Originally posted by sgdiehard:Hi bro,
just read through the posts from Badzmaro, in which Chin Eng said in 14/7/2005, I find there is great wisdom and wish to share with you.
"This is EH, you either come in to share, to seek or to argue. I'd ignore those who wants nothing more than to pick a fight.
To anyone who does not believe in God (or the Christian God), the prayers would not offend 'cos to these people God does not exist, thus the prayers will NOT work."On the last sentence, to me it simply means that our fundamentals are different, so even prayers won't work, what would all these discussions, argument, ....brings? nothing. It does sharpen our mind though.
Thanks Bro! I read that too. I am already trying to keep my responses to the likes of Tcmc short. Yes I agree that our fundamentals are different, which is why it is important to realise that it is a matter of worldviews, not of throwing evidence at each other, because our worldviews determine what we do with the evidence.
TCMC is very persistent in making sure BIC is aware he's academically wrong... haha
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:TCMC is very persistent in making sure BIC is aware he's academically wrong... haha
Hannor, as though we all taking examinations in university like that for our beliefs. LOL!
But what he say is true and correct lor.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:TCMC is very persistent in making sure BIC is aware he's academically wrong... haha
A non christian going into the Bible college and tell the students there what reference books they should use to pass exam. hahaha
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:But what he say is true and correct lor.
Religion is about life and faith, it is not about passing exam.
It is like a scholar trying to tell the mama shop owner how to run a business.
Originally posted by sgdiehard:A non christian going into the Bible college and tell the students there what reference books they should use to pass exam. hahaha
lols...someone who cannot even read properly trying to fault someone who reads... hahaahah...
somethings are general btw... i din go in to tell christians wad to read... i only tell ppl how to prove. it is general across all areas. Put some thoughts into your reply before u blabber nonsense.
Originally posted by Tcmc:1. sgdiehard, please dont bear false witness on me. I have acknowledged your answers before and accepted our differences. What I have issue with BIC is everytime a difficult question arises, he says I am bashing or trolling, when i am not.
2. Sorry, there is no assumption made when we say there are no gods. We make the decision based on available religious texts from the main religions, do comparisons. We make the decision based on the inability to detect or measure "spiritual entities".
You made your decision based on what you think you know, we made our decision based on what we experienced, why is yours not an assumption and ours is?
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:But what he say is true and correct lor.
I beg to differ!
Passing exams has its protocols. It's all about writing nice papers and quoting as many people as possible to show that you have done your research. I've been there and done that.
Discussing religious is a different ballgame altogether. If Tcmc just want an academic debate, then he should go hang out and debate with the likes of William Lane Craig. I think Tcmc will get thrashed. OK, that was a very biased thing to say!
Originally posted by sgdiehard:Religion is about life and faith, it is not about passing exam.
It is like a scholar trying to tell the mama shop owner how to run a business.
what started off the debate is about something that happened thousands of years ago... and what went on become a war on proving events and stuffs. It has already derailed from purely being religion and faith. Whatever that is going on here is an obvious brought over from another thread frm a heated debate b/w TCMC and BIC. As i've said, read properly first, then think through before you sprout nonsense. A joke trying to make a joke out of others.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I beg to differ!
Passing exams has its protocols. It's all about writing nice papers and quoting as many people as possible to show that you have done your research. I've been there and done that.
Discussing religious is a different ballgame altogether. If Tcmc just want an academic debate, then he should go hang out and debate with the likes of William Lane Craig. I think Tcmc will get thrashed. OK, that was a very biased thing to say!
u beg to differ... he thinks he absolutely right... thats where the thing comes from lor.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
lols...someone who cannot even read properly trying to fault someone who reads... hahaahah...somethings are general btw... i din go in to tell christians wad to read... i only tell ppl how to prove. it is general across all areas. Put some thoughts into your reply before u blabber nonsense.
you passed all exams and you think you know how to do a business? reading is your life but others have their lives too...hahahaha
Discussion about religion is general, discussion about Christianity is already not general because not all have the same fundamental belief. Can see the difference?
Originally posted by sgdiehard:you passed all exams and you think you know how to do a business? reading is your life but others have their lives too...hahahaha
Discussion about religion is general, discussion about Christianity is already not general because not all have the same fundamental belief. Can see the difference?
lols... for someone who cant even do the fundamental thing in a debate that is to read properly. so much for mockery. Start reading properly first before you try asking me to see the difference.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
u beg to differ... he thinks he absolutely right... thats where the thing comes from lor.
Which is why at the end of the day, it's up to the "audience" to see who has the better arguments overall, which worldview BEST explain the things that need explaining. If a worldview CANNOT account for the basic questions of life, then that worldview is not worth holding on to.
Originally posted by sgdiehard:you passed all exams and you think you know how to do a business? reading is your life but others have their lives too...hahahaha
Discussion about religion is general, discussion about Christianity is already not general because not all have the same fundamental belief. Can see the difference?
