The Poepol of the Week Award goes to Heinz Oldewage

Standard

Read this dribble that this delusional moron writes below. He deserves this prestigious award. Congratulations Heinz, you are the Poepol of the Week!

SCIENCE VS FAITH? REALLY?

Friday, May 25, 2012
“Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind,” a crazy scientist with really bad hair and a wild look in his eyes once said.

His name was Albert Einstein, and although he most certainly was no theist, he was verbalizing an idea that would not have seemed too foreign to his contemporaries.

But while Einstein’s offhand remark hints at the fact that science and faith were not always seen as the mortal enemies many now assume them to be, it cannot be denied that, in the popular conscience at least, these two fields have come to represent two opposing and seemingly incompatible worldviews.

These days, more often than not, science and faith are portrayed as polar opposites – one being the domain of the rational, the enlightened, the progressive; the other a crutch of the weak and uninformed.

Now, let me be clear about one thing: I am not here to convince you to become a believer. I know better than to assume that a philosophical argument – no matter how forceful – will ever convince you to change your worldview. That is a discussion for another day. Neither am I here to argue for or against the existence of God. I’ll pick that fight again later.

What I’d like to challenge, though, is the unfounded view that science and faith are mortal enemies, locked in deadly combat. And while many clearly believe that the acceptance of one implies rejection of the other (a trend I see among both believers and unbelievers), I strongly disagree.

Of course, one of the most obvious objections to this view is the sheer number of scientists, throughout history and in modern times, who did not see the least bit of conflict between their scientific endeavors and their personal faith. No, I’m not referring to a bunch of wackos on the lunatic fringe – I’m talking about a veritable who’s who of scientific heavyweights: Roger Bacon, who helped lay the foundations for the empirical approach in the 13th century. William Turner, the father of English botany (who was once arrested for preaching in favour of the Reformation). Johannes Kepler, the famed 16th century astronomer and mathematician who studied planetary motion when he wasn’t dreaming of becoming a theologian. René Descartes, the mastermind behind analytical geometry and one of the key figures of the scientific revolution. Robert Boyle, the first modern chemist; also a theologian. Isaac Newton, considered by many as the greatest scientist who ever lived; also a believer. Lord Kelvin, key figure in the field of thermodynamics. Carolus Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy. Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory. John Lennox, master mathematician. Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Project. And so the list goes on, running the gamut from the heady times of the scientific revolution right through to the even more heady times of quantum physics and string theory and evolutionary biology. Throughout history, science and faith have co-existed happily in the minds of its greatest champions.

Clearly, skeptics who claim science as the exclusive playing field of those who have turned their backs on faith are, quite simply, dead wrong.

Of course, the reason why these scientists could see no conflict between science and faith, they’d tell you, is because science and faith are geared to answer different questions. Science, with its reductionist approach and empirical method, is great at answering “how” questions (How does it work? How did we get here?). Conversely theology, based on revelation, is concerned with questions of “why” (Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing?).

Why the perceived conflict, then? Why should there even be talk of conflict if science and faith address two different aspects of reality? Why is it that some assume you need to be either a “man of science”, or a “man of faith”?

In my experience, lack of knowledge plays a significant role.

Few individuals who have investigated both worlds with an open mind would spurn one at the cost of the other (hence the significant number of Christian scientists). All too often though, I’ve seen individuals from one side of the fence question the view of someone “on the other side,” without really understanding the issue they’re criticizing.

For example, I have encountered countless rationalists who reject the Christian faith on account of the Genesis creation narrative alone, because it involves belief “in a fairy-tale God who created the world in six days while science shows us the complete opposite”. Comments like these reveal utter ignorance about the purpose and rich theological significance of the (in)famous creation account. You can’t dismiss a complex passage of scripture when you’re reading it like an eighth grade science textbook and you clearly haven’t gone to the trouble of understanding what it’s about.

Ditto for Christians who dismiss established scientific theories in their quest to defend their particular interpretations of specific biblical passages, while they haven’t truly invested time in understanding the concepts they so happily lay into. Read up before you speak up, for heaven’s sake.

To be fair, there are encouraging developments that hint at the possibility of a less strained interaction between science and faith in future. The mythical nature of the supposed science-faith divide has come under the spotlight in several excellent books by respected figures recently – including particle physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne(winner of the Templeton Prize, the world’s largest monetary literary prize, itself conceived to mend the relationship between the spheres of faith and science), as well as Nobel prize winning physicist Charles Townes, and many, many others. Also encouraging is a growing list of academic journals exclusively dedicated to the exploration of the relationship between science and theology, as well as the publication of numerous articles about the issue in respected general journals like Science and the American Journal of Physics. Another interesting development is the establishment of a number of professorships and other academic positions at world-class institutions dedicated to the exploration of science-faith interaction.

Of course I am fully aware that this is only scratching the surface as far as the science-faith debate goes, but I hope it’s enough to get the conversation started.

One thing is clear in my mind: it’s neither necessary nor fair to argue that the worlds of science and faith are in conflict. I think it is far more sensible to say they complement each other.

What do you think? Do you agree or not? Let me know where you stand on the issue in the comments section below. Keep in mind that this is a short post on a pretty complex issue – if you’d like me to write about a specific angle, let me know in the comments, or drop me a mail at mailme@heinzeugene.com

Advertisements

97 thoughts on “The Poepol of the Week Award goes to Heinz Oldewage

  1. To be able to debate the religion-science compatibility issue, one must define science.

    Science is the method that describes the natural world we live in; in other words the description of Nature and all its splendours. Science is based on the Scientific Method, and this method comprises four basis steps: 1. observation, 2. postulation, 3. experimentation, and 4. verification.
    It is also important to realise that the “scientific method” is an ongoing process; it never stops. Newton’s theory of gravity is used to put a satellite into space, but Einstein found that Newton was only correct at low speeds and low gravitational forces. The Global Positioning System (GPS) works only when Einstein’s theories are used; using Newton the GPS would fail within a day.

    A scientific theory can be rejected hundreds of years after its first formulation and acceptance. Thomas Huxley said:

    “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.”

    The successful description of the precession of the planet Mercury’s perihelion by Einstein’s theory of general relativity is one “ugly fact” that killed Newton’s theory of gravity. Richard Feynman said:

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”

    It is thus possible to adjudicate between the truths of two scientific theories, because Nature is the adjudicator and its correct description is the ultimate scientific truth.

    Compared to the scientific method, let us take a look at the Christian religion. Two examples are given below.

    God will answer your prayers, is believed. This claim can be tested scientifically. Studies of intercessory prayer – when the sick do not know whether they are being prayed for – have not shown the slightest evidence that it works. Faith-based healing has been shown to fail time and again. This “ugly fact” does not deter the religiose to keep praying to their god.

    It is believed Christ had a virgin birth and after his death was resurrected. Biological research shows the impossibility of human females reproducing asexually, or of anyone reawakening three days after death. These two “ugly facts” are rejected by the religiose; science must be wrong!

    This is the crux where science and religion differ; religious beliefs are immune to “ugly facts”. What is more, they are maintained in the face of “ugly facts”, such as the impotence of prayer, or the inability to “show my God for all to see”. Finally, there is no way to adjudicate between conflicting religious explanations, as can be done between competing scientific explanations.
    To quote Albert Camus, Nobel laureate philosopher:

    “Prophecy functions on a very long-term basis and has, as one of its properties, a characteristic which is the very source of strength of all religions: the impossibility of proof.” (The Rebel)

    Stephen Hawking, renowned physicist, had this to say about the compatibility of science and religion:

    “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”

    Jerry Coyne (biologist) commented on Hawking’s comparison of science and religion: (Coyne’s blog is: whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)

    “He’s right, of course. The last, terse sentence sums up in six words the entire history of science and faith. Hawking, wilfully misunderstood by those desperate to harmonize science with faith, recognizes their profound incompatibility.
    “It’s time to admit that those who still claim that religion and science are compatible–ignoring their fundamental and blatantly obvious differences in philosophy, methodology, and success at understanding the universe–are intellectually dishonest.”

    Since there are scientists who are also religious, where does it leave the compatibility argument of the religiose? Religion and science can be compatible in the sense that both can be simultaneously functional in the human mind. But they clash because they analyse data in disparate ways. A scientist, who is also religious, exists in a state of “cognitive dissonance”, so aptly said by Coyne. There can be no harmony between science and religion in this person’s mind, until the religion is replaced by deism, or the science is polluted with unproven spiritual claims. And neither option is acceptable; the first one to the religiose, and the second one to the true scientist.

    Like

  2. “Conversely theology, based on revelation, is concerned with questions of “why” (Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing?).”

    Yes, this guy deserves the Poepol van die week prize. How many times have this statement been answered by rational thinkers, but these assholes keep on repeating it. There “why” answers are based on unproven nonsense that religions have been making up for centuries. No proof of the existence of their gods, no proof of a Hel or Heaven. Shit, how can you live like that! Making up stories and then expecting us to believe them.

