Christians need not be stupid
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Too bad for you then.
for a start, I never believed in the concept of a creator, so whats bad for me. If you think and analyse deeply, you will find even the concept of god was invented by man in the ancient past, cos they could not find answers to the natural phenomenon like sun, moon, wind, earthquakes, tsunamis etc. so they invented god for sun, moon, wind, thunder etc. in chinese folklore, there is a god of earth even.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Sorry but just because it is compliant with physical laws of the universe does not mean it is totally correct. And with the physical laws of the universe, I presume you are saying the actual age of the universe.And for your info, evolution does not come with evidence but also imagination like how you stated creationism is. Those evolutionists only find a small bone in the sand resembling that of a human's and claim it is human's ancestor bones, while in the musuem, they make up the whole body of the animal with their imagination.
And please read this before you even start calling others stupid, which is quite ironic since you yourself is stupid.
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood. [For an explanation, see pages 172–183.]
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.” Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. [See Figure 29.] Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil contenta—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular,b many discoveries, such as living coelacanths,c–g were unexpected. [See “Out-of-Place Fossils” on page 13.]
Figure 29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia.c How could two groups of coelacanths, separated by 6,000 miles, survive for 70,000,000 years but leave no fossils?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs.d Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs” and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all.e Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.f
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution.g If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
And I guess AndrewPKYap is too stupid to even google arguments against the theory of evolution. As I said, go lick a monkey's arse if you like them so much as to think they are your ancestors.
I think you have a mistaken idea about evolution.
For one, evolution by itself is no longer a theory it is a scientific fact.It has been an observable phenomenon based on experiments conducted on fruit flies and bacteria (since they're pretty much the only ones with a short enough lifespan for us to actually observe)
You may say that bacteria and fruitflies can hardly be used to explain the complexity of the human body. But cancer is also an example of a cell mutating beyond its original intent, that is why as one grows older the chances of getting cancer increases because as a cell divides the percentage chance of a cancer cell forming increases.
In case you're wondering, there are also several types of cancer on one organ. There are for example, several types of blood cancer based on different behaviours.
The human body also, is not as complex as most would like to think. The wheat for example has 50,000 genes compared to the human's 26,000 (quotes from pg 239, The End of Food) because unlike animals, the wheat cannot think about how to adapt to its environment, it must evolve to have a hardwired response for every possible eventuality", a specific programmed response to cope with the thousand of conditions that determines a plant's sucess.
Now, there are different theories on the exact progression on the steps on how an organism evolve (there is a view that our ancestors may be a little like whales and hippos than chimps because of our relative hairlessness and another that the older the genome, the less hair we have accounting for the body hair difference between the Caucasian, Mongolian and African )
But there are no major disagreements on that evolution works in all living organisms. Creationism on the other hands only point out the holes in evolution and do not present any contrary evidence to support their view. There may be imagination involved with re-constructing our ancestors but on the whole it is based off observations of current existing apes.
Most important of all, these re constructions have to be peer reviewed by experts in related fields in order to be established as fact.
Your coelacancths example for one simply means that they made a conclusion based on one piece of evidence but they are more than willing to adjust or completely overturn the idea if a new piece of evidence shows itself later. That is why no one now insist that coelacanths are extinct(that i know of!), though they may be with climate change.
The idea of Evolution also presents in religion i would say that is why Judeo based religions such as Islam/Christian/Jewish are different from Hindu and pagan based religions like those in China and the Native Americans.
If there can only be one Creator, then all the different cultures would have shared the similarities of worshipping only one god with almost similar teachings and customs but that is not the case.
If i draw an analogy, Evolution is like a book which contents are constantly being updated and adjusted as new evidence shows itself. It seems to me healthier than following a book written slightly more than a thousand years old with completely no room for updating and adjusting as new facts present itself.
I do not see why there must be shame and indignity on being associated with apes, our direct ancestors were pretty ignorant too considering the exaggerations they put in their holy books, why do we seemed so proud to be attached to something written so long ago?
-
Originally posted by Spnw07:
I agree totally. Religious teachings and science can complement each other, but to explain perfectly; as in merely using each other's terminologies and concepts, would only lead to more doubts, confusion and prolonged frustration for some. Religious teachings cannot totally replace the role of science and vice versa.
Science is continuous human learning in inconceivable time and space - direct human observation, experimentation and experience with nature and sensually-perceivable or describable phenomena. But religious teachings can have concepts which transcend beyond what is humanly possible to experience, at least on a mass scale (at least more than say 80% of the world population) with one's limited lifespan.
