Is Religion Still Relevant After Science
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Someone did, at least on the darkness part which you failed to mention. Thallus, a Samaritan historian, wrote ca. 52 A.D. attempting to give a natural explanation for the darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus. He tried to rationalise the darkness as an eclipse but found that was impossible because he knew the Jews celebrated the passover during a full moon and Jesus died before the day of the passover(Luke 22:13-15). A full moon is only possible when the earth is between the sun and the moon. A solar eclipse is only possible when the moon is between the sun and earth. So the darkness was a miracle.
Let me ask a question,
Matthew 27:50-54 describes an earthquake at the moment of Jesus' death. If this had actually happened, surely many of the historians would have mentioned it. Yet this event is conspicuously absent from the secular histories. Can u find some sources for this amazing earthquake where the dead comes to life ? -
When I said perfect, I meant to say "without sin"
And u claims tat "perfect" should only include "sins" etc. In tat case, only human r imperfect. Why ? all the animals and beast r without sins too. They r perfect. All the non living things tat u see r perfect too. Can the chair have sin ? Can the food u eat have sin ? They r all perfect too. The only thing tat is imperfect now is human. I feel this use of the term "perfect" is a bit obtuse. Wat is the Dictionary interpretation of perfect ? Flawless, no room for further improvement.
Tat shows a problem of religion again. Someone in the other forum claims tat God is perfect, and his meaning is to take the word perfect, literally. If u get 100 people to read the bible, they will have 100 different interpretation of it. Even wise men do not agree with the interpretation of bible too, wat is more normal people. This may result in adverse effect like people commiting sins like murder etc, then believe it can be washed clean by confessing. This may also result in some peopel commiting sucide because they interprete going to heaven beats staying in human world. This is anopther problem of believing in religionCome on la, truth exists independently of your belief. You think if you don't believe in Him, you're not under His control
Wat I am trying to argue is why should people have more purpose when they believe in religion as some people suggested. I am glad u realise this point too, that the truth exists irregardless of whether u believe or not.Anyway, I am always reminded of Pascal's wager. In the end, what do we have but nothing to lose and everything to gain
Wrong. U have lost your time, your effort and your money. They r quite substantial if u take notice. Here people r complaining they do nto have enough money yet give big donation to church regardless of it.
Second, u r already at the losing end of pascal wager because believing in a faith ultimately means u had occur the wrath of the other religion. Their God r no less merciful either. They claims tta if u refuse to believe them, u will also suffer hell or in th very least, treated as "second class citizens". No matter wat, u lose ! SO wat people shoud do is to find the truth.you can try christian sources
Christian sources r by its own biase. I have heard of muslim sources or Hindu sources claiming their religion is real and the other fake. Is it possible to believe in all of them ? Wat we need is a neutral 3rd partyhow bout non-biblical sources like suetonius, lucian of samosata, justin martyr, tertullian, jewish talmuds, etc even encyclopedia britannica
The problem with tis, as I said earlier, is they r too young. Their grandfather isn't born yet, how can they be witness to his being ? Wat they can only gather is from hearsay.
And most of these accounts only mention a "person" being cruxified. They never talk about their miracles tat they have performed or things they have done. Won't tat be strange ?Of course, that and besides, athiesm as a worldview to me seems greatly myopic as well, seeming to focus an inordinate amount of energy on disproving God rather the asking questions about where we are going or how we got here, I wonder if they know the implications of their beliefs
If we give an answer where or how we get there, then tat will be a religion by itself. Wat I am trying to say here is believe in a religion only when it can be proved. Otherwise I do not see the point of believing something blindly.Consider the following, one guy once said how "I marvel at the way athiests tell me with such joy and smugness that the faith I hold to be dear, that my human soul, was nothing more then a puff of smoke, mere vapour. And that they do with much relish. But if that was true, why would they be speaking of it with such joy, would it not be, in fact? The saddest thing in the world?"
Sad or not, the truth exists regardless of wat u believe. Suppose there isn't any soul etc. WHen freethinker die, they go out in a "puff of smoke". When believer, who believe tat they will be going to heaven or hell dies, he too go out in a "puff of smoke". It is not a choice. Whether it is sad or dissappointing, it is not a choice. The aim is to find the truth, or the thing tat seems to be more true and believe in it. NOT to find the favourite ending or religion tat promises the most benefit and believing them.Ultimately all the house of cards we build will be blown down and trampled on by others. That is fine if you are fortunate enough to live a life in which your comfortable illusionary constructs are not always shattered by harsh reality, but then again, if your constructs do not really hold out to reality, of which a belief in them is more of a convience, rather then truth, would it not be not worth believing in?
Not really understanding wat u r saying here but my asnwer is
Be strong, wake up. Truth exists no matter wat u believe in. Don't live in self delusion.Are not all our intellectual pursuits, our relationships, our wealth, our political views... are they not meaningless in the end after we perish? The same grave awaits the rich and the poor, the wise and the foolish. If there are no absolutes to base our world on, then truly we are playing the game for nothing.
Tat is wat Buddhist teach isn't it ?
