Atheism sio kuamini Hakuna Mungu, ila ni kutoamini kuwa kuna Mungu

[Surya]

Mungu kaumbwa na nani? Katokea wapi?

Unaniuliza mimi au unamuuliza Mungu ?

 

[February Makamba]

Well, this is actually common sense. And You only need logic and probability..
Build /bɪld/ to construct (something) by putting parts or material together.

So by that definition, all built things are man made.
Using the knowledge My brain has acquired since childhood about my environment,I have learnt to distinguish between Natural and Man made objects in the environment. I know a tree is natural occuring and a house (even if it is a forest) is a manmade object..because I know that doors,windows,roofs,balconies are manmade concepts..Same way If I see a car, a pair of shoes, an iphone, A cigarette, a Yanga’s Jersey, etc. in the forest, I would know it is manmade and not natural.

If it was that of a mystery, (because theres nothing special about the location of the house in the forest and another house in the city, or the location of the pyramids in Egypt or the time it exists) then a house wouldn’t need to be in a forest for one to ask that stupid question of whether its built or natural or any other option you can think of (eg. It is Made by aliens, Angels, demons, made by God, it is a simulation, it is a dream etc.)
So I think a house in A forest is built due to the same reasons I think a house in the city,in the village, or in the saharas, is manmade and is different from natural things like lions and rivers and trees
Thats why you didnt think whether a tree in a forest was built or not., the question would make sense if the object we are seeing is neither natural nor manmade, say you found an object in your yard that defies physics and is not natural nor manmade., then that question of whether it wa built or not would make sense

So, we are not arguing about whether man made objects(guitars, houses, watches, etc.) are built or not.,,that is very misleading.
We are arguing whether All objects (natural & manmade) are built or not.
Now, I know manmade objects are built by man because I have a large database of other objects that man has made to infer and refer to.
And the built in this case does not refer to creating from nothing, but rather just adjusting, altering and transforming already existing natural objects into other forms like glass to mirror, trees to wood to houses, etc.

But as of all objects in the universe, we dont have other databases from other universes to infer whether this one we live in is built or natural existing.

This is not provable. Simple systems can interact purely by luck and evolve to create complex systems that may seem disciplined and serve a function. Individual water droplets from the rain may seem negligible but when they fall on land and flow to a lower surface due to gravity, they may unite to form a river which may serve a function of a home to a lot of animals.🐸🐺🐢🐙🦑🐠🐡🐋🐳🐊
The universe may seem disciplined but really it is an illusion because once you look really deep into it from its fundamental blocks (i.e atoms) at the quantum level you will see that it is all probabilistic, but all that random motion of subatomic particles obeying certain physical laws has a tendency of interacting to forms molecules compounds, solids,liquids,gases which also interact in unique ways to create rocks,rivers,mountains,planets,forests,trees,monkeys,bananas etc.

So discipline might actually not be the fundamental nature of the universe, but rather an emergent feature of complexity from very simple but very crucial systems.

Therefore, the question about the house in the forest should not brainstorm you because of the discipline at which a functioning house exists…
But rather it should brainstorm you why it exists there in the first place (regardless its disciplined or not)
Like Why atoms,molecules,compounds that are obeying laws of motion,gravity,energy conservation,etc. Exist???

Creation and building are two different things, building involves taking what already exists/ in your terms what’s already ‘created’ and assembling it into other forms.
So when we talk of built things, we talk of a who because we have enough data and evidence from other built things, existence of builders, and we can even learn how to build it our damn selves.
that verifies who builds.
(Building is just assembling natural objects)

But when we talk of creation, we really dont have any data or evidence of other created universes, existence of creator(s), and even the method in which a creator creates.

TRUE

False, generalization fallacy…you havent seen everything that exists and havent seen every disciplined thing in existence to conclude this.,(because theres nothing special about the location of the house in the forest or another house in the city, or the location of the pyramids in Egypt) and so there is nothing special about the location of the universe we observe.
It might be that, in other parts of the unobservable universe or in other universes the laws of physics are different and maybe laws of causation are not fundamental.

and plus I have shown disciplined things like rivers may exist due to pure luck of falling rain water droplets.
therefore a creator Must be some where despite not knowing "Him" or its whereabout however it exists the same as the builder of the forest house exists or existed.
We dont know if a creator exists because we dont know if everything was created or not…You are confusing building and creating…to know if something was built you must first know if such a thing is built (like we know a house is built because we know houses are built), secondly you must know who builds (i.e humans), third but leastly important you must also know how its built.(methods) like how you know a house is built because you have a gist concept of how houses are made.