For example, how many people can see infra-red light with their eyes, without the use of any special visual aid or equipment?
A female gynaecologist may be the expert on female birth methods and so on, but if she has not been pregnant or given birth before, what she knows, feels or has observed through many deliveries is still indirect experience at the core.
Personally i'm a Deist, i'm not against the idea of the possibility of a God existing because the world would be pretty bland and boring without such romantic ideas to bring life into it. Without religion, there would also be none of the art and literature that fansinates our imagination.
Responding to your gynaecologist example of course personal experience is very handy to have, that is why midwives are still quite popular these days with pregnant women.
But experience can be a double edged sword when complications occurs outside of one's experience (massive internal bleeding, baby in the wrong position...etc). At that point, the midwife knows as much as the novice.
That's why gynaecologist fills up that gap with knowledge of the human anatomy and is recommanded for high risk pregancies (diabetes, heart diseases...etc).
Even a midwife must start somewhere, while a gynaecologist is trained very extensively in order to qualify as one.
Of course there is a gap where experience would made a midwife perform better than a gynaecologist but if you're faced with the choice of chosing an inexperienced midwife or an inexperienced gyanecologist which one would you prefer especially if your wife/self have known medical problems?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I think you have a mistaken idea about evolution.
For one, evolution by itself is no longer a theory it is a scientific fact.It has been an observable phenomenon based on experiments conducted on fruit flies and bacteria (since they're pretty much the only ones with a short enough lifespan for us to actually observe)
You may say that bacteria and fruitflies can hardly be used to explain the complexity of the human body. But cancer is also an example of a cell mutating beyond its original intent, that is why as one grows older the chances of getting cancer increases because as a cell divides the percentage chance of a cancer cell forming increases.
In case you're wondering, there are also several types of cancer on one organ. There are for example, several types of blood cancer based on different behaviours.
The human body also, is not as complex as most would like to think. The wheat for example has 50,000 genes compared to the human's 26,000 (quotes from pg 239, The End of Food) because unlike animals, the wheat cannot think about how to adapt to its environment, it must evolve to have a hardwired response for every possible eventuality", a specific programmed response to cope with the thousand of conditions that determines a plant's sucess.
Now, there are different theories on the exact progression on the steps on how an organism evolve (there is a view that our ancestors may be a little like whales and hippos than chimps because of our relative hairlessness and another that the older the genome, the less hair we have accounting for the body hair difference between the Caucasian, Mongolian and African )
But there are no major disagreements on that evolution works in all living organisms. Creationism on the other hands only point out the holes in evolution and do not present any contrary evidence to support their view. There may be imagination involved with re-constructing our ancestors but on the whole it is based off observations of current existing apes.
Most important of all, these re constructions have to be peer reviewed by experts in related fields in order to be established as fact.
Your coelacancths example for one simply means that they made a conclusion based on one piece of evidence but they are more than willing to adjust or completely overturn the idea if a new piece of evidence shows itself later. That is why no one now insist that coelacanths are extinct(that i know of!), though they may be with climate change.
The idea of Evolution also presents in religion i would say that is why Judeo based religions such as Islam/Christian/Jewish are different from Hindu and pagan based religions like those in China and the Native Americans.
If i draw an analogy, Evolution is like a book which contents are constantly being updated and adjusted as new evidence shows itself. It seems to me healthier than following a book written slightly more than a thousand years old with completely no room for updating and adjusting as new facts present itself.
I do not see why there must be shame and indignity on being associated with apes, our direct ancestors were pretty ignorant too considering the exaggerations they put in their holy books, why do we seemed so proud to be attached to something written so long ago?
The evolution I was talking about is not about fruitflies and bacteria turning into a stronger form. That is macro-evolution. The evolution which I am talking about is of monkeys turning into humans.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
The evolution I was talking about is not about fruitflies and bacteria turning into a stronger form. That is macro-evolution. The evolution which I am talking about is of monkeys turning into humans.
another epic cmi hypothesis by you again sigh. monkey turning into humans LOOL? whoever said that, please enlighten.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
another epic cmi hypothesis by you again sigh. monkey turning into humans LOOL? whoever said that, please enlighten.
One of you. Doesn't evolution say that monkeys, apes, turned into humans over MILLIONS OF YEARS?
