mark to marx. i know. malas nak tekan backspace .kind of weak guy...fight like a girl... small matter bro.

---

Added on January 6, 2010, 10:05 pmwhat about this thesupertramp? dont you dare to report too..

---

Added on January 6, 2010, 10:27 pm"Define your God even if It was absurb to define it" good thread but most of the poster is non believer person n very close minded.

This post has been edited by kubing: Jan 6 2010, 10:30 PM

Im sorry....ur understanding of closed mindedness is wrong.

I have not read the Quran but I am in the process of reading The Holy Bible. I am also planning to read Homer's masterpieces soon. I am not reading these books for the sake of argument, I am reading them as I am truly interested in religion. Not in believing in it, but in understanding it. I believe the history of religion tells a great deal about "The Human Condition".

That said, one does not need to have read any scriptures to argue for or against religions. Understanding religion can come from a wide array of sources. Newspaper, opinion pieces, blogs, talking to people, and, of course, thinking. My ideas so far are formed from what religions have done and what ideologies they stand for, as well as how they stand up against science and reasoning. I can elaborate on this if you like, but only if you will read it, as it will be rather lengthy.

Hence, not having read scriptures does not make ones opinions biased. It could be, but not necessarily, as like I said before, understanding religion can come from many different sources.

I find this ironic. Don't take offence. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding. But if one cannot define God, how is one suppose to understand God? Subsequently, without understanding God, how does one know that God "purposefully make us doubt of his existence?" That, to me, seems like putting words in God's mouth (if he has one). And I know if I'm God I wouldn't like that.

To me that is pure speculation.

Don't get me wrong, if religion makes you happy, stick with it. However, why does a failure have to be attributed to God? Why can't we realise that we made a mistake and rectifying that mistake will put us in better stead for the future? Your rationale is not far from -- blaming God for your failures.

Personally, I don't see "thinking what you did sucked" as a bad thing, as long as you do not repeat the same mistakes. To the contrary, if you attribute your failure to God, and fail to recognise your mistakes, you will no doubt fail again.

To put it bluntly, I see this as human's ego being unable to accept failure and hence push it onto someone else, in this case, a supernatural entity. Humans, after all, are famous for their blame game.

Not a small matter, it is disrespectful to mutilate someone's name. FYI, 'k' and 'x' are pretty far apart. Don't seem like a typo.

If you want to report, go ahead. But to make sense of doing that, you would have to report the post he quoted too, as he was merely saying the opposite of what that post said, which it seems, was a post of yours. Your choice.

Close mindedness is when someone refuses to learn something altogether. I would think anyone reading these posts wouldn't be close minded. A denialist, maybe.

Yes yes im indeed very interest. I have been reading articles and books bout religion. Just finished "God Part of the Brain". Superb reading. Give it a try. =)
Okie, back to the question. I still feels that its too bias to judge or whole and opinion bout it.
Take for an example, you make a review about food, without tasting it. Only judging by the way it cooked, its looks or what others had mention bout it. But in the end, you could only give your best opinion, after only you tasted it.

PS: Do PM if you think it is too lengthy. ><

Open minded human being does not exist, everybody is a closed minded... those who is open minded is somebody who can absorb any information and able to give information.

rebuttal is not an information, there are no such human exist with such term as open minded. If he is, he would have accept the concept of God existence and able to talk about it and deliver satisfying information to all others. so the term Open Minded exist only to make you felt better, the real "open minded" does not exist.

I am a muslim but i do study christianity and jewish for the sake of comparison, it is funny that i come across such a silly testament (both bible and the old testament) which seems very much "humane" compared to Quran. Quran does not deny the existence of Christianity and Jewish, heck we even share the same prophet, Quran tell what is told in the "real" bible and old testament. And it is better for you to learn the language of the Quran rather than reading only the translation.

Quran is written isn't in all truly arabic, the rhythm is "in-humane", thats why muslim 'sang" the Quran in its original form, not in its translated form. The translated form is to give understanding to the reader. Quran does state and warn to not to "define" His existence, not because He is afraid that his cloak shall be removed. It's because he knows the limit of our own mind, he is the creator that make us... thats why when people/human failed to define God, they turn around and start making a statement to put themselves to ease.

