« 回到论坛
版主：
anuriandima84, Liamjod, mekhala, mnopq
 作者 |
 发布
|
 |
|
A. Tsang
连接： Jul 24, 2005
邮件 14
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 34
国家：New Zealand
Province/State: Auckland
城市: Auckland
|
Re: Is there life after death?
April 3, 2006 - 04:11 AM
|
|
Originally posted by Shahram1
Instead of being in despair and/or in uncertainty about the existence of after-life, why not just enjoy every moment of what you currently possess? Any day you spend above the ground is a marvellous day, be thankful and cherish the presence of your loved ones.
Regards,
Shahram
I believe as long as I'm not hurting, harming or abusing anyone and contunually being kind, doing charity & loving my neighbour , I'm accumulating wealth to my "afterlife".
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
al-kafir
连接： Feb 5, 2006
邮件 35
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 31
国家：United States
Province/State: New Jersey
城市: Asbury Park
|
Re: Is there life after death?
April 6, 2006 - 09:44 AM
|
|
Originally posted by cheetaih
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shahram1
[B]Instead of being in despair and/or in uncertainty about the existence of after-life, why not just enjoy every moment of what you currently possess? Any day you spend above the ground is a marvellous day, be thankful and cherish the presence of your loved ones.
Regards,
Shahram
I believe as long as I'm not hurting, harming or abusing anyone and contunually being kind, doing charity & loving my neighbour , I'm accumulating wealth to my "afterlife".[/B][/QUOTE]
How many billions of people have lived and died since man walked the planet? Ten billion?, 50 billion?
How many people have ever been resurrected? According to the tales, only two.
This is all very interesting, but it's not the problem of atheism, it's the problem of theism. Is what you suggest, (an afterlife), possible? I suppose, but then it's possible that the universe ends at a wall behind which an invisible pink unicorn is grinding away at gears that makes the whole thing run.
The theist creates for himself a genuinely unsolvable dilemma. He/she claims there is a source material that lays out the belief system. He/she claims this source material has a level of functionality that supports that belief system as well. He/she further asserts that unless the "author" of that support system (a god or god(s)) endows one with some special knowledge (knowledge that can’t be shared in a meaningful way), one cannot understand that support system as laid out and supported by the source material.
The theist then further complicates matters by suggesting, as I believe you have previously, and here, that there are various complex methods by which one can read and interpret this source material.
Then the theist – Muslims, Christians and the like -- proceed even further. He/she states that the god has a vested interest in human salvation, and through this book makes that word of salvation known, and yet... according to you there are varying degrees by which this knowledge may or may not be interpreted or even discovered.
In other words, the message of the book is a cold, unalterable law: Ye must believeth this, or be damned.
Then the book itself ranges from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not.
Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is the flood true? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary), is Mohammad’s ascension on a golden staircase true?
I dunno. Could be. Maybe. Depends. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe a flesh and blood body. Maybe not. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains:
Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – a marshmallow in Hell.
Yet one cannot, according to theists, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against this incredibly important book. The Quran, the Bible, you argue, "gets a pass".
No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because the Quran, the Bible or some other holy text has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles and Qurans at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we? It's always the “holy text” of the week mythology we wrestle over.
Which is completely without merit.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Drbadr
连接： Apr 5, 2004
邮件 22
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 62
国家：Egypt
|
Re: Is there life after death?
April 7, 2006 - 01:14 AM
|
|
Quete"Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we? It's always the “holy text” of the week mythology we wrestle over.
Which is completely without merit."
الكافر
this is the Arabic name
if you have the time to write all these writing in threads which we hope TIG to help stop bad writing about bibles , Quraan
In fact you must be ashaimed that you have good mind but you can not direct it in good way and this name will be the proove against you in the day you deney
All heaven books, bibles and lastedwith Quraan explain every think, so please do not waste the time of people and use your mind and time in reading and finding the truth
any one is free to say his opinion but without such your bad words about any bible
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
mnopq
连接： Dec 20, 2005
邮件 134
帖子等级
喋喋不休
用户是：
下线
 虚拟义务工作者:
性别： 男性
国家：Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
城市: Al Qahirah
|
Re: Is there life after death?