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
One of you. Doesn't evolution say that monkeys, apes, turned into humans over MILLIONS OF YEARS?
omg you may as well say, cockroaches and lizards turned into human lol. hey mate, you are totally off topic with evolution. to say apes and monkeys turned into present day human beings is an epic joker, clearly lacking of any scientific discoveries . I truly rests my case here larry. pls do not confound me anymore with your frog in the well explanations anymore, pls dun. the more you explain, the more it shows your ignorance and lack of common sense. -
Originally posted by Rooney9: omg you may as well say, cockroaches and
lizards turned into human lol. hey mate, you are totally off topic
with evolution. to say apes and monkeys turned into present day
human beings is an epic joker, clearly lacking of any
scientific discoveries . I truly rests my case here larry. pls do
not confound me anymore with your frog in the well explanations
anymore, pls dun. the more you explain, the more it shows your
ignorance and lack of common sense.
Larry does not believe in evolution.
Your post seems to indicate you do not believe in evolution either, which means that you are in support of his belief. Both of you are now in the same camp. That's good.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
The evolution I was talking about is not about fruitflies and bacteria turning into a stronger form. That is macro-evolution. The evolution which I am talking about is of monkeys turning into humans.
If i show you a picture of a baby, a nine year girl and a 21 years woman can you show me the point at which one turns into the other?
How about the precise point at which a boy turns into an old man?
That's pretty much what you're trying to ask from me.You want me to produce evidence of Point A going to Point Z, while rejecting everything else inbetween.
The process at which a monkey(well our ancestors, monkeys were a different branch off) turns into what we understand to be Homo Erectus (modern man) is a continous cycle of change, spanning across hundred and thousands of generations.
And there has already been a lot of evidence and fossils of our early ancestors. And how about you giving me physical proof of the Garden of Eden?
Evolution is evolution, there isn't any biological difference between a micro and macro evolution. Define for me the exact barrier of which a micro evolution becomes a macro evolution.
There is no such thing of evolving into a "stronger" form. We can say it's stronger only in hindsight when it wins out in the survival of the fittest. An award winning body builder and a 180 IQ scientists are both better than the average human but ten thousand years ago the body builder would obviously be the "stronger form" but in today's society a high IQ would get you furthur than a buff body.
That is why the furthur North you go, the average build increases though that is now changing with improved nutrition.
And the way social trends seems to be going, it's entirely possible that it may very well be the idiots who reject contraceptives for religious reasons, bringing up kids who constantly bully people more intelligent than they are that would end up inheriting the Earth.
So what exactly is the "stronger" form here?
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Larry does not believe in evolution.
Your post seems to indicate you do not believe in evolution either, which means that you are in support of his belief. Both of you are now in the same camp. That's good.
Monkeys and Apes share a common ancestor with us, we do not descend from them. We're now progressing off a different evolutionary branch off from them.
I believe that's what Rooney is trying to say.
-
in case anyone here do not know who is gogogo, he is a troll, beware. do not feed the troll.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
One of you. Doesn't evolution say that monkeys, apes, turned into humans over MILLIONS OF YEARS?
Not all monkeys and apes etc turn into humans, did you ever study? They don't turn into humans but evolution slowly causes different species to evolve and as long as that species has characteristics that allows it to survive, it will survive and slowly evolve into a completely different species with some similiarities but not totally similarities with other species that have took a different evolution path.
Just like there are many species of parrots, many of them looks very similar but they have different colours because the difference in colours have not affected their chance of survivial and thus they slowly evolve into a totally new species with a totally different plummage. Any species that might have evolved otherwise and could not survived would have been extinct and thus not be seen in present day.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
in case anyone here do not know who is gogogo, he is a troll, beware. do not feed the troll.
Meh i know
But it's still helpful to correct a misconception
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
This is my answer from my opinion :D
Well, IF he did exist, humans are probably new to him[old testament], and there was a Satan wrecking havoc with humans. Of course as a father, he would be pissed off to see his children being stupid and serving Satan, and would of course unleash his anger on humans. And he also has to bear with Satan so that humans can make a choice to follow God or Satan in their lives, thus, he cannot harm Satan until after judgement day.
While in the new testament, God came down himself as a human to understand how is it like to be his own creation, and he probably understood how Satan uses his weapons against humans, thus, the love and compassion from him came about, and also the mercy.
Wait, if God cannot harm Satan that means he isn't all powerful isn't it? If you're saying he cannot harm Satan till Judgement Day, then God must be subversient to a higher Order of Balance if he cannot do what he wants isn't it ?
While i'm no scholar of the Bible, i'm pretty sure that God never claimed to come down himself.
Jesus came down claiming to be the Son of God.
