How does evil originated?
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
That's a lie! When did I disappear? I'm still here.
My last post to you is on page 9 of this thread. I did not hear from you since then.
So what if I don't agree with you? You have a problem with that?
Naa i have no problems with that. If you read on about my post about faith and logic, my answers can be found there, let me bold it
Religion is not all about faith. It is about logic as well, in fact, it is the combination of the two that makes the ideal human. We all possess faith at some level, whether or not we can extend it to meet with logic, means that we are limiting ourselves and what we can do
-
dun feed the troll.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
this is called duality, I have no clue if you heard of this before. its like Tao or whatever you want to call it, you have Yin and Yang, ugly and beautiful, high and low etc etc. so normal and abnormal to you is just like duality, in between extremes I see. I dun get what u mean? if that suits you, fine with me. but the issue is still around hello!!! if y ou avoid the question of equality and fairness, then yes we are on a different channel because you either avoid or deflect the question into duality. but no need bothering to explain anymore, because I know equanimity (wonder if you heard this word before) and egalitarian and fairness do not exists in your religion.
its about master and slave type of relationship in your religion if I am being direct. also doesnt make sense a planet can be created in 6 days. this truly exists only in stories. if you tell this to people 2010 years ago, I am sure people then have no problems accepting this. but fast forward 2010 years later, I am afraid this is not so, because people are educated and science and technology are so advanced compared to the society then.
Buddha do not believe in anything
Of course it's clear by now that you are not capable of carrying out the last point.
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
Naa i have no problems with that. If you read on about my post about faith and logic, my answers can be found there, let me bold it
Religion is not all about faith. It is about logic as well, in fact, it is the combination of the two that makes the ideal human. We all possess faith at some level, whether or not we can extend it to meet with logic, means that we are limiting ourselves and what we can do
You are still a liar!
You are suffering from an overabundance of pride. When people do not agree with your logic, you take offence.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
You are still a liar!
You are suffering from an overabundance of pride. When people do not agree with your logic, you take offence.
You know why i hightlighted your quotes in bold ? Cause it sounded ironic.
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
You know why i hightlighted your quotes in bold ? Cause it sounded ironic.
Explain
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Explain
use ur brains mike
there is a purpose for it. -
Originally posted by TTFU: Naa i have no problems with that. If you read on about my post about faith and logic, my answers can be found there, let me bold it
Religion is not all about faith. It is about logic as well, in fact, it is the combination of the two that makes the ideal human. We all possess faith at some level, whether or not we can extend it to meet with logic, means that we are limiting ourselves and what we can do
Since you did not deny that you have lied, I will go along with your logic argument.
You cannot argue against religion with logic. Religion is always about faith.
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
If logic can determine what is true or false in the bible, the religion would haved died a very long time ago.
I disagree with your logic, again.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
use ur brains mike.
Oh shut up, you cretin !
Wait for your turn, ok? -
Originally posted by googoomuck:
You are still a liar!
You are suffering from an overabundance of pride. When people do not agree with your logic, you take offence.
its funny calling the pot black. when people do not agree with the preachings of your religion, what did you do? you and your lot went for the personal attacks. your reputation preceded you. this does not augers well for your religion.
and when Rony Tan went on his rantings earlier, what did your community do? kept quiet? your high priest should have taken the moral high ground to say he does not represent the views of the rest of the community. The lack of response seems to concur with his opinions it seems. he got off very lightly, considering there were charges and jail time for people whose actions did not seem far worse than him, considering he is a leader in his church and there are thousands of congregations who listened to his preachings. this is considered as a seditious acts as it can cause social disturbances with the faiths he blasted. in this instance he got off scott free. I dun think he is truly repentent as he still holds the same views, but he will not make the same mistake twice in future. once bitten, twice shy.
-
my apologies, folks. just bumping this thread up while waiting for Rooney9 to respond to my post.
-
Originally posted by despondent:
hey 24/7
do u agree wif rooney9 tat i have not answered the qn? juz wanted to get another person's opinion
it must be obvious by now that rooney9 and some of his cronies are beyond reason. They don't have grounds for the beliefs they espouse and are not ashamed of it. the emperor has no clothes.
my suggestion is don't bother with them and interact with the others who are genuinely interested in discussion (rare, i know). i mean, you wouldn't pay due attention to stray dogs barking along the roadside, would you?
