Gnosticism

last SG · 2006-04-17T00:24:29+00:00

dunno where to slot you in the Five Tiger Generals of Liu Bei. Huang Zhong is old, but his archery is top. Maybe just like you, who can yi zhen jian xue (on...

Chin Eng SG

Laughing
Just as I thought you'd reply. Christians believe in God - delusional. Scientific folks have program on supernatural activitiy - delusional.....

There is evidence that there is supernatural. Well established and accepted ways are not able to determine why there is supernatural, only that it exists.

..... having said that... thanks, Eternal hope sure beat the Buddhist thread. Laughing

casino_king SG

Which part did i say that when people believe in the supernatural it equals delusional?

I am simply stating that Christians are delusional because they believe in unsubstantiated claims with no evidence. At least not the kind of evidence that can be accepted. The kind of evidence people give when they make a claim that whales exist. The kind of evidence that is observable by independent 3rd parties and repeatable.

Not the kind of my grandfather said this and my grandfather said that kind of evidence.

breytonhartge SG

Originally posted by casino_king:
[b]

Which part did i say that when people believe in the supernatural it equals delusional?

I am simply stating that Christians are delusional because they believe in unsubstantiated claims with no evidence. [b]

err... if you actually can follow your own train of thought, you say we Christians believe in the supernatural and you claim that we are delusional. Therefore, by extrapolation, people who believe in the supernatural are delusional, because you cannot distinguish one kind of supernatural from another right? Laughing

Actually from reading the various posts here, we have substantiated our claims as to why we believe, its just you who does not accept them.

Chin Eng SG

Simply put: supernatural CANNOT be substantiated or proven. Supernatural can only be experienced. No one can explain why some things happen. Some people conclude that people experiencing the supernatural is psychotic. Others subscribe to the belief that there is a realm beyond what we see.

From a totally objective standpoint, people believing in religion (read God) believes in the supernatural. Therefore basing on your first statement, the conclusion is people who believe in the supernatural does not equates being delusional, people who believe in God is also not delusional.

From your reply, it can be concluded that your argument is totally inconsistent. So no need to discuss already lah.... since your entire trend of argument here (as well as in the Buddhist forum) is religion bashing.

casino_king SG

Are you saying that supernatural events can only be believed and that there is no way to produce the evidence for it?

Take it any way you want, when there is no evidence for something I will definitley not accept it.

I will think that people who accept claims without evidence and then go on and say that they have "proven" it for themselves but fail to produce one iota of good evidence that others can verify is delusional.

An example. Prayer works. There was never any evidence that prayer works; at least not the kind that is acceptable and based on internationadl standards.

Then a believer comes along and say: "I have tried it for myself and I can confirm that prayer works."

So you ask him: "How did you come to that conclusion and tell us what experiment you did to verify that prayer works so we can conduct the same experiment to verify your results."

By simple logic we know he cannot because otherwise, it would have become universally accepted that prayer works.

Considering that there is no evidence for the power of prayer and yet people pray day after day... delusional.

casino_king SG

I am suddenly so interested in religion; christian and buddhist and whatever because I realise that gamblers do the same thing.... act without sound evidence.

They tell you stuff like... "you want me to stop, but can you guarantee that I will not win? Can you guarantee that the next time I go to the casino and when I walk out I will not be a winner?"

This is exactly what I face when I talk to religious people. They ask me: "can you guarantee that praying will not help?"

Idiots, gamblers and religious people.

You go by evidence and make decisions based on good evidence not based on speculation and delusions and then ask people to prove that your delusions are not delusions.

breytonhartge SG

I am not saying anything, just refuting a point you made in your comment. Like CE says, your arguments are totally inconsistent, so no point debating any further...

...opps... icemoon may get upset. Laughing

breytonhartge SG

You have hit the nail on the head! Congratulations!

I believe the evidence that God is real.

My decision to believe is based on this good evidence, not speculation otherwise I would not be so committed.

