PIXNET Logo登入

回答无神反基人士

跳到主文

包括:五味、抛砖、怀疑不上当、嘁哩喀喳、长风、阿哈默等等

部落格全站分類:生活綜合

  • 相簿
  • 部落格
  • 留言
  • 名片
  • 6月 09 週二 202007:52
  • 愚蠢哈蟆不明白,所以说:「保罗书信里的矛盾之处」

愚蠢哈蟆不明白,所以说:「保罗书信里的矛盾之处」
(https://www.douban.com/group/topic/172013259/)
哈蟆引用
帖前
5:1 弟 兄 们 , 论 到 时 候 日 期 , 不 用 写 信 给 你 们 。
5:2 因 为 你 们 自 己 明 明 晓 得 , 主 的 日 子 来 到 , 好 像 夜 间 的 贼 一 样 。
5:3 人 正 说 平 安 稳 妥 的 时 候 , 灾 祸 忽 然 临 到 他 们 , 如 同 产 难 临 到 怀 胎 的 妇 人 一 样 , 他 们 绝 不 能 逃 脱 。
5:4 弟 兄 们 , 你 们 却 不 在 黑 暗 里 , 叫 那 日 子 临 到 你 们 像 贼 一 样 。
5:5 你 们 都 是 光 明 之 子 , 都 是 白 昼 之 子 , 我 们 不 是 属 黑 夜 的 , 也 不 是 属 幽 暗 的 。
5:6 所 以 我 们 不 要 睡 觉 , 像 别 人 一 样 , 总 要 儆 醒 谨 守 。
帖后
2:1 弟 兄 们 , 论 到 我 们 主 耶 稣 基 督 降 临 , 和 我 们 到 他 那 里 聚 集 ,
2:2 我 劝 你 们 , 无 论 有 灵 有 言 语 , 有 冒 我 名 的 书 信 , 说 主 的 日 子 现 在 到 了 , ( 现 在 或 作 就 ) 不 要 轻 易 动 心 , 也 不 要 惊 慌 。
2:3 人 不 拘 用 什 么 法 子 , 你 们 总 不 要 被 他 诱 惑 , 因 为 那 日 子 以 前 , 必 有 离 道 反 教 的 事 , 并 有 那 大 罪 人 , 就 是 沉 沦 之 子 , 显 露 出 来 。
他说帖前经文「这里说的是耶稣再次降临的日子是突发性的,毫无征兆,而且很快就到了,所以要大家伙儿必须警觉。」而帖后的经文:「这里写得也非常明显,说是再次降临的日子是有预兆的。」
他愚蠢得不明白!
解释非常容易——有预兆,但是预兆有多长多照字义,要慢慢来明白。但是最终那的一天,没有人能准确地知道。它会突然的,出乎意料地来到。
正如「5:3 灾 祸 忽 然 临 到 他 们 , 如 同 产 难 临 到 怀 胎 的 妇 人 一 样 , 他 们 绝 不 能 逃 脱 。」
女人怀孕知道自己要生孩子,看见自己的肚子越来越大,知道快了,但是哪一天?说不准。
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

回答无神反基人士 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(1)

  • 個人分類:
▲top
  • 6月 09 週二 202007:51
  • 「耶稣复活记」,没有矛盾,完全和谐

指导不读不思的「耶稣复活记」,没有矛盾,完全和谐



不读不思在「耶稣复活记」(https://www.douban.com/group/topic/172104742/))中列举



马太28,马可16,路加24,约翰20的耶稣复活记录,然后说:「四福音书中都有耶稣复活的记录,但是,内容各不相同,证明圣经谎言多多。」



回答:



这个题目太容易了!



第一,这正是我说的:圣经记载是互相补充,不是互相矛盾

https://www.douban.com/group/topic/171484569/







第二,早有人把四福音的复活记载合拼在一起。完全没有矛盾!



《司可福参考圣经》(The Scofield Reference Bible)有一段解释,把四个记载合在一起,发现四段经文彼此和谐。它说﹕「如果将四段叙述合拼,事情是这样﹕三个女人,抹大拉的马利亚、雅各的母亲马利亚、和撒罗米,一同起程到坟墓去,随在后边还有其他带香料的妇女们。 他们三个发现墓前的石头被挪开,于是抹大拉的马利亚去告诉门徒(路廿三55-廿四9;约廿1-2)。但雅各和约西的母亲马利亚走近耶稣的坟墓,却看见了主的天使(太廿八2),她们就回头找其他带香料的妇女。就在这时候,彼得和约翰因为抹大拉的马利亚的话也来了,进坟墓看一看,就离开了(约廿3-10)。然后,抹大拉的马利亚再回到墓前哭泣。她看见两个天使,然后看见耶稣(约廿11-18);于是耶稣请她去告诉其他门徒。正在这时候,马利亚(雅各和约西的母亲)遇上其他带香料的女人,和她们一同来到坟墓,看见两个天使(路廿四4-5;可十六5 ),并得到天使的信息,正要去告诉门徒,耶稣又向她们显现(太廿八8-10)。」(quoted in J. Vernon McGee, Matthew Vol II(Pasadena, CA: Thru the Bible Books, 1985), p. 184.)