If an object doesn’t fit those criteria, then we cant really know if it was built (by man) or not.

But on creation of all things, we dont really know if firstly such a thing is created (like we know a house is built because we know houses are built), secondly we dont know who creates (i.e we havent seen God creating in live action), third but leastly important we dont also know how its created.(methods in which God or whoever uses to create)

Nondo…tumsuburi Mokaze

 

[cocastic]

Unataka tumlete hapa au?

Ndyoooo

 

[mshamba_hachekwi]

shida ya kua non-religious ni inabidi utoe maelezo kila saa unapomuambia mtu mwenye dini. Mwishowe mnagombana..... tusioamini tuendelee, wanaoamini waendelee.... mwisho wa siku ukifa hamna mahali unaenda. Hakuna tofauti

 

[Anikajema]

Ndyoooo

Sasa subiri atakuleta yeye.

 

[Diwani]

shida ya kua non-religious ni inabidi utoe maelezo kila saa unapomuambia mtu mwenye dini. Mwishowe mnagombana..... tusioamini tuendelee, wanaoamini waendelee.... mwisho wa siku ukifa hamna mahali unaenda. Hakuna tofauti

Umerudi pale pale.

 

[Diwani]

NINGEPENDA WATU WAJUE HILI.

God is rather TRUTH than REALITY. Kuna tofauti kubwa sana kati ya hiyo misamiati, na maelezo/uthibitisho wake unatolewa na FACTS na LOGICS.

Twende Pamoja...

REALITY inatangulia; je ni kitu gani?
Reality ni uhalisia unaothibitishwa na macho. Macho ni (Empirical source) ama chanzo kikuu cha shuhuda duniani. Macho yanaweza kutoa taarifa nyingi kwa milango takriban yote ya fahamu. Tazama, kwa kukiona kitu unaweza kukadiria sauti yake, hisia zake (ngozi), ladha na harufu. Tofauti labda na kusikia harufu, bila kuona, hakuwezi kutoa taarifa ya kitu hufanana vipi AT FIRST PLACE.

Reality doesn't need explanations at all since its empirical and everybody can talk about it. Therefore, the talk about reality is called FACT.

FACTS- ni maelezo kuhusu reality. Aidha ufafanuzi ama maelezo tuu. Mfano; wewe ndiye unatumia simu yako, unaiona kwa rangi, jina, pamoja na ukubwa. Hiyo ni reality, huhitaji maelezo kujua ulichoshika ni kitu gani, na kama ukianza kutoa maelezo hayo yanaitwa FACTS.

Umenipata sio?

TRUTH- Truth ni Kipande cha REALITY ambacho hakionekani kwa macho. Truth is likely to be told, but reality has to be seen. Wanadamu wanafahamu nguvu ya macho yao, lakini hawawezi ku 'deny' hadhi, kazi na nguvu ya viungo vingine kama Masikio katika kujenga na Kulinda Ufahamu. Hapa ndipo inapatikana TRUTH. Hatuwezi kusema jambo, ama kitu fulani hakipo ati kwa sababu hatujawahi kukuiona. NO!

Mfano; most people know the TRUE you, not the REAL you. Hatusemi kwamba, the real you doesn't exist ati kwa sababu hatujawahi kukuona. Mfano, wewe ni Mzinzi, na ndiye wewe unafahamu,'real you' sio kwa sababu hatujakuona basi wewe sio mzinzi, NO! logics zitathibitisha, kwa sababu tabia ni ngozi. Ngozi huonekana na haibadiliki.

Sasa, maelezo kuhusu TRUTH yanaitwa Logics. Itabidi, mtu huyu aseme logics ili zikae akilini. Kumbuka kila ambacho milango yetu ya fahamu mathalani macho inapokea na kuweka akilini. Hivyo, LOGICS zitazungumzwa ili kujenga knowledge.

Hatuwezi kusema God is not real, ati kwa sababu hukuwahi kumuona. No!! Don't be Clunk.

Sayansi imezungumza mambo mengi ambayo hatuwezi kuyaona, mathalani Hormones, nerve pulses, n.k.

Labda nikuulize, UNAAMINI KUNA UMEME? Umewahi kuuona? Usiniambie umeme ni huo Mwanga wa taa ya hapo chumbani kwako, huo mwanga. Upo hata kwenye nyota.

