Humanism is "the belief that human problems can by solved through science rather than religion". http://pewebdic2.cw.idm.fr/display/display.html?search_str=humanism
Some of so-called "scientists" believe in whatever seems to be most probable to them, that is, their religion is based upon nothing but an inspiration. They would not be charlatans if they called things by their proper names, being honest. So, is true science not humanistic and based not on "if" and "most likely" and opinions of people, but based on an aim to seek God, who only one knows truth without "if"?
2007-02-11 20:29:39 · 7 answers · asked by spring 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Not all of you understood my point. I meant that humanism is a mistake and nonsense. For example, a few hundred thousands years ago, there were diesel engines. Humanists may think that it was invented by a man named Diesel. No matter who Diesel was, humanist or not, the author of that engine is God. All of you eat food, many of you may be humanists, no matter, but all you eat is God's. I mean, that humanists are people who live in error and do things not in God's name. It is evil. A few hundred years ago, there was electricity and airplanes. People do things, but now people do things in their own name. But all author right are reserved by God.
2007-02-11 20:59:42 · update #1
People sell "their" rights to others, declare their rights in licences, in patents. But the rights do not belongs to them, they are self-proclaimed, nor to Microsoft, nor to Apple, nor to Adobe, nor to Diesel. Old people had airplanes and electricity, rubber and nuclear power, it was 5 hundred thousands of years ago, why then people think that humanism is good, if they only deceive themselves and flatter themselves. They just steal God's property.
To a person who said that he is glad that I am not in charge of anything. I see a humanist, you are in eror, because you rely on probability, because, as some "scientists" say: "There is a very low probability that I am in charge of something". If you know something about me, then tell me what number of passport is.
2007-02-11 21:39:26 · update #2
God is omniscient omni-science in a sense
the problem is that much of modern origin science is PHILOSOPHY plus THE DATA SEEN THROUGH A PHILOSOPHY Origin science being akin to the sleuthery of historical science
very different form the operation science of medicine, agriculture and technology which relies on the observable, testable and verifiable through the scientific method which was developed by creationists such as Lord Bacon
2007-02-11 20:34:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, it is not nonsense. I am a Secular humanist - It is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life.
Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.
2007-02-11 21:13:42 · answer #2 · answered by The Happy Atheist 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm so glad that your not in charge of anything. Those "scientists" have improved medicine(and not to mention EVERYTHING else) through research. Not by speaking in "tongues" or writhing about on the floor asking "God" for all the answers.. Oh man!! You need to open your eyes and not take everything for granted.
2007-02-11 20:39:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Shut off your computer. It's a product of "humanistic science". You can't turn to the religion of others.
2007-02-11 20:45:47 · answer #4 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
authentic technology does no longer pander to faith. Obama has reported that he needs a valid medical foundation for judgements he makes. Bush has replaced medical findings and interfered with the artwork of ninety% of authorities scientists because it did not agree inclusive of his faith or his intestine emotions.
2016-11-27 03:18:24 · answer #5 · answered by strait 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question does not make sense to me. What purpose is it going to serve, by entering into the semantics of certain same sounding words.
2007-02-11 20:46:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Phlat ...uuu... leeeenccccce.....!
Shake out your pants legs, quickly!. I'll bet there's some solid ones in there, too.
[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.
2007-02-11 20:41:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