mcjohnjohn

原帖由 starbug 於 2009-1-7 13:32 發表
咁等我都問吓叫雞可唔可以當娛樂先.

好~ 不過你去問就問law, 唔駛同大家講架woh.

chunsh

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-1-6 22:29 發表


Would it be greedy if I want to earn more money from job as I am trying to steal money from my boss?
Your world is definitely different from mine.

depends
if u keep slacking, then that means u are stealing things from your boss
and if u do BT, or reading comics online, that is stealing too

mcjohnjohn

原帖由 chunsh 於 2009-1-7 13:37 發表


depends
if u keep slacking, then that means u are stealing things from your boss
and if u do BT, or reading comics online, that is stealing too

咁叫老板加人工係唔係greedy 先喇?

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 rockypath 於 2009-1-6 16:47 發表


Science has never and I doubt it would ever be able to disapprove the existence of God. To prove that, scientists must elimiate all the possibilities which is impossible and not doable.

Human bein ...

Yep, that is absolutely correct. Using science, people have never been able to disprove that there is a possibility that there is a god, and particularly the theory that there is a Christian god as described by the Bible.

My opinion here in this thread so far, is just trying to say that Science, is the best methodology and benchmark we as human being have came up with so far to explain things, with much better accuracy, depth and probability than any religion is able to do so. Further on, I stated that under Science, it is also possible that any theory preeched by any particular religion can be true, just that human beings have not gotten around to use the methodology of science to sufficiently proof it to become main stream adoption by the scientific community.

HOWEVER, when there are so little evidence so far to side any particular theories, and that there are so many different theories, including theories preeched by various religion, (for example) in regarding to the creation of the world and life on Earth... What is the odd that a certain theory preeched by a certain religion is going to be true? Thus, based on the limited scientific understanding I have on the world around me, by personal choice I just don't strongly side with any one particular theory. Particularly I don't see how the theories preeched by various religion have high probability to be true, as in my opinion, most of them is backed by some of the weakest logical reasoning that I can understand.

Further more, I am even more interested in why or how some of the religious believers on this forum have become religious and believed in their particular religion in the first place? Based on my personal logic, as I have stated, I just can't convince myself to believe in any particular religions. This is the reason why I am very interested in the thinkings of other individuals on this forum that seem to have a very different train of thought than I am.

shutterbug

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-1-6 22:06 發表

Yes, that's what I mean - the "drive" behind.
Why playing MJ in church is a problem while money is not involved? I've mentioned that already. Which I think church people/Christians should explain to ...

As I've said before, playing MJ in a church is not a good idea because it makes people who don't know think that they're gambling.  Nobody wants this extra trouble and confusion.  When people see MJ, they automatically think it's gambling.  Plus, why do you have to play it in church, there are many other games!  I don't even play cards there.  One should know what's appropriate and what's not.  To do something not that beneficial but may cause harm, it's better not to do it at all or seek alternative.

As for 649, thank God that I've never bought it in my Christian life so you know what's my view.  For a church to accept money donation originated from 649 is a risk and kind of inappropriate, just like the MJ case.  Likewise, do you think a church will accept money originated from a robbery?  There are many people who don't know what's going on and what those people going to say could harm the church's image.

shutterbug

原帖由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-1-6 22:40 發表

Yep, that is absolutely correct. Using science, people have never been able to disprove that there is a possibility that there is a god, and particularly the theory that there is a Christian god as d ...

Both science and religion, both never came up with solid physical evidences about how the world came about, so who will you believe or you won't believe either?  In this case, how superior is the scientific method?

Lots of things in this world are intangible.  How do you quantify peace, joy, hope?  You can't so they don't exist, of course not.  Thousands and thousands of Christians throughout history feel more joy, peace and hope after they believed.  Are all of these false witnesses?

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 rockypath 於 2009-1-6 18:23 發表


You should be aware that in science, independent verification is impossible in many areas. Many areas and process cannot be reproduced. Therefore, they are just theories and many scientists use gene ...

I'd say that the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are yes, mere theories. So is the theory of General Relativity, which the theory's explaination of nature have been used as the basis of much of modern technology (GPS, long range radio communication, etc). So yes, much of Sciences are theories, but usually the most accepted ones are pretty darn good in attempt to explain the world that surrounds us.

Further on this note, I totally agree that the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution should not be just taken as fact as it is. However I am highly against any claims that try to dilute or simply deny the fact that these theories are very well supported by much evidences and matches a lot of observations. There are still a lot of insufficiencies in these theories, but that shouldn't be grounds for people to simply label them as outright 'false'. Ignorance in how well the rest of the theory is able to explain our surroundings, and how important a role they have played in the development of technology and our society, is in my opinion an act that attempts to throw civilization backwards. Because thus far, the Big Bang Theory and much more so for the Theory of Evolution, are still one of, if not the most well supported theory when examined using Scientific methodologies. Moreover, it is because of the deficiencies in these theories that people show work even harder in attempt to find out more and get closer to the truth. Just running to any random religion in attempt to find a convinient answer is in my opinion, an act of ignorance.

starbug

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-1-6 22:35 發表

好~ 不過你去問就問law, 唔駛同大家講架woh.

阿神父鼓勵我哋要分享吖嘛.

mcjohnjohn

原帖由 starbug 於 2009-1-7 13:58 發表

阿神父鼓勵我哋要分享吖嘛.

原來係咁~
咁仲有乜野想同大家分享一下呀?

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 18:34 發表

I like your scientific way of thinking and I agree science can do a lot.  However, for things as straightforward as it seems, science still can't prove that you're your dad's son 100%.  So at the end ...

Science can't proof anything 100%. Does that mean that we should just run to any random conclusion that claims that they are the truth without a doubt, 100%? Science cannot proof anything or show anything 100%. It is this reason why we are given the ability and the tool (Science, logical thinking) to help make the picture more complete. Heck, it might be some sort of god or creator that have given us this power too, I'm not denying this is a possibility, but there are so many theories as to who this god might be that believing it is any particular god from a certain religion is just... let's say, beyond me. Let alone that there are other theories to choose from that you can believe in that does not involve any creators....

On another note, we as human kinds does not require the assurance that we know something 100% before we can proceed in life. Life is filled with uncertainties, and people can never know everything. Human kinds are given the ability to abstract, such that we can function without knowing every intricate detail in our everyday life. You don't have to know how every single bit in your computer is flipping in order to use your computer, all you need to do is to abstract that each time you press a key on your keyboard an alphabet will be displayed on ur computer. I am fine with not knowing everything, and I don't need to rely on a religion to reassure me that I already know the truth and my purpose in life in order to live it.

Now, I have to say that from the other side of the pond, I will not discount that religion can provide spiritual support to some people that can find comfort, relief and refuge through it. This is definately something that hard Science does not provide, and does not need to provide. Recognizing that there is a role for religion in society, does not mean that far fetch scientifically contradicting stories as depicted by many religions is worthy for me to believe in. To understand the world you don't need to believe in anything, because Science does a darn well job in showing what it is. I do rather find some religions that does not base themselves in creators or blind faith (ones that are more like a spiritual principle or a philosophical school of thoughts) to be very inspiring.

The fact that I don't depend on faith or believe in understanding the physical world does not mean that I lack the ability to believe in people or in things. I believe in people and things that to me, under of course the limited knowledge I am able to gather, that sounds probable, reasonable, logical and with a good track record. This sounds like hard cold logic, but really it's just the same logic as  you won't believe in claims like 'typical pigs flies higher and faster than the typical birds', you won't believe in your bf/gf/spouse if it's the 5th time he/she have been caught cheating on you, etc etc....