    Like

  3. Came across the following article on News 24 – thought it was worth a post here.

    God: From hero to zero in 6000 years!, wriiten by “DelusionBuster” on News24.
    04 June 2012, 13:01

    How God lost his mojo over the ages:

    Some 6000 years ago, God created trillions of fiery galaxies from nothing – just for fun! Oh, those were the days!
    Also Earth and life on it. This drained him somewhat, so he had to rest after 6 days.
    But God apparently has issues: Due to a weak ego, he created people that must worship and praise him all the time. And beg him to change his mind. This flattery soothes his ego to this day. (Another issue incidentally, is that God is a hardcore atheist. He doesn’t believe in a higher power)
    In any case, God noticed to his shock one fine day, that his first attempt did not unfold according to his plan and wishes. He therefore decided to drown his creations- except for a few highly incestuous, highly virtuous people whose job it was to get busy and re-populate the planet.
    He used a lot of his remaining powers to dispose of all the excess water after that required corrective intervention.
    Several centuries later, he still managed to part the Red Sea for a couple of minutes.
    But in those days, he was still the undisputed angry Alpha Male of the universe who appeared to people, argued with them, threatened them, interfered with lives, bullied them, displaced them, lost his temper and committed genocide every now and then.
    As middle age crept in, he had a change of heart- he felt sorry for his creations. So God impregnated a virgin without her consent so that he could be born as his himself – to save his creations from himself – so his argument went..
    To represent all of mankind, he chose a tribe of ignorant herdsmen in the Middle East. Though none of the more advanced civilisations at the time – such as China.
    For light entertainment, he played on the feelings of his creations by making them think he died for them. But he didn’t really die. It was all staged. LOL!
    Anyway, towards retirement age, he managed to make loaves and fishes in a basket so people could have a picnic with his son.
    All he can barely manage nowadays is to appear on toast. On a good day, he will help us find parking, help a kid pass an exam, help a church to raise money for organ repairs and help an “overly blessed person” to shake off a kilo or so.
    Sadly, he cannot anymore help some 30 000 kids who die of starvation every day.
    He’s tired now, he’s old and he is on the run. And his peaceful hiding places are diminishing by the day as science is catching up with him.
    Shall we give him a break?

    Like

  4. Welkom terug, Malherbe!

    Dit is jammer Analfa antwoord jou nie meer nie, want ek sou graag wou sien wat hy te sê het oor wat jy hierbo geskryf het. Maar aangesien jy net ‘n ander persoon se skrywe hier weer gegee het, sal hy miskien iets tog wil antwoord.

    Like

  5. If you circumcise a horse, you can make some interesting napkin rings which should be useful if you are the type of person who has your boss over for formal dinners. You can use the rings to hang your shower curtain too, but you have to dry the rings off or they will get mouldy.

    Like

  6. Oh, I see…. Next time I’l just ignore your comments.
    If you want to have fun, rather try going to the movies or walking on the beach.

    Like

  7. “Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind,” a crazy scientist with really bad hair and a wild look in his eyes once said.

    Albert Einstein never said anything of the sort and resented attempts to make him out to have adhered to any religion. Einstein detested religion. Typical of a Godbot to brazenly lie the moment he starts with his drivel.

    Like

    • Uhm, actually, he did. You can find it in his “Ideas and Opinions”, pp. 41-49. Ideas and Opinions is a collection of some of his contributions to symposiums and conferences – it was published under his supervision in 1954. That quote is from a talk he gave at a symposium in New York in 1941. Go check it out yourself: http://bit.ly/1gNvrIw

      Like

      • Bottomline, Mr Rational: Einstein views on religion are well documented and he definitely did not believe or adhere to a supernatural creator-god. He indeed detested people that quoted him out of context for self serving reasons….very much the way you are doing now.

        Like

        • Your contention was that the above quote from Einstein was made up. It wasn’t. Which of course you conveniently ignore now that you’ve been pointed to the source. As for Einstein’s religious views, although complex, they are indeed well documented: he was an agnostic, maybe even a pantheist, who certainly did not believe in a personal God. The quote doesn’t deny that, does it? To my mind, it reinforces Einstein’s (well-known?) view that science and theology operate in two different spheres – one is essentially concerned with physics, the other with meta-physics. Which, it appears, is the exact point the writer was trying to make.

          Like

          • Ok, he did say it, but you have taken it out of the context of this paper which also states:

            “Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to THE MOST UNDEVELOPED MIND. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?”

            Like

          • “Your contention was that the above quote from Einstein was made up”

            – Where did I say or imply the above? Are you just another dishonest godiot?

            Like

          • You could have posted the whole source and shown the quote within its context in the first place, but you chose not to do that.

            Like

      • Rationalist, this is the paper you were referring to. I don’t see that quote. Would you like to point it out to me?

        Science and Religion

        This article appears in Einstein’s Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 – 49. The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. The second section is from Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

        1.

        During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people’s education, must serve that end exclusively.

        One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one’s mind as to its nature.

        It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.

        For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.

        But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.

        The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.

        There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? Indeed, even the divinization of humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of that ideal. It is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any other way.

        If one looks at the substance rather than at the form, then one can take these words as expressing also the fundamental democratic position. The true democrat can worship his nation as little as can the man who is religious, in our sense of the term.

        What, then, in all this, is the function of education and of the school? They should help the young person to grow up in such a spirit that these fundamental principles should be to him as the air which he breathes. Teaching alone cannot do that.

        If one holds these high principles clearly before one’s eyes, and compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave danger, In the totalitarian states it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression of the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most precious traditions.

        A realization of how great is the danger is spreading, however, among thinking people, and there is much search for means with which to meet the danger–means in the field of national and international politics, of legislation, or organization in general. Such efforts are, no doubt, greatly needed. Yet the ancients knew something- which we seem to have forgotten. All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they have not behind them a living spirit. But if the longing for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds.

        II.

        Return to Top
        It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration.

        At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

        For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

        Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

        Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

        Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

        The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required–not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.

        To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.

        We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.

        The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

        But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel’s book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.

        If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.

        The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.

        http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

        Like

        • Sure matey. It’s right there in the text you posted. Go to part II, and scroll down to paragraph 4. It’s the last sentence in the paragraph.

          When looking for something on a page, use CTRL + F, it’s easy to find that way.

          Happy to help.

          Like

          • Oh wow, you can press two key together at the same time. Does that make you ambidextrous? Can you scratch the back of your head with your elbow? You were too lazy to put up the article yourself, but this goes with the territory of being a godbot: get someone else to do it if God doesn’t do it for you.

            Like

    • Einstein in his quotations often referred to God. He is invariably put in the religious box, but let Einstein answer for himself:

      “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
      “For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.” (Einstein’s letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind)

      Like

      • The religious will always lie and lie to their followers and themselves. But when you think about it, it isn’t that hard to fool people who has no critical thinking capabilities left and has the mental reasoning capacity of a child.

        Like

        • Die Atties sal altyd lieg en bedrieg en hulle volgelinge om die bos ly, nie dat dit moeilik is nie, die atties het hierdie vrees dat hulle uitgevang gaan word dat hulle nie inteligent, rasioneel, krities kan pirvorm nie
          Die saaintis vertel die atties dat al wat ‘n “werklikheid” is, is wat hulle kan bewys. En die volgelinge staar hulle blind vir dit wat ons elke dag mee te doen het wat nog nie bewys is deur hulle guru’s nie, en loop rond met die verwaande houding dat ons is reg en julle is verkeerd.
          In my realitiet is die niks anders as fundamentele atties nie.

          Like

          • Ateïste lieg en bedrieg nie en een ding wat julle godbots nie kan verstaan nie is dat ons nie volgelinge het nie. Julle volg spoke, ons nie; ons het ‘n denkwyse wat die bestaan van julle spoke bevraagteken en julle kan nie enige bewys van hulle (die spoke nou) se bestaan lewer nie. As jy enersdenkende rasionele ateïste mekaar se volgelinge noem, then so be it, maar nie veel menses al met jou saamstem nie. Ons word ook nie uitgevang nie – ons sal slegs uitgevang word as julle spoke skielik hulle verskeining maak, maar ons wag nog. Ons is ook nie wetenskaplikes se volgelinge nie, ons toets hulle gereeld met eksperiment en waarneming en hulle slaag die toetse met onderskeiding. Johannie, jy sukkel met hierdie eenvoudige begrippe, maar ek wag, jy sal kort voor lank met dieselfde kak redenasies kom.

