基督教是强国之本

[nicesnow]

OK. It is not your personal problem since you have got deep into this religion. It is also not a one day problem for this religion that its churches have fooled their followers with all means they can get.

I can also imagine that one day you tell the people in the church that
Big Bang理论也是在说整个宇宙的最初来源是虚无 - 根据圣经记载，正是神于虚 无中创造了世界和其间的我们。It matches the holy book greatly.

then next week you will talk to them like this:
Big Bang不过是个时髦的理论而已。这类的披上了科学外衣的理论，和进化论一样，并没有可重复的证据，也不可能得到实验验证，从本质上讲是不科学的，和圣经所揭示的真理更无法相比，时髦一段时间也就是了。

How do the people around you respect you with this?

We have discussed about that mass is (or not) conserved, right? You have got my answer. We are discussing about facts here. Respect has to be earned. I do not care if you say I am lying and what I said is junk.

好雪兄的确应该学习一下最基本的对人的尊重了。要知道自以为是的人是很难得到别人的尊敬的。

如果好雪兄希望好好讨论，我希望你至少能做到：
1）先读懂我的问题；
2）诚实回答；不要不懂装懂；
3）讨论问题，不要讨论人。

谢谢。

 

[CHRIS88]

请先看看自己是否做到了以上三点。随口就说别人自以为是的人自己首先就有自以为是的嫌疑。

反过来看看我的字里行间，的确有自以为是的成分，也有故弄玄虚的地方。看来，一个指头指别人，必有四个指头指自己这句话是不错的。向好雪兄说声抱歉。

 

[CHRIS88]

OK. It is not your personal problem since you have got deep into this religion. It is also not a one day problem for this religion that its churches have fooled their followers with all means they can get.

这个我就不想评论了。

I can also imagine that one day you tell the people in the church that
Big Bang理论也是在说整个宇宙的最初来源是虚无 - 根据圣经记载，正是神于虚 无中创造了世界和其间的我们。It matches the holy book greatly.

很有意思吧？几千年前又毫无科学知识的古犹太人写成的圣经所记述的世界的创造，比披作现代科学外衣的时髦理论所描述的更详细更清晰得不知凡几。

then next week you will talk to them like this:
Big Bang不过是个时髦的理论而已。这类的披上了科学外衣的理论，和进化论一样，并没有可重复的证据，也不可能得到实验验证，从本质上讲是不科学的，和圣经所揭示的真理更无法相比，时髦一段时间也就是了。

How do the people around you respect you with this?

虽然这个理论模模糊糊地指向圣经在几千年所揭示的真理，却也只是模模糊糊地指向真理而已。它既不属于由神默示的自证的真理，也不属于可以用事实或者实验可以证明的科学原理。充其量算是披上了科学外衣的哲学思考，一个高明因而时髦的理论而已。

We have discussed about that mass is (or not) conserved, right? You have got my answer. We are discussing about facts here. Respect has to be earned. I do not care if you say I am lying and what I said is junk.

在这个关于“事实”的讨论中，好雪兄一开始就把我关于“任何科学定律都是有其适用范围的”以及“爱因斯坦的质能转化已经在挑战物质守恒定律了”的说法误解成为我在挑战物质守恒定律。其后，我本来想和你好好讨论一下物质守恒定律的局限性，老兄又偏偏不回答我的问题，只是挑剔我的科学修养不够。这讨论如何进行得下去？

如果好雪兄有兴趣认真讨论物质守恒定律及其局限性，请说明一声，在下愿意奉陪。

 

[calvinwong2008]

如果你有时间翻翻以前的帖子，你就会知道这种事对于这位班竹先生来说已是小菜一碟了。我早已见怪不怪了，也不肖于与其争论了。
科学从来与宗教是在两股道上跑得车，科学从来不会用宗教来证明自己的正确与否。宗教却总是把科学当作一件华丽的外衣，时不时地用来把自己打扮一下，却不知无论如何遮掩，都会露出那个“小”来。
科学从来都不认为其结论是绝对真理。科学总是从假定，假说出发，经过科学家们的探索和证明而得到相对真理，在某个时期，总有它的局限性。但科学是不断发展进步的，是不断完善的。
而宗教，以基督教为例，以一本2000年前的传说为唯一真理，虽然其内容早已为科学证明为荒谬，却还拿科学的大旗做虎皮，妄图给自己脸上贴金。
其实，挑明了说，教会就是一个business,说得高尚一点，就如同心理医生一样，给一些灵魂无所寄托的人们一个获得安慰的地方，仅此而已！
所以，对于班竹的言论，也就由他去吧！

 

[aruba]

See my comments inline.