People have already proven that my delusions are not delusions.

But the point here is not about us. It is about you.

The issues you have to consider are:

1. Do you believe the evidence put before you?
2. If you do believe the evidence put before you, then is it considered good evidence by you?
3. If you say yes to points one and two, then there is no need to prove any delusions or speculations, because it is already good evidence.

However if you do not believe the evidence before you and you still believe, then you are speculating.... so what is the point? Wink

casino_king SG

Like what Tom Cruise in the movie said: "Show me the money."

I say to you: "Show me the evidence."

It is right that you do not debate any further because without the evidence.... it will be pointless. If somehow you can come up with good evidence... nah forget it, after a couple of thousand years and still nothing... I doubt it.

breytonhartge SG

so why do you still persist? Are you hoping to find something?

Like i said earlier, it is not about us, it is about you.

casino_king SG

Originally posted by breytonhartge:

You have hit the nail on the head! Congratulations!

I believe the evidence that God is real.

My decision to believe is based on this good evidence, not speculation otherwise I would not be so committed.

People have already proven that my delusions are not delusions.

[b]But the point here is not about us. It is about you.

The issues you have to consider are:

1. Do you believe the evidence put before you?
2. If you do believe the evidence put before you, then is it considered good evidence by you?
3. If you say yes to points one and two, then there is no need to prove any delusions or speculations, because it is already good evidence.

However if you do not believe the evidence before you and you still believe, then you are speculating.... so what is the point? Wink [/b]

Now we are talking... finally on the same page after all that posting.

Firstly can your "evidence" stand up to scrutiny?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What I suspect you will tell me is that your evidence is based on THE WORD OF GOD.

Of course you realise straight away that GOD is debatable and whether THE WORD you are referiing to is indeed what it claims to be.

After all Buddhist sutras and Hindu "scriptures" and The Koran all claim similar status of authority.

So please go back and think carefully what your evidence is and whether it is "good" evidence of the required standard that you can present to us shamelessly in a public forum or you should quietly shamefully share it among the believers in your churches and temples and mosques.

breytonhartge SG

Originally posted by casino_king:

Now we are talking... finally on the same page after all that posting.

Firstly can your "evidence" stand up to scrutiny?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What I suspect you will tell me is that your evidence is based on [b]THE WORD OF GOD.

Of course you realise straight away that GOD is debatable and whether THE WORD you are referiing to is indeed what it claims to be.

After all Buddhist sutras and Hindu "scriptures" and The Koran all claim similar status of authority.

So please go back and think carefully what your evidence is and whether it is "good" evidence of the required standard that you can present to us shamelessly in a public forum or you should quietly shamefully share it among the believers in your churches and temples and mosques.

[/b]

err... we are not on the same page. You still have not answered the question.

It is not about what I believe, it is about whether you believe.

Actually for me, GOD is not debateable. FYI, i believe the WORD is indeed what it claims to be.

My evidence is good evidence in my humble opinion.

Actually I do not have to think anymore, the one that needs to think is you. Whether you consider this evidence that is before you good evidence. If you do not then case closed, we cannot proceed any further. It will be a cyclical argument. Always going round and round.

Cheers

casino_king SG

Originally posted by breytonhartge:

err... we are not on the same page. You still have not answered the question.

[b]It is not about what I believe, it is about whether you believe.

Actually for me, GOD is not debateable. FYI, i believe the WORD is indeed what it claims to be.

My evidence is good evidence in my humble opinion.

Actually I do not have to think anymore, the one that needs to think is you. Whether you consider this evidence that is before you good evidence. If you do not then case closed, we cannot proceed any further. It will be a cyclical argument. Always going round and round.

Cheers
[/b]

I hope you understand that it is a question of whether one should act and do according to some teaching Christian/Buddhist or Islam despite the fact that all these teachings are based on unsubstantiated claims without good evidence.

The christians hold on to their beliefs in a life and death manner and so do the Buddhists. Muslims as we all know, some of them anyway are willing to murder people including themselves if they think those people's governments are insulting or waging "war" against their religion.