-
I so love to see this forum discussion descend into mudflinging and name callings
-
someone has a short memory, as someone said about being cronies here and someone go google and paste the definition of crony. seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
for name callings to occur, they must have been real pissed off, just like a child having a crying fit when his wants are not met by his parents. well these actions just prove one thing all along. that is the behaviour to be expected from them. they can condone Rony Tan, whose acts are despicable, yet they are defending and backing him up, defending the indefensible. incoherent and ircorrigible lot.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
someone has a short memory, as someone said about being cronies here and someone go google and paste the definition of crony. seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
for name callings to occur, they must have been real pissed off, just like a child having a crying fit when his wants are not met by his parents. well these actions just prove one thing all along. that is the behaviour to be expected from them. they can condone Rony Tan, whose acts are despicable, yet they are defending and backing him up, defending the indefensible. incoherent and ircorrigible lot.
if you're intending to reply to me, pls include my post in your response. otherwise it'll just look like you're trying to 'siam' my questions. at least show some integrity in your actions even if you don't have any intellectually.
no offense, but trying to comprehend your irrationality is difficult as it is already. you've to complicate it further with your poor grasp of the english language. i honestly don't understand your first part of the "someone said" and then pot calling kettle black. are you trying to say it's wrong to label your cronies... well, cronies? are you trying to say i'm wrong to use the word that i used before somewhere else? what are you trying to say, really? even if you cannot demonstrate a basis for your questions, at least try to substantiate your assertions.
name calling? again, how? stating the obvious here isn't considered ad hominem because my observation about your intellectual capacity (or the lack thereof) is relevant to our discussion at hand because you dont seem to be able to comprehend the question and is merely avoiding it. If so, it wouldn't be right for me to continue arguing on that level and have to condescend further. check it out here... again, only if you can understand...
one thing you've achieved though. I've nearly lost all hope in hearing a rational response from you. atheistic fundamentalists like yourself are a disgrace to atheism, as this philosopher will concur.
-
seems like mudslinging and names calling are condoned here in the name of the god. scary religiosity extremism in these people thoughts. I wonder will they justify taking up arms to defend themselves in the name of the faith.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
seems like mudslinging and names calling are condoned here in the name of the god. scary religiosity extremism in these people thoughts. I wonder will they justify taking up arms to defend themselves in the name of the faith.
ok. now you're starting to sound like a broken tape recorder ...
i've tried to be as patient as i can with you but it doesn't seem like you can answer my questions or have the balls to admit it.
sit back and learn a thing or two. let other more rational people address the questions that you FAILED to answer. sheesh ...
-
i agree wif u 24/7...one of my qn is still not answered by any of them...sufferings, blame God, ok valid...who/wad to thank for blessings?
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
In Abrahamic religions, There's quality as well as quanitity.
Jews - very good quality but small in quanitity
Christians - good quality and big in quantity
Both people hve done much contribution to humanity( in science and technology).
In Buddhism, you do a research and tell us what is its quality?
I regret to tell you in the finding of others and myself there is quantity more than quality in christians. I sincerely hope christians will work in the area of lack of quality. -
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Since you did not deny that you have lied, I will go along with your logic argument.
You cannot argue against religion with logic. Religion is always about faith.
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
If logic can determine what is true or false in the bible, the religion would haved died a very long time ago.
I disagree with your logic, again.
Since you have not denied about my bold quoting, i will go along with your logic argument.
I dint say logic can out-do religion, what i was trying to meant is logic mixing with religion
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
Since you have not denied about my bold quoting, i will go along with your logic argument.
I dint say logic can out-do religion, what i was trying to meant is logic mixing with religion
Yes, just because you are in a religion it doesn't mean you should stop thinking for yourself or be discerning. Afterall, shouldn't you be concerned if your church is doing things which you feel is not for the spiritual betterment of those in the church?
Likewise, science is man's study and understanding of nature, just because you are in a religion doesn't mean you denounce science completely.
-
Originally posted by SomebodyInSG:
Yes, just because you are in a religion it doesn't mean you should stop thinking for yourself or be discerning. Afterall, shouldn't you be concerned if your church is doing things which you feel is not for the spiritual betterment of those in the church?
Likewise, science is man's study and understanding of nature, just because you are in a religion doesn't mean you denounce science completely.
So how do you think of my post in around page 10 ?
-
to date, I have not read any scientists or in the discovery channels that said laws of nature are god's creations.
if this is true, why not any scientist present it to the prestigious science journals? then his peers will concur or reject his findings. so what are they waiting for, so that we can put this to bed once and for all.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
to date, I have not read any scientists or in the discovery channels that said laws of nature are god's creations.
if this is true, why not any scientist present it to the prestigious science journals? then his peers will concur or reject his findings. so what are they waiting for, so that we can put this to bed once and for all.
I don't blame you for not having come across it, no one scientist has read all science journals either. I really would like to find that specific article for you but like I told you elsewhere, I can neither remember the names or where I read.
Still, I just want to say also, science is not bad, but it has not been known to be absolute either. Even once wrongly accepted theories could only be rejected lifetimes later. Gaileo's theories on astronomy were not acknowledged till after his death.
-
To Rooney9,
Not the guy or article I was hoping to find but just a read for you.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
The idea is not to ask you to believe, just to be aware that the arguement isn't totally one-sided.