萬惡之源 - 人對神的幻覺 (The Root of Evil - The God Delusion) 第一部份

[familykeepersca]

謝謝指正！我這話「只要是人，就不會沒有宗教/信仰」說得梢過含­糊,我想表達的是,多數人都有宗教信仰,這話大概就不遠了.因此­,為何如此當是先要討論的-事實上，這已進入靈的部份，非科學所­能回答.科學只能研究所見之事.

[hugo1997517]

@familykeepersca 宗教？靈？ 這正正是幻想 是用來避開思考

把不知的事物全推向一個幻想出來的神  實在可笑

現代人的思想竟比不上一個文藝復興時代的人開放

[rockman1942]

@familykeepersca 其實你根本講野一D point 都拎唔到來.."為何如此當是先要..."最後都係一堆廢話..

[familykeepersca]

問題是,只要是人，就不會沒有宗教/信仰.應該探討為什麼？聖經­提到人有靈,靈是思想永恆之事.不是幻覺兩字能解釋掉這些！



[yellowlynx]

@familykeepersca 你錯了，也太孤陋寡聞，有些民族是沒有宗教信仰的。南美一個族群­就不相信來生、不相信神，宣教士分享說因為他姐姐自殺而信主，被­族人譏笑，因為自殺已經是愚蠢，為愚蠢的事去信有神更加蠢。聖經­並非一部可靠的書，裡面內容不是杜撰就是抄襲其他神話。新約只得­九卷書作者是確實的，其餘都是冒充的。

[hugo1997517]

@familykeepersca 我就是沒有宗教/信仰的人 只要是人，就不會沒有宗教/信仰 完全是放屁

這些說話是完全不尊重無神論者 沒有信仰的人

[rockman1942]

@familykeepersca

你的論點在於"聖經對於人有靈是正確的"

即使"人真的有靈",也不代表"聖經是正確的"

所以請你在傳道時順道證明為什麼"聖經對於人有靈是正確的"

[anzchoy]

Reason comes first, or belief comes first? I want to know.

[yellowlynx]

@anzchoy Are you asking it from a biological point of view or from logical point of view?

[anzchoy]

Well, one way or another, non-religious people have their "own" religion or belief. I am not a religious person though.

[yellowlynx]

@anzchoy I think you are wrong by that. Atheist has no religious belief of any sort.

[anzchoy]

@yellowlynx In a broad understanding Atheist is someone who rejects the belief in the existence of God/deity. In a narrower sense, atheism is the absence of belief that any deity exists. To put it another way, atheism is simply a belief saying no God exists, or there is no God. However you see or like to argue about it, simply and objectively it's still a belief, as simple as that. Whether it talks about God or no-God, it's a religious belief. Ha!

[yellowlynx]

@anzchoy I am just trying to stop myself from laughing at your pathetic logic. If by atheist you mean is someone who rejects the belief in the existence of God/deity, its because they do not have reason to believe in the existence of God/deity, logically it is NOT the same as a belief saying no God exists/there is no God. In a narrower sense, atheism is the absence of belief that any deity exists, and that cannot be equated to a belief saying no God exists/there is no God. XDDD

[yellowlynx]

@anzchoy If you say that rejecting a belief is a belief, then by your logic, rejecting life is a life! Or having no hobbies is a "hobby", or having no parents means have a parent call "no parent". I am just appalled by your vapid logic.

[anzchoy]

@yellowlynx Please laugh if you want. But please help me understand my blindspot. So far what I see is the belief or disbelief is due to the reason for or against it. But different people interpret things differently based on their so called evidences. Some say they believe in a God because there is reason for them to believe, while some say they don't believe because there is no reason or evidence to believe. I just can't see the difference. Please help.

[yellowlynx]

@anzchoy You just said disbelief is a belief in itself -- this is your totally vapid logic. Belief is not due to reason NOr evidence -- belief is to accept something without evidence or WITHOUT examining the evidence. We do not "interpret" things -- we accept things as being true or false by evidence. You confuse interpretation with "knowing".

[anzchoy]

@yellowlynx I think we have different understanding of the term belief. Or let me suggest this, I think we all look at things with a pair of glasses or spectacle or lens that are influenced by values, worldviews, and cultures. When a child is taught to accept that an elephant is huge and weighing some 4 or 5 tonnes, now when s/he sees an elephant that weighs just 100kgs (it's a baby elephant), s/he doesn't accept that as an elephant. What is the problem here? Is that still an elephant?

[yellowlynx]

@anzchoy You look at things with a pair of glasses or spectacle or lens that are influenced by values, worldviews, and cultures, but I have an additional way -- examining evidences and using logical inference to update my knowledge of the world -- you cling on what you learned as a child, but I don't

[anzchoy]

@yellowlynx I was quoting that elephant thing as an example. I certainly do not cling to what I learned as a child, but strive to improve and understand how the world operates. I'm constantly learning and acquiring knowledge, I'm at the moment studying towards my 4th degree, and I found I've known so little.

[anzchoy]

@yellowlynx A baby elephant is still an elephant, however the child has the presupposition and since s/he has been taught to accept as evidence that elephant must weigh over 4 tonnes. Now this one just weighs 1/10 of a tonne, it cannot be an elephant. So what I've been trying to say is the evidence itself has been "filtered" or "interpreted" according to an individual's background, values or even culture. When we talk about religion, we say there is no evidence (scientific). How about love?

[yellowlynx]

@anzchoy why do we have to cling on to what we were taught as a child and not improve our knowledge via learning and evidence ? Do you really mean that anything you learnt as a child cannot be discarded and altered by new evidence ? THAT IS YOUR BLIND SPOT!!!!

[anzchoy]

@yellowlynx I like your attitude here. I totally agree. I think we all need to acquire knowledge, and through dialogue we understand more. When over half of the world's population think that they have evidence that God/deity exists, I'd like to know what our responses should be.

[anzchoy]

@yellowlynx I can't see how "love" can be tested or examined in a science lab to prove it's there. History cannot be examined in such a way either because it won't repeat. It's clear that something can be tested, while other things can only be experienced.

[yellowlynx]

@anzchoy This is a pure fallacy of personal incredulity -- just bcos u cannot see it doesn't means it cannot be done. Love is not something intangible bcos it itself with loving behavior. History can be examined with evidence bcos any human activity (history included) leaves behind traces and clues -- according to ur logic, murder CAN'T be examined (scientific) bcos it won't repeat - so in any court case according to ur logic nobody can be convicted unless the judge "experience" murder ?

[anzchoy]

@yellowlynx I like your first part "just bcos u cannot see it doesn't means it cannot be done."

[yellowlynx]

@anzchoy It can be done, and it was carried out. Zoologists observed behavior of compassion and altruism in animals. We need not only to acquire knowledge, but to be willing to discard cherished beliefs in the light of new evidences, even if that evidences disturbed us.

[howsgoingdude]

一個人癲就係黐線, 一班人癲就係宗教

[Qjemuse]

@howsgoingdude agree wholeheartedly