Cant even get the issue right in the first place. I tink BIC has got better understanding of what i've been saying rather than u. The difference b/w some1 who reads and someone who doesn't. Tats why gibberish always comes out of the likes of u.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Which is why at the end of the day, it's up to the "audience" to see who has the better arguments overall, which worldview BEST explain the things that need explaining. If a worldview CANNOT account for the basic questions of life, then that worldview is not worth holding on to.
lols... i tink im more inclined to his point of proving an event. As for anything religious...im not knowing enuff to comment. But proving an event is general across all areas. Cross reference is still the best and most reliable choice.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
what started off the debate is about something that happened thousands of years ago... and what went on become a war on proving events and stuffs. It has already derailed from purely being religion and faith. Whatever that is going on here is an obvious brought over from another thread frm a heated debate b/w TCMC and BIC. As i've said, read properly first, then think through before you sprout nonsense. A joke trying to make a joke out of others.
the discussion has derailed, but what prolonged the argument remains, there is a fundamental difference in the belief, one belief in God, a Christian God, the others doesn't. anybody ask anybody to believe in Christian God here? but many are trying to prove that the Christian God doesn't exist. What happens not is purely academic.
you may have different views on what goes on here, but too fast to claim other views as as nonsense is a nonsense itself.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Cant even get the issue right in the first place. I tink BIC has got better understanding of what i've been saying rather than u. The difference b/w some1 who reads and someone who doesn't. Tats why gibberish always comes out of the likes of u.
don't need to go on personal attack. You have your view and I have mind. You don't agree, that's life!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Hannor, as though we all taking examinations in university like that for our beliefs. LOL!
BIC,
But you are taking many of your baseless statements as facts and telling the whole world they are facts (e.g earth is 6000 years old)
I dont mind you saying that it is a BELIEF of yours that the earth is 6000 years old, but it is not a fact!
So when there is a dispute in the accuracy of your statements, then something academically sound must be enforced. Like providing evidence, and using diff sources to back your claim.
BIC, I remember, you have not answered one of my previous questions.
Regarding the age of the earth, do you trust the process of radiometric dating to date the earth as 4.5 billion years old?
Originally posted by sgdiehard:don't need to go on personal attack. You have your view and I have mind. You don't agree, that's life!
Actually I said that to sgdiehard before too.
BIC actually talks a lot of "wrong stuff" but at least he tries to stay relevant.
Cant say that for sgdiehard
Originally posted by sgdiehard:don't need to go on personal attack. You have your view and I have mind. You don't agree, that's life!
mockery is personal attack too.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
lols... i tink im more inclined to his point of proving an event. As for anything religious...im not knowing enuff to comment. But proving an event is general across all areas. Cross reference is still the best and most reliable choice.
But the point is, Tcmc holds the fallacious view that if you only quote Christian sources (and don't care if it is 100 Christians) then it is a problem. It's like if you write a medical paper and you only quote medical practitioners, is that a problem? Are you guilty of using medicine science to prove medicine science? Again one can talk all day about what one feels is best or reliable, the crunch comes down to this: interact with the content and prove and show that it is erroneous.
Originally posted by Tcmc:Actually I said that to sgdiehard before too.
BIC actually talks a lot of "wrong stuff" but at least he tries to stay relevant.
Cant say that for sgdiehard
totally agreed. 2 persons on a totally different level.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:But the point is, Tcmc holds the fallacious view that if you only quote Christian sources (and don't care if it is 100 Christians) then it is a problem. It's like if you write a medical paper and you only quote medical practitioners, is that a problem? Are you guilty of using medicine science to prove medicine science? Again one can talk all day about what one feels is best or reliable, the crunch comes down to this: interact with the content and prove and show that it is erroneous.
Now you are comparing your religious beliefs with medical science like facts.
Then in another thread you say "Hannor, as though we all taking examinations in university like that for our beliefs. LOL!"
So do you want to treat your religious beliefs as exams (facts) or just beliefs?
So you want your beliefs to be akin to medical science facts and come under the same critieria in terms of proving, and reseearch? or just beliefs in general ? Ifbeliefs then dun need to prove and all that loh.
How cna you jus tchange your stand like that one?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:But the point is, Tcmc holds the fallacious view that if you only quote Christian sources (and don't care if it is 100 Christians) then it is a problem. It's like if you write a medical paper and you only quote medical practitioners, is that a problem? Are you guilty of using medicine science to prove medicine science? Again one can talk all day about what one feels is best or reliable, the crunch comes down to this: interact with the content and prove and show that it is erroneous.
thats different. medical science is a very specialised area while religion or in this case proving of something that happens a few thousands years ago, is something that is not so specialised. To prove something has happened, it can be a eye witness account of jus 1 side ma. Medical practice is a many to one incident. meaning many researching to benefitting on a more minor scale but the proving of god or whatsoever thing, is a one to many thing. If really want prove he exist or wad... cannot be onli proving from a christian pov.