We are unable to define God not because we can't, it's because He didn't let us to. Our mind is limited to his essence of existence and thats about it.

so again, someone changed the meaning of "open minded" to acceptance of god while i was asleep?

seriously, are you open minded enough to see the other side of the argument that despite your belief, god may not exist (at least not in the form described in your religion)?

God would never be absurd.

Im am implying the "concept" of open minded in relation with this thread, Like i said, open minded being does not exist... because we stand in believes, open minded being does not have believe, be it themselves or in god.

Wrong, again u define 'open mindedness' as 'agreeing with you'.

Not everybody stand in beliefs. Its not even a necessity for some. If everything is crystal clear infront of ur eyes as evidence, theres no need for belief.

Like a belief that a plane would fly or not with u on board? U dont have to believe because u know the plane will fly (im talkign abt physics - dont give me final destinationi examples).

And Science is not a belief.

i don't ask for agreement in statement, there are way too many philosophy that none of it would share the same outcome. Open minded-ness is a behaviour of which a person would be able to comprehend all information and giving away satisfactory information to others. Open Minded-ness does not exist, because when you are in belief and believes, whether in yourself or other being. you are implying a mind-thinking attitude of one persona, when it was restricted. It was never open.

Science is there for a reason, its to provide truth that god is exist, not contradicting his existence. Atoms vibrate, but what make the atoms vibrate, far too many factorial including the universe movement, then come the next question... What moves the universe? people able to gave conceptual ideas of the how universe moves then come again a new question, how, where and when does the universe start to move? what trigger the movement? It come back to the basic of how Atoms vibrate... but what created the Atoms?

Human can only Question and Answer question made by their own, but they can't never question basic of basics.

Oh okie, does is means that, as long as there is still unanswered question,(atoms vibrate) then God existence is secured?
If thats what you meant then, science is taking over God day by day.

Science is God's knowledge as in Religion is God's faith. It's his knowledge that we are so desperately trying to prove here. And my base deduction isn't about how the Atoms vibrated, its already been solve with way to many factorial contributing to why it is vibrating, it's the basic of all basics question... what created the atom, which until now human failed to answer. if you are trying to say the thread theory and things, that was never proven and it's too flawed to be taken into consideration.

All those science related found are all derivative of the basic of all basics question and equation, still there are no answers to all basic of all basics question. As to Why blood? Where did Atom originated from? What created it? its all those thing that human unable to answer.

I don't ask you to believe in my belief, stay with yours. What am I trying to prove here is those people who so called "open minded" whilst those being never existed, same goes for Shang-Ri La and Euforia. It's all myth to put our own "limited" mind to ease, its all just a self indulgence and self proclaimed title and myth.

What if the knowledge about GOD is unknown? Something that we can't prove or even prove?
Ever think about that? If you have faith (not knowledge) about GOD, go ahead. Don't go tell everybody that you are the righteous one. Maybe the other people who don't share your faith in GOD could be the right one?

If faith in GOD is higher than the knowledge we know is "higher", then why we need to pening-pening kepala thinking of GOD's existence. We are just mere mortal. Be humble and live life as it is. Tolerate others' opinions but don't try to suppress yours to others.

Could we just be a bit more rational and not to think of think that may or not exist (depends on your definition of "exist"). That's where the problem lies, both religionists and atheists are fighting/arguing/have a war about the existence of GOD. This is going nowhere and the issue debate is still going in the circle.

Science cannot prove GOD existence and non-existence and religious faith alone can't prove so either. Science does not take over your faith to GOD. It could even be a balance to your faith to GOD.

And having a faith doesn't mean you are believing in myths and legends. Some part of your faith could be true, who knows.

No no, I'll do it in a post, but not this one. And since it seems we are going a little off topic here, as this is about God, and that is about religion, I'll post it in the "All About Religion" thread. Check there.

As for bias, I don't think the comparison is accurate. If you have not tasted the food, you certainly should not comment on the taste of the food, but if you have seen it, commenting on its aesthetics is fine. Religion is completely different. You can read food reviews, but it still wouldn't beat tasting the food first hand. However, in religion, there is no hard and fast rule as to what it really is. The Bible itself has several hundred different interpretations. Same for the Quran and other scriptures. Some say they should be taken literally, some say metaphorically, some say it is entirely up to the individual. They are often contradictory to one another.