Watu wanaotaka ushahidi kuhusu Mungu (Muumba) wataka kufahamu kuhusu nini kitaridhisha macho yao, na usipowapa hawaamini, wakati huo wanadai HAWAAMINI. Hivi unaelewa maana ya kuamini na kutoamini? Unasema huamini halafu unataka evidences. Maana yake wewe ni Muumini wa EVIDENCE.

Mark Manson kwenye kitabu chake cha Everything is Fucked anasema, 'Hakuna asiye amini' Yes, ni kweli. Atheists ni waumini wazuri wa Sayansi, hivyo WANAAMINI katika Evidence. Nigger! Believing is human tenet. Very natural from the deep self.

Narudia tena WATU. Don't be fooled. Mungu yupo na anatupenda. Usiwe mtumwa wa uhuru wako. Keep the focus.

Hiyo Atheism ni Tamanio la Kutowapo Mwenyezi Mungu ili binadamu alishe bila kikwazo matamanio ya nafsi yake.

 

[Diwani]

Atakayejaribu kuelewa hapa.

 

[Diwani]

Half of Americans Unsure if God Exists

Research from the Public Religion Research Institute has found that the religious landscape of the United States has changed a lot in the past few decades. 

www.washingtoninformer.com

Sent from my OPPO A57 using JamiiForums mobile app

 

[wizee]

Wanaoamani Mungu hutumia uumbaji kama hoja kuu ya kuamini Mungu yupo, siwalaumu because after all bila uumbaji tusingekuwepo kubishana hapa kama mungu yupo au la! Na uwepo wake usingekuwa na maana.

Hoja yao ipo hivi:

1. kila kitu kilichopo kina chanzo hakiwezi kutokea from nothing,

2. Hivyo Ulimwengu una chanzo, hiko chanzo lazima kitakuwa nje ya ulimwengu na kitakuwa na uwezo zaidi ya ulimwengu

3. Kwahyo ulimwengu umeumbwa na huyo aliyeuumba tunamwita Mungu

Kuna matatizo kwenye kila statement hapo,. Ngoja tuzichambue

1. Kila kitu kilichopo kina chanzo hakiwezi kutokea from nothing,

Hatuna ushahidi wa hili.

Kwanza tunaishi kwenye sayari ndogo inayozunguka nyota moja kati ya nyota billioni 100 zinazounda galaxy. Ulimwengu unaoonekana tu una galaxy billion 100-200. Kwahyo hapo idadi ya nyota ni kama billioni 100 mara billioni 100 kwa idadi ya chini, na bado kuna ulimwengu ule ambao hatuuoni ambao unaweza kuwa mkubwa kuliko huu tunaouona kwa vifaa vyetu.

Kwahyo hatuwezi kuhitimisha kitu hakiwezekani kwenye huu ulimwengu kwa kutumia reference ya sheria tunazoziona kwenye haka kapocket kadogo ka ulimwengu tunakoishi. Inawezekana huko nyota ya mbali kuna viumbe wameweza kutengeneza something from nothing.

Sisi hatuwezi kuhitimisha chochote itakuwa ni sawa na mgeni kutoka Kigoma afikie kwa shemeji yake Chanika, aitalii nyumba ya shemeji kuanzia sebuleni,uani mpaka chooni halafu aseme ameshaijua Dar nzima na hakuna nyumba ya muundo tofauti na hiyo ya shemeji yake. Hakuna TV kama ya shemeji yake na hakuna gari kama la shemeji yake Dar nzima.

Pili, hata kwenye hiki kipoketi cha ulimwengu tunachoishi hatuna uhakika kuwa tunajua sheria zote za ulimwengu.

Ukimwambia mzee aliyekufa miaka 50 iliyopita kuwa Kuna teknolojia ya kuongea na mtu ana kwa ana sekunde hiyohiyo huku mkisikiana kama mko pamoja(Videocall) Atabisha kuwa hiko kitu hakiwezekani kama tunavyobisha kuwa something hakiwezi kutoka from nothing.

Hivyo hatuna ushahidi wowote wa kuhitimisha kuwa haiwezekani kitu kitokee bila chanzo.