最后,我知道你和哈蟆都从一些已经发表的所谓“圣经矛盾”哪儿抄东西出来,自以为聪明!



你以为2000年来的基督徒和非基督徒都很笨?只有你们聪明?不要以卵击石!迟早爷来上帝愤怒!!



圣经是一本超凡的书,经迫害而生存,受批评而站立

https://www.douban.com/group/topic/169313959/
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

回答无神反基人士 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(0)

  • 個人分類:
▲top
  • 6月 09 週二 202007:50
  • 芝加哥大学生态与演化系教授为你解说为什么“智能设计”是伪科学

反驳哈蟆的「芝加哥大学生态与演化系教授为你解说为什么“智能设计”是伪科学」
(https://www.douban.com/group/topic/172660607/)
哈蟆以为只要推出“XX大学教授”就等於科普,就可信。
再讲——未上过大学的人最崇拜教授!!!
还有,如果这人是演化系教授,难道他不拼命维持自己的饭碗?
哈蟆只贴了一张照片,我只好自己找到哈讲的文章:「Jerry Coyne “The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name: The Case Against Intelligent Design” in The New Republic, Aug 22 & 29, 2005 issue, p. 21-33. A」(https://www.astronomynotes.com/science-religion/NormLevan/JerryCoyne-notes.pdf)
(1)首先文章标题是「The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name: 不敢讲名字的信仰」
这是愚蠢!因为支持智能设计(ID,intelligent design)的科学家有基督徒,有天主教徒,有穆斯林等等。他们都认为有一个“智能设计者”,他设计万物,不是进化的。所以这些科学家月亮,没有捧自己的神学出来!
(2)文章说:「Dover School Board presented Intelligent Design as a requirement was explicitly for religious, particularly Christian, reasons. 多佛(Dover)学校委员会提出,智能设计是一项明确出于宗教(尤其是基督教)原因,作为学校课程的要求。」
怪不得哈蟆和朋友如此生气!
(3)文章解释什么是科学:「OED defines scientific theory as “a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as a n explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts.” In science, a theory is a convincing explanation for a diversity of data from nature. OED将科学理论定义为“作为对一组事实或现象的解释或解释而持有的思想或陈述的计划或系统; 通过观察或实验已经确认或建立的假设,被提出或接受为对已知事实的解释。” 在科学中,理论是从自然界获取各种数据的令人信服的解释。」
智能设计(ID,intelligent design)完全适合上边的定义。不过这些无神论者就是不喜欢有“上帝”这字出现!偏见!!
(4)然后文章又提到一些老掉牙的进化论证据如“化石”!和“在活物种中发现的过去祖先的发育和结构残余”
请见:化石是進化論的大敌人
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/172580262/
生物构造或者基因相似,证明进化?还是同一位设计者?
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/172580408/
专家没有新东西讲?
(5)文章抱怨ID「 Use of impressive-sounding terms such as “irreducible complexity”. 使用令人印象深刻的术语,例如“不可简化的复杂性”(Irreducible Complexity)。」
哈蟆似乎不明白什么是Irreducible Complexity,但这篇文章明白,解释说:「IC is “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioningIC是“一个由几个相互匹配且相互配合的部件组成的单个系统,这些部件有助于基本功能,其中任何一个部件的移除都会导致系统有效地停止运行。」
(6)然后文章作者攻击《达尔文黑盒》说:「BFatal flaw to Behe’s argument: for decades we have known that natural selection can produce systems that, over time, become integrated to the point where they appear to be IC. They do NOT evolve by sequential addition of parts to a feature that becomes functional only at the end. They evolve by adding, via natural selection, more and more parts into an originally rudimentary but functional system, with these parts sometimes co-opted from other structures《黑盒》作者Behe的论点存在致命缺陷:几十年来,我们知道自然选择可以产生随着时间的流逝而变得集成到看起来像IC的系统。 它们不会通过将零件顺序添加到仅在最后才起作用的功能来演变。 他们通过自然选择将越来越多的零件添加到最初的基本功能系统中,而这些零件有时会从其他结构中选择出来,从而发展起来。」
文作者怎样支持他的观点呢?
他提出眼晴的进化!!
我想起来了:哈蟆有一个不敢回答的贴:
驳哈默「眼晴哲学」和他无法回答「生殖器官的哲学」
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/170325202/
哈蟆无法回答他今天的“祈祷”帖和“眼晴”帖!!!
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/170325266/
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

