Is NEW energy ways hypocritical for a humanist?

Technically, humanism does not preclude a belief in God. I suppose most atheists are humanists. But there are humanists who believe in God.

Humanism, in philosophy, attitude that emphasizes the dignity and worth of the individual. A basic premise of humanism is that people are rational beings who possess within themselves the capacity for truth and goodness. The term humanism is most often used to describe a literary and cultural movement that spread through western Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries. This Renaissance revival of Greek and Roman studies emphasized the value of the classics for their own sake, rather than for their relevance to Christianity.

See MSN Encarta - Humanism.

[metalwyrm]

The way I see it, everything is science, mostly, whether it be chemistry, or something to do with the energy of the body

but in our modern day and age, it seems that man has drifted away from the energy aspect of science and gone towards with more technological answers

often times, many people think of practices such as astral projection, healing, and others to be tied in with religion (which bothers me, because I think of most religions as BS, no offense, just my thoughts)

[Lion]

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, from whence did it originate?

[Hegemony]

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, from whence did it originate?

It is eternal, and thus exists outside of sequential time on the whole (and thus cannot be put into the question of origins and endings, since these exist within it and not without it).

[Lion]

It is eternal, and thus exists outside of sequential time on the whole (and thus cannot be put into the question of origins and endings, since these exist within it and not without it).

I've heard the saying that a person encountering a watch upon a trail would have to assume that someone left it there. But the gearwork sitting between beggining and end are by far more complicated. Wouldn't someone have had to leave them?

[tyciol]

Hmmm humanist...

So, since it has absolutely nothing to do with religion (being a pseudo-science, not fact but certainly not religion as it is interpretable by each person and not based on dogma but presented theories by RB) how does it clash with humanism?

[metalwyrm]

It is eternal, and thus exists outside of sequential time on the whole (and thus cannot be put into the question of origins and endings, since these exist within it and not without it).

I've heard the saying that a person encountering a watch upon a trail would have to assume that someone left it there. But the gearwork sitting between beggining and end are by far more complicated. Wouldn't someone have had to leave them?

this kind of topic or question would require an answer the size of a book, atleast the way I see it

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, from whence did it originate?

In my humble opinion, there is a good bit of confusion regarding the use of the term energy in this context. Certainly, the human nervous system does use physical energy. But are we talking about something physical? That is far from clear.

It seems to me that the term energy is frequently used when what one really means is affection. That is to say, a feeling.

Alternatively, I would suppose the term might refer to imagination.

Or it might refer to some quality of the nerves, which allows them to transmit signals freely.

In any event, the question of the origin of energy can not be decided on until what we mean by the term, itself.

It is eternal, and thus exists outside of sequential time on the whole (and thus cannot be put into the question of origins and endings, since these exist within it and not without it).

Aristotle thought that matter is eternal. Others thought the idea to contradict his ideas regarding infinity, in general.

Modern physics seems divided on the subject. The Big Bang Theory certainly holds to a definite beginning. Some, though, posit a succession of universes arising from a Quantum Vacuum. Given such a sequence, each particular universe could have a beginning, though the sequence might have no beginning.

Personally I tend toward the belief in a definite beginning, though I hold it to be conceivable, at least, that there is no precise beginning. That still would not make it eternal, however. For eternity implies a transcendental element.

But, as I have pointed out, it is far from clear what energy means in this context.

[Lion]

Imagine a videotape of a stick of dynamite being lit. Before the existence of time, there is no way to play the tape.

are we talking about something physical?

Energy is the ability to do work.
Work is the ability to move an object.
Force is the movement of energy from object to object.

There is no energy if there are no objects to store it in.

Here's another one:
While the predominance of already existent genes can be cultivated, there is no such thing as a benificial, original mutation in nature.
Things fall apart in time. The keyboard will disintregrate into smaller pieces. It's chemical compounds will, and it's atoms will. Therefore, the idea of energy coalescing into atoms, atoms coalescing into molecules, and those coalescing into increasingly complex lifeforms goes against nature.

Imagine a videotape of a stick of dynamite being lit. Before the existence of time, there is no way to play the tape.

It would seem to make no sense that something exist before the existence of time, since the word before is, itself a reference to time...

But supposing such a videotape to exist without time, might one not also suppose a being (such as a god) who would know what is on the tape without playing it?

Energy is the ability to do work.
Work is the ability to move an object.
Force is the movement of energy from object to object.

There is no energy if there are no objects to store it in.

So it would appear that you were asking about something physical, rather than something astral.

Here's another one:
While the predominance of already existent genes can be cultivated, there is no such thing as a benificial, original mutation in nature.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. But I suppose one might argue that such a mutation, though rare, might be possible.

Things fall apart in time. The keyboard will disintregrate into smaller pieces. It's chemical compounds will, and it's atoms will. Therefore, the idea of energy coalescing into atoms, atoms coalescing into molecules, and those coalescing into increasingly complex lifeforms goes against nature.

In a closed system things fall apart. But that refers to the state of the system as a whole. It is possible for order to increase in a part of a system while it decreases elsewhere. Otherwise, one could never, to use your example, make a keyboard in the first place. To increase order requires the expenditure of energy. That expenditure is what drives the whole process and results in the decay of the system overall.