2. Hivyo Ulimwengu una chanzo, hiko chanzo lazima kitakuwa nje ya ulimwengu na kitakuwa na uwezo zaidi ya ulimwengu

Hata kama tukikubali kuwa Ulimwengu una chanzo,bado haithibitishi kuwa hiko chanzo lazima kiwe nje ya ulimwengu au kiwe na uwezo zaidi ya ulimwengu…Maji kwenye glass hayana madhara lakini yakiungana kutengeneza bahari yanaweza kuzamisha meli na kuleta Tsunami.

Pia hiko Chanzo kinaweza kuwa ulimwengu wenyewe,
Hizo sifa unazompa Mungu inawezekana ni sifa za ulimwengu.Yani ikiwa ulimwengu umejitengeneza,upo kila sehemu na unaweza kila kitu.
Maana Mtu ukibisha kwa kusema ulimwengu lazima uwe na chanzo kwasababu kila kitu kina chanzo basi ntakuambia na mungu pia yupo kwenye hiyo “kila kitu kinahitaji chanzo” na ukibadilisha kuwa kila kitu kinahitaji chanzo kasoro Mungu tu basi ntakuuliza nini kinampa Mungu hiyo kasoro?? Kwanini isiwe kila kitu kinahitaji chanzo kasoro ulimwengu wenyewe? Au chanzo kingine kisicho huyo ‘Mungu’?

3. Kwahyo ulimwengu umeumbwa na huyo aliyeuumba tunamwita Mungu

Na hata kama tukikubali ulimwengu umeumbwa bado haitoshi kujua kuwa huyo aliyeumba ni Mungu na wengine huenda mbali hadi kumpa sifa zingine kama i)aliwahi kuwa binadamu akaja kufa duniani, au wengine husema huyo ii)Mungu haelewi lugha tofauti na kiarabu

Haya yote mmejuaje? Je kama hiko chanzo ni kitu kingine ambacho hakipo tena ulimwenguni,yani kiliumba halafu kikaondoka kikauacha ulimwengu ujiendeshe kwa sheria kilizouwekea? Una uthibitisho gani kuwa hiko chanzo cha ulimwengu ndio hiki unachoita Mungu na si kingine??

Kwasababu kusema ulimwengu uliumbwa haitoshi kuwa kama ushahidi wa kuwa aliyeuumba ni Mungu.

Au una ushahidi kuwa lazima kiwe Mungu na especially huyo Mungu wako na sio Mungu wa Zumaridi? Au kitu tofauti na Mungu?? Vipa kama Mungu aliumba Ulimwengu halafu akaondoka akaendelea na mishe zake akawcha ujiendeshe na tukifa ndio imetoka hiyo?? Kwanini iwe ni Mungu wako tu?? Una uthibitisho?

Nachosema Mimi ni kuwa Mungu anaweza kuwepo, ila hatuna ushahidi wa hilo. Na hatuna sababu za kuamini hilo kama unao naomba

Maana ukisema ushahidi ni kitabu chako cha dini kilikuambia hivyo basi hiko hiko kitabu naomba ukiulize haya maswali unipe majibu

Hta wew umeshindw kuthibitish kuw hakun Mungu ispokuw umejarib kujudge tu
Tatiz lak unachangany faith and theorem
You can't prove presence or absence of God by science instead by faith only

 

[UHURU JR]

Nadhani kuna tofauti ya kutoamini kitu na kukataa uwepo wa hicho kinachoaminiwa. Kitu ambacho najua na nina uhakika kuwa hakipo basi siwezi kusema siamini uwepo wake bali nitasema hicho kitu hakipo maana hakina nafasi ya imani kwangu.

 

[hateeb10]

People don't want to stand that theories are just well explained beliefs.

pita hapa. You will find out.

Kuniambia kwamba Fossils za Pale Olduvai Gorge ni za Kundi la Australopithecus kama Afarensis na neanderthals halafu waliishi 4 Billions years back kwa sababu ati, kipimo cha Isotopes za Carbon 14 kimesema hivyo.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] Tumefanywa kuwa wajinga halali.

Halafu ukija kwenye asili ya dunia ndio utacheka, usiombe kujifunza kuhusu Fission theory. Mambo ya kuniambia Mwezi ulitoka baharini, halafu unaniambia It's just theory. Damn!

Yap sahihi Mkuu.., Most of Scientific Theories hasa zinazohusu origin ya Ulimwengu na viumbe zime base kwenye Imani zaidi.
Mfano utasikia statement kwamba "It's believed that Billions of years ago Mitochondria was not part of a Cell"..... ukiangalia utaona kabisa hiyo ni Imani maana hakuna Scientific evidence yoyote inayothibitisha kwamba Mitochondria haikua sehemu ya seli miaka Billions iliyopita.