            Like

            • As atties so “open minded” is dan kan ek nie verstaan waarom julle nie die een eksperiment wil doen wat ek julle vra nie, wat het julle om te verloor? Ek bedoel. . . “wat” . . .het. . . julle . . . om . . .te. . . verloor? (Ego’s, trots, rasionele denke (haha), selfbeeld, vriende, wat?).
              En dit is nie vir my voordeel nie, vir my maak dit nie saak wat julle doen nie, ek weet net toe ek was waar julle nou is, was ek verblind deur my eie “geloof” en nou sal ek graag wil aanbeweeg en nie soos julle heeltyd “agtertoe kyk” nie.
              Dis nie vir my maklik om met mense om my oor die dinge te praat nie, want hulle gee voor dat hulle alreeds “daar” is, sonder om te dink dat ander dit kan sien. (Die voorgee).

              En ek koop ook nie die nie-volgelinge storie nie, ek dink jy probeer net koel klink sonder om jou eie stelling te verduidelik oor hoekom “ons die spoke” volg. Hierdie “volg” storie is – dit dieselfde as “worship”?, wat Molly nog aan ons gaan verduidelik. . .eendag?

              Like

            • Die God wat julle dink nie bewysbaar is nie, is ten volle bewysbaar. Studeer net die bybel.
              Die Ateiste en wetenskaplikes met hulle slimheid is almal deel van sy skepping, Almal met n vrye wil geskape.(God word nie deur pionne aanbid nie.)
              Kyk na wat hy geskape het. Wetenskap spook al die eeue om dit wat God geskep het te bewys. En dis al wat hulle regkry. Hulle bewys God se wonderwerke. Waar is hulle eie wonderwerke. Met al hul slimheid vervaardig hulle “nuwe uitvindsels” nie eens met die materiaal wat hulle self gemaak het nie maar met wette en materiale wat God al aan die begin geskep het.Merkwaardig ne? 6000 jaar en hulle kan nog nie eens die ekwewalent van n vlooi skep nie. Whaow wat n slim klomp.
              Die Ateis self kan nie eens sy eie bestaan en wonderlike persoon navors en dupliseer of verstaan nie maar kritiseer die almagtige skepper.
              Daar is baie bewyse vir God se bestaan(Kyk om jou rond), maar ongelukig kan net die mense wat die insig, ontvang het dit verstaan) en kan dit nie deur n onderafdeling van sy skepping(Wetenskap) bepaal word nie.Die wetenskap kon tot dusver nog niks van die skepping verkeers bewys nie. Maar hulself het hulle al baie keer verkeerd bewys. Die Bybel is geskrifte wat oor duisende jare deur honderde mense geboekstaaf is. En waneer dit neerkom op bewyse, wat op getuies gebaseer is, in n Hof, sal die Bybel Wen en die Ateiste veloor.
              Ek dink julle moet die Bybel en die lewe n slag goed bestudeer, en julle mening dan lug. En liewers nie julself in julle onkunde belaglik maak nie.
              Piet van Deventer.

              Like

              • Ai ou Piet, kan jy dan nie die belaglikhede wat jy kwytraak ondersoek nie. Jy kan begin by jou eerste sin

                “Die God wat julle dink nie bewysbaar is nie, is ten volle bewysbaar. Studeer net die bybel.”

                Dit is juis die Bybel wat verantwoordelik vir mense se ateisme is.

                Sommer nog n juweeltjie:

                “En waneer dit neerkom op bewyse, wat op getuies gebaseer is, in n Hof, sal die Bybel Wen en die Ateiste veloor.”

                Nou bring jou “getuienis” van duisende jare geledesodat ons hulle in die getuienisbank kan sit. n hof kan inelkgeval nie op die “waarheid” van God/e aanspraak maak nie.

                Like

                • Gerhard,
                  Natuurlik is die bybel die middelpunt van focus by Ateiste. Hulle lees en studeer eerder “Andrew” “Da Vinci code” “Die Shack” en alle tipe ander Ateistiese materiale, terwyl die Bybel op n opervlakige manier soos bg boeke gelees en vergelyk word.In die bybel sal hul dwaasheid dalk vir hulself duidelik word, en miskien is hul daarvoor bank. En dan is daar natuurlik ook die wat sal kyk en kyk en niks sien nie, en luister, maar niks hoor nie.Jesus het so by so vir ons almal se sondes gesterf, omdat hy selfs ons wat hom gekrysig het liefgehad het voor ons self van hom geweet het. Sodat almal van ons die gelleentheid sal he om ons sielle te red.
                  Dat is die standpunt van die Ateiste in elk geval?. Soos kinderjies wat se ” Is, nie Is nie,
                  Is nie” .Net om te kan stry en dit wat goed is partykeer moedsmillig te wil afbreek. Wat wil hulle bereik?Hulle het geen Godsdiens maar kritiseer die wat het. is dit dalk suur druiwe. n Konsep van my Mazda is beter as jou Ferari, want Einstein het gese n maza gebruik minder olie?
                  Die Ateiste hoef nie sleg of minderwaardig te voel nie. Hulle het n gelyke kans met almal om gered te word tot die ewige lewe. As die dag kom, sal hulle vind dat God se grootheid self nie eens deur die Bybel omvat kan word nie.Daar is vir hulle n groot ondrsteunings netwerk. En daar word daagliks gebid ook vir hulle. Moenie dat jou eie swakhede en gewete jou weg hou van Gog nie. Hy is n God van Liefde, en sal jou vergewe sonder om jou te verwyd. Mr. die Ateis jy sal met jou dwase praatjies en “Anelises” niks bereik teen die Christendom nie. Daar is baie hoogs geleerde en baie groot,analikuste en denkers wat Christene is, en nie net ons vlak se mense nie.Miskien moet jul dal begin dink aan julle self en jul daaroor bekommer. Christene het nie die soort bekommernis wat julle het nie, maar bekommer hulle wel oor julle siele.
                  Groete,
                  Piet.

                  Like

                  • Ai Piet. Alvorens jy kan preek moet jy eers daardie God van jou bewys. Dit is duidelik dat jy nie veel weet van ateisme en ander konsepte soos bv. apateisme en agnostiese standpunte nie

                    Eerstens moet jy dalk eers uitvind wat presies my standpunt is. Ek persoonlik sien geen bewyse vir jou God nie.Miskien is daar n God of Gode, maar aangesien ek geen bewyse sien nie leef ek ateisties. Ek kan in elk geval NIE bewys dat Gode NIE bestaan nie. Jy kan ook nie bewys dat JOU God bestaan nie

                    Tweedens, moet ons eers definieer wie/wat hierdie God van jou is waaroor ons praat/skryf. Selfs onder Christene is daar verskille in wie en wat hierdie God is. Dan is daar ander godsdienste wat jou God verwerp. Ander gelowe kombineer selfs godsdienste. n voorbeeld is die Coa daiste wat glo dat verskye godsienste/geloof (en nie net jou christelike God nie) eindlik gemanifisteer word in een God. Dan is daar die Moslems en Jode asook vele ander gelowe. Daar is duisende.Gode wat aanbid word. Dan is daar die wat weer se dat n God/Gode bestaan maar dat dit/hulle/sy/hy onpersoonlik is. M.a.w. jy sal nie weet nie want dit is nie n God wat kontak met jou en ander mense (die mensdom) het nie. So kan ek aangaan.

                    Derdens, ter aansluiting by die tweede punt is dit nie as sulks n ateisme teen teisme debat vir my nie. Dit is baie meer kompleks as dit. Wat laat jou dink jou God is beter as iemand anders se God/Gode? Dit is duidelik dat jy die wese en aard van jou God bylas soos ek aflei: hy het vir jou sonde gesterf ens. ens.

                    Vierdens, ek stel nie belang in afbreek nie. Myns insiens moet almal toegelaat word om hulle godsdien te beoefen solank dit nie sekere wette oortree nie.

                    Laastens, ek sien jy begin mense dwase noem ens. Die vinger wys terug na jou toe. Jou hele argumente in jou 2 kommentare kan maklik geken word want dit is maar net n swak weergawe van meer gesofistikeerde argumente wat teiste gebruik. Ek sien dwarsdeur jou argumente. Jy kan self gaan soek op die internet of jy die argumente en logiese denkfoute kan identifiseer. Jou argument is eindlik maar die volgens:

                    My God bestaan en die Bybel is die bewys daarom is ander verkeerd wat ander gelowe aanhang asook die ateiste, agnostiese mense, apateiste ens. ens. Nee wat jy is die arrogante een.

                    Die debat is baie meer kompleks as wat jy dink en ek het hier maar net probeer om n oorsig te gee.

