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 religion
Come 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 party
how 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?
All in all, you still have not explained the origins of life.
Neither has any scientist been able to explain it too.
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.
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.