Therefore, one can say that religions are much more complex than "the taste of food." Hence, it is not uncommon for an individual to be against certain aspects of religion, but not entirely. I, for example, mainly oppose religion because it undermines rationality. That means, I do not oppose someone visiting church for its socialising aspect, but I do oppose someone who thinks that by visiting the church, God will "take care of them." I know what rationality is, I have a fair understanding of science, and I have seen how religions have opposed certain aspects of science. So, I don't see how not having read the Bible will make my stance on rationality biased. If your argument is to hold, believers would have a VERY biased view too if they don't understand rationality. Which means, even if my views are biased, it would be no more biased, in fact far less, than those arguing against me.

Furthermore, many illiterate people are believers. And many Christians have not read the Bible even once. It shows that reading scriptures is not essential to understanding religions.

So once again, if you are arguing without any understanding of religions, yes, it would be biased. But not having read scriptures does not equal no understanding of religion.
(This does not mean I fully understand religions, or I wouldn't be here!)

And also, debating is a good way of furthering one's understanding of the topic. It allows one to realise flaws in their own arguments, and to rethink them. Hence full understanding is not essential at all!

Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll check it out.

Open-mindedness is one's willingness to listen and comprehend different viewpoints. This does not equal acceptance. Most of us here are reading and trying to understand the viewpoints of each side. This, to me, means that most of us here are open minded. You might be referring to denialism. Different thing.

As for your final sentence there, if God cannot be defined, and all you know about him is his existence, how do you know what he "let you" and didn't "let you" define about him? Is that pure speculation again?

If he is not, then how do you explain the absurdity of the world? Earthquake kills bad people just as it do good ones. That would imply that the non-absurd God had nothing to do and, in fact, no power, over an earthquake. Believers isn't going to like this.

Wrong. Science is to help us understand things around us, not to prove God exist. To the contrary, it has shown that prayers do not work. And prophets' prediction of the end of the world is wrong. And that the world is not 10,000 years old like your prophets claim it is. The list goes on.

FYI, atoms vibrate due to forces around it. If you ask who created the forces, then I would have to ask who created God. And if your retort is God is never created, he was always there, then I can say the same for forces, it was always there, why does it need to be created? First law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Unless you say energy IS God. Then I would have nothing left to say, except, that explains why prayers doesn't work.

---

Added on January 7, 2010, 6:19 pmLike I said above, then what created God?

And how sure are you that what we don't know today won't be answered in 500 years?
200 years ago The Big Bang Theory would probably be the name of a chilli pepper sauce, not a Phd research topic.

I disagree. (Not your entire post, just that quoted bit). Believing in the notion of an interventionist God itself is counter-productive to science. Science attempts to explain things with evidence and reasoning, something we can see or comprehend. Believing in an interventionist God directly opposes the notion of science, as it explains things with a, like you said, non-provable, supernatural entity.

Why do we die when there is a shortage of inhaled oxygen? Because it is God's will.
Not exactly useful in treating acute asphyxiation.

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Jan 7 2010, 06:20 PM

1. "sang" the Holy Quran, read the translation. "read" the Holy bible (any version you like). "read" the translation of old testament (any version you love) [it's in hebrew unless you understand it]. The inability of non-believers to shove their face away from religion is what making them funny, I am a believer and i study (still in study) of religion, Take the Holy Quran (since its the only testament i was able to finish till now). It's stated that God doesn't want you to think beyond what your mind has to offer, All of Holy Quran is one large poem full of metaphor. God is Kind, yes. but He ain't going to give all knowledge to human by saying it straightforwardly.

2. Nobody like the fury of mother earth, be it believer or non-believer, It's stated in The Quran that the world is going to end, God wasn't too all kind to state date inside the Holy Quran, that just going to make human being selfishly idiotic with 'oh mai, we still haz teh time". But He stated the sign, there are both small and large sign. And it happen to be accurate all this while, please state your source upon this statement of yours so i may overlook it prophets' prediction of the end of the world is wrong. And that the world is not 10,000 years old like your prophets claim it is Our prophet (Muhammad), never gave a date. He just state the end of time, and there are no-where in any verse of Holy Quran nor his hadith stated that Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) say that earth is 10k years of age. During the event of Israq and Mikraj, Phophet Muhammad saw what he state is the resemblance of the earth, he state in one of his hadith (this never appear in the Quran mind you) that the earth look like an elderly woman, almost at the end of her age. He never stated age nor date. state your source. i beg of you.