                    Groete

                    Like

                    • Gerard,
                      Ek het nie bedoel om enige iemand n dwaas te noem nie. Wat ek bedoel is dat ek die redenasies teen die Cristendom as dwase redenasies, beskou.
                      Die bybel is n boek waar mense deur duisende jare, hul ondervindings opgeteken het. Baie van daardie mense, (Profete) wat mekaar nie eens geken het, of van dieselfde streke was nie het bv dieselfde dinge baie akuraat voorspel, soos jy seker weet. (Hulle het nie internet of koerante gehad om met mekaar ooreen te kom om dieselfde te lieg nie.
                      My aanmerkings was ook nie teen jou gerig nie, want jy het om die waarheid te se,sover ek kan onthou in die bg pos niks ivm hierdie saak gese nie maar, slegs, voorspoedige nuwe jaar. Ek het eintlik begin na die pos van Holyshmoly, en nie besef dat dit laaste geplaas sou word net na jou pos nie. (Jammer oor dit.) Holtyshmoly het my in elke geval die antwoord gegee wat ek verwag het van so n hoe intelek.Sy antwoord was “Doos”
                      Nou ja, verder:My bedoeling was ook nie om my God of Christus te bewys nie, maar om te wys hoe vlak die redenasie is, om die wetenskap (Wat voldens my ook aan die mens gegee is te gebruik),te gebruik om te probeer bewys dat hy nie bestaan nie. Die heelal en alles daarin getuig van God, en die meeste nasies of hulle in Christus glo of nie, getuig dit.
                      Maar dit daar gelaat. Ek het kortliks verduidelik waar in ek glo. Vir die wat dalk nie daaraan gedink het nie. Dit wat ek glo en deur my lewe ervaar het is vir my reg. En dit sal nooit verander nie. Waarskynlik sal n tyd kom waneer sommge vd bg mense soos ek sal glo. (Soos al baie gebeur het.)Wat ek glo is uit my eie en nie uit wat ander my geleer of vertel het nie.

                      Jy sien, geloof is geloof,en nie wetenskap nie. Anders sou dit n wetenskap genoem word.
                      .En geloof openbaar dinge wat sonder geloof verborge is.(Self sataniste sal dit vir jou se.)
                      En dan kom die vraag hoekom,is die Christene altyd die teiken is van die Ateiste, en nooit die Hindos of Moslems of sataniste nie? is hul geloof te perfek , of Is dit miskien omdat die Christen omgee vir sy medenens?,

                      Groete,
                      Piet

                      Like

                    • “En geloof openbaar dinge wat sonder geloof verborge is.(Self sataniste sal dit vir jou se.)”

                      That’s interesting. You put your belief system in the same category as Satanism, which strongly suggests binary or Manichean thinking, the belief that something must be either wholly good or wholly bad. In psychiatry this is called “splitting”, a symptom of dissociative thinking caused by emotional and or physical abuse in childhood. Can also be caused by parents who fought all the time and manipulated you into taking sides – the one was all “good”, the other all “bad’. Did you have parents like that?

                      Like

                    • Molly openbaar so bietjie diep denkende gedagtes deur te vertel dat dit baie interessant is dat Piet nou satanisme en sy eie “geloof” in die dieselfde kategorie plaas, dat hy nou christene en satan aanbidders onder dieselfde “hoof opskryf” sit, wonder nou of die onder die kategorie van “religie” sal wees, of moet jy nou ateïsme en satanaanbidders onder die opskrif “valse gelowe” en dan christene onder “ware geloof”

                      dan wys sy uit dat sekere persoonlikhede is mishandel as kinders wat veroorsaak het dat hulle net wit en swart sien en nie ‘n “grys” area kan hê nie

                      Wat sy eintlik so “underhand” vir Piet probeer vertel is dat hy en satanisme dieselfde verbeeldings vlug onderneem het, met net die simbole wat verskil – en dat sy vermoed dat hy as kind verwaarloos was omdat dit iets is wat in haar eie neurologiese paadjies vasgelê is, m.a.w jy kan net iets buite erken as dit deel is van dit wat “binne” jou is

                      Van die simptome van kindere verwaarlosing of mishandeling is dat as grootmense hulle impulsief is en anti-sosiale gedrag openbaar, nou weet ek nie of om na iemand te verwys as deel v/d vroulike voortplanting anatomie, wat ook Mad Mac se een gebod oortree, of dit as anti-sosiale gedrag beskou kan word.

                      (sal seker afhang v/d waarnemer se integriteit, as die persoon losserig ge-integreer is sal meeste dinge in die “grys” area beland, soos Hompie Dompie en as mens geharde grense het soos sommige ateïste wat in die wit en swart staan dat “dere ies nou gods” sal dit seker aanvaarbare gedrag wees)

                      Like

      • Thanks Savage, that’s great. Compare it to this quote, also from Einstein:

        “The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations.”

        It’s on the same page posted by a user above. I’m well aware of his general views on religion. And I am, once again, not trying to prove that Einstein believed in a personal God. That is the point. I said that in my comment above, as well. I believe my exact words were: “Einstein’s religious views, although complex, are indeed well documented: he was an agnostic, maybe even a pantheist, who certainly did not believe in a personal God.”

        The exact words used in the original piece of writing above was: “…he most certainly was no theist…”

        I guess that is what irks me about the general tone of this post: there is an inability here to look at an argument with nuance and complexity. At which point I look at the words of McBrolloks below (“it isn’t that hard to fool people who has no critical thinking capabilities left and has the mental reasoning capacity of a child”), and kinda have to smile – because the level of reasoning here is not very robust. Two basic arguments were made in the piece of writing in the original post:

        1. Most of Einstein’s contemporaries had no problem reconciling their faith with science.
        2. Many scientists today have no problem reconciling their faith and science.

        So far, the response to those two arguments have been:

        1. Einstein didn’t say that!
        2. The writer sucks!
        3. Religion sucks!

        The first objection has been refuted, since the source and exact words were pasted above; and the other two objections fail to address any of the issues that were raised. I guess in my view that pretty much amounts to primary school level reasoning.

        Like

        • Religion does not, per se, suck. It is people hiding behind a false mask of religiosity that suck. I don’t know whether a god exists, but I certainly grant that Judeo-Christian traditions are a lot more constructive than, say, the traditions of camel drivers with natural oil reserves. I can hardly listen to Bach’s Goldberg Variations without admitting that much that is good, noble and beautiful has come from European traditions of which Judeo-Christianity has been an integral part.

          I just don’t like fundamentalism because it’s so goddam TRASHY.

          Like

        • What about the fact that these religions always gets the most basic principles of human rights completely wrong? Right there in black and white scribbled all over their holy books, thousands of times over and over again? What does that say about your so called moral guide?

          Like

          • Those holy books were written thousands of years ago when civilisation was still in a very crude state and no premium was placed on human rights. If you argue with what’s written in the bible you are arguing with dead people who wouldn’t have a clue what life is like today. But still, a code of conduct was necessary because it is inherent in human nature to do stupid things which endanger society.That’s why prisons are still full in secular societies where there are rules in place instead of relying on religion. Sweden, for example, has all kinds of social problems with immigrants rioting and wreaking havoc.

            Like

          • Sweden is making the same mistakes as the UK in admitting people who do not share their values and refuse to adapt to Swedish culture. They want to scrounge off Swedish welfare and rape Swedish women and then they complain that they are discriminated against.

            It is a question of degree how one can cooperate with theists. I have now entered a “pax” with the neighbours because they recognise that I am better to have around than not have around. The pros outweigh the cons; what we have in common outweighs what we don’t have in common. If I had extremist Muslims living next door insisting that I wear a burka in the garden then there could be no pax.

            Like

        • Answer me this rationalist44:

          What about the fact that these religions always gets the most basic principles of human rights completely wrong? Right there in black and white scribbled all over their holy books, thousands of times over and over again? What does that say about your so called moral guide?

          Like

        • “Many scientists today have no problem reconciling their faith and science”

          Not so. The percentage of scientists with a PhD degree being atheists is up near the nineties. The life of proper scientists is to verify theories, postulates and the like by experiment and observation. No gods have ever been found and it does not take a rocket scientist to deduct that all religions were created by humankind. The problem with the godbots is they try their utmost to get scientists in their laager and go about the process with lies and deceit. Newton and scientists from centuries ago were religious but since Darwin, Einstein and Bohr, the need for a god has deminished drastically. Feynman’s attitude towards religion speaks for most rational people today. If anybody wants to believe in a god, go ahead, but please don’t try to sell it as some kind of reality.

          Like

          • “Laager” is the correct word. Afrikaner adherence to Christianity comes from a culture of not allowing dissent. In its most extreme form it is fascism.

            Like

  8. Holyshmoly,
    I had parents that had standards, and believes and love with respect for others. Not parents that left their children in a world without dept. Were your parents like that?
    And did they hide behind a false religious mask?
    But for the rest of your answer. It were typical what I expected from you.
    It will be interesting to know:
    1. What do you believe in?
    2. Do you believe a human has a soul?
    3. What happen to you when you die?
    4. Where do you think everything in the universe come from.
    I hope you could keep your mind together enough to inform me, of your wisdom.
    Greetings,
    Piet.

    Like

    • What your parents or my parents were like has nothing to do with whether any god exists. What you or I believe, as opposed to what is demonstrably true, in no way proves that any god exists.