回答无神反基人士 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(0)

  • 個人分類:
▲top
  • 6月 09 週二 202007:48
  • 以化石支持持进化论是谬误

哈蟆承认以化石支持持进化论是谬误
哈蟆在「化石谬误」(https://www.douban.com/group/topic/173109714/)从《科学美国人》搬了一篇文章来,翻译了。说明什么呢?
说明化石支持进化论?
NO,NO, NO!
(1)文章说:虽然化石证据不足够,但是进化论是建筑在「实际上,确凿的证据是融合众多领域的证据而得,而所有这些证据都应指向一个明确的结论。」
文章举了一个例子:「我们知道千万年来出现过众多的犬种,人们会认为 应该有大量的过渡化石为古生物学家提供丰富的数据,用以重建它们的演化的祖先。 实际上,根据史密森学会国家自然历史博物馆的进化生物学家詹妮弗·伦纳德(Jennifer A. Leonard)的说法,“从狼到狗的化石记录都很少。” 那我们怎么知道狗从何而来呢?在2002年11月22日的《科学》期刊上,伦纳德和她的同事报告说,早期狗的线粒体DNA(mtDNA)数据 “有力地支持了这样的说法,即古老的美洲和欧亚家养狗具 和‘旧世界灰狼’有共同的源头”。」
原来作者承认:「“从狼到狗的化石记录都很少。”」
对了,非常诚实!
我早说了:
化石是進化論的大敌人
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/172580262/
(2)作者又说:「DNA(mtDNA)数据 “有力地支持了这样的说法,……」
不需要这些博士教授专家来证明:DNA证明狗和狼非常接近!常理告诉我们了。
A物种和B物种接近,是否证明进化?
生物构造或者基因相似,证明进化?还是同一位设计者?
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/172580408/
(3)DNA是进化论的证据?NO,NO,NO,
DNA和化石一样,也是进化的敌人!
从你、我的血液之中,寻找Y染色体亚当
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/164172272/
人类的非物质遗传信息——“DNA见证了神的创造”系列之二
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/164113868/
何以见得DNA是上帝创造的? ……系列之三
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/164007493/
亚当、夏娃长的什么样子? DNA告诉你!———“DNA见证了神的创造”系列之四
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/163957902/
DNA见证了上帝的创造之五
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/163913967/
(4)最后,想问一句,这文章是2005年发表的。今天是2020年,15年来有新证据吗???
为什么这样有学问的哈蟆博士教授需要这样旧的文章来支持他对我们的教导?
 
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

回答无神反基人士 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(0)

  • 個人分類:
▲top
  • 6月 09 週二 202007:47
  • 圣经,石器时代、铜器时代、铁器时代

指教不读不思「圣经,石器时代、铜器时代、铁器时代」
不读不思发的谬论帖太多我没有留意到有这样荒谬的思想:
「亚当生该隐,该隐生以诺。
4:18以诺生以拿、以拿生米户雅利、米户雅利生玛土撒利、玛土撒利生拉麦。4:19拉麦娶了两个妻、一个名叫亚大、一个名叫洗拉。4:20亚大生雅八、雅八就是住帐棚牧养牲畜之人的祖师。 4:21雅八的兄弟名叫犹八.他是一切弹琴吹箫之人的祖师。4:22洗拉又生了土八该隐、他是打造各样铜铁利器的、〔或作是铜匠铁匠的祖师〕土八该隐的妹子是拿玛。
从圣经看来,人类历史没有从旧石器时代→新石器时代→铜器时代→铁器时代的发展历程,和考古学家的研究不符。
基仔可能会说,考古学家的那些证据是耶和华伪造的,目的在欺骗考古学家。」(https://www.douban.com/group/topic/173645641/)
回答:
圣经没有需要记载所有发生的事情!!!
圣经也没有告诉你什么时候有电脑,什么时候有汽车,因为那和圣经的主旨无关!!!
圣经是为了两件事而写:(1)上帝为我们预备救恩,人怎样得著(2)人如何生活才能讨上帝喜悦。
圣经也记载一些历史、地理、科学等等,但是没有全部都记载!
还有,圣经为什么有需要按照后来的人的分类记载???
还有,有“XX祖师”,不等於“XX时代”开始并盛行。不过,这样的道理,需要IQ高於40的,才能明白。你可以去问哈蟆,他的IQ是45的。
也许,给你一点教育:维基:「以色列考古学」(https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BB%A5%E8%89%B2%E5%88%97%E8%80%83%E5%8F%A4%E5%AD%A6)里面有这些时代。
不是「古学家的那些证据是耶和华伪造的,目的在欺骗考古学家。」,而是你和哈蟆等人亵渎,等候审判吧!!!
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