Isn't wat the things u have been doing to improve your life or the lives of other a meaning of its own ? Isn't trying to be happy a good objective in your life ? Tat is why we should cherish our lives and live it to the fullest. There isn't another chance, another try. Live a life wihout regrets.Hence if anybody should be an athiest, I suggest that they be so to the extent that they don't even believe in believing in God, much less meander in shallow basal arguments which hardly shake anything
Sorry man, truth hurts. Don't believe in something just because they promise u the best things or your prefer way of "ending". Believe in something more rational. Believe in the truth, or wat u preceive as truth.Eh, are you agreeing in micro evolution? 'cause I've no problem with that. True there are many species of dogs, still they are dogs right? Hell, dogs and wolfs can interbreed. However, no one has seen a dog give birth to a fish or vice versa right? And what do you mean by single source? The first dog and fish? Yeah I can accept that too. However I cannot accept that dogs and fish come from the same source. What source is that? And where's the transitional specie?
We both agree on micro evolution, tat is cool. However have u ever wonder why micro evolution won't end up in macro evolution ? U do not believe in fish tat can grow legs and became mammals. U know mudfish ? Mudfish can do something most other fish can't ¨C they can survive without water for about two months! All they need is vegetative cover to keep themselves moist.
All in all, you still have not explained the origins of life. Neither has any scientist been able to explain it too.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/001~Plants-and-Animals/001~Native-Animals/Mudfish.asp
Micro evolution can make fish can evolve untill this stage. Why is it difficult to visualise tat some of these mudfish evolve into crawling with their fins, which evolved into legs. They can evolved into something like frogs first isn't it, a creature between sea and land. Remember lives started MILLIONs, in fact may be billions of years ago. Micro evolution, after such a long time may turn out to be macro evolution after a long period of time.From all your past post stupidissmart, I gather you won't believe in anything unless you are 100% convinced right?
Is tat something wrong ? I believe in science because it leaves me no room for doubt. I am 100% convinced about it. -
Wow, that's a pretty cool fish. I'm amazed. Hmm, maybe you're right, fish became frogs and then dogs. Being a man of science I believe you have some evidence to show these transition from fish to frog to dog, since you must be convinced 100% before believing, I would like to view these evidences so that I can be conivinced too.Originally posted by stupidissmart:We both agree on micro evolution, tat is cool. However have u ever wonder why micro evolution won't end up in macro evolution ? U do not believe in fish tat can grow legs and became mammals. U know mudfish ? Mudfish can do something most other fish can't ¨C they can survive without water for about two months! All they need is vegetative cover to keep themselves moist.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/001~Plants-and-Animals/001~Native-Animals/Mudfish.asp
Micro evolution can make fish can evolve untill this stage. Why is it difficult to visualise tat some of these mudfish evolve into crawling with their fins, which evolved into legs. They can evolved into something like frogs first isn't it, a creature between sea and land. Remember lives started MILLIONs, in fact may be billions of years ago. Micro evolution, after such a long time may turn out to be macro evolution after a long period of time. -
You updated science student or just read about it?Originally posted by panja_v:There is a mathematical model but it assumes a universe of 10 dimensions.
Until otherwise proven, it's just a hypothesis... No matter how credible it seems coming from who and who... For a time span of a 'big theory' like that, it's still relatively too young to say that it's an etablished theory.... Not to mention that there're 'theories' which have been overruled... Or partial overruled (modified) though established by great names... And a time span way pass credibility... Or at least it seems? -
Oh, one more thing, you still haven't explained the origins of life yet.
-
Originally posted by jzzy011561s:
Strawman!!
True there are many species of dogs, still they are dogs right? Hell, dogs and wolfs can interbreed. However, no one has seen a dog give birth to a fish or vice versa right?
Which evolutionist claims the dog and fish are directly related in the evolution tree.
All in all, you still have not explained the origins of life. Neither has any scientist been able to explain it too.
Sweeping statement. Clearly some scientists have attempted to explain the origins of life using panspermia? -
Panspermia? Well, that sounds more plausible than evolution, hey smartisstupid! Do you believe Panspermia?Originally posted by Icemoon:Sweeping statement. Clearly some scientists have attempted to explain the origins of life using panspermia? -
woah, I'm getting forgetful, right. PANSPERMIA. Well, where did that origin of life come from? Perhaps I should make my question more detailed, how does non animated elements become alive?
-
For Panspermia, those spores better be well shielded, in space UV rays are intense, UV light kills bacterial spores very easily. That's why NeWater uses UV radiation in the process of cleaning waste water. Secondly, they have to survive reentry and is gonna be hot, heat kills spores too. Thirdly, they better land safely, land in the ocean and the salt content may kill them, or land to hard on the surface causing a huge explosion and heat and get killed (again) by heat.
But in the end the question remains, how does inanimated elements combine and become alive? -
Someone did, at least on the darkness part which you failed to mention. Thallus, a Samaritan historian, wrote ca. 52 A.D. attempting to give a natural explanation for the darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus. He tried to rationalise the darkness as an eclipse but found that was impossible because he knew the Jews celebrated the passover during a full moon and Jesus died before the day of the passover(Luke 22:13-15). A full moon is only possible when the earth is between the sun and the moon. A solar eclipse is only possible when the moon is between the sun and earth. So the darkness was a miracle.
Wat about the dead coming to life and the earthquake ? Isn't tat something more worth talking about then just darkness ?
And Sad to say, Thallus wrote it in 52 AD, 52 years after the incident. If u ask me, I think any research after such a long time of it occuring is a bit... old... It may be just dark clouds passing...Being a man of science I believe you have some evidence to show these transition from fish to frog to dog, since you must be convinced 100% before believing, I would like to view these evidences so that I can be conivinced too.