      Like

  9. Holyshmoly,
    If our parents has nothing to do with it, why did you bring it up. Or did I touched a tender point.
    Its not nice to drink your own medicine, is it?
    Anyhow, its OK, I did not think you would be able to answer in a rational way.
    I suspected, you do not know, what you believe in.
    Greetings,
    Piet

    Like

    • Well i believe in being nice to black people. My gardener is doing a fabulous job right now sculpting the garden shrubs. We’re lucky to live in Africa. All that nice weather and green gardens. Unless you live in Cape Town, of course. Then you have every right to be a pissed off doos.

      Like

    • If your parents had been Muslims you would have been a Muslim too. Ditto Buddhist, Hindu or Jew. Or atheist/agnostic.

      Like

  10. And all of those different religions have denominations and sub-sects ad infinitum. So what you your chances of belonging to the “right” religion?

    Like

  11. Holyshmoly,
    Yep you might be right, because all of them do believe in a almighty God, except if I were a Atheist,Because then I might possibly not have known what I believe in.
    But we are talking about religious believes, concerning God. Do you remember?? So religiously, you believe in black people, is that right? Do you at least pray to them, to save your soul, or should I say, at least spare it?
    Come on man, If you don’t believe in God. You must at least have a view point on how everything came about, and where you go when you die, or if you have a soul? (Even if it has to do with God or not) Even the dimmest people that I know has a viewpoint or a believe about this.
    Or do you just say. There is no God,There is no God,There is no God,There is no God,and then put your thumb in your mouth and go to sleep.
    Now you must have a viewpoint of your own. Or could you not find your viewpoint in one of the “Scientific” books that you read.Think man, think.
    If you want to blow the bubble of a God believer, you must at least be able to supply some alternatives?Just to try and ridicule them wont work, so come up with something concrete.
    Piet

    Like

    • “Holyshmoly,
      Yep you might be right, because all of them do believe in a almighty God, except if I were a Atheist,Because then I might possibly not have known what I believe in.”

      Wat n simpel stelling. Ek kan nie praat vir ander ateiste nie, maar ek weet presies waarin ek glo. Daardie ander gelowe glo waarin hulle glo en die meeste is in teenstelling met jou Christelike God. Daar het ons al klaar n problem. M.a.w jy kan nie aanspraak op die waarheid nie.

      But we are talking about religious believes, concerning God. Do you remember?? So religiously, you believe in black people, is that right? Do you at least pray to them, to save your soul, or should I say, at least spare it?

      Die blote aanmerking deur jou vraag of Holy bid tot swartes is n patetiese stelling. Wie het vir jou vertel mens moet tot iets bid? Jy sien jy maak duidelike aannames van jou God waartoe jy bid. Daar is geen bewyse vir n siel nie. Jy is so geindoktrineer my vriend. Al veronderstel ons daar is n siel beteken dit nie jou “siel” wat kontak het is die regte God/e nie.

      “Come on man, If you don’t believe in God. You must at least have a view point on how everything came about,”

      Wat laat jou dink jou storie is reg. Omdat jy n storie het maak dit nie onmiddelik waar nie. As ander se hulle weet nie hoe alles tot stan gekom het nie is dit nie n slegter antwoord as joune nie. Ander praat weer van evolusie en dan is daar weer die mense met ander stories. Die verskil is evolusie is meer op n wetenskaplike agtergrond gegrond.

      “and where you go when you die, or if you have a soul? (Even if it has to do with God or not) Even the dimmest people that I know has a viewpoint or a believe about this”

      Ek glo niks gebeur nie en die liggaam word opgevreet deur allerhande insekte ens. of dit word veras ens. Daar is egter geen finale bewys totdusver nie. Hoekom moet mens inelgeval n standpunt hieroor he. Wat nie gebeur nie of gebeur is hoe dit is.

      “Or do you just say. There is no God,There is no God,There is no God,There is no God,and then put your thumb in your mouth and go to sleep.”

      Die meeste ateiste se NIE daar is NIE n God/e nie. Daar is geen bewyse nie. Jou geloof is besaai met doktrines.Wat as jou geloof verkeerd is en die ander God stuur jou hel toe omdat jy die verkeerde God aanbid. Jy sal nog baie moet oplees oor ons voordat jy verstaan wat werklik aangaan.

      Like

      • “Now you must have a viewpoint of your own. Or could you not find your viewpoint in one of the “Scientific” books that you read.Think man, think.”

        Jy is so onkundig. Wie het vir jou vertel mens moet standpunte NET uit wetenskap kry. Dink mam dink!. Jy probeer slim klink….

        If you want to blow the bubble of a God believer, you must at least be able to supply some alternatives?Just to try and ridicule them wont work, so come up with something concrete.

        Baie “God believer” maak die ander se geloof belaglik. Ons kan die heilige boeke lees soos bv. die Jode en met die christelike Bybel vergelyk. Dit maak jou geloof belaglik volgens ander gelowe se heilige boek. M.a.w jy het geen aanspraak op die waarheid. Veral wanneer christene ander se geloof as “afgodery” afmaak. Terloop jy het iewers genome dat dit lyk of ateiste christene aanvat. Dit wys weereens dat jy onbelese met ateisme is. Moslems is bv. ook n teiken vir baieateiste. Veral die radikale moslems. Kyk na die videos wat ek vir jou stuur sodat jy beter verstaan.

        Like

      • Gerard,
        Te minste het jy n standpunt, of dit verkeerd is of nie.
        Wat ek graag wou weet is wat Holysmoly se standpunt is. Net n stukkie nuus vir jou al waar die ander gelowe wat in God glo verskil van die Christene is dat hulle nie in Christus glo nie.
        En wat die kans is dat my geloof verkeerd is is n kans wat ek 100% bereid is om te vat.(Wat dink jy is jou kanse?)
        En waar moet ek nou nog so baie oplees, voor ek werklik verstaan wat aangaan?
        Groete,
        Piet

        Like

        • “Net n stukkie nuus vir jou al waar die ander gelowe wat in God glo verskil van die Christene is dat hulle nie in Christus glo nie.”

          Jou verskil maak dit nie waar invergelyking met ander gelowe nie. Ons verstaan jy is n christen maar dit is geen pad tot die waarheid nie.

          “En wat die kans is dat my geloof verkeerd is is n kans wat ek 100% bereid is om te vat.(Wat dink jy is jou kanse?)”

          Wat laat jou dink my kanse is minder as joune? n ander God/e kan my hemel toe stuur en jou hel toe stuur. Het dit al tot jou deurgedring dat baie ateiste dalk reg kan wees omdat hulle die aard en wese van n God (as die God/e) dit bepaal dat ateiste se ongeloof eindlik reg is. Nie dat ek dink daar is bewyse vir helle en hemele nie.

          “En waar moet ek nou nog so baie oplees, voor ek werklik verstaan wat aangaan?”

          Kyk, dit is n lang proses om n ateis (without Gods) te word. Jy sal moet oplees oor verskillende standpunte. Ek sou se lees die Bybel (probeer so neutral as moontlik wees want ander is dit n mors van tyd. Bevraagteken jou geloof) en toets dit dan teen die Koran. Dan kan jy verder oplees oor logika en jou vernuf gebruik om self tot n konklusie te kom d.m.v eie denke. Lees oor ander gelowe. Gebruik jou eie inisiatief om soveel leestof as moontlik te bekom. daar is soveel leestof daarbuite. Kyk na altwee van die muntstukke. Hierdie proses kan dikwels jare neem. My proses het by die Bybel begin….

          Like

          • Uit die aard van die saak is daar verskillende maniere hoe mense tot ateisme kom. Hier is n voorbeeld van person wat tot ateisme gekom het.

            Like

          • Gerard,
            Ek het nie gese jou kanse is minder as myne nie.Ek het gevra wat dink jy is jou kanse?
            Want my geloof se ek mag jou nie oordeel nie.
            Jy maak n aanname dat ek n oningeligde persoon is. Ek het wel deeglik opgelees oor ander gelowe, en bygelowe en ander abstrakte gelowe.
            Ateisme egter bly vir my n vreemde begrip.Waarop ek die minste tyd op spandeer het.
            Die Bybel het ek al 15 keer deurgelees, en elke keer was ek net meer oortuig van my geloof.
            Ek is 68jr oud en het die meeste van die spaartyd gespandeer op geloof en gelowe.
            Jy sien. ek wou nie in die Bybel glo omdat iemand anders gese het dis reg nie. Nie eens predekante nie.Maar ek het moeite gedoen om te kyk of die Bybel waar is. En in my verstand het ek die saak uitgemaak dat dit waar is.Ek het ook na talle uitvindings van opgrawings en wetenskaplike uitvindings gekyk. Baie navorsing was begin met die doel om die bybel as foutief te bewys, maar het dit as korrek bewys. (Ek glo in die protestantse godsdiens, met n rede soos ek gese het.)
            So ja, ek het by die Bybel begin toe ek 16 was en by hom geeindig vandag en vir altyd.
            Wat is jou “track record”?
            Groete,
            Piet

            Like

            • Wel, oom Piet dit is n geldige vraag wanneer ek vra of jy dink jou kaans is beter.