If God requires to come down to the mortal world to personally inspect his creations to understand what Satan is doing he can't be all knowing either can he?
Sometimes i wonder if you are trying to praise God or cast him as merely a super powered human with your explanations.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Wait, if God cannot harm Satan that means he isn't all powerful isn't it? If you're saying he cannot harm Satan till Judgement Day, then God must be subversient to a higher Order of Balance if he cannot do what he wants isn't it ?
While i'm no scholar of the Bible, i'm pretty sure that God never claimed to come down himself.
Jesus came down claiming to be the Son of God.
If God requires to come down to the mortal world to personally inspect his creations to understand what Satan is doing he can't be all knowing either can he?
Sometimes i wonder if you are trying to praise God or cast him as merely a super powered human with your explanations.
thats the point I am trying to make here, all the paradoxes. the more they explained, the more paradox it became. besides all these are not god's explanations, but their. you will see different replies from different people here, all different interpretations and explanations. I wonder their replies are representative of god's reply. there cannot be so many god replies to one question isnt it.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Monkeys and Apes share a common ancestor with us, we do not descend from them. We're now progressing off a different evolutionary branch off from them.
I believe that's what Rooney is trying to say.
What's the difference between having a common ancestor and descending from them?
You can believe that you have an ape as your common ancestor.
Loony is a troll and you don't even know it. I'm just feeding that troll.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
thats the point I am trying to make here, all the paradoxes. the more they explained, the more paradox it became. besides all these are not god's explanations, but their. you will see different replies from different people here, all different interpretations and explanations. I wonder their replies are representative of god's reply. there cannot be so many god replies to one question isnt it.
Are you hoping to find an answer in Christianity that can exempt you from NSmen sevice?
The NSmen cycle(until you reach 40 years old) is worse than rebirth cycle for some people.
You will be disappointed with Christianity but I can think of Jehovah's witness, maybe even Buddhism. For Buddhism, you can confirm with AEN.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
What's the difference between having a common ancestor and descending from them?
You can believe that you have an ape as your common ancestor.
Loony is a troll and you don't even know it. I'm just feeding that troll.
Both of us have a common ancestry from China but we are directly descended from Singaporean Chinese. We don't say we're from PRC do we?
How does believing we're all inbred cousins supposed to be somehow better?
The direct definition of a troll is
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
Considering that all you've been giving in this thread is veiled insults after insults without any reasoned responses, i would be more inclined to think you're the one that's the troll.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
What makes you so upset with people donating 10% of their salaries to Churches?
Because you are not at the receiving end?
Good point, if I am receiving the money I would probably be as bias and preach the same rubbish as those on the receiving end instead of trying to expose the deceit.
-
Originally posted by likeyou:
Very curious, what is your religion? Free thinker?REALIST.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Sorry but just because it is compliant with physical laws of the universe does not mean it is totally correct. And with the physical laws of the universe, I presume you are saying the actual age of the universe.And for your info, evolution does not come with evidence but also imagination like how you stated creationism is. Those evolutionists only find a small bone in the sand resembling that of a human's and claim it is human's ancestor bones, while in the musuem, they make up the whole body of the animal with their imagination.
And please read this before you even start calling others stupid, which is quite ironic since you yourself is stupid.
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood. [For an explanation, see pages 172–183.]
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.” Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. [See Figure 29.] Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil contenta—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular,b many discoveries, such as living coelacanths,c–g were unexpected. [See “Out-of-Place Fossils” on page 13.]
Figure 29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia.c How could two groups of coelacanths, separated by 6,000 miles, survive for 70,000,000 years but leave no fossils?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs.d Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs” and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all.e Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.f
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution.g If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
And I guess AndrewPKYap is too stupid to even google arguments against the theory of evolution. As I said, go lick a monkey's arse if you like them so much as to think they are your ancestors.
I have already answered your post above, since you are so blind and blur, here it is below:
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You are too stupid to know what is the best of the alternatives? Evolution comes with logic, evidence, and is compliant with known physical laws of the universe.
What is the alternative for the christians? Creationism that comes from the imagination, from delusions with no evidence whatsoever (and struck down by the US courts) and is non compliant with the known laws of the universe.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Why would anyone want to delude those that call themselves christians?
For 10% of their monthly salaries. hahahaha....
That people and what you see on earth, the plants and animals evolved is a fact.
How they evolved to this stage, that is theory of evolution.
If you can point me to a better theory, that comes with proofs and evidences, I am most interested.