 

[Diwani]

Yap sahihi Mkuu.., Most of Scientific Theories hasa zinazohusu origin ya Ulimwengu na viumbe zime base kwenye Imani zaidi.
Mfano utasikia statement kwamba "It's believed that Billions of years ago Mitochondria was not part of a Cell"..... ukiangalia utaona kabisa hiyo ni Imani maana hakuna Scientific evidence yoyote inayothibitisha kwamba Mitochondria haikua sehemu ya seli miaka Billions iliyopita.

Belief ni sehemu ya muundo wa ubinadamu wetu, watu wanapuuza tu. Lakini, suala la Kuamini evidence. Ni imani pia.

Sent from my OPPO A57 using JamiiForums mobile app

 

[Below 40]

Unaniuliza mimi au unamuuliza Mungu ?

Yoyote anayejua aseme.

 

[Kachera]

Mimi na Mungu iko hivi..
Huwa mimi na yeye Tunazungumza.
Namuuliza swali ananijibu, ananimbiaga hapendi nini na anapenda nini na kuna vitu kanipa na kuna vitu kaniahidi atanipa.

Sifa yake kubwa yeye ndie kaniumba. na Kaumba dunia yote na ulimwengu.

Hua mnazunguza kwa lugha gani? Na hua unamuwekea kigoda akae wakati mnapiga story au huwa ana simama tu?

 

[Mcqueenen]

Kiini cha mwisho cha misingi ya mambo yote duniani ni 'NAFSI' kuiridhisha nafsi, binadamu kwa asili yake hulisha nafsi kuliko chochote kile.

Kwanza naomba uelezee kwa vithibitisho nafsi ni nini?

Narudia tena, The so called Atheist hawataki kusikia kuhusu Scripture, yaani holy writs. Kwa sababu, zina control nafsi.

Nafsi ni nini?

Mungu ni tofauti na dini. Dini sio Mungu, hapa hatuzungumzii Paganism, bali atheism. Kuhusu dini ilienea vipi, hilo ni suala la kitaasisi, dini ni utamaduni. Kwa taarifa yako kama unadhani Jihads na Crusades zilipigania Mungu unajidanganya. Jihads zimetokana na kulisha NAFSI, utamaduni mmoja wa namna ya kuratibu imani kujiona bora kuliko mwingine. Hiyo ni DINI.

Hapo kwenye bold ni imani gani unazungumzia? Imani ya kuamini kuwa Yanga wakivaa jezi nyeusi wanashinda ugenini?
Bila shaka ni imani ya Mungu. Sasa hiyo imani ya Mungu kumbe ndio imeleteleza Johad na crusades.
Maana hao johadists na crusaders hawakupigania imani ya kimpira ila ni imani ya Mungu

Rudi kwenye Mungu, unaniambia nikupe ushahidi ambao huuamini? Watu wanakwambia Wana Amini.

Umenipa huo ushahidi nikasema siuamini? Lete kwanza huo ushahidi ili sote na JF nzima tuuchambue kama una mashaka au la!

Wewe unataka ushahidi wa Kulisha na kutosheleza macho yako.

Wapi nimeweka masharti kuwa ushahidi lazima uwe wa kuona kwa macho??

Unarudi kule kule 'Feeding the self' hutoki zaidi ya hapo.

Bado sijui self unamaanisha nini? Na hiyo self inakulaje? Ina mdomo?.
Yaani elezea what are you trying to argue here? Feeding self ndo nini?

Kuamini ni kuwa na hakika. Ukiniambia kuhusu shuhuda hautazipokea, kwa sababu mbali na kulisha macho yako no far pace you can make.

Sasa kuwa na uhakika na kitu usichokuwa na shuhuda nacho ni ujinga. hauna tofauti na anayeamini Superman,Vampires,Zombies,Fairies,Santa claus,Mizimu,Majini,Spiderman, wapo in real life.