1. a scientist is brilliant to you but may not be brilliant to others. do you know that?

True.

2. how do you know he does not know a lot about science? he may know much more than what you do.

Read his posts about science here and you will know how brilliant this guy is for you. Use your 1 here: he is not brilliant for me at all. If you agree with what he said, you will be so brilliant as he is in your sense.

[aruba] so you are saying that if someone knows a lot about something equals to s/he must brilliant? if so how do you distinguish knowledgeable from brilliant? Have you ever seen someone seems knowledgeable but not brilliant at all?

3. From the language you used in your talk, I have to tell you what I feel about you: a 井底之蛙

Maybe. Do I care how you feel about me? Who are you in the first place?????
BTW, the language I have used here about science is pretty standard and basic.
[aruba] Sure, you don't need to care. I am a 3rd party who read all your posts in this thread.

Why do not you show some brilliance of yours here to join the discussion?
[aruba] I only discuss things with someone who is open minded and honestly I don't want to waste my time with you.

 

[nicesnow]

有自以为是的成分

Should we care about this? We are discussing about facts which are neutral, right?

 

[nicesnow]

很有意思吧？几千年前又毫无科学知识的古犹太人写成的圣经所记述的世界的创造，比披作现代科学外衣的时髦理论所描述的更详细更清晰得不知凡几。

A few thousand years ago Jews did not know science. Therefore, they
made a lazy and primitive description about the world. Tell me which science has ever supported this.

虽然这个理论模模糊糊地指向圣经在几千年所揭示的真理，却也只是模模糊糊地指向真理而已。它既不属于由神默示的自证的真理，也不属于可以用事实或者实验可以证明的科学原理。充其量算是披上了科学外衣的哲学思考，一个高明因而时髦的理论而已。

The scientists are trying to confirm it with facts and experiments.
You said: 也不属于可以用事实或者实验可以证明的科学原理.
You know more than these people know? With your scientific knowledge you have shown here?


“爱因斯坦的质能转化已经在挑战物质守恒定律了”
When and where did Einstein's theory challenge the mass conservation law?

的说法误解成为我在挑战物质守恒定律。
What do you want to say with the link you posted?

其后，我本来想和你好好讨论一下物质守恒定律的局限性，
Post 物质守恒定律的局限性 you know here.

老兄又偏偏不回答我的问题，只是挑剔我的科学修养不够。这讨论如何进行得下去？
Do I still need to answer your questions? Really funny.


如果好雪兄有兴趣认真讨论物质守恒定律及其局限性.
Post what you know about them here. It will be interesting.

The mass conservation law may not be valid for you because you may think God(the Jewish one, not the Christian one) created the world with nothing? BTW, the mass conservation law was not made for any religion.

 

[nicesnow]

You are brilliant at posting junks here.

See my comments inline.

 

[narutohaha]

呵呵，谢谢snow，本来我发了一个关于科学和宗教不可能是一样的。不过可惜版主不懂什么叫退一步海阔天空。给删了。

 

[CanChn]

呵呵，谢谢snow，本来我发了一个关于科学和宗教不可能是一样的。不过可惜版主不懂什么叫退一步海阔天空。给删了。

哈哈，删帖可是此斑竹的第一大绝技！:blink:

 

[aruba]

Haha, I wanted to know how brilliant you really are and this was a test offered to you. your answer says it all.

You are brilliant at posting junks here.

 

[calvinwong2008]

哈. 哈. 哈 ...真理愈辯愈昏............

真理自在你我心中 !!

 

[CHRIS88]

呵呵，谢谢snow，本来我发了一个关于科学和宗教不可能是一样的。不过可惜版主不懂什么叫退一步海阔天空。给删了。

如果haha兄的帖子被删过，那只可能是如下两种情况之一：
1）haha兄的帖有违规；
2）haha兄的帖子不幸跟在违规的主帖后面。

 

[CHRIS88]

我本来是希望好雪兄按序回答上述三个问题的。没想到老兄跳过了第一第二题，却对第三题来了个顾左右而言它。这样吧，俺一题一题地问：请问好雪兄，什麽是能量？

我们回归讨论吧。由于好雪兄和他的支持者都不愿意回答什麽是能量的问题，我斗胆再提一下第二个问题：请问什麽是物质。

 

[narutohaha]

我回的帖子跟在版主后面，我说的也都是很正常的话。科学与宗教是无法相连的。我们就算看他们出现的时间，他们之间也相隔太久，不可能有任何联系。被删了我也不说什么了。删了还来说是因为违规？。到时候我们一起看google快照吧。