              T.o.v.die werklike vraag kan ek dit stel dat is die vraag geldig, want voordat n mens op die kanse kan antwoord moet mens eers bepaal of God/e bestaan en indien dit so is moet daar afgevra word of daar werklik so iets soos hel,sonde of vergifnis is volgens jou leerstellings (wat natuurlik ander dogmas insluit). Daarvoor is daar geen bewyse nie so dit is dalk nie eers geldig om van n kans tussen 0% tot 100% te praat nie.

              “Want my geloof se ek mag jou nie oordeel nie”

              Goeie eienskap, maar in die Bybel word mense wel geoordeel en daar gebeur dinge met mense. In die ou testament (as mens dit nou lees as “God se woord deur die hand van mense”) word allerhande stories vertel. Ander nasies word uitgemoor en hulle word gedemoniseer sonder dat ons weet of dit eers die waarheid is en of die nie-Israelite die werklik die verkeerde was nie.

              “Jy maak n aanname dat ek n oningeligde persoon is. Ek het wel deeglik opgelees oor ander gelowe, en bygelowe en ander abstrakte gelowe.
              Ateisme egter bly vir my n vreemde begrip.Waarop ek die minste tyd op spandeer het.”

              Oom Piet maar dan erken jy mos dat jy nog nie alles ten volle geondersoek het nie. M.a.w daar is altyd iets nuuts te leer asook nuwe insigte. Nuwe gelowe. Daar is altyd iets nuuts om te ondek.

              “Jy sien. ek wou nie in die Bybel glo omdat iemand anders gese het dis reg nie. Nie eens predekante nie.Maar ek het moeite gedoen om te kyk of die Bybel waar is. En in my verstand het ek die saak uitgemaak dat dit waar is.Ek het ook na talle uitvindings van opgrawings en wetenskaplike uitvindings gekyk.”

              Jy is bewus daarvan dat ander wetenskaplike bevinding dit weerspreek. Na watter opgrawing verwys jy? n mens moet ook sorgvuldig met hierdie “bewyse” omgaan. Net so een voorbeeld:

              Ek weet bv. van opgrawings wat gedoen is van die christene se God met n vroulike God daarby. Kan ons dit dan sommer as die waarheid aanvaar? Nee dit wys meer daarop dat ten minste sekere mense aan n manlike God en vroulike God geglo het. Dit bewys egter nie dat n God bestaan net omdat hierdie mense hierdie tekening of beeldjies gehad het nie. Daar is etlike argumente te gunste van die Christelike God maar dan is daar ook die wat teen argument hetl.

              “Baie navorsing was begin met die doel om die bybel as foutief te bewys, maar het dit as korrek bewys”

              Dit is nie my plig om die Bybel korrek te bewys nie. Oom, en ander Christene moet dit korrek bewys. Baie navorsing het die Bybel ook verkeerd bewys. Die Christene en protestante ( waarskynlik die calvinisme in hierdie geval?) het geensins bewys dat hulle reg is en dat die dogmas en leerstelling die waarheid is nie.

              “So ja, ek het by die Bybel begin toe ek 16 was en by hom geeindig vandag en vir altyd.
              Wat is jou “track record”?”

              Wat sou gebeur het as oom bv. by die Koran of een of ander boek begin het? My track record is dat alles bevraagteken moet word. Soos ek se, mens leer altyd iets nuuts.

              Groete

              Like

                • Jammer dar is paar foute maar ek hoop oom Piet verstaan darem die punt wat ek gemaak het.

                  Net n algemene punt: Ek glo nie in n God (seker ook nie oor “ware dogmas”) nie, alhoewel dit nie bewysbaar is na enige kant toe is nie. Ateisme kan jou net van die voortaande sin vertel maar dit kan jou niks oor die ander aspekte vertel soos bv. n person se politiek nie. Inteenstelling met die meeste ateiste wat linkse politieke menings het is ek n Afrikaner nasionalis. So ek speel nie fondumenteel in die ateis of gelowige se span nie.

                  Like

                  • Gerard,
                    Jy maak goeie sin. En dink baie logies.
                    Soos ek voorheen gese het geloof is geloof en kan nie wetenskaplik bewys word nie.
                    Wat sommige van jou vorige opmerkings betref. Ja daar was n genoside in kaanaan, teenoor die nasies wat daar gewoon het. Maar daar was n goeie rede daarvoor, wat in die Bybel uitgespel word. (En die oordeel was van God en nie van die mense nie.)
                    Jy mag nie oordeel nie, want die oordeel kom God toe. Ook met n goeie rede, wat in die bybel voorkom. Se bv. n persoon met n perfekte lewe voor God doen iets wat vir jou uit lyn lyk, maar nie werklik is nie,en jy hom oordeel, sal jy jouself aanstel in die plek van God. En jy sal geoordeel word met dieselfde hardheid wat jy openbaar het. Dieselfde geld vir n persoon van n ander geloof. Ook dit word deur die by Bybel gedek.
                    Ook baie duidelik in die Bybel. Wat enige bespiegeling betref dat Christus se lyk opgegrawe is. Christus het met ligaam en al opgestaan op die 3de dag, en het opgevaar na die hemel.So geen ligaam nie. Stories soos die van Dan Brown dat Christus n vrou gehad het is ook onwaar. In die Bybel se tyd, was dit eintlik ongehoord vir n man om nie te trou nie, en dit sou verseker bekend wees as hy was. Die Apostels wat na sy Hemelvaart van hom getuig het sou dit verseker genoem het. Hulle sou ook as hy n nageslag gehad het, die aanbid het.
                    Ja ek was seker gelukkig om as n Christen weg te spring. Maar ek glo dat indien ek met die Koran sou wegspring ek dalk ook een van die duisende bekeerlinge sou wees wat na die Christen geloof sou oorgaan.
                    Ek het na jou vedeo,” Why I no longer believe in God” gekyk. Op die oog af klink alles heel logies maar ek sien n paar probleme. (Jy moes dit ook opgemerk het.) Let wel ek se niks oor die persoon se siel nie. Ek ken hom nie
                    Hy het n baie swaar kindertyd gehad.
                    Hy was heel van die spoor af.
                    Toe word hy n kits bekeerling waarvan jy baie nog vandag in die karismatiese kerke sien.
                    Toe na n 2 jaar studie waar hy baie swak gedoen het agv van sy Aandag afleibaarheid.Word hy n Pastoor, hoogs begeesterd en half vol kennis. (Ek vrees vir sy gewese kude.)
                    Toe begin hy fabels met die Bybel vergelyk. (afgods fabels wat reeds deur die satan in plek gesit is lank voor die tyd, en vandag nog mense verhinder in die Christendom. ) Die ark bv het nie al die subspesies vd diere gevat die waar ongeveer 2000 oorspronklike spesie nadat al die waterlewende spesies weggeneem is. Daar was meer as genoeg plek.
                    Natuurlik kan n persoon wat nie die Bybel ken deur die fabels verlei word. Want dit is hoekom dit daar is en dit klink so logies.(En dit is ook hoekom negatiewe stories deeglik bekyk moet word.)
                    Met die teleurstellings wat hy gehad het, het sy Aandag aflybaarheids sindroom hom n baie harde tyd gegee.
                    Na n tyd sou hy met die behandeling wat hy gekry het vir sy siekte kon ontspan en baie beter begin voel, En dit mag vir hom gevoel het asof sy verlossing van die Christendom die rede was, dat hy nou so goed voel. Soos hyself aan die begin gese het. Sy sindroom is nou onder beheer.(Een vd simptome van sy siekte is om nie spanning van gedisiplineerde werk te kan hanteer nie.)
                    Om as n Christen te leef is defnitief nie om soos n geblindoekde mens deur die lewe te gaan nie. Dis ook nie n sombere neerdrukende lewe nie. Maar n lewe wat jou opgewonde maak om te lewe. Wat jou wil laat huppel oor God se grootheid en genade.
                    Nou ja, daar het jy ook n flits van my denke.(Baie verkort)
                    Hou aan soek,en jy sal die waarheid vind, en Hy wat die waarheid toets sal jou regverdig oordeel, vir goed en vir kwaad.(weer uit my geloof, wat jy nie hoef te glo nie) Moet net nie in jou soektog die goed wat in jou is verwaarloos nie.(Sal ons se ” just for incase”?)
                    Ek probeer nie van jou n Christen maak nie, al sou ek graag wou.
                    Groete,
                    Piet

                    Like

                    • Dit raak raak laat maar ek gaan antwoord.