回答无神反基人士 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(0)

  • 個人分類:
▲top
  • 6月 09 週二 202007:45
  • 一位神经医科研究员对科学和宗教的观点










台灣聖經網



















靈糧中心線上奉獻
代禱信登廣告












  

神经医科研究员对科学和宗教的观点



下面是一位神经医科研究员对科学和宗教的观点
Jeffrey M. Schwartz ,专门研究强迫症(OCD)他的名著是:《Brain Lock》
他认为“脑”和“心灵”不是同一回事。意思就是说,他主张二元论。
一元论和二元论是什么?请参考:「上帝创造的大脑和神经,当然美丽和复杂」(https://www.douban.com/group/topic/173152958/)
维基这样讲:“Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. is an American psychiatrist and researcher in the field of neuroplasticity and its application to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).[1][2] He is a proponent of mind/body dualism and appeared in the 2008 Film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which he told interviewer Ben Stein that science should not be separated from religion他告诉采访者本·斯坦(Ben Stein),科学不应该与宗教分开.[2][3][4][5]”( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_M._Schwartz)
原来……
“The author, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. is an Evangelical Christian. 福音派的基督徒。”( https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7305/what-is-the-christian-perspective-on-deceptive-brain-messages)
下面是对他的访问:
“Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz: Fundamentals of Mind-Brain Interaction” ( http://video.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/ss/?wr_id=97&url=link1_0&goto_url=m2)
Dr. Schwartz gives lectures to diverse audiences in the US, Europe and Asia and writes insightfully on the philosophy of mind, especially on the role of volition in human neurobiology. His book, “The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force,” was co-written with Sharon Begley, a prominent senior science columnist and editor of the popular US magazine Newsweek.
The focus of my whole work has been getting away from what has become the accepted paradigm. The belief that everything about your mind is completely determined by and in fact reducible to what your brain does, whats become a slogan; that is, “The mind is what the brain does.” 我整个工作的重点一直在摆脱已成为公认的范式的事物: 相信您的思想的一切都完全取决于您的大脑所做的事情,并且实际上可以简化为您的口号; 也就是说,“思想就是大脑的工作。”
The separation and integration of the words “mind" and "brain" are best understood by realizing that, yes, the brain is certainly responsible, and definitely in a scientific and cultural context is very reasonably understood to be causing a lot of the content of your thinking in certain ways, and certainly how you are feeling about things, what we call in psychiatry the “affect” or the “mood,” states of happiness and sadness.
These things can markedly be influenced by the neural chemistry of your brain. But, and its a big “but,” its also important to realize that the way you experience those feelings, the way you interface with those thoughts, the kinds of attention that you pay to it, being either mindfully aware or having sort of a rational, third person perspective on it, or being just gripped by it interfaces with what your brain is doing, and how you focus your attention can change what your brain is doing. 这些事情可能会受到大脑神经化学的明显影响。 但是,这是一个很大的“但是”,认识到您体验这些感觉的方式,与这些想法的交互方式,您对之的关注程度,注意或意识到 理性的,第三人称的观点,或者只是被它所束缚,与您的大脑在做什么,以及您如何专注于您的注意力可以改变您的大脑在做什么。
……
……
Schwartz believes we need to reintegrate spiritual ideals into science so that it can provide the answers we seek. Thus his four-step process for treating obsessive-compulsive disorder takes a different approach than that of conventional medicine, yet it is no less scientific.
If you’re talking to me about how the mind can change the brain; how the mind can influence the brain, and I’ve done a lot of work with a colleague by the name of Henry Stapp, 如果您是在跟我谈论思想如何改变大脑; 思维如何影响大脑,我和一个叫亨利·斯塔普(Henry Stapp)的同事做了很多工作,who’s a physicist up in the University of California, Berkley (USA) at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, we have a very, very orthodox scientific theory based in quantum mechanics that really makes the case in a very scientifically rigorous way that attention through a quantum mechanical process can influence what the brain does.
……
……
I believe that it’s culturally damaging to view science and religion as intrinsically completely separated. Hopefully things are changing and science is going to become less materialistic我认为,将科学和宗教本质上完全分开会破坏文化。 希望情况正在发生变化,科学将不再如此唯物主义
……
…
…




(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

回答无神反基人士 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(0)

  • 個人分類:
▲top
  • 6月 09 週二 202007:44
  • 为什么人们相信有神”的研究,有挑战上帝的存在吗?