Hehehe... I do not have these evidence...
They probably take place much further than dinosaurs. However I do have evidence showing human being slowly evolved from apes. There r many bodies of primitive men being found on all around the world and they show a gradual change from Ape to human. SO is human a micro evolution or macro evolution ?how does non animated elements become alive?
Tis question can apply to u too. How does non animated object become something sOooOo complicated like God ? At least science is trying to explore why, religion tell u to stop asking. -
And Sad to say, Thallus wrote it in 52 AD, 52 years after the incident.
What incident? FYI, Jesus was crucified around 33 AD.
-
Well, me stand is he never existed, or at least never perform any miracles. Wat is wrong with my answer ?
Nothing wrong. At least you do not deny the historicity of Jesus as a [normal] human being on this planet.
I challenged him to evaluate the worldview presented by a belief in such beings, but where is his reply?
Again I do not understand wat u want. Give me an example wat u expect me to reply.
What is the worldview presented by tooth fairies and santa claus? How does tooth fairy answer some of life's biggest questions ... like the problem of evil, our purpose in life, morality etc.?
Anyway regardless of whether I have answer your questions or not, why don't u answer for my illustration on tooth fairies and santa claus ? Isn't the comparison relevant ?
If you mean belief in such beings vs. a belief in God, I'll say yes, philosophically speaking. But to elevate the belief to a faith system, we've to evaluate the worldview presented as a result of the particular belief. After all, you think Buddha's teachings will be so popular if not for how it attempts to explain human conditions?
And u claims tat "perfect" should only include "sins" etc. In tat case, only human r imperfect. Why ? all the animals and beast r without sins too. They r perfect.
Since "sin" is a biblical concept, our premise will be based on what Scripture tells us. Now here is the problem. Are you sure animals and beast are without sins, from Scripture?
All the non living things tat u see r perfect too. Can the chair have sin ? Can the food u eat have sin ? They r all perfect too.
I don't think you can apply the concept of sin on non-living things. For one, they have no soul, no free will.
If u get 100 people to read the bible, they will have 100 different interpretation of it.
It can be argued the 100 different interpretations all agree that you need Christ to be saved. Surely even City Harvest Church agrees with those churches who criticise her violently, that we need Christ for salvation?
Wat I am trying to argue is why should people have more purpose when they believe in religion as some people suggested.
More purpose? As opposed to no purpose when you have no religion? -
Wrong. U have lost your time, your effort and your money. They r quite substantial if u take notice.
I'm not sure how substantial is it. Ok, you can argue it is 10% of salary
, but like they say, God will give you back 10 times, or something like that.
Everyone should contribute willingly and happily. Just give according to your means.
And I'm not sure whether you can argue by saying they lost time, effort and money. I mean, what is your yardstick for comparison? To you, what activity is not deemed to be losing time, effort and money? Stay at home and sleep? Ok, maybe you think spend 10% every month on KTV and pub is more worthy than giving it to God?
Second, u r already at the losing end of pascal wager because believing in a faith ultimately means u had occur the wrath of the other religion.
I suspect you do not really understand the Pascal Wager.
Their God r no less merciful either. They claims tta if u refuse to believe them, u will also suffer hell or in th very least, treated as "second class citizens".
Got meh?!! How many other religions preach exclusive salvation? Ok la, let me offer you a discount. Maybe you believe in Christ, turns out Christianity is false but either Judaism or Islam is true, then you still have higher chance of being accepted by them than if you're a non-believer or you believe in many gods or no god like Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism. Well, you can still argue you also worship the God of Abraham and Ishmael. On the contrary, if the Jesus really meant it when he proclaimed "No one comes to the Father except through me" ... then you are in deep shit.
NOT to find the favourite ending or religion tat promises the most benefit and believing them.
No offense, Christianity never promises its believers virgins in heaven also ... -
Umm, could you provide some examples of Ape to human change?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Hehehe... I do not have these evidence... They probably take place much further than dinosaurs. However I do have evidence showing human being slowly evolved from apes. There r many bodies of primitive men being found on all around the world and they show a gradual change from Ape to human. SO is human a micro evolution or macro evolution ? -
Umm, could you provide some examples of Ape to human change?
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics2.htm
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics3.htm
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics5.htm
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics6.htm
Look at tis website for the pictures of many fossils tat were found. They r the fossils from china only, and they have found hundreds of such bones.
Primates (e.g., monkeys and apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas) in the African savannas, or grasslands, were the first animals in evolutionary history to exhibit bipedalism, or the ability to walk on two feet.
About 3.5 million years ago in Africa, the first hominids appeared¡ªbipedal primates who walked erect. Those early hominids were the ancestors of recent humans.
The ability to walk erect gave hominids greater speed, stamina, and agility, and therefore a better chance for survival in the African savannas, or treeless plains.
from
http://school.discovery.com/lessonplans/programs/apestoman/
please refer to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#
I think u have perhaps fail to read the first part of the statement. The 2nd part is just for safeguard.
Well, me stand is he never existed, or at least never perform any miracles. Wat is wrong with my answer ?