                      ‘Soos ek voorheen gese het geloof is geloof en kan nie wetenskaplik bewys word nie”

                      Presies geloof dat jou God bestaan en alles wat saam met dit kom wat ek kan aflei soos bv. n persoonlike God kan nie sommer so as die waarheid aanvaar word. Daar is geen bewys dat geloof n pad na die waarheid veronderstel nie. Wat ek wel oor omgee is wat met daardie sogenaamde God gedoen word. Daar word aannames gemaak in die Bybel soos oor die kanaaniete. Maar het ons werklik die kanaaniete se kant van die saak? Jy sien die Bybel is nie die bewys nie. Dit is net so waarskynlik dat die Israeliete weens hul eie redes volke soos die kanaaniete uitgemoor het en nou maak hulle asof hul God kant gekies het teen die heidene. Daar is gewoon geen bewyse vir die Bybel nie. Daar is selfs dinge waarmee ek saam stem. Jerusalem is waarskynlik waar dit nou is maar dit dien geensins as bewys dat die sg seun van God kan opvaar na die hemel of uit die dood opstaan nie Ons weet ten beste dat mense dit geskryf het en dit maak dit nie sommer net waar omdat n mens dit wil glo nie. As ek sou gaan en mense uitmoor omdat God my vertel het sal jy dink ek is mal want dit kon eindlik my eie gedrag en beskouings wees wat ek as die “waarheid” sien. Hoe weet jy ek is dan verkeerd? Jy dink ek is verkeerd maar jy het geen bewyse nie. Ek sal dan waarskynlik skuldig bevind word maar n mens moet verstaan die hof is n menslike instelling.

                      “Wat enige bespiegeling betref dat Christus se lyk opgegrawe is. Christus het met ligaam en al opgestaan op die 3de dag, en het opgevaar na die hemel.So geen ligaam nie.”

                      Omdat jy dit glo maak dit nie so nie. Dit is slegs n mening en n mening is nie noodwendig die waarheid nie.

                      “Ja ek was seker gelukkig om as n Christen weg te spring. Maar ek glo dat indien ek met die Koran sou wegspring ek dalk ook een van die duisende bekeerlinge sou wees wat na die Christen geloof sou oorgaan.”

                      Jy moet ook besef dat ander weer bekeer word na die Moslems se geloof. Dit is net so waarskynlik dat indien jy n Moslem vader en moeder gehad het dat jy vandag nog steeds n moslem sou gewees het.

                      Die video is wat dit is ek het net n voorbeeld gegee dat daar verskillende redes is waarvan hierdie ou een is. Of hy nou verkeerd is of nie is irrelevant. Ander kom weer tot ateistiese insigte deur verskillende ander situasies soos ek wat die verskillende kante ondersoek. So ek gee nie juis aandag daaraan nie behalwe as om een aspek te reageer:

                      Oom praat van die “afgode” maar oom besef self nie dat daar geen bewyse is hiervoor nie. Die blote feit dat hierdie term gebreik word wys op bevoordeling. Net omdat die Bybel so se maak dit nie waar nie. Maar dit is presies wat die Bybel aan n mens doen. “Ek is reg, ander is verkeerd want die Bybel se so en dus aanbid hulle afgodery. Maar natuurlik glo ander gelowiges weer dat oom se geloof afgodery is. Daar is selfs die wat jou sal vertel dat die 3-in-1 God nonsense is. Die moslems glo bv. net in n gees en dit is die eenheid.

                      T.o.v argelogie het geen argeoloog nog ooit bewys dat Jesus (as hy ooit bestaan het) opgevaar het na die hemel of die seun van God is nie. Argeologie kan nie sulke dinge bewys nie. Niemand kon dit nog bewys nie.

                      So om af te sluit vir vandag:

                      Geloof is geloof en n geloof kan nie aanspraak maak op die waarheid nie.

                      Ek kon nog nooit verstaan dat goeie mense deur geloof en nie logika nie sal glo dat die kanaaniete uitgemoor moet word omdat God so se nie want dit is juis die teenoorgestelde wat ook waar kan wees. Volgens stories in die Bybel is die maagde van die volke uitgehou. Nou dit is heel logies nie waar nie? So gelowiges kan ook nie aanspraak maak op die morele hoegrond nie.

                      Groete vir vandag

                      Like

                    • “Om as n Christen te leef is defnitief nie om soos n geblindoekde mens deur die lewe te gaan nie. Dis ook nie n sombere neerdrukende lewe nie. Maar n lewe wat jou opgewonde maak om te lewe. Wat jou wil laat huppel oor God se grootheid en genade”

                      Blote spekulasie

                      Like

  12. Holysmoly,
    Yep you are probably right except for the Atheists they all believe in a supreme God.
    If you try to remember we were talking religion believe concerning God (Or not)
    Or do you say that you believe in black people religiously.Do you at least pray to them,so spare your sole, or at least your life?
    You seem to loose track easily.
    Come on man concentrate, you must at least have a opinion on where the Universe come from and everything on it. Or if you have a soul, or where you are going when you die?
    If you want to dissolution God believers, at least say something more concrete then,there is no God.(If they are brainwashed to believe in God, what happened to your brain?)
    After reading all the “Scientific”books, by now, at least you should have a view of your own?
    And if you don’t have a view that rather do not pretend you have.Just acknowledge it.
    Greetings,
    Piet

    Like

    • “If you try to remember we were talking religion believe concerning God (Or not)”

      Nee sos ek klaar vir jou verduidelik het. Selfs as n mens verondertel dat daar n God/e is vertel dit ons nog niks. Die aard van die God kan bv. onpersoonlik wees so al jou bid en vrae vir vergifnis van “sonde” is dan pure verniet. Of jy bid tot die verkeerde God/e

      “Or do you say that you believe in black people religiously.Do you at least pray to them,so spare your sole, or at least your life?

      Wie het vir jou vertel mens moet hierdie dinge doen? Jy maak aannames oor hierdie God van jou dan verwag jy ons moet saamspeel. Die blote aanmerking wat jy maak – Or do you say that you believe in black people religiously – wys dat jy geen koeken clue het nie.. Wie het jou die volgende vertel:

      “Do you at least pray to them,so spare your sole, or at least your life?”

      Wat laat jou dink mense moet “gered” word

      Like

    • En jy glo dit?
      Jy glo ook dat “dere ies nou gods”
      en jy glo blykbaar dat mens moet gatkruip by “black man”
      en glo jy aan Mad Mac se 22 gebooie?
      en glo jy dat christene is op ‘n verbeeldingsvlug?
      en glo jy dat daar is geen “lewe” na die dood of voor geboorte?
      en glo jy dat iets eers aan ou bewys moet word voor jy dit sal glo
      jy glo ook aan Koel Diek se “wetenskaplike feite”?
      en . . .
      so kan mens die ateïstiese dogmas opnoem en as mens dit inpas by wat “geloof” behels, dan is daar geen verskil tussen die mense wat jy as dom beskou en dit wat jy self doen nie

      maar jy “glo” my nie

      Like

      • Johannie dankie vir jou en Piet se kommentaar maar ek gaan ook nou vir eers weer die blad verlaat. So hier is die kommentaar.

        “en jy glo blykbaar dat mens moet gatkruip by “black man”’

        Nee Johannie dit is nie wat Holy skryf nie. Maar ek is seker jy sal gatkruip en ook aanbid as Jesus swart is.

        ” en glo jy dat daar is geen “lewe” na die dood of voor geboorte?”

        Geen bewyse vir menslike lewe na die dood nie. Daar is tekens van lewe voor geboorte. Moet nou nie simple wees nie en leer biologie

        “en glo jy dat iets eers aan ou bewys moet word voor jy dit sal glo’

        Wel dan kan ons maar die christen en moslems asook die duisende ander gelowe glo. En van hierdie gelowe weerspreek die ander geloof. Wanneer word jy n christen en n moslem en n hindoe…en …en…en…..

        “jy glo ook aan Koel Diek se “wetenskaplike feite”?
        en . . .”

        Nog nie juis gelees nie. Hoef en elkgeval nie saam met hom te stem nie.

        “so kan mens die ateïstiese dogmas opnoem en as mens dit inpas by wat “geloof” behels, dan is daar geen verskil tussen die mense wat jy as dom beskou en dit wat jy self doen nie”

        Nee ek hoef nie aan daardie dogmas te voldoen nie.

        Selfs as ek vir n oomblik aanvaar dat ons almal die selfde is maak dit niemand reg nie. M.a.w jy en ek is verkeerd so ek is geregtig om te se jy is verkeerd want jy is verkeerd sonder geen bewyse van jou spook nie Logies is dit so dat die verskillende ateiste en die verskillende gelowe nie almal reg kan wees nie want dit sal juis die dogmas en leerstelling van gelowe ondermyn. So dit lyk of ons dalk te doen kan he met n groter God as jou christelike God as ons so bietjie filosofeer…

        Like

        • Die Boedhiste glo bv. nie in sonde nie maar jy glo in sonde. Duidelike weerspreking van mekaar. Ek kan nie logies tergelyk sondig en nie sondig nie soos wanneer ek egbreek pleeg nie.. The law of non-contradiction…..