驳哈蟆的「《科学》:研究人们为什么信神挑战了神的存在了吗?」
(https://www.douban.com/group/topic/176861943/)
他引用的文章标题:「Does studying why people believe in God challenge God’s existence? “为什么人们相信有神”的研究,有挑战上帝的存在吗?」
(哈蟆懂英语吗???)
出处:https://blogs.sciencemag.org/origins/2009/11/does-studying-why-people-believe-in-god-challenge-gods-existence.html
不要以为哈蟆的伟大的科学研究文章证实了没有神!
错!
看看标题就知道不是,是一个问号!
内容先引用一些人的语录,然后并没有肯定地说:伟大的科学证明没有神!
让我摘录几句:
「But the scientists I interviewed said that the question of whether God exists is distinct from their research. 但是我采访的科学家说,关于上帝是否存在的问题与他们的研究不同。…… says that her work “does not speak to the existence of God; it speaks to why and how we might believe. 说她的工作“不代表上帝的存在; 它说明了我们为什么以及如何相信。Whether God exists is a separate question, one we can’t scientifically test.” 上帝是否存在是一个独立的问题,我们无法通过科学检验。”」
「Some scientists say that the cognitive model of religion is compatible with belief in God. 一些科学家说,宗教的认知模式与对上帝的信仰是相容的。」
「Jesse Bering of Queen’s University, Belfast. “I’m arguing there are no atheists proper.” Jesse Bering。 “我认为没有无神论者是合适的。”」
哈蟆拿这篇东西 来证明他的唯物主义,可能是因为他还未细心阅读,或者他的英语阅读和理解能力差劲!


 
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

回答无神反基人士 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(0)

  • 個人分類:
▲top
  • 6月 09 週二 202007:43
  • 「我们的大脑是如何演化让我们(造)爱,造梦,造神」

驳哈蟆的:「我们的大脑是如何演化让我们(造)爱,造梦,造神」

(https://www.douban.com/group/topic/176831702/)



哈蟆这篇文章,是书评。所评论的书是David Linden 的《 The Accidental Mind.》



书评论主旨不在证明“没有神,没有耶和华,人没有灵魂”,



书评作者说:「Linden is right to stress that brains evolved, but hasty to conclude that they are flawed in their design. We still know too little about the brains inner workings to judge how well it does its job. 林登强调大脑已经进化是正确的,但是仓促得出结论说它们的设计存在缺陷。 我们仍然对大脑的内部运作知之甚少,无法判断它的工作情况。」



事实上,这样的书,不过是拾人牙慧,所拾的是Crick的《Astonishing Hypothesis》。



現在的大脑研究,大都跟随一个未证实的基本前设——人完全是物质(一元论),否认人除了物质,还有一个非物质的部分(二元论)。



这个问题,我在「上帝创造的大脑和神经,当然美丽和复杂」(https://www.douban.com/group/topic/173152958/)讨论过!!!



再想:如果上帝并不真实存在,“爱”是真的吗?都和梦一样???
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

回答无神反基人士 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(1)

  • 個人分類:
▲top
  • 6月 09 週二 202007:42
  • 灵魂存在吗? 证据说“是的”