Nothing wrong. At least you do not deny the historicity of Jesus as a [normal] human being on this planetIf you mean belief in such beings vs. a belief in God, I'll say yes, philosophically speaking. But to elevate the belief to a faith system, we've to evaluate the worldview presented as a result of the particular belief. After all, you think Buddha's teachings will be so popular if not for how it attempts to explain human conditions?
Wat I am trying to say is about faith, or in your sense philosophically. If u want me to compare religion, I think u should ask the other believers, not a non believer like me. Wat I can give is perhap a worldview, on the issues such as problem of evil, our purpose in life, morality by a freethinker
There r 7 sins of mankind. Wrath, greed, glutton, vain, envy, lust, sloth. These r skills needed for survival, or skills man pick up when they evolve.
Wrath: If there is no wrath, then Man cannot protect itself. When people is being bullied, being attacked or being hit, wrath is usually the mechanism tat make people fight back. Such action will ensure they will less likely be the source of being attack or bullied, thus such people survive
Greed: If man has no greed, he has no moltivation. Without greed, will Man study or work ? In society without greed, everybody will live off from the state welfare and not strive to make money. People who r more greedy will survive better than peopel who have none since they will work harder and have more resources at their disposal
Glutton: If Man has no glutton, he will have an eat disorder. No glutton means they will not deprive any sense of enjoyment in eating food. Eating became a torture which is never good for human. Man who r glutton tend to eat more and thus establish a better physical body and is more likely to survive
Vain: If Man is not vain, he has no pride. He will not have pride in his work and he will not be "professional". Everything he do, he just aims for a "pass", not an "A". People who have pride tend to display better result, thus have more rersources and survive better
Envy: If Man has no envy, he too has lost a motlivation factor. People will not compare wat they had done to the other people and thus their progress is stagnant and society never improve much. Again people who is envious will work hard and thus have more resources, making them better survivals
Lust : This is important too. If Man has no lust, they will not have sex thus do not reproduce. This make them bad survivals and their population will dies off soon
Sloth: This is an indication for Man whether has he worked too hard. Man has its limitation, Man need rest. If they do not have sloth, they probably worked past their limit which make them worse survivals.
As such, the evil in the world is necessary for Survival, which is in form with evolution. Too little, and u will face problems like unable to protect itself, unable to improve, unable to eat, unable to reproduce, unable to excel and unable to rest. Everybody has such qualities to a certain extent. Such qualities, if in small qualities will work well for survival. Otherwise, they will become sins as indicated above. It is like sugar in the body. Too high a level people will have diabetes and face a lot of problems. If the sugar level is too low, the brain will eb starved off and will die immediately. -
Wat is our purpose in life ? To be us, to be wat we want ourselves to be. SOme people choose happiness and try to live life so they r happy. SOme choose to be rich, thus start to aim for tat. One may aim for fame and seek to make peopel remember their name. There r of course people tat choose to be happy with their love ones, to live life together happily. Aren't these purpose in lives ? U r free to choose wat u want to be in future.
For morality refer to tis artical from
http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/morals.html
Theists often claim that their religion is necessary for morality. Obviously this is not the case as most people are good, decent people whether they believe in gods or not. Actually, nontheists get their morals from the same place as theists: human compassion and empathy. Christians, for example, do not get decent morals from the Bible. How do I know this? Because the god of the Bible is one of the most evil creatures in all of mythology. He ordered the wholesale slaughter of many innocent people, often singling out women and children to be murdered (see just about anywhere in the Old Testament); he punished people who worshipped the wrong god by ordering "their little ones" to be "dashed to the ground" and their pregnant women to be "ripped open"; he ordered his warriors to commit genocide, and they murdered every Midianite man, women, and child except for the 32,000 female virgins that the warriors were told to "save for yourselves"; and he created a place called hell which he uses to torture people who he dislikes for all eternity. (For more information on the Bible god, see Bible Atrocities, Murder Most High, and Is the Bible God Good?.) Most Christians, at least in this era, do not do these types of things. Instead, they have applied their own moral standards to weed out and ignore those parts of the Bible that don't fit in with their values. The claim that the Bible can serve as the ultimate moral guide is patently absurd.
Does organized religion help society? Well, organized religion does some good. For example, it can help foster a sense of community among its believers. Unfortunately, it can also create conflict between different groups of believers. Organized religion can sometimes inspire people to be kinder, to be more charitable, and to help others. But not always; consider the following: Protestants and Catholics are murdering each other in Northern Ireland. Adolf Hitler was a professed Christian whose actions were consistent with the evil Old Testament god (see Hitler's Christianity). More recently, Christians have carried out a genocidal campaign against Muslims in Kosovo. Islamic terrorists have murdered many innocent people in order to further their goals. Christian terrorists have attacked abortion clinics in the name of their god (these hypocrites call themselves pro-life; they may be pro-fetus-life, but their actions prove that they are very anti-human-life). In addition to starting wars and inspiring fanatics to commit murder, religion can damage its believers sense of personal responsibility by allowing them to shift their responsibility onto God or Satan, and this can have adverse effects on the believers' morality.
Religionists often point out that some atheists, particularly communists, have also committed evil acts. This is true enough. There is, however, an important distinction to be made: Theists have been inspired by their religion to commit atrocities, while communists have been inspired to commit atrocities, not by their lack of belief in gods, but by their political beliefs and desires.
