Christians need not be stupid
-
lai lai everyone
puts your hands up in the air, puts your hands up in the air
woooooh
i wonder where is mr olazhong cum wijaja?
-
"BADZ: Christians do not worship anyone anything else except God. Holding the joss sticks and anything realting to worshipping an idol is considered as a breach of the 10 commandments.
Simple enough ?"
Holding a joss stick to pay respect to your late parents cannot meh? Did I mention holding a joss stick to worship certain idol? Hello...it's your parents, not a idol lah. After all so many years bring you up, just a simple holding a joss stick in front of your parents will kill you? Or simply following blindly what bible say this and that?
Sigh!
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Fred Hoyle was one of them. Besides physicists, there are also philosophists who abandoned atheism.
============
"Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer noted primarily for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and his often controversial stance on other cosmological and scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term originally coined by him as a jocular, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main rival to his own. In addition to his work as an astronomer, Hoyle was a writer of science fiction, including a number of books co-written with his son Geoffrey Hoyle. Hoyle spent most of his working life at the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge and served as its director for a number of years. He died in Bournemouth, England, after a series of strokes."
"However, those energy levels, while needed in order to produce carbon in large quantities, were statistically very unlikely. Hoyle later wrote:
Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.[3]
Hoyle, an atheist until that time, said that this suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Consequently, he began to believe in a god and panspermia.[4] Those who advocate the intelligent design hypothesis sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned in order to allow intelligent life to be possible. Some of his thoughts in this area have been referred to as "Hoyle's fallacy" by detractors."
============
=========
"Hoyle's fallacy, sometimes called the junkyard tornado, is a term for Fred Hoyle's flawed statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins.[1][2][3] Hoyle’s Fallacy is a surprisingly easy mistake to make when one has not quite grasped how powerful a force natural selection can be.[3] Hoyle's fallacy predates Hoyle and has been found all the way back to Darwin's time.[1]"
=========
You see, the main difference between Religious people and Scientists is that, Scientists publish their work and findings and then let the whole world look at it. They have nothing to hide.
Religious people hold on to their own convictions which are mostly delusions that cannot see daylight. Scientist can also be classed as delusional when they says things that no other scientists agree.
It is pointless for Religious people to claim many agree with them. Whatever they come up with has no good proofs and solid evidence. Delusions based on other delusions.
Furthermore, Religious people cannot even agree among themselves (like, christians vs buddhists; christians vs muslims; catholic christians vs protestant christians) showing that what they believe are just delusions in their own heads and each sect have different delusions and then claim that their delusions is the truth.
-
But that will not deter the religious or atheist to religious people in continuing thier scientific research to find new discoveries, to try to explain the unexplained. Maybe Hawkins himself is delusional. Even with sold evidence, these solid evidence will continue to be proved to be fallible as new discoveries continue.
Just like in 10 years time, the new space telescope will search further and may discover new things for new theories to disprove a previous theory. Maybe your strong belief in the big bang has made you yourself so delusional and no different than those with ur delusional religious truth. Delusions or not, athiests and non-atheists alike will continue to break grounds in research and discovery. Dont forget to discount those facts.
Like science and ur 'delusions' , will continue to compete and go on the same path of discovery. So unless u are a scientists yourself, you can hardly discredit them, just because they have notions of religious belieft.
You dont see a pronounced religious scientist giving up on his research and discovery because God says so. The continuation to ask the questions, to seek the answers will not stop there. I am as up to date to science as up to date to the reference of religous references. Till the day i die, i will continue to be updated and will look back knowing, that somethings, are just too uncomprehendable for us to even begin with, but at least we tried and will continue to try.
-
Chanting for one's good life and good year ahead is ok as it confine within oneself and their religions.
But trying to preach is not a good thing afterall.
-
I have said so many a times already. to use god to explain everything just does not make any sense and is not the be-all and end-all answers. in fact its too simple to be used as an explanation to explain for all things. I know you are not used to the concept that our existence and the universe could not just exists on its own. science could not explain everything, but its much better than relying on a 2000 years old dogma. there are so many hundreds of religions that espoused their god, and then what, all used their explanations to explain everything?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
But that will not deter the religious or atheist to religious people in continuing thier scientific research to find new discoveries, to try to explain the unexplained. Maybe Hawkins himself is delusional. Even with sold evidence, these solid evidence will continue to be proved to be fallible as new discoveries continue.
Just like in 10 years time, the new space telescope will search further and may discover new things for new theories to disprove a previous theory. Maybe your strong belief in the big bang has made you yourself so delusional and no different than those with ur delusional religious truth. Delusions or not, athiests and non-atheists alike will continue to break grounds in research and discovery. Dont forget to discount those facts.
Like science and ur 'delusions' , will continue to compete and go on the same path of discovery. So unless u are a scientists yourself, you can hardly discredit them, just because they have notions of religious belieft.
You dont see a pronounced religious scientist giving up on his research and discovery because God says so. The continuation to ask the questions, to seek the answers will not stop there. I am as up to date to science as up to date to the reference of religous references. Till the day i die, i will continue to be updated and will look back knowing, that somethings, are just too uncomprehendable for us to even begin with, but at least we tried and will continue to try.
So what is the difference between you or religious people "keeping up with religious knowledge" or "religion keeping up with the latest findings/knowledge" and scientists/philosophers/science keeping up with the latest findings/knowledge?
Let's take your perception/people's perception of the world as an example. You see red/blue/green/yellow around you. The color blind person sees only shades of grey.
What does that tell you? Colors are people's delusions in that there are no colors in this world! There are only spectrum of light! Your brain assign colors to these different spectrum of light!
The color blind person can still touch an elephant and say, elephant! He will never ever touch a color and say, blue! Blue does not exist, not like an elephant, and you need a brain to see blue (just having eyes will not do, just as color blind people have eyes).
If you lose the sense of touch, you will still be able to see an elephant. You will still be able to hear and elephant if it calls out. Not the same with color. You lose the ability to interpret the different wavelengths of lights, you cannot see color because colors do not exist. What humans see as blue, an insect could very well see something else and very likely see something else! (Actually what we see, everything we see is but an interpretation... but that is another story hahaha)
You are right in saying that what scientists know about the universe today is still ongoing. You are wrong in saying religious people are seekers. Religious people (maybe not you) are people that claim to have found the truth/people that have found IT!
"Jesus IS the ANSWER" they claim. You ever hear them say "Jesus is a small part, maybe the answer"? Of course not. That is not how religious people operate. You want people to give you 10% of their salaries in the name of Jesus, you have to tell them "Jesus IS the answer" or else no one will or very few will give you even a cent.
Scientists will tell you: "All the findings, all the research, all the observations, points us to this direction but once we come up with new evidence and proofs, we will let you know."
The evidence, proofs, observations are open to all to review, criticize and object to. Some religious people will kill you together with other innocent people if you dare criticize their religion. While not all will kill you if you criticize them, ALL, will not accept criticism and change their core beliefs. They will simply cling on to their core beliefs.