Watu wanatamani Mungu asingekuwapo, ili watosheleze nafsi zao, ni pamoja na hao wanaodai kueneza dini kwa mtutu na vita. Hakuna MUNGU ilitaka hivyo, vita ilikuwa ni Battle of Civilizations.
Sawa

HAO ni watu gani na wananihusu nini mimi?
Maana mimi ninatamani Mungu angekuwepo ili nikifa isiwe mwisho nikutane na mama yangu kwenye bustani za dhahabu na maziwa ya maziwa (Lakes of milk) tuanze kuruka ruka na kuogelea kwenye mito ya pombe na asali pamoja na mabikra zangu 72.
Lakini sasa hakuna ushahidi huo wa uwepo wa hivyo vitu na huyo Mungu na ndomaana natoka kwenye matamanio narudi kwenye uhalisia.

Kuhusu binadamu kutenda mema haina uhusiano na kuamini ama kutoamini, binadamu ni Mamlaka, weren't robots ama algorithms. Kutenda ama kutotenda mema ni maamuzi yetu, ila MUNGU ayataka mema. Huyu Mungu ndiye amezuia tusizini, kuzini technically kunalisha nafsi ya mtu, TUSIUE, vivyo hivyo, tusishuhudie uongo, tusiishi bila mpangilio wa siku (fanya ibada), usiibe mali isiyo yako, wala kutamani mke wa mwenzio) asingekuwapo Mungu.

Hapa sasa patamu umeanza kuja baada ya kuzunguka sana... unasema mungu amezuia hayo unaweza kutupa ushahidi kwanza A) huyo mungu yupo B)Huyo mungu alikataza hayo

Atheism ni uthibitisho wa namna Binadamu amezidiwa na Mamlaka yake, na amekuwa mtumwa wa uhuru wake.

Again, DON'T BE FOOLED.

Binadamu amezidiwa mamlaka gani? Aliyopewa na nani? Una ushahidi wa uwepo wa huyo nani?
Unawezaje kuwa mtumwa wa uhuru? Yani ni sawa na kusema uwe na mali nyingi sana mpaka ukawa masikini.
Ni contradiction

 

[Mcqueenen]

Shida ni kwamba unaona anaeamini habari za Mungu ni mjinga,... WaKati huo wewe unaamini habari za Evolution Theory.

Naomba nieleweke, Humu sijaja kupinga na kuleta mbadala wa theory ya creation(uumbaji) na Mungu
Huu uzi nimekuja tu kusema kuwa hatuna uthibitisho wowote wa hiyo theory.
Sasa huo mbadala wa evolution ni mfano mmoja tu wa theory tofauti na hii ya Mungu.
Zipo theories nyingi sana kama Tunaishi kwenye simulation, haya maisha ni ndoto ya kila mtu.yani wewe umelala au ni ubongo mahali unaota kila kitu/Mtu unachoki/mjuA

Evolution Theory ni Imani kubwa kuliko hata Imani ya kuamini Mungu.

Mfano, kwa mujibu wa Evolutionary mechanism ni kwamba Viumbe wote duniani wametokana na Ancestor mmoja. Lakini Evolution Theory haina uthibitisho wowote hata fossils za huyo Ancestor hazipo bali wanatumia Imani kuamini hivyo.

Again hata kama Evolution sio kweli, sio uthibitisho kuwa Mungu yupo.
Kuna uzi wa Evolution labda uje huko nikupe facts zako kuhusu evolution

Je, Evolution ni Ukweli au Nadharia tu?

Mwaka 1859 mwanabaiolojia Charles Darwin alichapisha kitabu chake kuhusu chanzo cha viumbe wote duniani chenye jina “On the origin of species” Kilichoelezea theory yake ya evolution. Darwin alisema kwamba hivi viumbe vyote tunavyoviona leo (Aina Zaidi ya million 8.6) vikizagaa kwenye uso wa...

www.jamiiforums.com

Lakini pia Ukisema sisi binadamu tulikuta viumbe wengine tayari Wana exist tena wakiwa na macho,... Swali la kujiuliza (Je, hayo macho ya Viumbe wengine kama Samaki yanahusiana vipi na macho ya Binadamu mpaka ujaribu kufanya comparison?., )

Kwenye hiyo Link Richard Dawkins anachoelezea ame base kwenye assumptions na siyo 100% kwamba Viumbe wa mwanzo millions of years ago walikua hawana macho(mind you,.. hakuna binadamu anaweza aka elezea exactly how mambo yalikua hiyo Miaka Millioni iliyopita unless awe informed na Yoyote ambaye aliweza kuwepo kuanzia Ulimwengu unaanza)

Je, Evolution ni Ukweli au Nadharia tu?

Mwaka 1859 mwanabaiolojia Charles Darwin alichapisha kitabu chake kuhusu chanzo cha viumbe wote duniani chenye jina “On the origin of species” Kilichoelezea theory yake ya evolution. Darwin alisema kwamba hivi viumbe vyote tunavyoviona leo (Aina Zaidi ya million 8.6) vikizagaa kwenye uso wa...

www.jamiiforums.com

NB:- Ni Bora Imani kwamba Kuna Creator who designed &brought all things into Existence...... Kuliko Imani kwamba Ulimwengu na viumbe ulitokea accidentally by chance from nowhere through natural selection.

Again hii false dichotomy fallacy. Yani unaact kama option ni hizo mbili tu wakati kuna infinite number of possibilities.
Na hiyo huwezi kuitumia kama proof ya uthibitisho wako kuwa kuna Mungu eti kwakuwa vitu haviwezi kuja by chance.

 

[Mcqueenen]

Ila ubishi wenu niwakijinga sana sasa kama darslam imepangiliwa haijajipanga sasa kwann tusiamini dunia pia ilipangiliwa?

Darsalaam imepangiliwa ila kwa bahati tu. Yani hakuna mtu miaka 1000 tu iliyopita alipanga kuwa kutakuwa na jiji kubwa kama hilo hapa Tanzania na litakuwa na bandari, mwendokasi na madaraja makubwa. Ni by chance tu watu wamekusanyika wakajenga na wanaendelea kulijenga jiji la Dar.
Watu wengi wamefanya vitu vingi hapa dar bila kuwasiliana yani mfano mlima matikiti aliyemuuzia mfanyabiashara aliyemuuzia Kiongozi aliyekula hilo tikiti likampa nguvu ya kuwaza jinsi ya kujenga bandari ya dar hawakujuana. Lakini ni kweli jiji limejengeka na kukamilika likiwa na bandari.

Nakuambia kuwa huenda ubishi wetu huu hauezi maliza huu utata kwasababu binadamu pia tupo kwenye mpangilio kuna ukomo wa kufanya vitu na kufikiri vitu, acha ubishi wakijinga aheri uamini yupo alafu ukienda umkose kuliko kuamini hahupo na ukaenda kumkuta. MUNGU YUPO KUBALI KATAAA NA UTAISHI NDANI YA MIPAKA YAKE DAIMA.

Haya wew unamuamini Yesu kumbe Mungu wa kweli ni Allah na anawachoma mnaomuabudu Binadamu Issa...Au unamuamini Allah kuambe Mungu wa kweli ni wa wahindu?
Bado haujasolve kitu.
Hiyo ya bora kuamini sijui ili ukimkuta mtu anaweza kutumia hoja hiyo kukuaminisha kitu chochote kile (Vqmpires,Zombies etc.)

 

[Mcqueenen]

People don't want to stand that theories are just well explained beliefs.

Nadhani unachanganya mafaili. Na inaonekana hujui maana ya scientific theory unaichanganya na theory kwenye history.
Ni sawa na mtu anaposema Dj wa leo hana energy halafu hiyo energy ukadhani ni ile ya kwenye Physics.

pita hapa. You will find out.

Kuniambia kwamba Fossils za Pale Olduvai Gorge ni za Kundi la Australopithecus kama Afarensis na neanderthals halafu waliishi 4 Billions years back kwa sababu ati, kipimo cha Isotopes za Carbon 14 kimesema hivyo.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] Tumefanywa kuwa wajinga halali.

Okay kwanini umefanywa ni mjinga? Unapinga hilo kwa sababu/ hoja zipi?

Halafu ukija kwenye asili ya dunia ndio utacheka, usiombe kujifunza kuhusu Fission theory. Mambo ya kuniambia Mwezi ulitoka baharini, halafu unaniambia It's just theory. Damn!

Again, hata kama hizi theorie za evolution na bigbang ni za uongo bado sio ushahidi wa kuwa Mungu yupo.
False dilema

 

[Mcqueenen]

Hta wew umeshindw kuthibitish kuw hakun Mungu ispokuw umejarib kujudge tu
Tatiz lak unachangany faith and theorem
You can't prove presence or absence of God by science instead by faith only

Mimi wala sijaja kuthibitisha kuwa hakuna Mungu na wala sijasema Hakuna Mungu. Hivi umesoma hata post kweli?

Faith is beleiving without evidence. Basically Faith is gullibility and stupidity.