The whole idea that you can accept claims and act accordingly without demanding good evidence is abhorent.

plo30360 SG

The evidence can also be doctored so heck it just go with superstitions?

Superstions? On the contrary, I go with eternal unchanging truth. I'm willing to admit that it requires faith to belive that this eternal unchaging truth is the truth. You however are not willing to admit you put your faith in relative and forever changing truths

2 billion people who have seen and experience God? Then these 2 billion people would have been in agreement with each other as to what they saw and experienced, yet you have all these denominations fighting with each other over who is more correct.

So, there will always be differences of opnion, even atheist are not in complete unision.

Kind and loving God who is willing that his son DIE a horrible death but not willing to show himself to save the world?

You view God sending His Son to die as evil, I however have a different view on what constitues evil and suffering(note both are distinct concepts and have different meanings)

As I've said, I see God in His creation. You however do not see God because in the first place you do not even acknowledge the existance of God based upon relative and temporal truths which you place your fate in. Very Happy

How does one become so delusional naive and superstitious like you?

How does one become so close-minded as you?

casino_king SG

You use the words "eternal unchaging truth" in a manner that can only be described as "brain washed." Produce evidence that what you claim is "eternal unchaging truth" and it will go into the textbooks. Why would the people of the world reject "eternal unchaging truth?"

So, there will always be differences of opnion, even atheist are not in complete unision.

Exactly, "there will always be differences of opnion" so how do we resolve the matter? By looking at cold hard evidence and not by believing in superstitions.

You view God sending His Son to die as evil, I however have a different view on what constitues evil and suffering(note both are distinct concepts and have different meanings)

I did not say that God sending his son is evil. I said that christians claim that God is so good he is willing to "send his begotton son" to die a horrible death.... but this same God is not willing to show himself and announce to the world that he is indeed alive and in existence and the christians are right.

As I've said, I see God in His creation. You however do not see God because in the first place you do not even acknowledge the existance of God based upon relative truths which you place your fate in. Very Happy

Sure you can see God in anything and everything as long as your standards are low enough or non existing. But please do it shamefully in your churches and your mosques and until you have real proof of the existence of God, then crawl out from your delusional holes and give us the evidence.

How does one become so close-minded as you?

Nope you are wrong... if you can give me solid evidence... I will become a christian immediately... and before you start quoting from "the Word of God" please make sure that anything you say conforms to the universally accepted standards that even christians, muslims and buddhists have no problems with:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Chin Eng SG

Originally posted by casino_king:

Nope you are wrong... if you can give me solid evidence... I will become a christian immediately... and before you start quoting from "the Word of God" please make sure that anything you say conforms to the universally accepted standards that even christians, muslims and buddhists have no problems with:

[b]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method [/b]

That's the best you've got? wikipedia? a reader-entered description? I am sure you can do better than that....

http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/archives/fall2002/entries/scientific-realism/

which states: Scientific realism is thus the common sense (or common science) conception that, subject to a recognition that scientific methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is approximate, we are justified in accepting the most secure findings of scientists "at face value."

or

http://www.wordlist.org/sc/scientific-method.html

which states: there is no one "scientific method" that all scientists follow as an algorithm, and there is no consensus on what occupations and activities count as science. A liberal, descriptive conception of the scientific method accepts that creativity, genius, inspiration and new ideas may enter at any stage in the scientific process. What differentiates science from non-sciences is that such creativity is tested against experimental reality. Science depends on empirical methods to build a consensus among peers about which ideas are accurate, and which are not.

....so apparently the much lauded scientific methods also rely greatly on consensus....