You see, if they accept the criticism and change, the religion disappears.
All religions (otherwise they would not be called religions) are based on unproven beliefs.
Science tells you, "it points to this direction, given the state of the art but subject to change", the religions will tell you: "WE KNOW, WE FOUND IT! IT IS LIKE THIS!"
So the choice is yours and even for some scientists, are you willing to accept the versions the religions offer, when scientist tell you the evidence so far is this but subject to change?
Are you willing to accept the REALITY, the reality based on what we know so far even if it is uncomfortable, or do you want to live in a set of delusional lies, comforting to hold on to, but nevertheless, unproven, illogical and baseless?
-
Originally posted by likeyou:
Chanting for one's good life and good year ahead is ok as it confine within oneself and their religions.
But trying to preach is not a good thing afterall.
This is like saying, "It is OK to be insane as long as you don't hurt others".
You need to have proof and evidence that "Chanting " leads to "one's good life and good year ahead", otherwise is it at best a baseless belief and at worse, insanely delusional.
What is "one's good life and good year ahead"? Win TOTO? If you can show that all those that chant wins TOTO, I take my hat off to you. There will be no beggars in the streets.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
============
"Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer noted primarily for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and his often controversial stance on other cosmological and scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term originally coined by him as a jocular, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main rival to his own. In addition to his work as an astronomer, Hoyle was a writer of science fiction, including a number of books co-written with his son Geoffrey Hoyle. Hoyle spent most of his working life at the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge and served as its director for a number of years. He died in Bournemouth, England, after a series of strokes."
"However, those energy levels, while needed in order to produce carbon in large quantities, were statistically very unlikely. Hoyle later wrote:
Hoyle, an atheist until that time, said that this suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Consequently, he began to believe in a god and panspermia.[4] Those who advocate the intelligent design hypothesis sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned in order to allow intelligent life to be possible. Some of his thoughts in this area have been referred to as "Hoyle's fallacy" by detractors."
============
=========
"Hoyle's fallacy, sometimes called the junkyard tornado, is a term for Fred Hoyle's flawed statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins.[1][2][3] Hoyle’s Fallacy is a surprisingly easy mistake to make when one has not quite grasped how powerful a force natural selection can be.[3] Hoyle's fallacy predates Hoyle and has been found all the way back to Darwin's time.[1]"
=========
You see, the main difference between Religious people and Scientists is that, Scientists publish their work and findings and then let the whole world look at it. They have nothing to hide.
Religious people hold on to their own convictions which are mostly delusions that cannot see daylight. Scientist can also be classed as delusional when they says things that no other scientists agree.
It is pointless for Religious people to claim many agree with them. Whatever they come up with has no good proofs and solid evidence. Delusions based on other delusions.
Furthermore, Religious people cannot even agree among themselves (like, christians vs buddhists; christians vs muslims; catholic christians vs protestant christians) showing that what they believe are just delusions in their own heads and each sect have different delusions and then claim that their delusions is the truth.
You asked which physicist will abandon atheism, so I gave you one name.
The key word is 'detractors'. They have to knock him down for leaving their camp.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
You asked which physicist will abandon atheism, so I gave you one name.
The key word is 'detractors'. They have to knock him down for leaving their camp.
1st of all, the way you say "they" and "detractors" you make it sound like the atheists are in an organisation, (you have in mind "Church of Atheism"?) that has to knock him down.
You cannot see that the church invented Satan to rally the sheep so that they will part with 10% of their salaries every month to fight against him?
2nd of all, like all religious people, your astronomer makes claims regarding the supernatural without an once of evidence.
From the wikipedia page on him, I gather that his idea is simply that someone must have designed the carbon molecules basic to all lifeforms known to man.
Quote
Hoyle later wrote:
Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.[3]
Hoyle, an atheist until that time, said that this suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Consequently, he began to believe in a god and panspermia.[4]
Unquote
He believed that someone must have designed it and that is his belief. It remains a belief because he has not shown any proof to justify his belief.
Just because he is incapable of imagining how the carbon atom can come into existence by nature, he jumps to the conclusion that someone designed it.
You want to accept somebody's beliefs even though they have not come up with any evidence (like who, how when and with what); how is that new?
You accept the Bible and the Koran even though they are only a series of writings by unknown authors with claims that do not come with proof and evidence, why an I not surprised you accept the ramblings of this astronomer?
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
1st of all, the way you say "they" and "detractors" you make it sound like the atheists are in an organisation, (you have in mind "Church of Atheism"?) that has to knock him down.
You cannot see that the church invented Satan to rally the sheep so that they will part with 10% of their salaries every month to fight against him?
2nd of all, like all religious people, your astronomer makes claims regarding the supernatural without an once of evidence.
From the wikipedia page on him, I gather that his idea is simply that someone must have designed the carbon molecules basic to all lifeforms known to man.
Quote
Hoyle later wrote:
Hoyle, an atheist until that time, said that this suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Consequently, he began to believe in a god and panspermia.[4]
Unquote
He believed that someone must have designed it and that is his belief. It remains a belief because he has not shown any proof to justify his belief.
Just because he is incapable of imagining how the carbon atom can come into existence by nature, he jumps to the conclusion that someone designed it.
You want to accept somebody's beliefs even though they have not come up with any evidence (like who, how when and with what); how is that new?
You accept the Bible and the Koran even though they are only a series of writings by unknown authors with claims that do not come with proof and evidence, why an I not surprised you accept the ramblings of this astronomer?
I only stated that he abandoned atheism and look what he got from the detractors and from you. Anyway, Fred Hoyle cannot defend his belief now. He's dead.
Any scientist who don't want to be attacked by detractors must believe that the big bang theory begins with an even more impressive miracle - the appearance of all matter in the universe from nothing, by no one and for no reason. A supernatural event with no supernatural being to perform it.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
So what is the difference between you or religious people "keeping up with religious knowledge" or "religion keeping up with the latest findings/knowledge" and scientists/philosophers/science keeping up with the latest findings/knowledge?
Let's take your perception/people's perception of the world as an example. You see red/blue/green/yellow around you. The color blind person sees only shades of grey.
What does that tell you? Colors are people's delusions in that there are no colors in this world! There are only spectrum of light! Your brain assign colors to these different spectrum of light!
The color blind person can still touch an elephant and say, elephant! He will never ever touch a color and say, blue! Blue does not exist, not like an elephant, and you need a brain to see blue (just having eyes will not do, just as color blind people have eyes).
If you lose the sense of touch, you will still be able to see an elephant. You will still be able to hear and elephant if it calls out. Not the same with color. You lose the ability to interpret the different wavelengths of lights, you cannot see color because colors do not exist. What humans see as blue, an insect could very well see something else and very likely see something else! (Actually what we see, everything we see is but an interpretation... but that is another story hahaha)
You are right in saying that what scientists know about the universe today is still ongoing. You are wrong in saying religious people are seekers. Religious people (maybe not you) are people that claim to have found the truth/people that have found IT!