3. Why the first law ever existed then? the question about energy being unable to be destroyed nor created is the basic of all basics question, same as what created atom etc. (the list goes on). we all failed to answer basic of most basics question after even soo long not because it was there and it was there, its because those being can't accept the existence of a Creator. and and if science help us to understand the things around us, what is it to understand? did we finally able to understand the "universe?" all i see what science has done is killing the universe. what is the most important understanding human trying to unseal? Science are there originally to prove the existence of God. After soo long it has been astrayed as human is selfish being, and take things upon themselves.

Q&A:
1. Understand means? science understand our surrounding? what has science done to our surrounding all this time? be honest.

If I am "shoving myself away from religion," I wouldn't be here. I am here to learn, but so far believers don't seem to be very good at teaching, as my stance against religion seems to be growing stronger.

If it is full of metaphor, who decides which interpretation is correct? Educate me. I have never read the Quran. But if you can make it seem worth my while, I will. By the way, if I went to a mosque to borrow a Quran, will they lend it to me (as a non-Muslim)? Is that offensive?



So you don't like the "fury of mother earth" too? But I thought it was God's doing? Isn't that blasphemy?

I wasn't referring to Islam specifically. I wouldn't do that as I have never read Islamic scriptures. There are plenty of religions around that have made those claim. (Spare me your "Islam is the only true religion" nonsense here. Thanks.)



This is majorly wrong. This is the epitome of ignorance.

I have already stated, and will state it again. If you want to ask who created the natural laws, you would have to ask who created God too. So, tell me, who is the creator of your creator? If natural laws are the basic of the basic, and God created them, wouldn't God be the most basic of them all?

"Science are there originally to prove the existence of God."
Prove please.
And does that mean, science not being able to prove God exist, God does not exist?

Science has definitely improved our understanding of things around us. Without science, we wouldn't have electricity, your fellow religious friends would not have bombs to use, there would not be a single cancer treatment out there. These things arise from our understanding of how electricity works, how chemical works, and how cancer kills. If man attributed everything to God, they wouldn't know any of these.

Now, I would like you to say it again, "science did not help our understanding of this world." Go ahead, please. Then proceed to go back into the jungle, stop using that computer, stop using that car to go to work (or train), and don't take the Quran. Paper came about from scientific discovery too. Naked, no tree leaves either. Using tree leaves was thanks to rationality.

Science does not have the explanation for natural laws does not mean it is created by God. Let me ask you again, since you ignored it previously, how sure are you that in the future science will not have the answer? Let me remind you 500 years ago humans think the sun revolves around the earth. Only 500 years.

Please use some common sense. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, logic is not the strength of God's followers.


Refer above. Be honest. Don't use science's invention to ask that question. Makes you look stupid.

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Jan 7 2010, 09:04 PM

Isn't that weird? I mean its like you are saying "Yeah im wrong, but at least , others are even wrong-er."
Reading scriptures is not essential to understanding religion, just because MOST of the believers are illiterate?
Im still not convinced. I cant see the whole point here.
Opinions are bias, but yet acceptable. Scripture is the main source of information, yet it is rejected.

Why do we die when there is a shortage of inhaled oxygen? Because it is God's will.
Not exactly useful in treating acute asphyxiation.

By implying "it's GOD's will" is simply faith. I hope you read my statement again. Neither science or faith can prove the non-existence or the existence of GOD.

But the process of dying can be explain by science, but not the death itself. May faith can explain death, perhaps.

We mere mortals cannot explain GOD or even GOD's will with either faith or science. It is better to see it as unknown, mysterious. Why bother thinking about something that cannot be explained with either faith or science?

My point is you believe in GOD simply by faith, go ahead. Just do not oppress people who does not share the same faith by saying "this is GOD's will" etc...

For me, personally, I do not know if there is a more powerful force call GOD. My reasoning is limited and I do not have the measure to explain either GOD existence or non-existence. I'll just leave this case as unknown. Whether GOD's will (just using your term) intervene with science, I just do not know.

