect their religious belief.