灵魂存在吗? 证据说“是的”
下面有三篇文章,都来自非基督教刊物(免得有人说基督徒在证明自己的信仰),都指向——灵魂的存在。我只有时间翻译第一篇的一部分。对不起!
所以哈蟆那些“什么都是大脑的细胞功能”文章,可以被视为偏见!
《今天心理学》(Psychology Today)
Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’灵魂存在吗? 证据说“是的”
New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
Posted Dec 21, 2011
The reality of the soul is among the most important questions of life. Although religions go on and on about its existence, how do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.
The idea of the soul is bound up with the idea of a future life and our belief in a continued existence after death. Its said to be the ultimate animating principle by which we think and feel, but isnt dependent on the body. Many infer its existence without scientific analysis or reflection. Indeed, the mysteries of birth and death, the play of consciousness during dreams (or after a few martinis), and even the commonest mental operations – such as imagination and memory – suggest the existence of a vital life force – an élan vital – that exists independent of the body.
Yet, the current scientific paradigm doesnt recognize this spiritual dimension of life. Were told were just the activity of carbon and some proteins; we live awhile and die. And the universe? It too has no meaning. It has all been worked out in the equations – no need for a soul. But biocentrism – a new ‘theory of everything – challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts.
Of course, most spiritual people view the soul as emphatically more definitive than the scientific concept. Its considered the incorporeal essence of a person, and is said to be immortal and transcendent of material existence. But when scientists speak of the soul (if at all), its usually in a materialistic context, or treated as a poetic synonym for the mind. Everything knowable about the "soul" can be learned by studying the functioning of the brain. In their view, neuroscience is the only branch of scientific study relevant to understanding the soul.
Traditionally, science has dismissed the soul as an object of human belief, or reduced it to a psychological concept that shapes our cognition of the observable natural world. 传统上,科学将灵魂视为人类信仰的对象,或将其简化为塑造我们对可观察的自然世界的认知的心理学概念。The terms "life" and "death" are thus nothing more than the common concepts of "biological life" and "biological death." The animating principle is simply the laws of chemistry and physics. You (and all the poets and philosophers that ever lived) are just dust orbiting the core of the Milky Way galaxy.
As I sit here in my office surrounded by piles of scientific books, I cant find a single reference to the soul, or any notion of an immaterial, eternal essence that occupies our being. Indeed, a soul has never been seen under an electron microscope, nor spun in the laboratory in a test tube or ultra-centrifuge. 确实,从来没有人在电子显微镜下看到过灵魂,也从未在实验室的试管或超速离心机中旋转过。According to these books, nothing appears to survive the human body after death.
While neuroscience has made tremendous progress illuminating the functioning of the brain, why we have a subjective experience remains mysterious. 尽管神经科学在阐明大脑功能方面取得了巨大进步,但是为什么我们拥有主观经验仍然是个谜。The problem of the soul lies exactly here, in understanding the nature of the self, the "I" in existence that feels and lives life. But this isnt just a problem for biology and cognitive science, but for the whole of Western natural philosophy itself.
Our current worldview – the world of objectivity and naïve realism – is beginning to show fatal cracks. Of course, this will not surprise many of the philosophers and other readers who, contemplating the works of men such as Plato, Socrates and Kant, and of Buddha and other great spiritual teachers, kept wondering about the relationship between the universe and the mind of man.
Recently, biocentrism and other scientific theories have also started to challenge the old physico-chemical paradigm, and to ask some of the difficult questions about life: Is there a soul? Does anything endure the ravages of time?
Life and consciousness are central to this new view of being, reality and the cosmos. Although the current scientific paradigm is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence, real experiments suggest just the opposite. 尽管当前的科学范式基于这样一个信念,即世界具有客观的,独立于观察者的存在,但实际实验却恰恰相反。We think life is just the activity of atoms and particles, which spin around for a while and then dissipate into nothingness. But if we add life to the equation, we can explain some of the major puzzles of modern science, including the uncertainty principle, entanglement, and the fine-tuning of the laws that shape the universe.
Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When you watch a particle go through the holes, it behaves like a bullet, passing through one slit or the other. 当您看到粒子穿过孔时,它的行为就像子弹一样,穿过一个狭缝或另一个狭缝。But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave and can pass through both slits at the same time. 但是,如果没有人观察到粒子,它就会表现出波的行为,并且可以同时穿过两个缝隙。This and other experiments tell us that unobserved particles exist only as ‘waves of probability as the great Nobel laureate Max Born demonstrated in 1926. 这个实验和其他实验告诉我们,未观测到的粒子仅以“概率波”的形式存在,正如诺贝尔奖获得者马克斯·伯恩(Max Born)在1926年证明的那样。Theyre statistical predictions – nothing but a likely outcome. Until observed, they have no real existence; only when the mind sets the scaffolding in place, can they be thought of as having duration or a position in space. Experiments make it increasingly clear that even mere knowledge in the experimenters mind is sufficient to convert possibility to reality. 实验越来越清楚地表明,即使只是实验者心中的知识也足以将可能性转化为现实。
Many scientists dismiss the implications of these experiments, because until recently, this observer-dependent behavior was thought to be confined to the subatomic world. However, this is being challenged by researchers around the world. In fact, just this year a team of physicists (Gerlich et al, Nature Communications 2:263, 2011) showed that quantum weirdness also occurs in the human-scale world. They studied huge compounds composed of up to 430 atoms, and confirmed that this strange quantum behavior extends into the larger world we live in.
Importantly, this has a direct bearing on the question of whether humans and other living creatures have souls. 重要的是,这直接关系到人类和其他生物是否有灵魂的问题。As Kant pointed out over 200 years ago, everything we experience – including all the colors, sensations and objects we perceive – are nothing but representations in our mind. 正如康德(Kant)在200多年前指出的那样,我们所经历的一切,包括我们感知到的所有颜色,感觉和物体,都只是我们心中的代表。Space and time are simply the minds tools for putting it all together. Now, to the amusement of idealists, scientists are beginning dimly to recognize that those rules make existence itself possible. Indeed, the experiments above suggest that objects only exist with real properties if they are observed. 确实,以上实验表明,只有观察到物体,物体才具有真实属性。The results not only defy our classical intuition, but suggest that a part of the mind – the soul – is immortal and exists outside of space and time. 表明心灵的一部分-灵魂-是不朽的,存在于时空之外。
"The hope of another life" wrote Will Durant "gives us courage to meet our own death, and to bear with the death of our loved ones; we are twice armed if we fight with faith." 杜兰特(Will Durant)写道:“另一种生活的希望”使我们勇于面对自己的死亡,并忍受亲人的死亡;如果我们与信仰战斗,我们将有两次武装。
And we are thrice armed if we fight with science.
You can learn more about Biocentrism at www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com and www.robertlanza.com
=============================================================
==============================================================
==============================================================
《conversation》: Body and Soul
A doctor’s view
Whatever the soul is, its existence can’t be proved or disproved by natural science无论灵魂是什么,自然科学都无法证明或反驳它的存在
https://theconversation.com/whatever-the-soul-is-its-existence-cant-be-proved-or-disproved-by-natural-science-61244
(这个标题真中肯!)
见:
我们可以用科学来研究神吗?
https://www.douban.com/group/topic/169995053/
==============================================================
==============================================================
==============================================================
下面是一个系列的文章中的两篇。作者是Robert Lawrence Kuhn is a public intellectual, international corporate strategist and investment banker. He has a doctorate in brain research他拥有大脑研究博士学位。and is the author and editor of over 25 books.
《Live Science》
Does Your Self Have a Soul? 您的“自我”有灵魂吗?
https://www.livescience.com/56505-do-you-have-a-soul.html
Can Your Self Survive Death? 您的“自我”可以在死后生存吗?
https://www.livescience.com/56166-can-your-self-survive-death.html
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