Isn't it more humble just to say "I do not know"? It does not make you an idiot (according to science) or less religious. It just make you more humble. Human just can't explain the "powerful force" called "GOD".

For people who have faith, isn't GOD himself teaches human to be humble? Why there is the need to tell that your faith is righteous? Why the need for non-believers to say that GOD doesn't exist and they can prove it with science? We mere mortals simply do not have the answer to this GOD issue. Live with that fact.

Faith cannot give all the answers to scientific findings and science cannot explain most of the tenets of faiths.
Hence GOD existance is merely unknown to the level of all the human knowledge. It could be just a simple need for human to believe in something more powerful than himself.

Bolded - When I am thinking critically and open myself to all possibilities, there is no beliefs involved. I deduce using pre-existing facts. And facts does not requires beliefs.
If open-mindedness, in ur definition, is to follow a persona thus being closed minded - Then what is closed minded?
I know that I am open enough to look at both sides of the story and deduce. Biased and closing urself from the other side of the story is closed-minded. Be it taking after any free-thinkers or ur collegues who are open-minded, to me its just takign from examples and there is nothing wrong with dat. Close-mindedness and indoctrination works the same way within the same closed group. Both open and closed-minded have different goals, which separated them apart.

Your second paragraph tries to link Godship and Science. Ur last question was 'what created the Atoms?' What, does not necessarily means Who. If u are willing to take scientific method in proving Godship, then u will have to be prepared to ask scientific questions like ' What created God?'. Because science does not recognise blasphemy.

Hang on, I am not rejecting scriptures! I wouldn't attempt to read them otherwise. What I was saying is scriptures are not the only source of information about religion. Before Christianity and Islam (Judaism etc as well), there were many other religions. Not all of them had scriptures. If scriptures are the only source of information, why do people preach?

I am not saying it isn't essential just because there are illiterate believers. What I'm saying is, if there are illiterate believers, it means understanding religion can happen through means other than scriptures. Unless you are telling me all illiterates have misunderstood their religion.

The "wronger" line was perhaps a little out of place. It was meant to ask, why do you single out non-believers for being bias but not believers?

In the end of the day, I'd say it depends on how you define bias. If you expect someone to have 100% understanding of both sides, it would be impossible, and it would be pointless debating him/her. After all, debating is suppose to raise questions we previously have not thought about. And as I believe I have enough knowledge of religious believes, perhaps more than some believers themselves (note: "some" does not equal "most", or, "all"), and I am constantly increasing it, I do not consider my views, well, "uninformed". Uninformed would probably be a better word than bias for the points I was making.

Sorry, I did not mean to quote that line. I do agree science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God. I was disagreeing with believing in God can be complementary to science.

Science may not have the answer to death, but there are theories. Theory of evolution for one. If there is no birth and death, there would be no evolution, which also means we wouldn't even be here. On the contrary, religions do not "explain" death. Afterlife, heaven, hell, are all speculations. And they aren't even logical speculations. Why do I say so? Because, how do you decide which one is more plausible than the other? There is nothing to base that decision on. No evidence, nor reasoning.

I get your point of not pushing believes onto anyone else, and I agree. But I also believe, to make an informed choice, one has to understand both sides of the story.

I strongly disagree to saying "I don't know". Yes, when you don't know, say you don't know. But if you leave it at that, it is wrong. Science say it is ok to say you don't know, as it will spur you to find out about what you don't know, instead of making up an answer, which seems to be what religions are doing. If humans made no attempt to find out what they don't know, there would be no progress. Questioning and thinking is important for new discoveries. And believing in an interventionist God is counter productive to that. If you believe there is an all powerful God, when do we decide if something is "done by God" or when something can be understood by research?

As a side note, there is no evidence to suggest that God has ever communicated directly with humans. This leaves a high probability that this all powerful God was created by humans. If it is, wouldn't it be good to understand why? It is based on this that I am interested in understanding religions, as I believe it is the key in understanding "The Human Condition".

Not questioning it is similar to saying "If you get cancer, you die. Don't bother with new drugs. Live with the fact."

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Jan 7 2010, 11:22 PM