April 7, 2006 - 03:36 AM
|
|
TIGers,
Everyone of us is different.
al-kafir is a science guy, who takes events, environment and everything else in the life from the scientific point of view, i.e. seeks reason and causes in the science rather than religion, which doesnt necessarily imply that these two cannot coincide(please correct me if i m wrong)!
DrBadr is a devoted believer, and he thinks that most of our lifes virtues or the rigth way of living that one should adhere to can be found in Koran (holy book) and that the religion should be the one guidance we must have in our lifes(please correct me if i m wrong)!
I am kind of person that believes in both approaches! I believe that some things can be explained by science and some things cannot be explained by science or can be "explained" by religion. Now, i put word "explained" in brackets cause religion's bases are holy books which are recollections of historical facts and events that migth or might not (author introduced an error intentionally or due to his/her misconception) have happened before. But considering that science, itself, evolved a lot, and that what was considered true universally by a certain time, say Newton's theory 18th century, had to give way to Einstein's theory in 20th century in certain cases. So it might happen that the so-called standard model in physics have to be altered drastically (if at CERN they dont find Higgs boson, for example). All this terminology to show you that science is alsoprone tochanges and what is true today is not necessarily true tomorrow even in science!
So, the conclusion is, that we, humans, need exlanations, reasons, guidances, clarifications. For some of us all this and more can be found in holy books, for some of us, in science, yet for some others bit of both!
And therefore i dont see why one would argue over this issue! We are all different, each of us with our own beliefs and we shouldnt measure others with our scales 
Cheers,
H.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Drbadr
连接： Apr 5, 2004
邮件 22
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 62
国家：Egypt
|
Re: Is there life after death?
April 7, 2006 - 04:17 AM
|
|
Thank you mnpq for sharing thoughts and trying to cure wounds with calm way.
I want to tell you that I am just mother want the best for her kids including TIGers as I Am so worry about all
the thing made me angry is not the beleive because we only say what we know but others are free in their beleives as there is no compulsion in religen and only Allah guide who want
but I do not like insult as done by the same people to creator, prophets , bibles and beleive that this force others to be terrorism . I like to live in peace and hope the same for all.
anbout your comment , I spend 55 years learning and still love to learn even from young , also I am working in science and biotechnology which made me say every day Sobhan-Allah "glory for Allah" as every thing in Quraan and real bibles is true and proved by science
about hereafter as i said before I fased situations made be sure and as I said look at life cycle of any small insect and notice how dead change to life and vise versa so it is not blind faith but We also must use our minds as Allah asked us
thanx again mnpq
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
al-kafir
连接： Feb 5, 2006
邮件 35
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 31
国家：United States
Province/State: New Jersey
城市: Asbury Park
|
Re: Is there life after death?
April 7, 2006 - 11:17 AM
|
|
Originally posted by mnopq
TIGers,
Everyone of us is different.
Cheers,
H.
There’s wisdom in your post, H. Here’s my answer to the basic question of “Did the universe come into existence”?
If so, does the appearance of the universe imply a creator?
If so, must this creator be God?
I would answer all of these questions negatively.
We know that the universe exists. We can see no evidence for its non-existence either in the past or the future. We can see that the universe changes its form over time. The logical implication is that the universe has always existed in some form and will always exist in some form.
Assume instead that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
Assume instead that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by a God. God is, by definition, an immortal, supernatural being. He exists in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. A supernatural being responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion cease to exist.
These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.
Mnopq posted:
But considering that science, itself, evolved a lot, and that what was considered true universally by a certain time, say Newton's theory 18th century, had to give way to Einstein's theory in 20th century in certain cases. So it might happen that the so-called standard model in physics have to be altered drastically (if at CERN they dont find Higgs boson, for example). All this terminology to show you that science is alsoprone tochanges and what is true today is not necessarily true tomorrow even in science!