回答无神反基人士 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(0)

  • 個人分類:
▲top
  • 6月 09 週二 202007:40
  • 《狂热者:拿撒勒人的耶稣的生活和时代》无人相信!

哈蟆在「百变耶稣……」所宣传的《狂热者:拿撒勒人的耶稣……》无人相信!
哈蟆在「百变耶稣和历史上的耶稣」(https://www.douban.com/group/topic/176998373/)所宣传的《狂热者:拿撒勒人的耶稣的生活和时代》(Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth)无人相信!
请来看这些负面评价值!!!
单是维基就有一堆非常负面的批评:「Dale Martin, …… writes in The New York Times that …… He faults Aslan for presenting early Christianity as being simply divided into a Hellenistic, Pauline form on the one hand, and a Jewish, Jamesian form on the other. 他指责阿斯兰(Aslan,该书的作者)提出早期基督教的原因是,一方面将其简单地分为希腊化的波琳式,另一方面将其分为犹太的詹姆士式。……that recent scholarship has dismissed Aslans view that it would be implausible that any man like Jesus in his time and place would be unmarried, or could be presented as a "divine messiah".最近的学术研究驳斥了阿斯兰的观点,即认为像耶稣这样的人在他所在的时间和地点将不会结婚,或者被称为“神圣的弥赛亚”,这是令人难以置信的。……
Elizabeth Castelli, the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of Religion at Barnard College and a specialist in biblical studies and early Christianity, writing in The Nation, argued that Aslan largely ignores the findings in textual studies of the New Testament, and relies too heavily on a selection of texts, like Josephus, taking them more or less at face value (which no scholar of the period would do). 阿斯兰在很大程度上忽略了《新约》文本研究的结果,而过分地依赖于约瑟夫斯这样的经文选集,或多或少地将它们视为具有表面价值(这一时期的学者都不会这样做)。 ……
Craig A. Evans, an evangelical New Testament scholar and professor at Acadia Divinity College, writing in Christianity Today, states that Aslan made many basic errors in geography, history and New Testament interpretation. He said it "relies on an outdated and discredited thesis", consistently fails to engage the relevant historical scholarship, and is "rife with questionable assertions阿斯兰在地理,历史和新约解释方面犯了许多基本错误。 他说,这“依靠的是过时和失信的论点”,始终未能参与相关的历史学术研究,并且“充满了可疑的断言”。."[8]
A review in USA Today cited Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, who said Aslans perspective as a Muslim may have influenced his writing as he found the picture of Jesus in Zealot seems more like a failed version of the Prophet Muhammad than the figure depicted in the Bible阿斯兰对穆斯林的看法可能影响了他的著作,因为他发现《狂热者》中耶稣的照片看起来更像是先知穆罕默德的失败版本,而不是圣经中描绘的人物。……
A review in ABC Online by Australian historian John Dickson questioned Aslans expertise in the subject, claiming "Aslan has not contributed a single peer reviewed article", and further said "Aslans grandiose claims and his limited credentials in history is glaring on almost every page. “阿斯兰没有发表过一篇同行评审文章”,并进一步说:“阿斯兰的宏伟主张和他有限的历史资历几乎遍及每一页"[10] ……
〖哈蟆所崇拜的〗Bart D. Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 同样批评里扎·阿斯兰(Reza Aslan)缺乏专业知识,[11]评论说,阿斯兰在新约或基督教史上没有任何高级学位,并且他唯一的高级学位是宗教社会学。[11] [12] ……厄尔曼(Ehrman)注意到阿斯兰(Aslan)担任创意写作教授的职位,他评论说这本书写得不错,[11]"[11]」(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot:_The_Life_and_Times_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth)
===================================
《纽约时报》评:「Some of Mr. Aslan’s other claims are just speculations with no supporting evidence, more at home in fiction than in scholarship阿斯兰先生的其他一些说法只是猜测,没有任何佐证,在小说中比较适合学术…… Aslan is not a scholar of ancient Judaism or Christianity. He teaches creative writing. And he is a good writer. 阿斯兰(Aslan)不是古代犹太教或基督教的学者。 他教创意写作。 他是一位好作家。“…… it makes an entertaining read. 它是有趣的读物…….」(https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/books/reza-aslans-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth.html)
===================================
Biola大学的Gary Manning 说:「However, Zealot is seriously flawed in many ways. There are many factual errors (some of which I will highlight below), but more importantly, Aslan’s approach matches the flawed approach of Jesus Seminar scholars, which is almost guaranteed to produce a skewed picture of Jesus. 但是,《狂热者》在许多方面都存在严重缺陷。 存在许多事实错误(我将在下面重点说明其中的一些错误),但更重要的是,阿斯兰的方法与耶稣研讨会学者〔这也是哈蟆所推荐过的反基督教组织〕的错误方法相匹配,几乎可以保证产生出歪曲的耶稣图画。」(https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2013/a-response-to-zealot-by-reza-aslan)
===================================
===================================
若再花时间搜寻,网上还有一大堆负面评论!!!
为什么哈蟆会相信而且宣传呢?除了他的博士学位和所研究并教授的课目是“八挂街边新闻”之外,完全是他对基督教、圣经和耶稣,有无限的憎恨!
 