....also apparently, your knowledge of what science really is, leaves a lot to be desired.

vince69 SG

To most modern young people.... Science is whatever is being taught in school lah ... teacher say its true than true lah... so simple..

to this perhaps C_K can start a crusade against teaching of Evolution as well on the following basis...
1) Its not repeatable in a lab
2) No one had actually witness evolution in progress (the argument being, it takes too long for it to happen)
3) No one really know what is the next stage of evolution
4) everything we sees in the text books about this evolve to that are all based on imagination (ie. artist impression on how it look like by looking at its bones).
5) what is known as evolution paths (or whatever its called) is based on the assumption that evolution is true, hence things must had evolved something else, hence proof that evolution exist.

Conclusion, based on C_K's logic, since the theroy of Evolution is not observable and repeatable by any independant third party, Theory of Evolution is proven to be false....

thank you C_K.
Smile

now... what is the other theory again? Wink

casino_king SG

Originally posted by Chin Eng:

That's the best you've got? wikipedia? a reader-entered description? I am sure you can do better than that....

http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/archives/fall2002/entries/scientific-realism/

which states: Scientific realism is thus the common sense (or common science) conception that, subject to a recognition that [b]scientific methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is approximate, we are justified in accepting the most secure findings of scientists "at face value."

or

http://www.wordlist.org/sc/scientific-method.html

which states: there is no one "scientific method" that all scientists follow as an algorithm, and there is no consensus on what occupations and activities count as science. A liberal, descriptive conception of the scientific method accepts that creativity, genius, inspiration and new ideas may enter at any stage in the scientific process. What differentiates science from non-sciences is that such creativity is tested against experimental reality. Science depends on empirical methods to build a consensus among peers about which ideas are accurate, and which are not.

....so apparently the much lauded scientific methods also rely greatly on consensus....

....also apparently, your knowledge of what science really is, leaves a lot to be desired.[/b]

I do not know if it was you but I asked much earlier... "so science is not perfect and because of that you prefers something worse? Superstitions?"

You see, if you produce valid evidence that can by consensus be accepted, eveyone understands that as more evidence comes in, and new evidence comes in, we will have a better understanding.

Like I mentioned gravity and one of you laughed and said that to me even gravity is not real. Newtonian gravity is real given all the evidence Newton provided. Einstein came along and provided and new way of thinking and now we have a better understanding of gravity. It can be argued that it is possible that someone else will come along and give us an even better understanding of gravity.

Just because it is possible that someone else will come along and give us an even better understanding of gravity; we do not then say: We better use our own imagination and depend on delusions and imaginations and forget about determinig claims and pronouncements based on the well accepted principles of: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

That is why you have so many religions in the world making all sorts of claims and so many christian denominations and cults making all sorts of claims. All these claims are baseless without good evidence.

Chin Eng SG

...since we are still at wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_religion which states: The relationship between religion and science takes many forms. Generally speaking, religion and science use different methods in their effort to ascertain truth. The scientific method relies on an objective approach to measure, calculate, and describe the natural/physical/material universe. Religious methods are typically more subjective (or intersubjective in community), relying on varying notions of authority, through any combination of: revelation, intuition, belief in the supernatural, individual experience, or a combination of these to understand the universe. Science attempts to answer the "how" and "what" questions of observable and verifiable phenomena; religion attempts to answer the "why" questions of value and morals. However, some science also attempts to explain such "why" questions, and some religious authority also extends to "how" and "what" questions regarding the natural world, creating the potential for conflict.

Historically, science has had a close and complex relationship with religion; religious doctrines and motivations have often been central to scientific development, while scientific knowledge has had profound effects on religious beliefs. A common modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. Another view known as the conflict thesispopularized in the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, but now largely rejected by historians of scienceholds that science and religion inevitably compete for authority over the nature of reality, so that religion has been gradually losing a war with science as scientific explanations become more powerful and widespread. However, neither of these views adequately accounts for the variety of interactions between science and religion (both historically and today), ranging from antagonism to separation to close collaboration.

The interesting to note is: inspite of the credibility and reputation of these folks, there are no accusations of delusions or suckers in the entire argument.

casino_king SG

They are just being polite.

« Previous Page Next Page »