This is a great point, and the great thing about science is that it flexes as new information comes in. As a materialist, I don't rely on dogma but on supported knowledge. Religious dogma takes centuries to change, if it ever does at all. But if a scientific tenet is proven absolutely false, then the truth must supplant the fiction. The only way to do this is to provide evidence for the new paradigm (lately, black holes have undergone a tremendous amount of study and a lot of information is pouring in about them, changing what we knew about their nature). None of this is pompousness or arrogance; it's the discipline of knowledge, plain and simple. George Bernard Shaw once remarked to a colleague who was laughing at the primitive people's ideas that the sun went around the earth, "Yes, they must be fools since it doesn't look at all like it does."
The glass may really be half full here. The countering arguments (again, absolutely required to make this debate function in the first place) may not be what you are (mis)interpreting them to be. What the real question is, should be put to creationists: Explain why god has shown clear and unmistakable steps between animals that indicate immense spans of time changed that animal from a certain version into another." This question would belong in that category of questions labeled, "Why is god so deceitful?" Such as, Why did god created the universe to look like it's extremely old by creating a light speed and then placing stars so far away that it would take billions of years for that light to reach us?" Instead of that, let's meet half way. Of course science makes predictions. But the degree of accuracy inherent in said predictions is based on probability. I was reading about the first discoveries of DNA where most scientists resisted the idea at all at first, and then decided we'd never even map the genome of a worm-- yet here we are mapping humans. And in fact, science can answer "why" and "what's next" and does so with reliable continuity. From science we learn how stars function – why do they "burn"? And if you want to know when the next eclipse is going to be -- well, you could rattle bones, ask a Cleric or Mullah, read tea leaves…
OR
you could consult an astronomer and get a list of every solar and lunar eclipse for the next 8 millions years.
What science does not do is prophesize.
Mnopq posted:
And therefore i dont see why one would argue over this issue! We are all different, each of us with our own beliefs and we shouldnt measure others with our scales
I do measure,(judge), what people believe. I make judgments every day about the people I choose as friends, the music I listen to, the things I hold as truth. It’s important and necessary to do so. Some people believe that verses in an ancient text do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals’ freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Anu maheshwari
连接： Jun 14, 2005
邮件 122
帖子等级
喋喋不休
用户是：
下线
虚拟义务工作者:
性别和年龄： 女性, 25
国家：India
Province/State: Maharashtra
城市: Pune
|
Re: Is there life after death?
April 8, 2006 - 04:18 AM
|
|
Originally posted by mnopq
Everyone of us is different.
Cheers,
H.
EXACTLY ! Hayk! ;-)
Originally posted by mnopq
Exactly! That's the only consistent difference between science and religion: that religion takes rather longtime(if ever) to change whereas science is changing once there is a theory disproving the existing one.. So the difference is the degree of time-span ! Notwithstanding to mention that both the religion and the science have their "logical frameworks". For science thats the scientific evidence of observable events and phenomenons and their explanations. For religion it is the "predefined" assumptions, guidances and "truths" which then give explanation to every possible event and phenomenon.
“logical frameworks”
hmmm anything that is perceived as ‘logical’ , amenable to ‘reason’, or as “knowledge” can be considered problematic as the means used to bring them out is the common factor of ‘language’. And as the deconstructionist critic Derrida would say;
“Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique”.
When you use the word ‘framework’ that itself reveals that ‘logic’ cannot exist on its own. It needs a framework and within that framework the said ‘logic’ appears as ‘logic’.
If you look up a word in the dictionary you can find no definite meaning. Each word can lead to another word and then to another word and in the end you can find something that is nowhere close to the original word. There is an endless chain of ‘signifiers’ out there. There is actually nothing called ‘meaning’ as such. What we call meaning is something we pick out of many possible explanations.