"Jesus IS the ANSWER" they claim. You ever hear them say "Jesus is a small part, maybe the answer"? Of course not. That is not how religious people operate. You want people to give you 10% of their salaries in the name of Jesus, you have to tell them "Jesus IS the answer" or else no one will or very few will give you even a cent.
Scientists will tell you: "All the findings, all the research, all the observations, points us to this direction but once we come up with new evidence and proofs, we will let you know."
The evidence, proofs, observations are open to all to review, criticize and object to. Some religious people will kill you together with other innocent people if you dare criticize their religion. While not all will kill you if you criticize them, ALL, will not accept criticism and change their core beliefs. They will simply cling on to their core beliefs.
You see, if they accept the criticism and change, the religion disappears.
All religions (otherwise they would not be called religions) are based on unproven beliefs.
Science tells you, "it points to this direction, given the state of the art but subject to change", the religions will tell you: "WE KNOW, WE FOUND IT! IT IS LIKE THIS!"
So the choice is yours and even for some scientists, are you willing to accept the versions the religions offer, when scientist tell you the evidence so far is this but subject to change?
Are you willing to accept the REALITY, the reality based on what we know so far even if it is uncomfortable, or do you want to live in a set of delusional lies, comforting to hold on to, but nevertheless, unproven, illogical and baseless?
First of all, i must say that i understand your point of view. The notion of its logic in the material plane to be supported by concrete evidence, and not some 'delusion' to rely on ones faith, such as believers on the meaning of the creation of the universe.
And regarding contradictions and affirmations(which agnostics, atheists,non-believers always rely on), upon an examination of the accounts in the Gospels, it will be seen that none of the writers denies, what one of the other Gospel writers affirms. If, however, one talks about a sun that is always light, yet dark, contradictory statements are made. By definition that which is always light cannot be dark. Nor can one talk about a square circle, since by definition a circle is round and not square. The property of squareness precludes the possibility of a square being a circle. In certain instances not all problems may be resolved by a careful reading of the contexts and a clarification of what is, and what is not, claimed by the narratives. Such ought not to be the source of undue embarrassment. The fact that no resolution of a problem is immediately possible is not proof that the right solution is not available. Humility is required that one does not confine the divine inspiration of Scripture to the level of one's intellectual attainments.
Let me just begin with the simple notion of supported evidence of biblical proportions. Crossings of the red sea by Moses.
While the above locations of Mount Sinai and Yam Suf have been conventional wisdom for centuries, during just recent decades, mountain-climbing-adventurers and deep sea divers (devoted Christian Bible-believers) have made remarkable discoveries in the Gulf of Aqaba and in Saudi Arabia. By 21st century standards of artifacts, topography and logic, these facts-on-the-ground establish that the Bible and the Passover Haggadah are arguably true factual histories of ancient events - including the "miracles" described in the Old Testament.
What has been found are coral-covered remnants of ancient Egyptian chariots: wheels, hubs, axles and shafts, the diameters and spoke designs matching Egyptian murals and museum collections of the 18th Dynasty (compatible era-wise with the biblical Exodus). Photos of such artifacts, although underwater (removal is not permitted by Egyptian and Saudi authorities), can be seen in numerous books, films, even on the Internet. The artifacts, including bones of men and horses, are strewn along a seven mile underwater ridge, from Egypt to the Saudi Arabian shore.
A 21st century realist viewing these items in books, film or Internet, can ask, "Are these coral-covered remains of ancient chariots really there?" An affirmative answer comes from solid reasoning - the numerous well-known personages accompanying the diving expedition, the many authors of books and films, all attest to authenticity - such serious professionals would not risk their reputations and careers in any duplicitous scheme (such as if the artifacts depicted were non-existent). Thus by logic, those coral-covered relics of ancient Egyptian chariots are truly there - scattered on an undersea ridge between Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Saudi Arabia, miles from Egyptian shore and hundreds of feet below sea level.
Q:Why Did the Charioteers Enter the Ridge - Water Hundreds of Feet Above?
For it is only logical to explain that, it has to have a passage of way, to enter and pursue. The key element here is the rationale behind the pursuit of the chariots.The only rationale has to be that it looked safe - since the Israelites were fleeing without concern for the water, hundreds of feet above their heads, and "somehow" being held back! - That is just a thought for you to ponder on.
Now the next issue will be regarding Science and Religion.
I am sure we have all seen or head the story about a young boy/girl, asking the mum/dad 'Where did i come from?' pleased to have the opportunity to discuss such an important matter with her son, began by offering an elementary account of human biology, even introducing some references to the theory of evolution. Lest she restrict her analysis to the realm of the purely physical, she spoke of God's role in the creation of each human soul, and ultimately of God as the source of all that is. After she had finished, her young son, looking somewhat bemused, said to her that he had wondered about this because his friend next door had told him that he had come from Iowa.
The question of where we come from can be answered in many ways. We need to keep this fact in mind when we turn our attention to the account given by contemporary cosmology of the origins of the universe. I seriously dont want to go into the details of the Big Bang as a "singularity," that is, an ultimate boundary or edge, a "state of infinite density" where space-time has ceased.Just as sub-atomic particles appear to emerge spontaneously in vacuums in laboratories, as the result of what is called "quantum tunneling from nothing," so the whole universe may be the result of a similar process, however rejected by Hawkings that he universe, according to him, does not have a boundary: "It is completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself." He thinks that the only way to have a scientific theory is if "the laws of physics hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe." That issue even though exetremely interesting to look at the competeting ideas, i shall stop here. To continue on.. i use one of the natural law jurisprudence by Thomas Aquinas in the explaintaion like how too often contemporary discussions about the relationship between science and religion suffer from an ignorance of history, and our question is an example. For we can save God and natural theology from the dustbins simply by turning to the sophisticated analyses of the natural sciences and creation that took place during the age of High Scholasticism. <--- Click to save time for explainations.
Recent speculations that the universe began as "quantum tunneling from nothing" reaffirm the ancient Greek principle that you cannot get something from nothing. For the "vacuum" of modern particle physics, whose "fluctuation" some see as bringing our universe into existence, is not absolutely nothing. It is not anything like our present universe, but it still is something. Or else, how could it fluctuate? The key to Aquinas' analysis is the distinction he draws between creation and change.
Aquinas did not think that the opening of Genesis presented any difficulties for the natural sciences, for the Bible is not a textbook in the sciences. What is essential to Christian faith, according to Aquinas, is the "fact of creation," not the manner or mode of the formation of the world.