Many theists would argue that even if some people have done evil things in the name of religion, most religious people are good, moral people, and that religion on the average provides a positive moral benefit. It is true that most religious people are good, moral people, but so are most nontheists. The theists' claim that religion is morally beneficial on the average is completely without merit. Not only is there no evidence indicating a positive correlation between religion and morality, there is evidence of a negative correlation:
"The United States is the most religious of all the industrialized nations. Forty-four percent of Americans attend church once a week, compared with 27 percent in Britain, 21 percent in France, 16 percent in Australia, and 4 percent in Sweden. Yet violent crime is not less common in the United States--it's more common. The murder rate here is six times higher than the rate in Britain, seven times higher than in France, five times higher than in Australia, and five times higher than in Sweden. Japan, where Christianity has almost no adherents, has less violent crime than almost any country....Within the 50 states, there is no evidence that a God-fearing populace equals a law-abiding populace. The Bible Belt has more than its share of both praying and killing. Louisiana has the highest churchgoing rate in the country, but its murder rate is more than twice the national average. The same pattern generally holds in the rest of the South..." - Steve Chapman in Praise the Lord, Pass the Ammo.
Another source of data on religion and morality is statistics on religious beliefs of prisoners compared with beliefs of the general population. This data indicates that theists are more than 40 times more likely than atheists to end up in prison. We should not read too much into this large number, however, since it is influenced by many factors. One consideration is that atheism is positively correlated to such things as educational attainment, higher scores on intelligence and achievement tests, and higher income, while crime is negatively correlated with these things.
Religion, on the average, is apparently not a positive moral force. A vastly superior moral framework is provided by secular humanism which uses human reason and empathy to construct moral values. Humanists believe that morality should be based on human values, not arbitrary edicts from an imaginary god.
For pascal wager
http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/pascal.html
Blaise Pascal did not believe that reason alone could justify belief in a god. He came up with the following wager as an attempt to decide whether or not we should believe based on the possible outcomes for the afterlife.
Say that God exists. This god created the universe and everything in it including us. When we die, God selects some of us for eternal paradise and others for eternal torture. Of all the creatures on Earth, humans are the only ones that God gave intelligence, so obviously God wants us to use our intellect and to be freethinkers. So when we die, God will reward freethinkers with eternal paradise and punish the people who through away their reason by sending them to hell.
The wager is this: If you abandon reason and believe in God and it turns out that she exists, you are sent to hell in the next life. However, if you apply your intellect and withhold belief, and God actually exists, you get to go to heaven in the next life. Furthermore, if God does not exist and you spent your life believing in her, you have sacrificed your integrity and your self-respect and you have spent a lifetime helping to hold back human progress. So if God exists and you believe in her, you lose. And if God does not exist and you believe in her, you lose. Therefore we should all disbelieve.
Christians have more to worry about here than theists who do not believe in the Bible. By claiming that the Bible is the word of God, Christians accuse God of ordering mass murder and approving of rape and slavery. This may deeply offend God and she may punish Christians more harshly than others.
Wait a minute. Pascal didn't conclude that we should all disbelieve; somehow he concluded that people were better off if they did believe. Oh yes, now I remember. Pascal postulated the existence of a perverse god that sent freethinkers to hell and rewarded irrational believers with eternal paradise. That's why he got the conclusion backwards.
The problem with the above arguments are that they use a false dichotomy. That is, they incorrectly restrict the large number of possible situations to just two. A particular god exists or it doesn't. This ignores the fact that we could have just as easily postulated the existence of any number of gods each with her own criteria for salvation and damnation. Say that the possibilities in Pascal's wager are that the "freethought god" described above exists or that the god of Christian mythology exists. What is the conclusion of Pascal's wager now? -
It can be argued the 100 different interpretations all agree that you need Christ to be saved. Surely even City Harvest Church agrees with those churches who criticise her violently, that we need Christ for salvation
Tat is simple, however asking a simple question never achieve the aim of wat I am trying to say. Allow me to ask more complex questions. From tis
webite http://ffrf.org/lfif/?t=contra.txt
Should we kill?
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
vs.
Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."
Should we tell lies?
Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."
vs.
I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25.
Shall we make graven images?
Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water."
Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone."
Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image."
vs.
Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."
I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and two chapiters of molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen . . . [and so on]"
Should good works be seen?
Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works."
I Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that . . . they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."
vs.
Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them . . . that thine alms may be in secret."
Matthew 23:3,5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works. . . . all their works they do for to be seen of men."
Should we own slaves?
Leviticus 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever."
Genesis 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
Exodus 21:2,7 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the manservants do."
Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it."
Luke 12:47,48 [Jesus speaking] "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
Colossians 3:22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters."
vs.
Isaiah 58:6 "Undo the heavy burdens . . . let the oppressed go free, . . . break every yoke."
Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."
Pro-slavery bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa. There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here.
Does God change his mind?
Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
vs.
Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50.
See Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the minimum number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining down from fifty to ten. (An omniscient God must have known that he was playing with Abraham's hopes for mercy--he destroyed the city anyway.)
Is God good or evil?
Psalm 145:9 "The Lord is good to all."
Deuteronomy 32:4 "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
vs.
Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." See "Out of Context" for more on Isaiah 45:7.
Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26 "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."
Does God tempt people?
James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.
Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
Is God peaceable?
Romans 15:33 "The God of peace."
Isaiah 2:4 ". . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
vs.
Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war."
Joel 3:9-10 "Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong." -
Haiz ... I should have expected this to come, it is just sooner or later only. From simple question, then biblical contradictions ...Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tat is simple, however asking a simple question never achieve the aim of wat I am trying to say. Allow me to ask more complex questions.
-
More purpose? As opposed to no purpose when you have no religion
Now explains why the need for sins and purpose of life for your religion. I have done my part u should do yours...I'm not sure how substantial is it. Ok, you can argue it is 10% of salary , but like they say, God will give you back 10 times, or something like that.
Simple, on something meaningful u shouldn't save a single cent. Or something meaningless, u shouldn't spend a single cent. 10% is A LOT. And tis is just the bottom as people also spend on things like church building funds etc.
Everyone should contribute willingly and happily. Just give according to your means.
And I'm not sure whether you can argue by saying they lost time, effort and money. I mean, what is your yardstick for comparison? To you, what activity is not deemed to be losing time, effort and money? Stay at home and sleep? Ok, maybe you think spend 10% every month on KTV and pub is more worthy than giving it to God
Lets say a 3 room HDB flat for 99 years is 250,000, your pay is $1800. This is average condition for singaporean
For one day u spend about $7 for your house, and people r complaining like sh!t. But one day u also spend $6 for your religion. So u guage how bad 10% is.
Wat is time for ? Tis time can spend on family too. I think a lot of people aren't spending enough time with their children etc. Why don't u use this time for them ? U r not depriving your sleep time, u r depriving your children time. The time spend in church could have been used for breakfast.No offense, Christianity never promises its believers virgins in heaven also
Well they promise heaven isn't it ? Beats just being dead... -
Well, me stand is he never existed, or at least never perform any miracles. Wat is wrong with my answer ?
Nothing wrong. At least you do not deny the historicity of Jesus as a [normal] human being on this planet
I think u have perhaps fail to read the first part of the statement. The 2nd part is just for safeguard.
Sometimes your logic is really beyond me. I read the first part of the statement. But do you read the second part of your own statement? By saying [Jesus] at least never perform any miracles, aren't you allowing the possibility that he may be a historical figure, albeit without all the miracles and claims about being God? If Jesus doesn't exist, then what's the talk about "at least never perform any miracle"? Do you understand the meaning of "at least", my dear?
Haha, what safeguard? I think you're just blatantly shifting your goalpost, in logical parlance.
Wat I am trying to say is about faith, or in your sense philosophically.
I'm referring to faith system. Actually I'm quite reluctant to use the word "religion", as christians can tell you theirs is not a religion. But come on la, since your topic is about religion, I suppose there's no point bickering about santa claus and tooth fairies philosophically? What we are interested in is the worldview presented by a belief in such entities? And this is also my answer to your question. How do you choose between tooth fairies and the biblical God.
If u want me to compare religion, I think u should ask the other believers, not a non believer like me.
So until the day you can find believers of tooth fairies and tell me about their worldview, your argument about tooth fairies shall remain invalid. -
Now explains why the need for sins and purpose of life for your religion. I have done my part u should do yours...
This is tricky. Why the need for sins and purpose of life? Are you saying they are just human concepts and we invented them?
Simple, on something meaningful u shouldn't save a single cent. Or something meaningless, u shouldn't spend a single cent.
It can be argued what is meaningful and meaningless. Surely you have no rights to evaluate what is meaningful for a christian?
Wat is time for ? Tis time can spend on family too. I think a lot of people aren't spending enough time with their children etc.
Don't bluff la, you think unreligious people will spend time with the family meh? Bet some of them don't go church also spend their time outside, with girlfriend or boyfriend, rather than with family.
The time spend in church could have been used for breakfast.
Oei oei, you never go church don't anyhow say hor. Some churches do provide breakfast/snacks on Sunday mornings. Hahahah, how come you have impression christians skip breakfast to go church?
Oh ya, don't you know there's a Saturday evening service and Sunday afternoon service also?
Well they promise heaven isn't it ? Beats just being dead...
They put you behind bars in heaven you also lan lan right? -
Well, those were interesting pictures of skulls and teeth. But what happened to your being 100% convinced before believing? From a skull or teeth which probably only account for 10-20% of the body, you are a 100% convinced that they walked upright and looked like humans? So how do you come up with the rest of the body?Originally posted by stupidissmart:http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics2.htm
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics3.htm
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics5.htm
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics6.htm
Look at tis website for the pictures of many fossils tat were found. They r the fossils from china only, and they have found hundreds of such bones.
Primates (e.g., monkeys and apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas) in the African savannas, or grasslands, were the first animals in evolutionary history to exhibit bipedalism, or the ability to walk on two feet.
About 3.5 million years ago in Africa, the first hominids appeared¡ªbipedal primates who walked erect. Those early hominids were the ancestors of recent humans.
The ability to walk erect gave hominids greater speed, stamina, and agility, and therefore a better chance for survival in the African savannas, or treeless plains.
from
http://school.discovery.com/lessonplans/programs/apestoman/
please refer to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/# -
Sometimes your logic is really beyond me. I read the first part of the statement. But do you read the second part of your own statement? By saying [Jesus] at least never perform any miracles, aren't you allowing the possibility that he may be a historical figure, albeit without all the miracles and claims about being God? If Jesus doesn't exist, then what's the talk about "at least never perform any miracle"? Do you understand the meaning of "at least", my dear?
Well, if someone ask wat will happened to a person if he jumps off from the Twin towers in Malaysia ? Wat is your answer ? My answer is tis
Haha, what safeguard? I think you're just blatantly shifting your goalpost, in logical parlance
He is probably gonna die, or at least he is going to be crippled.
So, wat r the chances of dying takes. In this sense, it means the probabilty probably reach 99.999%. Wat about the crippled, it takes about 0.001%. Wat is the use of the second statement ? It is just used to correct me if there is any sudden freak of nature tat do not kill tis person. If u r just happy tat wat I say is Jesus may exists without weighing the probability and meaning of tat statement, then go ahead.I'm referring to faith system. Actually I'm quite reluctant to use the word "religion", as christians can tell you theirs is not a religion. But come on la, since your topic is about religion, I suppose there's no point bickering about santa claus and tooth fairies philosophically? What we are interested in is the worldview presented by a belief in such entities? And this is also my answer to your question. How do you choose between tooth fairies and the biblical God.
I think u like to play with words... anyway wat is your definition of faith ? I take mine from dictionary which says
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
SO to fulfil the requirement of faith, there is only 2 criterias. 1, believe in it. 2, despite conclusive evidence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/
But for u, it need to fulfil 3 criterias.
3, must provide worldview
I do not know why does my example of faith have to follow your definition ? Maybe u can tell me where do get the definition of it ?
So talk about tooth faires. Children believe in it, and they do not have any evidence on it. So do they have faith in tooth fairies ? Children have faith in santa claus, and again they do not have proof for his existence. Is tat faith ? Some older chinese believe in Nu Wa, but again they cannot prove it exists. Is tat faith ?
Wat is my purpose of talking faith ? I am telling u guys tat faith is irrational. Because somewhere later someone is gonna say "I don't care about evidence I just have faith it exists".This is tricky. Why the need for sins and purpose of life? Are you saying they are just human concepts and we invented them?
u want me to give a worldview on tooth fairies ? Might as well u start off with christian worldview first isn't it ? If u find it hard to answer, why ask me to do tat in first place ?Don't bluff la, you think unreligious people will spend time with the family meh? Bet some of them don't go church also spend their time outside, with girlfriend or boyfriend, rather than with family
Tta is funny, do people with no religion have no love for their families ? R they not normal people ? I think tat is way wrong man ! There r billions of people out there with no religion yet live a normal life. R these people gonna be punks or worhtless people tat do not spend time with families or just play a fool ? Why do u have such obtuse belief ?Oei oei, you never go church don't anyhow say hor. Some churches do provide breakfast/snacks on Sunday mornings. Hahahah, how come you have impression christians skip breakfast to go church?
Well, can u prepare your own special breakfast for them ? can u enjoy it just within the family, with no other outsiders around ? Can u have a personal talk about problems in a noisy environment where everybody is eating breakfast and chatting ?
Oh ya, don't you know there's a Saturday evening service and Sunday afternoon service also?They put you behind bars in heaven you also lan lan right?
I do not want your interpretation of wat happened in heaven. Wat is the bible interpretation ?Well, those were interesting pictures of skulls and teeth. But what happened to your being 100% convinced before believing? From a skull or teeth which probably only account for 10-20% of the body, you are a 100% convinced that they walked upright and looked like humans? So how do you come up with the rest of the body?
They have come up with bones from other parts of body too like legs etc. Why should u believe in them ?
Thousands of bones r found in all parts of the world, and according to their dates, each of them appears to be more more and more human like as it gets more recent. In fact no bones have been found to prove the reverse, tat is bones found at a later date become more apelike than human being. All sort of bones have been studied intensively by scientists. When they see a piece of bones, they r the best judges to state if they can walk upright and look like human. DNA testing have been done on them and it is found they r 99% similar to human beings. -
He is probably gonna die, or at least he is going to be crippled.
I'll be glad if you use this form for your answer on the existence of Christ. Note that your reply did not take this form. I quote here for your convenience, "Well, me stand is he never existed, or at least never perform any miracles."
You know what's the difference between 'probably' and 'never', my friend?
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
SO to fulfil the requirement of faith, there is only 2 criterias. 1, believe in it. 2, despite conclusive evidence.
I do not agree on 2, since it is effectively saying faith is necessarily irrational. Anyway your interpretation is putting words into the dictionary definition.
Wat is my purpose of talking faith ? I am telling u guys tat faith is irrational. Because somewhere later someone is gonna say "I don't care about evidence I just have faith it exists".
I think, to say a person is irrational requires the rejection of some fundamental beliefs rather than evidence.
Maybe one of these days we can have a discussion on reformed epistemology.
u want me to give a worldview on tooth fairies ? Might as well u start off with christian worldview first isn't it ? If u find it hard to answer, why ask me to do tat in first place ?
I dunno, but I think I (or the christians here) am not obliged to describe the christian worldview to you, since
1. you're the one who come in and suggest tooth fairies is as plausible as the biblical God.
2. you're so good at googling for websites. I'm sure you can find out what is the christian worldview, on issues like the problem of evil, morality etc.
Earlier, you were saying I had a different definition of faith. Well, it is not much different except that I believe faith can be rational as well.