So is the case with ‘logic’ and ‘knowledge’;
Scientists make certain assumptions to begin with and then test their assumptions. But there are many other things that they might have left unobserved. What they know of might be a minuscule of what ‘actually’ goes on or what actually might have happened!
The only problem with religions based on books and a clerical authority is as Hayk rightly points out --“rigidity”. There is just too much delay in accepting certain things as most of the new findings have within themselves a power to undermine what the ‘religion’ professes or at least what the clerics profess. So those in power try to keep science at arm’s length.
Originally posted by mnopq
But as you clearly pointed out science makes us ask questions and I would agree on that totally.
The reason is cause religion is rather rigid, not changing and therefore not dynamic(let apart hinduism if i m not wrong - Anu please comment! dromarof,al-kafir,Arslan please correct me if i am wrong), whereas science is changin and with change (in anything) always come questions
Hinduism, as the saffron clad self proclaimed interpreters of the philosophy which they call ‘religion’ (a misnomer in this case) would have it, is rigid like any other religion.
But the Hinduism as I have mentioned before is not static and was never meant to be. There is no one book laying down rules here. There are ideas which have been compiled throughout the centuries by various scholars on a variety of topics ranging from astronomy, biology, maths, chemistry, hygiene, language, art etc to things like morality, duties (the first word of Bhagavad Gita is ‘dharma’ and the last word is ‘mama’, hence the essence of Gita is ‘mama dharma’ – My duty), rights, ideal state, foreign policy, ideal way of life etc. These ideas were later taken as guiding principles by the rulers to define a way of life.
Each new scholar has improved or critiqued the existing ideas. The central concept is that of “CHANGE” ….that everything changes… nothing is static …the earth moves, the time passes, change is vital for the cycle of life to continue! ‘Change’ is basic to Hindu philosophy.
There are other concepts which are central to Hindu philosophy …like that of ‘Brahman’ (absolute). According to the Advaita Philosophy in Hinduism knowledge alone gives liberation from bondage …but the paradox of this ‘absolute’ knowledge is that it is a realization that ‘there is no absolute knowledge’. When a person realizes the fact ‘that nothing is absolute in this world’ she/he is liberated. The concept of an ‘absolute’ knowledge is an illusion!
That’s all for now!
I don’t know how much I could put across or whether I could put even a single thing straight…but I tried ;-) ….that’s all I can do!
Hurrah to Chaos and an endless deferment of meaning!
Cheers!!!!!
Anu
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Dereje Amera
连接： Sep 26, 2004
邮件 17
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 39
国家：Ethiopia
Province/State: Addis Abeba
城市: Addis Ababa
|
Re: Is there life after death?
April 8, 2006 - 10:06 AM
|
|
yes, i do believe that there is life after death. The thing that I do not know is what kind of life after death. It is like explaining to a baby in the womb of mother about the existence of this world. One needs to have the proper language to explain about the after life in a language that baby understand. To understand and know about the next world, it would be hard to know it here, but this does not mean that it does not exist. As we have no language to explain about the existence of this world, which does not mean that this world does not exist.
The interesting thing about our experience here on earth that if we do not know or have any info about any matter, people come to conclusions that that matter does not exist. The good thing here is that to give a chance to ourselves to investigate further and know> iF ONE REFERS all the Holy Books, they tell the existence of next world in different ways; like heaven or hell; which gives a good clue that there is some kind of existence after this life. our life here is mainly concerned about reconciling our own contradictions, which is a good preparation we make for hereafter life. In such cases one needs to give chances to experience some other aspects of one's life, which helps in preparing to the next one.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
mnopq
连接： Dec 20, 2005
邮件 134
帖子等级
喋喋不休
用户是：
下线
虚拟义务工作者:
性别： 男性
国家：Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
城市: Al Qahirah
|
Re: Is there life after death?
April 8, 2006 - 12:28 PM
|
|
Originally posted by al-kafir
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mnopq
[B]TIGers,
Everyone of us is different.