-
Originally posted by Spnw07:
I agree totally. Religious teachings and science can complement each other, but to explain perfectly; as in merely using each other's terminologies and concepts, would only lead to more doubts, confusion and prolonged frustration for some. Religious teachings cannot totally replace the role of science and vice versa.
Science is continuous human learning in inconceivable time and space - direct human observation, experimentation and experience with nature and sensually-perceivable or describable phenomena. But religious teachings can have concepts which transcend beyond what is humanly possible to experience, at least on a mass scale (at least more than say 80% of the world population) with one's limited lifespan.
For example, how many people can see infra-red light with their eyes, without the use of any special visual aid or equipment?
A female gynaecologist may be the expert on female birth methods and so on, but if she has not been pregnant or given birth before, what she knows, feels or has observed through many deliveries is still indirect experience at the core.
The question is what do you do with things that are unknown and unexplained?
Come up with a religion with no proofs and evidences to explain it?
I don't think so. That leads to delusions and to people taking advantage of you (like make you give up 10% of your salary by playing on delusions they fed you.)
Better to stick with proofs and evidences to draw conclusions.
Given that people can draw wrong conclusions from their experiences (your gynea example) it is better to find an explanation of what is it that you experienced and draw conclusions from your experience in conjunction with from known facts.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Both of us have a common ancestry from China but we are directly descended from Singaporean Chinese. We don't say we're from PRC do we?
How does believing we're all inbred cousins supposed to be somehow better?
The direct definition of a troll is
Considering that all you've been giving in this thread is veiled insults after insults without any reasoned responses, i would be more inclined to think you're the one that's the troll.
I asked you a valid question, mr. hybrid religion. You are labeling me a troll?
If your analogy of PRC Chinese and Singaporean Chinese is what you mean by evolution, the evolutionists will be embarrassed by your logic.
Mr. hybrid religion, first you said this:" Personally i'm a Deist, i'm not against the idea of the possibility of a God existing because the world would be pretty bland and boring without such romantic ideas to bring life into it. Without religion, there would also be none of the art and literature that fansinates our imagination."
Now what is the definition of deist in your dictionary?
....and you are in support of evolution theory. An evolutionist cannot be a deist. A deist cannot support evolution theory. There is no in-between.
May be, I can now coin a word for your standing in-between the two. How about evoludeist? How do you like that, besides being a hybrid religion man?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Personally i'm a Deist, i'm not against the idea of the possibility of a God existing because the world would be pretty bland and boring without such romantic ideas to bring life into it. Without religion, there would also be none of the art and literature that fansinates our imagination.
Responding to your gynaecologist example of course personal experience is very handy to have, that is why midwives are still quite popular these days with pregnant women.
But experience can be a double edged sword when complications occurs outside of one's experience (massive internal bleeding, baby in the wrong position...etc). At that point, the midwife knows as much as the novice.
That's why gynaecologist fills up that gap with knowledge of the human anatomy and is recommanded for high risk pregancies (diabetes, heart diseases...etc).
Even a midwife must start somewhere, while a gynaecologist is trained very extensively in order to qualify as one.
Of course there is a gap where experience would made a midwife perform better than a gynaecologist but if you're faced with the choice of chosing an inexperienced midwife or an inexperienced gyanecologist which one would you prefer especially if your wife/self have known medical problems?
Maybe the inexperienced gynae in the above assumed scenario. But if my wife or myself don't have any known medical problems, or don't know we have known medical problems due to whatever reasons, then it's like more like a gamble in terms of who is readily available to help, the inexperienced midwife or the gynae.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
The question is what do you do with things that are unknown and unexplained?
Come up with a religion with no proofs and evidences to explain it?
I don't think so. That leads to delusions and to people taking advantage of you (like make you give up 10% of your salary by playing on delusions they fed you.)
Better to stick with proofs and evidences to draw conclusions.
Given that people can draw wrong conclusions from their experiences (your gynea example) it is better to find an explanation of what is it that you experienced and draw conclusions from your experience in conjunction with from known facts.
But you already mentioned there are no known proofs and evidences for certain unknowns and unexplained. Which means it's possibly out of your intelligence level to establish those proofs and evidences. If it's within your ability to discover the proofs for any unknowns and unexplained, you wouldn't need to post questions like these already.
I have replied in another post or comment by you that I simply put aside what cannot be proven or explained satisfactorily to me or mankind in general.
No need to come up with a religion, That's too troublesome. =) Even religions with proofs on unknowns and unexplained cannot be totally relied on without deep and critical self-reflection on a life-long basis.