For Aquinas, the literal meaning of the Bible is what God, its author, intends the words to mean. The literal sense of the text includes metaphors, similes, and other figures of speech useful to accommodate the truth of the Bible to the understanding of its readers. For example, when one reads in the Bible that God stretches out His hand, one ought not think that God has a hand. The literal meaning of such passages concerns God's power, not His anatomy. Nor ought one think that the six days at the beginning of Genesis literally refer to God's acting in time, for God's creative act is instantaneous.
Hence, Aquinas would have no difficulty accepting Big Bang cosmology, even with its recent variations, while also affirming the doctrine of creation out of nothing. He would, of course, distinguish between advances in cosmology and the philosophical and theological reflections on these advances. Like the little boy/girl i mentioned at the outset, we are being told a great deal that is beside the point of our question. Thomas Aquinas did not have the advantage of the Hubble Space Telescope, but in many ways he was able to see farther and more clearly than those who do.
Sorry for such a long post, as i am trying to use logical explainations using the jurisprudence of natural law as opposed to positivist point of view to try and make my state ment.
Finally, i must end this by saying that, yes i believe in the realities. But the difference between me and those that follow blindly, i accept science and religion together. Maybe you need to see LKY's body (and/or skeptical) to believe he is dead even though his body together with 500 people perished in the sea(as reported in New Strait Times), you will not give the benefit of the doubt, and unless solid proof that he is dead, u still have inclinations of him hiding at some cave with his billions of the peoples money. Unless you want DNA proof :-
If u were to believe in DNA , let me give you another example of why I say it takes just as much faith to believe evolution as it does to believe in God. There is exactly zero evidence of one species of beings evolving into another species. None, not one example or proof. Yet we are told that we all came from a common ancestor. People will even try to point to DNA and how close our DNA is to apes and say, see that is proof. Did you realize that our DNA is also close to the DNA of a tomato? Wow, did we come from tomatoes? Of course not, so what does it prove? To me it proves that we had a common Creator. Our Creator not only made us but He made tomatoes too!! And apes and grasshoppers, etc...
So i hope you will understand the way i believe in the bible as much as i believe in science.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
This is like saying, "It is OK to be insane as long as you don't hurt others".
You need to have proof and evidence that "Chanting " leads to "one's good life and good year ahead", otherwise is it at best a baseless belief and at worse, insanely delusional.
What is "one's good life and good year ahead"? Win TOTO? If you can show that all those that chant wins TOTO, I take my hat off to you. There will be no beggars in the streets.
Yeap, chanting for oneself and not distrubing the others is perfectly ok right? If I am chanting for myself and never distrub others, why I care for others remarks like what you say: baseless belief and at worse...." What for I care what you say right?
Just like you are eating a plate of chicken rice, will pple come over to you and say hey, eating chicken rice is terrible, yurks, etc..?
Once again, if I chant and pray for myself and family, I dont need pple to tell me baseless...all craps of reason, bear in mind I never distrub pple, 2nd thing I never preach pple.
Remember that. When you give present to one pple, that pple dont accept, you still hve that present in your hand. I am sure you are smart again to learn the meaning.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
I only stated that he abandoned atheism and look what he got from the detractors and from you. Anyway, Fred Hoyle cannot defend his belief now. He's dead.
Any scientist who don't want to be attacked by detractors must believe that the big bang theory begins with an even more impressive miracle - the appearance of all matter in the universe from nothing, by no one and for no reason. A supernatural event with no supernatural being to perform it.
What makes you think that the appearance of the universe is a supernatural event?
You are just a typical religious person. You do not question your own assumptions. You take all your delusions as truth.
You look at something you do not understand and immediately you assign supernatural explanations behind it and a god behind it.
That is why in Greek mythology you have Lightning god and thunder god and what not gods because they could not understand lightning and thunder.
One of my friends said this: "If a Christian tries to convince me there is a god, I will tell him I prefer the Hindu god and if a Hindu tries to convince me there is a god I will tell him that I prefer the Muslim god.
When you use your imagination instead of proofs and evidence, that is what you get. You get different sects believing in different gods.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
First of all, i must say that i understand your point of view. The notion of its logic in the material plane to be supported by concrete evidence, and not some 'delusion' to rely on ones faith, such as believers on the meaning of the creation of the universe.
And regarding contradictions and affirmations(which agnostics, atheists,non-believers always rely on), upon an examination of the accounts in the Gospels, it will be seen that none of the writers denies, what one of the other Gospel writers affirms. If, however, one talks about a sun that is always light, yet dark, contradictory statements are made. By definition that which is always light cannot be dark. Nor can one talk about a square circle, since by definition a circle is round and not square. The property of squareness precludes the possibility of a square being a circle. In certain instances not all problems may be resolved by a careful reading of the contexts and a clarification of what is, and what is not, claimed by the narratives. Such ought not to be the source of undue embarrassment. The fact that no resolution of a problem is immediately possible is not proof that the right solution is not available. Humility is required that one does not confine the divine inspiration of Scripture to the level of one's intellectual attainments.
Let me just begin with the simple notion of supported evidence of biblical proportions. Crossings of the red sea by Moses.
While the above locations of Mount Sinai and Yam Suf have been conventional wisdom for centuries, during just recent decades, mountain-climbing-adventurers and deep sea divers (devoted Christian Bible-believers) have made remarkable discoveries in the Gulf of Aqaba and in Saudi Arabia. By 21st century standards of artifacts, topography and logic, these facts-on-the-ground establish that the Bible and the Passover Haggadah are arguably true factual histories of ancient events - including the "miracles" described in the Old Testament.
What has been found are coral-covered remnants of ancient Egyptian chariots: wheels, hubs, axles and shafts, the diameters and spoke designs matching Egyptian murals and museum collections of the 18th Dynasty (compatible era-wise with the biblical Exodus). Photos of such artifacts, although underwater (removal is not permitted by Egyptian and Saudi authorities), can be seen in numerous books, films, even on the Internet. The artifacts, including bones of men and horses, are strewn along a seven mile underwater ridge, from Egypt to the Saudi Arabian shore.
A 21st century realist viewing these items in books, film or Internet, can ask, "Are these coral-covered remains of ancient chariots really there?" An affirmative answer comes from solid reasoning - the numerous well-known personages accompanying the diving expedition, the many authors of books and films, all attest to authenticity - such serious professionals would not risk their reputations and careers in any duplicitous scheme (such as if the artifacts depicted were non-existent). Thus by logic, those coral-covered relics of ancient Egyptian chariots are truly there - scattered on an undersea ridge between Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Saudi Arabia, miles from Egyptian shore and hundreds of feet below sea level.
Q:Why Did the Charioteers Enter the Ridge - Water Hundreds of Feet Above?
For it is only logical to explain that, it has to have a passage of way, to enter and pursue. The key element here is the rationale behind the pursuit of the chariots.The only rationale has to be that it looked safe - since the Israelites were fleeing without concern for the water, hundreds of feet above their heads, and "somehow" being held back! - That is just a thought for you to ponder on.
Now the next issue will be regarding Science and Religion.
I am sure we have all seen or head the story about a young boy/girl, asking the mum/dad 'Where did i come from?' pleased to have the opportunity to discuss such an important matter with her son, began by offering an elementary account of human biology, even introducing some references to the theory of evolution. Lest she restrict her analysis to the realm of the purely physical, she spoke of God's role in the creation of each human soul, and ultimately of God as the source of all that is. After she had finished, her young son, looking somewhat bemused, said to her that he had wondered about this because his friend next door had told him that he had come from Iowa.
The question of where we come from can be answered in many ways. We need to keep this fact in mind when we turn our attention to the account given by contemporary cosmology of the origins of the universe. I seriously dont want to go into the details of the Big Bang as a "singularity," that is, an ultimate boundary or edge, a "state of infinite density" where space-time has ceased.Just as sub-atomic particles appear to emerge spontaneously in vacuums in laboratories, as the result of what is called "quantum tunneling from nothing," so the whole universe may be the result of a similar process, however rejected by Hawkings that he universe, according to him, does not have a boundary: "It is completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself." He thinks that the only way to have a scientific theory is if "the laws of physics hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe." That issue even though exetremely interesting to look at the competeting ideas, i shall stop here. To continue on.. i use one of the natural law jurisprudence by Thomas Aquinas in the explaintaion like how too often contemporary discussions about the relationship between science and religion suffer from an ignorance of history, and our question is an example. For we can save God and natural theology from the dustbins simply by turning to the sophisticated analyses of the natural sciences and creation that took place during the age of High Scholasticism. <--- Click to save time for explainations.
Recent speculations that the universe began as "quantum tunneling from nothing" reaffirm the ancient Greek principle that you cannot get something from nothing. For the "vacuum" of modern particle physics, whose "fluctuation" some see as bringing our universe into existence, is not absolutely nothing. It is not anything like our present universe, but it still is something. Or else, how could it fluctuate? The key to Aquinas' analysis is the distinction he draws between creation and change.
Aquinas did not think that the opening of Genesis presented any difficulties for the natural sciences, for the Bible is not a textbook in the sciences. What is essential to Christian faith, according to Aquinas, is the "fact of creation," not the manner or mode of the formation of the world.
For Aquinas, the literal meaning of the Bible is what God, its author, intends the words to mean. The literal sense of the text includes metaphors, similes, and other figures of speech useful to accommodate the truth of the Bible to the understanding of its readers. For example, when one reads in the Bible that God stretches out His hand, one ought not think that God has a hand. The literal meaning of such passages concerns God's power, not His anatomy. Nor ought one think that the six days at the beginning of Genesis literally refer to God's acting in time, for God's creative act is instantaneous.
Hence, Aquinas would have no difficulty accepting Big Bang cosmology, even with its recent variations, while also affirming the doctrine of creation out of nothing. He would, of course, distinguish between advances in cosmology and the philosophical and theological reflections on these advances. Like the little boy/girl i mentioned at the outset, we are being told a great deal that is beside the point of our question. Thomas Aquinas did not have the advantage of the Hubble Space Telescope, but in many ways he was able to see farther and more clearly than those who do.
Sorry for such a long post, as i am trying to use logical explainations using the jurisprudence of natural law as opposed to positivist point of view to try and make my state ment.
Finally, i must end this by saying that, yes i believe in the realities. But the difference between me and those that follow blindly, i accept science and religion together. Maybe you need to see LKY's body (and/or skeptical) to believe he is dead even though his body together with 500 people perished in the sea(as reported in New Strait Times), you will not give the benefit of the doubt, and unless solid proof that he is dead, u still have inclinations of him hiding at some cave with his billions of the peoples money. Unless you want DNA proof :-
If u were to believe in DNA , let me give you another example of why I say it takes just as much faith to believe evolution as it does to believe in God. There is exactly zero evidence of one species of beings evolving into another species. None, not one example or proof. Yet we are told that we all came from a common ancestor. People will even try to point to DNA and how close our DNA is to apes and say, see that is proof. Did you realize that our DNA is also close to the DNA of a tomato? Wow, did we come from tomatoes? Of course not, so what does it prove? To me it proves that we had a common Creator. Our Creator not only made us but He made tomatoes too!! And apes and grasshoppers, etc...
So i hope you will understand the way i believe in the bible as much as i believe in science.
As for your "miracles" in the old testament, can you give me a logical explanation why the Egyptians did not immediately bow down and worship the Jewish god if they witnessed such glorious miracles and these miracles happened in reality?
Can you explain why the Jewish god is so racists when the bible claimed that he created all mankind?
OMG he even completely abandoned the Chinese and the Indians.
Instead of making himself known to the Egyptians and the Philistines, he asked the Jews to commit genocide on them at times.
If the parting of the red sea was for real, why are there no records in the Egyptian chronicles?
These are such obvious incongruence, I wouldn't bother to read about dubious claims by "god-fearing" Christians making those discoveries you mentioned.
America is a Christian country and if such discoveries of such magnitude as proof of the parting of the red sea is available, I seriously doubt I need to hear about it from you.
In your example of LKY, let me tell you what will go on in my mind.
1. Was it only the Straits Times and no one else reporting it. (collaborative accounts)
2. Is is logically possible?
3. Are there any good reasons or motives by his family and party to put on the show.
Sure, a dead body would be good but in absence of a dead body, there are many other ways to draw a conclusion.
Finally, I would say, without a dead body, but with the evidence and collaborative I put the possibility of his death at 90% or 10% if the proofs and evidence are suspect.
You see, one thing I learned from Buddhist philosophy is not to be dualistic. Something does not have to be black or white, yes or no, dead or alive; you can say, the probability is 50%
One thing I learned from Christianity is not to be a doubting Thomas... and have completely rejected the "Do not be a doubting Thomas" teaching and I am now of the "If you are smart, you will be a doubting Thomas and demand proof and evidence or you can easily be duped and be parted with 10% of your salary in the name of Jesus that ends up (more than $500,000 in vince99 church's case) in somebody's pocket."
-
Originally posted by likeyou:
Yeap, chanting for oneself and not distrubing the others is perfectly ok right? If I am chanting for myself and never distrub others, why I care for others remarks like what you say: baseless belief and at worse...." What for I care what you say right?
Just like you are eating a plate of chicken rice, will pple come over to you and say hey, eating chicken rice is terrible, yurks, etc..?
Once again, if I chant and pray for myself and family, I dont need pple to tell me baseless...all craps of reason, bear in mind I never distrub pple, 2nd thing I never preach pple.
Remember that. When you give present to one pple, that pple dont accept, you still hve that present in your hand. I am sure you are smart again to learn the meaning.
Of course you can be delusional all you want but why tell us? Why tell us that you are chanting? You tell us that you are chanting for your benefit, and what if some stupid person believe (because of your testimony) that chanting can benefit oneself and one's family (I assume you mean in a supernatural way); somebody must ask you to show proof that such a thing is real so that no one ends up duped.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
As for your "miracles" in the old testament, can you give me a logical explanation why the Egyptians did not immediately bow down and worship the Jewish god if they witnessed such glorious miracles and these miracles happened in reality?
Can you explain why the Jewish god is so racists when the bible claimed that he created all mankind?
OMG he even completely abandoned the Chinese and the Indians.
Instead of making himself known to the Egyptians and the Philistines, he asked the Jews to commit genocide on them at times.
If the parting of the red sea was for real, why are there no records in the Egyptian chronicles?
These are such obvious incongruence, I wouldn't bother to read about dubious claims by "god-fearing" Christians making those discoveries you mentioned.
America is a Christian country and if such discoveries of such magnitude as proof of the parting of the red sea is available, I seriously doubt I need to hear about it from you.
In your example of LKY, let me tell you what will go on in my mind.
1. Was it only the Straits Times and no one else reporting it. (collaborative accounts)
2. Is is logically possible?
3. Are there any good reasons or motives by his family and party to put on the show.
Sure, a dead body would be good but in absence of a dead body, there are many other ways to draw a conclusion.
Finally, I would say, without a dead body, but with the evidence and collaborative I put the possibility of his death at 90% or 10% if the proofs and evidence are suspect.
You see, one thing I learned from Buddhist philosophy is not to be dualistic. Something does not have to be black or white, yes or no, dead or alive; you can say, the probability is 50%
One thing I learned from Christianity is not to be a doubting Thomas... and have completely rejected the "Do not be a doubting Thomas" teaching and I am now of the "If you are smart, you will be a doubting Thomas and demand proof and evidence or you can easily be duped and be parted with 10% of your salary in the name of Jesus that ends up (more than $500,000 in vince99 church's case) in somebody's pocket."
Yes, the Pharoah did return to seek help from his own gods, but realised after losing his first born and together with many egyptians eldest, he gave testimony of the Jewish God's wrath in him going back on his words.Even though it was not chronicaled by the Egyptians, they until today never denied it ever happened.
God is not a racist god. As u can obviously see how His word has spread to, and it took Jesus at that time of the roman empire's perfect system to spread his word across the entire planet.
You have already said u refused to read God-fearing christians findings even though accompanied by renowned scientists believers n non-believers alike, even though thier mission is not to doubt thier own faith, but to see the very factual existence of such miracles. Like i said again, that it will not stop progressing religious belief in persuit of scientific explainations.
Again you claim much about the said discoveries to be null and void due to the fact that it should be so earth shaking, and mind blowing to not be revealed by America. Maybe, u should when u are free and sipping whatever is your fancy, and tune into Discovery channel or the Science channel to have a go at thier account tryin to explain it in a scientific point of view. The discoveries have been told, but just never spread out as much. You out of all the people should know the powers of media black outs and interests in keeping said discoveries to a bare minimum. Of course u can say the same thing, but there is a reason why the Egyptian and Saudi's refused any salvage of the artifacts.
As you see, you have answered yourself the LKY scenario. With all the present facts and scientific data, accounts from learned philosophers and discoverers and yet you still talk as if no facts were presented to you.
Your thinking of the doubting Thomas is too shallow to be put in this context.
But as i said again, for someone who refuses to even try to believe, will never believe, even if its happening right in front of you. If Aquinas was a doubting Thomas, he wouldnt the man he was. Instead of your kind of doubt, his kind of doubt spurs him forward to greater understanding of religion and science and ultimate the existence of a God of intelligent design.
You can stop harping on the 10%. Because it is inconsequential unless u seem to have something against donating 10% of your salary to charitable organisation. You have ur free will. Like me. I can choose not to and give what i can and have, and i dont see any detriment in giving 10% , to my church or any church if that matters that can be put to charitable use and/or help the church and its members.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Yes, the Pharoah did return to seek help from his own gods, but realised after losing his first born and together with many egyptians eldest, he gave testimony of the Jewish God's wrath in him going back on his words.Even though it was not chronicaled by the Egyptians, they until today never denied it ever happened.
God is not a racist god. As u can obviously see how His word has spread to, and it took Jesus at that time of the roman empire's perfect system to spread his word across the entire planet.
You have already said u refused to read God-fearing christians findings even though accompanied by renowned scientists believers n non-believers alike, even though thier mission is not to doubt thier own faith, but to see the very factual existence of such miracles. Like i said again, that it will not stop progressing religious belief in persuit of scientific explainations.
Again you claim much about the said discoveries to be null and void due to the fact that it should be so earth shaking, and mind blowing to not be revealed by America. Maybe, u should when u are free and sipping whatever is your fancy, and tune into Discovery channel or the Science channel to have a go at thier account tryin to explain it in a scientific point of view. The discoveries have been told, but just never spread out as much. You out of all the people should know the powers of media black outs and interests in keeping said discoveries to a bare minimum. Of course u can say the same thing, but there is a reason why the Egyptian and Saudi's refused any salvage of the artifacts.
As you see, you have answered yourself the LKY scenario. With all the present facts and scientific data, accounts from learned philosophers and discoverers and yet you still talk as if no facts were presented to you.
Your thinking of the doubting Thomas is too shallow to be put in this context.
But as i said again, for someone who refuses to even try to believe, will never believe, even if its happening right in front of you. If Aquinas was a doubting Thomas, he wouldnt the man he was. Instead of your kind of doubt, his kind of doubt spurs him forward to greater understanding of religion and science and ultimate the existence of a God of intelligent design.
You can stop harping on the 10%. Because it is inconsequential unless u seem to have something against donating 10% of your salary to charitable organisation. You have ur free will. Like me. I can choose not to and give what i can and have, and i dont see any detriment in giving 10% , to my church or any church if that matters that can be put to charitable use and/or help the church and its members.
alamak, you take what you see on TV as scientific proof? That because it was shown on Discovery channel and Science channel, it passes scientific scrutiny?
You take the Saudi refusal (if true) as proof of existence?
My friend, proof of existence is when scientists study it, do tests on it, verify it and other scientists test it, verify it and any scientist can test and verify it... that is proof of existence. (That is only dubious existence of the artifacts and we have not even started on interpretation.)
The 10% is not only consequential it is the crux of why people spread religion in this world. The 10% represents the "benefits" to the people that preachthe religious doctrines. Whether it is 10% or voluntary, or for political motives, religious beliefs are "profitable" for many people, especially those in power.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
What makes you think that the appearance of the universe is a supernatural event?
You are just a typical religious person. You do not question your own assumptions. You take all your delusions as truth.
You look at something you do not understand and immediately you assign supernatural explanations behind it and a god behind it.
That is why in Greek mythology you have Lightning god and thunder god and what not gods because they could not understand lightning and thunder.
One of my friends said this: "If a Christian tries to convince me there is a god, I will tell him I prefer the Hindu god and if a Hindu tries to convince me there is a god I will tell him that I prefer the Muslim god.
When you use your imagination instead of proofs and evidence, that is what you get. You get different sects believing in different gods.
Who is convincing you there's a God? And when?
You decided to jumped into the fray in EH.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
alamak, you take what you see on TV as scientific proof? That because it was shown on Discovery channel and Science channel, it passes scientific scrutiny?
You take the Saudi refusal (if true) as proof of existence?
My friend, proof of existence is when scientists study it, do tests on it, verify it and other scientists test it, verify it and any scientist can test and verify it... that is proof of existence. (That is only dubious existence of the artifacts and we have not even started on interpretation.)
The 10% is not only consequential it is the crux of why people spread religion in this world. The 10% represents the "benefits" to the people that preachthe religious doctrines. Whether it is 10% or voluntary, or for political motives, religious beliefs are "profitable" for many people, especially those in power.
I dont blindly take TV as scientific proof. But it can be reference from where you start. I mentioned it because you already refuse to read the journals and articles ma... -_-"
The red sea is just one of the scientific evidence of it actually happening. Thier refusal is well documented, the photos, and onsite verification of rock formations, topography was done on the site, but they were unable to physically excavate it out and it still lies in the red sea until today.
Like i said, u do not believe so thats why however minute it is, u will refuse to believe. I do not blame your skepticsm at all. It just challenges me to provide more concrete facts with scientific evidence to support my statements.
See, again the 10% issue, u view it in such skepticsm. Its like how realists approach to the world of how can i help u if i cant help myself, but the other side will be thinking, how would i help you instead then i help myself after helping u.
But then again, u never read the bible, so it can be frustrating for me to try to explain something that u have never seen or read yourself. Like i have read scientific articles, i have read a evolutionist point of view, and all that, and understood the bible, thats why i am able to understand your point of view. And even though u dont believe doesnt mean u cant give the book a good read. In fact , if u allow. I can send one leather bound brand new copy, free of charge, fast post to arrive at your place the very next day. Have a good read, and challenge its scriptures and prove the fallacies currently supported together biblically with scientific facts and properly researched and verification by current technological advances after u finished the book. And i will be more then welcome to let you continue on with this debate.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
I dont blindly take TV as scientific proof. But it can be reference from where you start. I mentioned it because you already refuse to read the journals and articles ma... -_-"
The red sea is just one of the scientific evidence of it actually happening. Thier refusal is well documented, the photos, and onsite verification of rock formations, topography was done on the site, but they were unable to physically excavate it out and it still lies in the red sea until today.
Like i said, u do not believe so thats why however minute it is, u will refuse to believe. I do not blame your skepticsm at all. It just challenges me to provide more concrete facts with scientific evidence to support my statements.
See, again the 10% issue, u view it in such skepticsm. Its like how realists approach to the world of how can i help u if i cant help myself, but the other side will be thinking, how would i help you instead then i help myself after helping u.
But then again, u never read the bible, so it can be frustrating for me to try to explain something that u have never seen or read yourself. Like i have read scientific articles, i have read a evolutionist point of view, and all that, and understood the bible, thats why i am able to understand your point of view. And even though u dont believe doesnt mean u cant give the book a good read. In fact , if u allow. I can send one leather bound brand new copy, free of charge, fast post to arrive at your place the very next day. Have a good read, and challenge its scriptures and prove the fallacies currently supported together biblically with scientific facts and properly researched and verification by current technological advances after u finished the book. And i will be more then welcome to let you continue on with this debate.
OK fair enough, my bad about accusing you believing TV. Still, what I am trying to say is, partisan science while not always automatically wrong, must always be suspect.
If unbiased 3rd parties can verify the findings then it can have validity,
Now you are saying that it is impossible to have 3rd parties verify it because "the Saudis refused any excavations."
Yet you cite it to "prove" that the Red Sea parted.
At the very very most, all you can say is, "Some people claim to have found remains and artifacts and claim that they are the remains of the Egyptians buried in the great escape as described in the bible thousand of years ago."
The parting is a supernatural event and what happened to the GOD that parted the red sea? HE is no longer capable of any supernatural event? The souls and spirits of people suffering hell fire for eternal is a joke to HIM that he cannot show HIMSELF in an unambiguous manner to help save them?
HE cannot supernaturally change everyone's desktop when they on their computer or TV or Radio or when they look at the sky to say:
"The Christians are right, listen to them, give them 10% of your salaries"
If as the Christians believe, HE is a loving, all-powerful GOD, he cannot even do that?
Does it really make sense to you? To believe in a hide and seek all-powerful, all-loving GOD, ready to send souls to hell but incapable of doing simple super natural acts to try to convince people of supernatural reality?
As for your offer of a bible, thanks but no thanks. It is on the internet and searchable. (for example, Parting of the Red Sea, online bible)
I can understand your need to believe in something, anything and you by chance became a Christian (you could have been born in a Muslim family) because I am also human and I would also like to believe in something, anything to quell the human anxiety and uncertainties.
There is no need to cling on to these myths, (although proven for thousand of years to calm people down). You can have a better alternative and that is, using logic and looking at life in REALITY, for what it is). Unfortunately, now that you are addicted to religion, it would be difficult for you to abandon it.
The worse part of course, is that it is mostly harmless (unless you give more than 10%, for instance, like your life, in a suicide bombing) for you to believe.
I deal/work with Christians everyday and frankly, I prefer to work with them.
You being a Christian is good for others (you give the church 10% of your salary, good for the church) and good for even people like me because Christians tend to at least try to love their neighbors (even if they do not love, they try not to harm).
Being a Christian is bad for you (other than comforting yourself when you are alone in bed and thinking about life, the universe and the meanings thereof) in that you get into the habit of believing delusions and accepting dubious claims.
For your own sake, demand better proofs.
-
BTW since you like watching TV, watch CSI (you can watch it online: http://www.tudou.com/playlist/playindex.do?lid=1636218&iid=7338543&cid=22)
and see how many times, the scientists' initial conclusions are wrong and how they abandon their conclusions in the light of new evidence. How they "follow the evidence".
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Of course you can be delusional all you want but why tell us? Why tell us that you are chanting? You tell us that you are chanting for your benefit, and what if some stupid person believe (because of your testimony) that chanting can benefit oneself and one's family (I assume you mean in a supernatural way); somebody must ask you to show proof that such a thing is real so that no one ends up duped.
Why I care so much on pple's, like you, comment on my chanting?"...Why tell us?..." Did I ask you? Huh? You so free to answer my post, nobody ask you to answer my post. You very free like knocking on pple's door.
This is a forum, I can say I am chanting, BUT, I never ask pple to join me in chanting, cannot meh?
"..What if some stupid person believe???..." Hey! Why you care? You cannot eat and drink? I step onto your foot?
"..I assume you mean in a supernatural way..."
You can assume what you want. It's your mouth. Like I have say, you do your own thing, pple do theirs, so long I nvr preach why worry?
"..somebody must ask you to show proof that such a thing is real so that no one ends up duped.."
Why I need to show proof? Did I preach you or others to follow me?
Why you so concern? You scare pple will jump into other religion due to my post?
Once again, I do chanting is for my family and myself. Cannot meh?
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
OK fair enough, my bad about accusing you believing TV. Still, what I am trying to say is, partisan science while not always automatically wrong, must always be suspect.
If unbiased 3rd parties can verify the findings then it can have validity,
Now you are saying that it is impossible to have 3rd parties verify it because "the Saudis refused any excavations."
Yet you cite it to "prove" that the Red Sea parted.
At the very very most, all you can say is, "Some people claim to have found remains and artifacts and claim that they are the remains of the Egyptians buried in the great escape as described in the bible thousand of years ago."
The parting is a supernatural event and what happened to the GOD that parted the red sea? HE is no longer capable of any supernatural event? The souls and spirits of people suffering hell fire for eternal is a joke to HIM that he cannot show HIMSELF in an unambiguous manner to help save them?
HE cannot supernaturally change everyone's desktop when they on their computer or TV or Radio or when they look at the sky to say:
"The Christians are right, listen to them, give them 10% of your salaries"
If as the Christians believe, HE is a loving, all-powerful GOD, he cannot even do that?
Does it really make sense to you? To believe in a hide and seek all-powerful, all-loving GOD, ready to send souls to hell but incapable of doing simple super natural acts to try to convince people of supernatural reality?
As for your offer of a bible, thanks but no thanks. It is on the internet and searchable. (for example, Parting of the Red Sea, online bible)
I can understand your need to believe in something, anything and you by chance became a Christian (you could have been born in a Muslim family) because I am also human and I would also like to believe in something, anything to quell the human anxiety and uncertainties.
There is no need to cling on to these myths, (although proven for thousand of years to calm people down). You can have a better alternative and that is, using logic and looking at life in REALITY, for what it is). Unfortunately, now that you are addicted to religion, it would be difficult for you to abandon it.
The worse part of course, is that it is mostly harmless (unless you give more than 10%, for instance, like your life, in a suicide bombing) for you to believe.
I deal/work with Christians everyday and frankly, I prefer to work with them.
You being a Christian is good for others (you give the church 10% of your salary, good for the church) and good for even people like me because Christians tend to at least try to love their neighbors (even if they do not love, they try not to harm).
Being a Christian is bad for you (other than comforting yourself when you are alone in bed and thinking about life, the universe and the meanings thereof) in that you get into the habit of believing delusions and accepting dubious claims.
For your own sake, demand better proofs.
Again, you just dont understand how the mind of the Almighty works because, you HAVE NOT READ the bible.
I gave an example of Bill Gates, or any super powerful person in nature. For you to believe in him, do you think u can juts summon him over. Who are u to just ask Bill Gates to come over to show you that he exists and demand that he show you some of his Microsoft power just to know that Him n Microsoft exists? True .. in a thousand years time he may be gone, Microsoft existed and so is his legacy, does that mean he doesnt exists?
Science depends upon observation and replication. Miracles, such as the Incarnation (Christ's virgin birth) and the Resurrection, are by their very nature unprecedented events. No one can replicate these events in a laboratory. Hence, science simply cannot be the judge and jury as to whether or not these events occurred. Maybe u can replicate the way the water parts or fire from the sky, but the key element of the catalyst just cant be replicated.
The scientific method is useful for studying nature but not super-nature. Just as football stars are speaking outside their field of expertise when they appear on television to tell you what razor you should buy, so scientists are speaking outside their field when they address theological issues like miracles or the Resurrection.
God has showen AGAIN n AGAIN his miracles, the red sea, the exodus, the fire, the plague, the water from the rocks... countless countless miracles. Come on, the peolpe that witness the miracles, in a few years went back to idol worshipping and was punished when the earth cracked open and burned swallowed. If people thousands of years ago witness gargantuan miracles in your face and can still turn away, i wounldnt be suprise people like you kept demanding he show himself. Seriuosly man.. who are you to ask him to show himself, you of such small faith or NO faith demand something like this. You put it in this context, seriously you will understand what it means.
Only after u read the bible can u fully understand, but you refuse to. And your ignorance of the bible you can only use the same thing over n over again, the logic philosophy of nothing into something, or If there is God why people still suffer. You are not even 100 yrs old you hardly can say that miracles never happened and God never showed himself.
Moses Splits Rock for Water (Rephidim - Unnatural Phenomenon!)
In the Bible the Israelites cry out for water at a place called Rephidim, and in exasperation, Moses is said to strike a rock, from which water flows. An unbelievable sight (except perhaps, from Hollywood studios), is an unusual rock formation on a nearby hill - two shafts, fifty feet tall, a constant and parallel gap of twenty inches between them. (On the Internet, one can see photos of adventurers posing in the gap). At the base, per geologists and many visitors, are marks of water erosion. (Note: The area is desert!) - but of course, you want MORE evidence, how about u spend 4 years and take a geology degree and go down there and do your research and then come back and tell us what do u think. Scientists and geologists ? Sure. Like i said, you dont believe, you WONT believe, with so many scientists n geologists trying to figure it out, they just cant. N the answer.. Unnatural Phenomenon! *full stop* but of course, u are cynical and extreeeeemly skeptical.
You say i am addicted to religion, but because of the way you challenge my facts and statements that were properly documents by scientists that makes me even more curious about Christianity and why people just wont believe even tho talking statement by statement and fact by fact, which leads me to come to the conclusion that, its pointless to present facts to someone who has never even read the bible. Its exactly how the bible has said about believers and non-believers alike. Man forgets and they sin with thier ignorance. Its like trying to have scientific discussion with a non-scientific person who doesnt even know science to begin with.
And you talk about all-loving God, you dont even comprehend Him, he wants people with free-will. Not automaton robot like people. Like i said, again n again, you didnt even read the bible, just nit picking little facts and piecing together and putting forward the logic to its conclusion. To criticise, please at least study the material, dun judge a preview without even watching the movie. Because you are not all-knowing.
I can disseminate dubious claims and delusions, but you however, are just too cynical and skeptical to even accept tabled truths, scientific facts and study. Thats our difference. I am willing to learn , adopt and constantly challenge myself, my faith and science to better clearer answers. But you however.. well, you have always been a cynic and an extreme skeptic anyways. =)
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
BTW since you like watching TV, watch CSI (you can watch it online: http://www.tudou.com/playlist/playindex.do?lid=1636218&iid=7338543&cid=22)
and see how many times, the scientists' initial conclusions are wrong and how they abandon their conclusions in the light of new evidence. How they "follow the evidence".
CSI...
lol.. and u talk to me about TV. I can show you Conan the Barbarian to see that it takes great faith to smite the giant snake. Come on... -_-"