Cheers,
H.
There’s wisdom in your post, H. Here’s my answer to the basic question of “Did the universe come into existence”?
If so, does the appearance of the universe imply a creator?
If so, must this creator be God?
I would answer all of these questions negatively.
[/B][/QUOTE]
al-kafir, my friend, i dont think you can answer any of those questions.. Reason is not you, its us, all of us, we are NOT qualified, UNABLE and moreover, we cannot have a non-baised response to any of those two questions for the same reason as why one cannot judge objectively about him/herself...
All we can do is speculate and anticipate issues and settle on those which give our souls, our conscience, our heart and our minds a "satisfaction".
We know that the universe exists. We can see no evidence for its non-existence either in the past or the future. We can see that the universe changes its form over time.
The word "see" is the problem in above quote.
There is a phrase in the movie "Matrix" when the guy Neo is being taken into the virtual reality and suddenly he stops believing what he sees and feels, and its then that Morpheus asks, "What is reality? Do you call reality signals that your brain is rendering from your sensors, be it originated from any of our 5 senses?"
There is wisdom to what he says. It all can be true and objective reality, but it all can be false and subjective.
To give you another example, dogs see things in black and white. For them our world is black-and-white. Is it the real world according to humans? NO. So who said humans, as yet another species, have the absolute, objective truth??
No human can answer that question...
The logical implication is that the universe has always existed in some form and will always exist in some form.
Big bang theory, theories of inflation, .... all try to somehow find the "beginning" and the possible "end" of the universe... I am not sure they will firstly because its almost impossible to effectuate any direct "experience" to find out, secondly, cause again, we are in the very system we try to find "parameters" of, and thirdly because human life-span will not be enough to verify any of our anticipations..
Assume instead that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures,
What do you mean by "natural creatures". I can say we are irrational creatures trying to give ourselves reasoning and make things in a reasonable way, but its all superficial
we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
That was the case till 20th century, when the theory was born on the basis of observation, and then the theory was being adjusted along with the inflow of new data concerning that particular theory..
Its no longer true. Theories are being born not because there is anobservation but because some scientists are curious enough to ask questions which cannot be answered, or are keen to speculate in any possible development or enhancement of existing theories... That's how all the string theories, for exmaple, exist in physics..
What is more "dreadful" is that, science has become so bureacratized that ideas are not flowing freely as they should or being wrongly attibuted or eing lost in the layers of bureacracy, etc.
Now, i can understand if you or someone else would argue giving all recent and current innovations. I will reply simply by saying that firstly most of innovations, in technology, in physics, in bilogy, in chemistry, or mathematics had one or another "lucky strike" to be heard, implemented or understood..
Plus if we consider on one side contemporary technoligcal and other abilities of science to discover or develop new ideas,phenomenons, etc and on other side those of say ancient Greeks, I m not sure who would be more "effective" or "productive". I would vote for Greeks...
Assume instead that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm.
So here it comes, you say supernatural to what cannot be incorporated to some existing theory(ies). Supposedly natural then means any phenomenon or observation that can be adjusted into one or more of existing theories..
Well that's your definition of natural of supernatural!
Let's stick to it then!
Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by a God. God is, by definition, an immortal, supernatural being. He exists in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls.
Ok lets consider that!
The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant.
I dont agree. You cannot claim this as there is no absolute "prove" or absolute "disprove" to it. We should thus stick to a neutral point of view.
A supernatural being responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion cease to exist.
I dont think a logic, in a rigourous scientific way, can be applied to religious issues such as existence of God or any of God's actions... If that logic would be scientifically applied the religion would become a science, which it is not. And i m not counting here theology..
These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.
I disagree with consistence of your statements being logical. Plus i dont thing that adherants of any religion guide their life according to the true scientific logic. Waht they are guided with is the hope!
Mnopq posted:
[QUOTE]But considering that science, itself, evolved a lot, and that what was considered true universally by a certain time, say Newton's theory 18th century, had to give way to Einstein's theory in 20th century in certain cases. So it might happen that the so-called standard model in physics have to be altered drastically (if at CERN they dont find Higgs boson, for example). All this terminology to show you that science is alsoprone tochanges and what is true today is not necessarily true tomorrow even in science!
This is a great point, and the great thing about science is that it flexes as new information comes in. As a materialist, I don't rely on dogma but on supported knowledge. Religious dogma takes centuries to change, if it ever does at all.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly! That's the only consistent difference between science and religion: that religion takes rather longtime(if ever) to change whereas science is changing once there is a theory disproving the existing one.. So the difference is the degree of time-span ! Notwithstanding to mention that both the religion and the science have their "logical frameworks". For science thats the scientific evidence of observable events and phenomenons and their explanations. For religion it is the "predefined" assumptions, guidances and "truths" which then give explanation to every possible event and phenomenon.
But if a scientific tenet is proven absolutely false, then the truth must supplant the fiction. The only way to do this is to provide evidence for the new paradigm (lately, black holes have undergone a tremendous amount of study and a lot of information is pouring in about them, changing what we knew about their nature). None of this is pompousness or arrogance; it's the discipline of knowledge, plain and simple.
My friend, what is knowledge? Accumulated amount of info based on visual or otherwise observation? A scripture coming from ancient times cliaming something which is still actual?
George Bernard Shaw once remarked to a colleague who was laughing at the primitive people's ideas that the sun went around the earth, "Yes, they must be fools since it doesn't look at all like it does."
The glass may really be half full here. The countering arguments (again, absolutely required to make this debate function in the first place) may not be what you are (mis)interpreting them to be. What the real question is, should be put to creationists: Explain why god has shown clear and unmistakable steps between animals that indicate immense spans of time changed that animal from a certain version into another." This question would belong in that category of questions labeled, "Why is god so deceitful?" Such as, Why did god created the universe to look like it's extremely old by creating a light speed and then placing stars so far away that it would take billions of years for that light to reach us?" Instead of that, let's meet half way. Of course science makes predictions. But the degree of accuracy inherent in said predictions is based on probability. I was reading about the first discoveries of DNA where most scientists resisted the idea at all at first, and then decided we'd never even map the genome of a worm-- yet here we are mapping humans. And in fact, science can answer "why" and "what's next" and does so with reliable continuity. From science we learn how stars function – why do they "burn"? And if you want to know when the next eclipse is going to be -- well, you could rattle bones, ask a Cleric or Mullah, read tea leaves…
Yes, from science we "learn" why how stars function, etc.
Yet as i mentionned above what we "leanrt" from the current science may or may not prove to be true according to the next "version" of science...as it has happened throughout the history so many times.
But as you clearly pointed out science makes us ask questions and I would agree on that totally.
The reason is cause religion is rather rigid, not changing and therefore not dynamic(let apart hinduism if i m not wrong - Anu please comment! dromarof,al-kafir,Arslan please correct me if i am wrong), whereas science is changin and with change (in anything) always come questions
OR
you could consult an astronomer and get a list of every solar and lunar eclipse for the next 8 millions years.
What science does not do is prophesize.
I would reformulate this above phrase from
"What science does not do is prophesize."
to
"What science does is to try to explain current events and phenomena around us with a consideration of all past existing theories and speculating on future theories."
Mnopq posted:
[QUOTE]And therefore i dont see why one would argue over this issue! We are all different, each of us with our own beliefs and we shouldnt measure others with our scales
I do measure,(judge), what people believe. I make judgments every day about the people I choose as friends, the music I listen to, the things I hold as truth. It’s important and necessary to do so. Some people believe that verses in an ancient text do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals’ freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
[/QUOTE]
Right! I still dont think you can persuade others to adapt your beliefs and values! You can try and succeed in some cases but I dont think it will work with everyone!
Cheers,
H.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
|
从帖子中显示：
|
|
主页
团体