But on your accusation that I like to play with words, I think it is pretty unfounded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't bluff la, you think unreligious people will spend time with the family meh? Bet some of them don't go church also spend their time outside, with girlfriend or boyfriend, rather than with family
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tta is funny, do people with no religion have no love for their families ? R they not normal people ? I think tat is way wrong man !
I didn't suggest that (no religion => no love) and apologies if I give you the impression that I did. Anyway I did say "some of them" and not "all of them". =p
R these people gonna be punks or worhtless people tat do not spend time with families or just play a fool ?
My example of some people not spending time with family was to show that, just 'cos someone doesn't go to church doesn't mean that he/she will spend the time with the family. I'm sure you agree that there are many people who rather spend time in pubs and KTVs, or along Orchard Road, than with their family.
And since we were discussing about Pascal Wager, if we do a life-evaluation of someone, enumerating the activities for the whole life, don't you think the non-believer can have as many unmeaningful activities compared to the christian? While the christian 'wastes' time going to church and 'wastes' money by offering to the church, I can argue that a non believer 'wastes' time by going to pubs/KTVs and 'wastes' money on beers and peanuts?
Well, can u prepare your own special breakfast for them ?
People don't always skip breakfast to attend service.
If you want special breakfast, you can do it in the luxury of your home. Come on la, the housewife can prepare breakfast for her kids attending school at 7am, for her husband going to work at 8am, hence I don't see why the christian family (housewife?) cannot do likewise.
Can u have a personal talk about problems in a noisy environment where everybody is eating breakfast and chatting ?
I can argue the family who is christian can relate better since they have one extra topic to talk about. Members pray together before a meal, discuss the bible together, sing hymns together etc.
I do not want your interpretation of wat happened in heaven. Wat is the bible interpretation ?
Relax la, the jail scenario in heaven was just a joke.
Biblical interpretation ... what I can remember is God will wipe away your tears, and you'll be rewarded, according to your works. Gold? Silver?
You can ask the more seasoned christians to fill you in on this.
PS: Nothing beats the idea of 1000 virgins awaiting you in heaven right? -
hi guys.. just to contribute my ides on evolution:
Unlike all other primates, humans ordinarily walk upright, carnival rides notwithstanding. This posture makes "particular demands on the vestibular apparatus" because humans balance a large body mass "on very small areas of support" (Spoor et al., 1994, p. 645). Although chimpanzees may walk upright for brief periods--using what is called facultative bipedalism--only humans always walk that way. Our obligatory bipedalism is, in part, maintained by the distinctive arrangement of the semicircular canals in our vestibular system.
But what about the vestibular systems of so-called transitional forms between humans and other primates? Are those systems more ape-like, or more human-like? Recently, using a CT scanner, anthropologist Fred Spoor and his coworkers analyzed the inner ears of extinct hominids (in particular, Australopithecus africanus) and compared them with the inner ears seen in living primates and modern humans. Spoor's analysis confirms many creationist arguments about the nontransitional status of these hominids, and maintains the distance between hominids and modern man.
For many years, creationists (e.g., Gish 1993) have referred to the studies on Australopithecus by evolutionists Charles Oxnard and Lord Sully Zuckerman. These evolutionists, having analyzed postcranial (body) material of Australopithecus, contend that Australopithecus was not bipedal and transitional to man, but walked rather like a chimp.
Using a completely different approach from that of Oxnard and Zuckerman, and examining a different anatomical complex (the inner ear), Spoor and his coworkers support Oxnard and Zuckerman's conclusions. The "semi-circular canal dimensions" of Australopithecus, they write, resemble "those of the extant [living] great apes" (p. 645).
Once again, Australopithecus is shown to be very ape-like, not a transitional ape-man. The human condition is first found in the inner ear of Homo erectus, but insofar as Homo erectus has a modern human-like vestibular system, it offers no support for evolution. In a careful study, the creationist Martin Lubenow (1992) has demonstrated that Homo erectus does not differ sufficiently from modern man (Homo sapiens) to warrant the status of a distinct species. Rather, the differences between the two forms should be regarded as racial. A gulf exists, therefore, between humans and Australopithecus.
Evolutionists have tried to fill the gulf between by devising a "wastebasket" species, Homo habilis. But Lubenow (1992, pp. 157-166) has convincingly argued that Homo habilis is an artificial species because it combines disparate human and australopithecine remains (akin, perhaps, to mixing dog and cat bones together, giving the result a species name, and proclaiming it a transition between dogs and cats).
The Spoor study provides support for Lubenow's argument about the artificial status of Homo habilis. Two specimens, SK 847 and Stw 53, were long held to belong to the same species, with the former independently assigned to either Homo erectus or Homo habilis, and the latter to Homo habilis. Spoor and his coworkers show that the vestibular systems of the two specimens are so different that they could not have come from the same species. Specimen SK 847 should definitely be assigned to Homo erectus (and, if Lubenow is right, to human beings generally). Specimen Stw 53, on the other hand, has unique semicircular canals, although their proportions tend to resemble those of modern large primates. Spoor et al. argue that Stw 53 (which they believe should be assigned to Homo habilis) probably relied less on bipedal locomotion than did Australopithecus! Clearly, this is a step in the wrong direction (pardon the pun), evolutionarily speaking. As Spoor et al. note (p. 64
:
. . . the unique labyrinth of Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the morphologies seen in the australopithecines and Homo erectus.