          Like

      • Maar ek moet gou vining op “God” en sy vroulike God reageer. Ja dit is waarkynlik ongehoort dat in daardie tyd bitter min ongetroudes was maar dit is juis die punt en dit loop teen die manlike God narratief Die vraag wat die spreker vra is of daar wel n vroulike God was wat saam met die christelik God aanbid is. Deur argeologie het ons geleer van hierdie versynsel en dit wys daarop dat die Christelike God ontwikkel het tot vandag met n manlike spreekvorm en manlike taalgebruik t.o.v die Christelike God. Dit is die “God” wat aanbid word.

        Like

  13. Gerard/Holyshmoly
    Thank you for your comments, and information. Especially to Gerard for the trouble he went through to explain to me his viewpoint on the situation.I think I did gave my viewpoint, And I think that you did give yours. Further I do not think we could enrich each other with anything else.I understand that some people like to believe that,what could be rationalized. Also that some people will ridicule that which they self do not understand. I also understand that some people will believe in the believe given by their spirit.Gerard, I Promise you that I will look into Atheism further as the time dictate, until I could grasp the subject fully.
    It was very interesting talking with you guys and I did enjoy it.
    I wish you all wellness and happiness for the future.
    So for now I will unsubscribe from this post, to attend to various other business I am involved in.
    Greetings to you all,
    Piet.

    Like

  14. Holyshmoly,
    Sorry, just one more thing. I am very sorry if I hurt jou in my earlier comments. I gave way to the bad part of human nature. Please forgive me.
    Greetings,
    Piet.

    Like

  15. Piet ek hoop jy kom nog ‘n slag hier inloer, daar is soveel dinge wat ek jou kan vertel v/d die mense op die blad, dat hulle al van 2009 af op die blad besig is om hul wyshede hier te verkondig, en soos jy kan sien het hulle “nêrens” uitgekom.

    Jy hoef ook nie die verskillende denominasies van ateïsme bestudeer nie, dis maar net iemand wat dit aanhoudend gebruik om slim te klink, aan die einde v/d dag kan ateïste nie op hul eie bene staan nie en moet parafiseer op ander godsdienste

    En jy hoef ook nie naais te wees met die klomp nie, hulle het geharde ego “doppe” wat nie deurgedring kan word nie, in elk geval as mens jou pêrels wil gooi dan weet jy wat gaan jy kry

    wat ek graag sou wou weet is hoe het dit gebeur dat jy wel die oorgang gemaak het na christus dom, party mense wil hê dat ons moet ‘n datum hê en ander sê weer dis nie nodig nie, maar was daar ‘n oomblik wat jy geweet het dat jy weet dat jy weet?

    Dis die punt wat al hierdie ateïste nie kan by uitkom nie, hulle dans in die rondte omdat die wereld te hard roep met beloftes (wat jy sal verstaan), maar wat sou jy doen as iemand na jou toe kom en vra “hoe kan ek ‘n Christen word?”

    Hoe word mens ‘n Christen?

    Like

  16. As you literalist fundies are attracted to this site like bees to honey, here’s proof that Mary was neither a vaginal nor an anal virgin. Jesus came out of her arsehole.
    ________________________________________________

    Nun receives death threats for suggesting Mary was not a virgin

    A nun in Spain who says she received death threats for suggesting that Mary probably had sex with her husband, Joseph, has apologised for any offence caused but accused her critics of deliberately misunderstanding her point.

    Sister Lucía Caram, a well-known Dominican nun with more than 183,000 Twitter followers, appeared to contradict church teaching when she appeared on Spanish TV on Sunday to discuss sex and faith.

    “I think Mary was in love with Joseph and that they were a normal couple – and having sex is a normal thing,” she told the Chester in Love show, adding: “It’s hard to believe and hard to take in. We’ve ended up with the rules we’ve invented without getting to the true message.”

    Caram, who was born in Argentina but lives in a Catalan convent, said sexuality was a God-given, basic part of every individual and a means of self-expression. However, she said it was something the church had long struggled with.

    “I think the church has had a poor attitude to it for a long time and has swept it a bit under the carpet,” she said. “It wasn’t a taboo subject; it was more something that was considered dirty or hidden. It was the denial of what I believe to be a blessing.”

    The nun’s remarks prompted a wave of online anger, including an online petition for her to be suspended from her order.

    Her views were quickly disowned by the Bishop of Vic, who responded with a statement reminding people that Mary’s virginity had been an article of faith since the church’s inception.

    “[It] was gathered and proclaimed by the Second Council of Constantinople, being the primary Marian dogma observed by Catholic and Orthodox Christians,” it said.

    “We remind people that these remarks do not conform to the faith of the church and regret the confusion they may have caused to the faithful.”

    On Wednesday, Caram issued a statement in which she said she had received death threats after her TV appearance.

    “When asked about the Virgin Mary, I said that, as I see it, Mary obviously loved Joseph … I wanted to say that it wouldn’t shock me if she had had a normal couple’s relationship with Joseph, her husband.

    “This shocked a lot of people, perhaps because there was no opportunity for clarification. But I think that my fidelity to, and love for, the church, the gospel and Jesus’s project are clear – as it the certainty that sex is neither dirty nor something to be condemned, and that marriage and sex are a blessing.”

    She added that while she apologised to anyone who felt offended, she was worried by the “fragmented, ideological and perverse” way in which her remarks had been interpreted. The nun said that “some heretic-bashers, thirsting for vengeance and driven by hatred” had lied about her and made “serious threats, including to my life”.

    It is not the first time that the nun has found herself in trouble with her superiors. A self-declared “pain-in-the-arse nun”, she has engaged in politics and made plain her enthusiasm for Catalan independence.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/nun-receives-death-threats-suggesting-mary-virgin

    Like

  17. Daar gaan die liberales weer af oor die waarheid wat seer maak, die sjthoul lande soos afrika, en dit is waar en om dit te aanvaar is die eerste stap na vryheid, ander lande soos in die ooste wat ook laag op die skaal was het daar uitgestyg, – Taiwan, is nou net 100 jaar “oud” en selfs hulle het vir ‘n tyd die hoogste gebou ter wêreld gehad ‘n land met opbouende kultuur.

    Kom terug na afrika met al die gatkruipers en wat het hulle vermag?

    ‘n Koning gemaak van ‘n paranoïese psigopaat en moordenaar wat 175 jaar na Jan van Riebeeck – wat nou SA is, betree het en met bendes voorgegaan met plundering en verkragting en dit is vandag nog sigbaar – hul calvinisme

    (vir dummies, Shaka Zulu het sy vroue wat hy vir voortplanting simulasie gebruik het vermoor as hulle verwagtend was omdat hy bang was een v/sy afstammelinge gaan hom onttroon, en sy ma waarvoor hy kastig so lief was so gaan die stories aan oor die onmenslike ongedierte, en wat doen afrikane, hul maak hom ‘n koning, seker omdat daar niemand anders was om te vereer nie en dit is waar hul kultuur van kom soos Idi Amin ook in die moderne tyd gewys het en Robber Mugabe en Zoempies en dan kom die liberales met hul arme bloedjies houding met hul koppe in die sand het dingesse in die lug om nou nie deur die ore gedoen te word nie)

    Jip al is SA soos ‘n eerste wêreld teen oor die res van Afrika is dit nog ‘n sjthoul land, ek is bly iemand het dit gesê, ‘n “turd world” kantrie

    Like

  18. Alles het te doen met “theism” Mollie, soos ek dit sien, selfs anti”theism” is ‘n reaksie op “theism” al blyk dit skynbaar in ‘n teenoorgestelde rigting, “theism” is die vuurtjie in die middel waarom ons dans.

    Die “dom bokwagters” het geskryf die die koninkryk van God naby gekom het en dat die koninkryk vergelyk kan word met ‘n mosterd saad wat klein is maar groei tot ‘n boom waar voëls kan nes maak, maar die “koninkryk” van Shaka is een van plundering en verwoesting.

    Ou Mad Mac het mos die opskrif aan die “klok” gehang toe hy nog die foto v/d grondboontjie galery vertoon het, “you wil find nou accommodation here”, so iets, wat profetiese woorde was, want nou is die blad vrek en net ‘n paar skreeuende haat sprekers het vir ‘n tyd hier kom ego’s ekspres en MadMac kry nou niks meer om so “passievol” oor te moun en biets nie

    Na amper 10 jaar wonder ek of jy iets geleer het op die blad wat jy nie geweet het nie . . .?

    En niemand hier het iets om te sê behalwe as hulle iemand kan aanval met dieselfde “dere ies nou gods”

    so ou Koel Diek is seker besig om eksperimente te doen om een of ander teorie te verifieer, Millies het tot bekering gekom en is nou te skaam om dit vir julle te vertel, en Gerhardus se koning en perde probeer nog sy breins bymekaar kry en oor die res gaan ek niks sê nie

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s