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

回答无神反基人士 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(3)

  • 個人分類:
▲top
«1...67829»

熱門文章

  • (7)回答四五味的「《错引耶稣》:推荐基督教徒阅读」
  • (2)反驳五味的日本原爆後的深思--上帝在惩罚东亚的基督教社区吗?

最新文章

  • 脫離耶和華見證人朋友的臉書
  • 回應對基督教的攻擊
  • 巴特埃爾曼的福音(詳批《製造耶穌》或《錯引耶穌》)
  • 反駁一本敵基督教書籍——《错引耶稣》(制造耶稣)
  • 黑犬的“科幻小说”:小S,大S,和宇宙总管超级S -- 道德化神祇的诞生
  • 驳黑犬的《Mike Shermer: 宗教之起源》(上帝不存在)
  • 美国基督徒的数量真的在减少吗?
  • 回答阿哈默的「地中海神秘宗教团伙及其演变」
  • Sam Harris(无神论者) 惨被William Craig(有神论者)修理
  • 复活不是把戏,不是模仿(回答哑黑犬)

個人資訊

回答无神反基人士
暱稱:
回答无神反基人士
分類:
生活綜合
好友:
累積中
地區:

文章分類

  • 耶和華見證人 (1)
  • 無神,宗教起源 (2)
  • 社会现象 (20)
  • 其他 (7)
  • 基督教和所谓中国文化 (5)
  • 来华传教士 (6)
  • 异教徒<——>基督徒 (8)
  • 圣经批判学 (17)
  • 科学和学术 (26)
  • 大洪水和挪亚方舟 (9)
  • 圣经和古代文明 (10)
  • 神学问题和圣经教导 (9)
  • 所谓圣经难题和矛盾 (13)
  • 复活 (11)
  • 神学问题 (9)
  • 有关耶稣 (15)
  • 回答无神反基人士 (3)
  • 回答 怀疑不上当-嘁哩喀喳 (9)
  • 反驳抛砖 (33)
  • 反驳五味(胥述之) (31)
  • 未分類文章 (1)

最新留言

  • [23/08/20] 訪客 於文章「脫離耶和華見證人朋友的臉書...」留言:
    生命之道 4“耶和华在山上,从火中,面对面与...

動態訂閱

文章精選

文章搜尋

誰來我家

參觀人氣

  • 本日人氣:
  • 累積人氣: