Why Human CREATED Religions?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Hahaha! U have a point there....but many other religions will argue that theirs' also "made by their own Gods"...
dun bother replying to this fellow. look at the replies given, all nonsense and warped.dun waste your time replying cos it aint worth your effort.
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Hahaha! U have a point there....but many other religions will argue that theirs' also "made by their own Gods"...
yes that is the point I am trying to make. so many religions out there, they will reckoned their religion is the truth and all are false.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
dun bother replying to this fellow. look at the replies given, all nonsense and warped.dun waste your time replying cos it aint worth your effort.
Oh now Jacky is telling others here what to do and expects people to listen to him and obey him, and yet he's finding fault with God telling His people what to do and people obeying God? Special pleading eh?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
yes that is the point I am trying to make. so many religions out there, they will reckoned their religion is the truth and all are false.
So Jacky Woo, u are from which religion ?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
yes that is the point I am trying to make. so many religions out there, they will reckoned their religion is the truth and all are false.
Including the atheists who think that only atheism is true and that ALL religions are false! Special pleading again!
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
I am saying that you have a choice, I didn't say that it is the buyer's fault. First, you decide to stop and listen, then you decide to buy, then it is all the seller's fault? It is if you are underaged, or in anyway handicapped and are unable to decide for yourself.
sgdiehard,
Probably you are very ignorant of criminal law.
But no matter what, it is never the consumer's fault if a seller tells lies or provides misinformation.
In this case, the christian who teaches false information about the age of the earth/dinosaurs living with humans to unsuspecting youth and children IS at fault.
The fault does not lie with the unsuspecting kids!
Your morals are warped and twisted!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Including the atheists who think that only atheism is true and that ALL religions are false! Special pleading again!
BIC,
Well, it is true that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the existence of any supernatural entities, isnt it?
The lack of belief is due to this lack of empirical evidence. :)
And I am sure most atheists will not say that all religions are false. Most of us will appreciate religions in some sense, just not the supernatural parts like "talking animals".
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
sgdiehard,
Probably you are very ignorant of criminal law.
But no matter what, it is never the consumer's fault if a seller tells lies or provides misinformation.
In this case, the christian who teaches false information about the age of the earth/dinosaurs living with humans to unsuspecting youth and children IS at fault.
The fault does not lie with the unsuspecting kids!
Your morals are warped and twisted!
Tcmc,
But then you are clearly begging the question here by saying that what we teach people is false information. You are merely asserting that rather than proving that. Mind you, throwing scientists' words at us is moot since we can also throw back scientists' words at you.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
Well, it is true that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the existence of any supernatural entities, isnt it?
The lack of belief is due to this lack of empirical evidence. :)
And I am sure most atheists will not say that all religions are false. Most of us will appreciate religions in some sense, just not the supernatural parts like "talking animals".
See your fallacy again, insisting on EMPIRICAL evidence before you even justify why empiricism should be the criteria? Again this shows you know nothing about the nature of science and the limits of the scientific method. I think most atheists are not as blur and confused as you. They KNOW for sure that there is no God and no supernatural stuff.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
But then you are clearly begging the question here by saying that what we teach people is false information. You are merely asserting that rather than proving that. Mind you, throwing scientists' words at us is moot since we can also throw back scientists' words at you.
Well,
to you and creationists, the earth is 6000 years old. ("clause" - but you wouldnt write that in an exam)
But to the majority of the scientific community who spend their LIVES on education and research of the age of the earth, the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
And even if I have never read any of the research articles (but i have), i would rather trust the dudes in lab coats than the dudes in the priestly robes....who take their "facts" from..well...a religious book.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
See your fallacy again, insisting on EMPIRICAL evidence before you even justify why empiricism should be the criteria? Again this shows you know nothing about the nature of science and the limits of the scientific method. I think most atheists are not as blur and confused as you. They KNOW for sure that there is no God and no supernatural stuff.
Empiricism is the most non-biased method to formulate theories and conclusions about the world we live in.
You should probably read up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
to understand why empiricism is the best way for now. It is also because of empiricism that you know have your internet and computer to spread your pseudoscience about the YE.
-
the 6000 years old of earth is really a joke. chinese history already 5000 years old. hinduisim also about the same 5000 years. how can the size of a planet like the earth only existed for 6000 years. it really beggars belief.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
the 6000 years old of earth is really a joke. chinese history already 5000 years old. hinduisim also about the same 5000 years. how can the size of a planet like the earth only existed for 6000 years. it really beggars belief.
And also dinosaurs living with humans.
I dont know but i wonder how young earth creationists prove that dinosaurs lived with humans?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
And also dinosaurs living with humans.
I dont know but i wonder how young earth creationists prove that dinosaurs lived with humans?
they can bend the facts and twists it around to bend their faith or argument you see
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
And also dinosaurs living with humans.
I dont know but i wonder how young earth creationists prove that dinosaurs lived with humans?
Are dinosaurs important to our daily lives? If not, knowing or not knowing that is not important...we have to choose a way of life that's more real than having all the correct answers....we must never forget to live...life is precious...now and the future is more important than the distant past....
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Are dinosaurs important to our daily lives? If not, knowing or not knowing that is not important...we have to choose a way of life that's more real than having all the correct answers....we must never forget to live...life is precious...now and the future is more important than the distant past....
And living in truth (yes about dinosaurs too) is important.
I am sure Buddha wouldnt teach lies too.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
And living in truth (yes about dinosaurs too) is important.
I am sure Buddha wouldnt teach lies too.
Buddha taught 80,000+ methods and ways to achieve higher consciousness/Nirvana and happiness, some of the methods appeared to contradict each other...that's why have so many schools of buddhism.......its alternative methods that's all....
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Buddha taught 80,000+ methods and ways to achieve higher consciousness/Nirvana and happiness, some of the methods appeared to contradict each other...that's why have so many schools of buddhism.......its alternative methods that's all....
Well but BUddha would surely say "Dont know dont act like you know" to BIC.
Because BIC dont even know dinosaur fossils and radiomaetric dating andhe say dinosaurs live with humans and earth is 6000 years old........
Would Buddha say things he doesnt know?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Empiricism is the most non-biased method to formulate theories and conclusions about the world we live in.
You should probably read up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
to understand why empiricism is the best way for now. It is also because of empiricism that you know have your internet and computer to spread your pseudoscience about the YE.
A method is only as biased as the person using the method. And humans are incorrigbly biased. Just look at yourself and you will agree!
Whether empiricism is the best way or not is besides the point. The point is, does empiricism pass its own test? The answer is no. And you are again committing the fallacy of equivocation is using the word science. I already told you but you "chow hee lang" and play daft. Experimental/operational science (not to be confused with empiricism which is a belief system) is what gives us our modern technology. I am happy with that, and were it not for the Bible you would not even be enjoying the fruits of it today. But when it comes to origins or the existence of God, we are not dealing with experimental science.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Well but BUddha would surely say "Dont know dont act like you know" to BIC.
Because BIC dont even know dinosaur fossils and radiomaetric dating andhe say dinosaurs live with humans and earth is 6000 years old........
Would Buddha say things he doesnt know?
I would say that buddha taught people according to their level of understanding....as they matured in their minds, he would intro new things/methods to them.....
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
A method is only as biased as the person using the method. And humans are incorrigbly biased. Just look at yourself and you will agree!
Whether empiricism is the best way or not is besides the point. The point is, does empiricism pass its own test? The answer is no. And you are again committing the fallacy of equivocation is using the word science. I already told you but you "chow hee lang" and play daft. Experimental/operational science (not to be confused with empiricism which is a belief system) is what gives us our modern technology. I am happy with that, and were it not for the Bible you would not even be enjoying the fruits of it today. But when it comes to origins or the existence of God, we are not dealing with experimental science.
Empiricism is the best method because then scientists and researchers WILL NOT be able to put in their religious beliefs, cultural backgrounds into their experiments and data gathering.
Not 100% perfect but definitely way more neutral than a christian taking info out of the bible and then finding evidence to support the bible, No?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Well,
to you and creationists, the earth is 6000 years old. ("clause" - but you wouldnt write that in an exam)
But to the majority of the scientific community who spend their LIVES on education and research of the age of the earth, the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
And even if I have never read any of the research articles (but i have), i would rather trust the dudes in lab coats than the dudes in the priestly robes....who take their "facts" from..well...a religious book.
Still harping on an irrelevant point Tcmc? Tell you what, until the day you successfully lobby for examinations to be also the test of one's beliefs to the truth, I shall be happily writing in exam papers what the school textbooks say without any question of conscience or guilt.
Yes, the majority believe in an old earth. Oh, that's the fallacy of appealing to the majority.
So you have finally let the cat out of the bag! You would RATHER trust fallible people in white lab coats than to trust what the infallible God says. So you see, you just proved my point many posts earlier, that this is really a question of "Who is your authority?" For you it is scientists, for me it is God.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
And also dinosaurs living with humans.
I dont know but i wonder how young earth creationists prove that dinosaurs lived with humans?
You don't know, and you still have the cheek to say you were like me, a YEC and defender of it? What a fraud you are Tcmc.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Still harping on an irrelevant point Tcmc? Tell you what, until the day you successfully lobby for examinations to be also the test of one's beliefs to the truth, I shall be happily writing in exam papers what the school textbooks say without any question of conscience or guilt.
Yes, the majority believe in an old earth. Oh, that's the fallacy of appealing to the majority.
So you have finally let the cat out of the bag! You would RATHER trust fallible people in white lab coats than to trust what the infallible God says. So you see, you just proved my point many posts earlier, that this is really a question of "Who is your authority?" For you it is scientists, for me it is God.
1. It shows that you do not completely believe that the earth is 6000 years old. You are scared to stand for your "truth" THats all I am saying.
2. I am not appealing to the majority. My point was I would rather trust those people who studied and researched and do it as their profession.............than people who take info from a religious book that talks about a man in a fish stomach?
No no no. You got it wrong.
Its a matter of trusting the right source.
You think a book that mentions a literal man lviing in a fish stomach is the right source. For me, i think the scientists who studied and researched and put up articles and research papers are doing the job are is the right source.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Empiricism is the best method because then scientists and researchers WILL NOT be able to put in their religious beliefs, cultural backgrounds into their experiments and data gathering.
Not 100% perfect but definitely way more neutral than a christian taking info out of the bible and then finding evidence to support the bible, No?
Tell me, is naturalism being neutral? Before you speak off your mind without even thinking, please go find out what naturalism entails.