Babu wa Loliondo "avuliwa nguo"

[Kiranga]

huyu jamaa anapigia tarumbeta science akidhani ndio inatoa jibu sahihi kwenye kila ishu.

Obviously wewe ndiye unayepiga kelele bila ya kusoma ninachoandika, ungekuwa unasoma ungeona nimesema mara kadhaa hapa kwamba science haijidai kuwa na majibu ya kila kitu. As a matter of fact, msingi wa sayansi ni kujua kwamba hujui na kutafuta jibu la usilolijua kwa kutumia unayoyajua na verifiable tests together with peer review.

Sasa baada ya kusema hayo yote utasemaje kwamba mimi nadhani "sayansi inatoa jibu sahihi kwa kila ishu" ?

Muache aamini sayansi yake.

Watu wa dunia ya sayansi wanataka kujua, hawataki kuamini.

Inafahamika sana kuwa wengi wanapika data ili kuweza kupata majibu. Wengi wa sasa ivi wanafanya kazi katika theoretical world kiasi ambacho kazi zao hazina impact yeyote kwetu tena.

Lakini angalau sayansi inaruhusu peer review, na hata wewe ukiona jambo sio sawa unaweza kuandika paper, ukai submit katika scientific journal, na kama una make sense unapata kukubalika.

Lakini katika dini hamna review, hamna verification, hamna proof, unaambiwa tu "mungu yupo, amini" na unaamini.

Hamna kitu chochote cha kukuthibitishia hilo, kila argument unayoleta ku "prove" mungu yupo, inaonekana ku prove quite the opposite, kwamba "mungu -kama anavyosemwa hapa in the Judeo-Christian context, first mover, omnipotent etc) actually hawezi kuwepo.

 

[Mrdash1]

Hi Kiranga, Mimi siyo BTW bali ni mrdash1:

You wrote paragraphs with disconnected arguments, filled up with flights of ideas without answering the primary question raised. I must admit, I struggled to understand your argument and at the end i gave up. For this reason i am taking another attempt to get an answer from you and this time i am going to make it very simple and easy.

Genetic information in the form of DNA within living things, where did it come from? Use science to answer please!

Other issues:

1. We are not discussing the origin of God at the moment, that is another topic, you may start it if you wish.
2. Science fiction which you quoted in your reply, means non existing futuristic ideas like star treks, alien invasion, robo cops etc which are written in books or acted upon in movies or cartoons, they are not real scientists who forge, suppress and manipulate data to get the results they want to satisfy their point of view. Please note the difference!!!!
3. I refuted your argument that science and God contradicts each other by showing you that actually modern education and science started in churches not by aethists but by God believers, first scientists were God believers, many Schools and high learning institutions throughout the world owned and some are still owned by religious institutions.
4. Generously, i provided you with some information that a rebellious anti God generation of scientists rose up in Europe following French revolution and have ever since been working towards proving the non existence of God, unfortunately, they haven't been able to but have managed to recruit many millions of blind followers.

 

[Kiranga]

Hi Kiranga, Mimi siyo BTW bali ni mrdash1:

You wrote paragraphs with disconnected arguments, filled up with flights of ideas without answering the primary question raised. I must admit, I struggled to understand your argument and at the end i gave up. For this reason i am taking another attempt to get an answer from you and this time i am going to make it very simple and easy.

Genetic information in the form of DNA within living things, where did it come from? Use science to answer please!

Other issues:

1. We are not discussing the origin of God at the moment, that is another topic, you may start it if you wish.
2. Science fiction which you quoted in your reply, means non existing futuristic ideas like star treks, alien invasion, robo cops etc which are written in books or acted upon in movies or cartoons, they are not real scientists who forge, suppress and manipulate data to get the results they want to satisfy their point of view. Please note the difference!!!!
3. I refuted your argument that science and God contradicts each other by showing you that actually modern education and science started in churches not by aethists but by God believers, first scientists were God believers, many Schools and high learning institutions throughout the world owned and some are still owned by religious institutions.
4. Generously, i provided you with some information that a rebellious anti God generation of scientists rose up in Europe following French revolution and have ever since been working towards proving the non existence of God, unfortunately, they haven't been able to but have managed to recruit many millions of blind followers.

BTW as in "by the way", this is the kind of peeps I am dealing with.

If there is one with disjointed arguments, it is you and your ilk.

The fact that there is information in DNA, does not say anything that the DNA was encoded there by god. Can you show that the information in DNA came from god?

Tumeamka hatujui tulipotoka, tunajua tulipo tu, wewe unatuambia tumetoka Kilosa, wakati kuna sehemu mamilioni tunaweza kuwa tumetoka. Na unataka tukuamini kwamba tumetoka Kilosa, nakuuliza kwa nini unafikiri tumetoka Kilosa na sio Dodoma wala Zanzibar? Huna jibu, hujatoa jibu kwa nini unafikiri information iliyopo katika DNA ni lazima imewekwa na mungu.

The more you study science, from molecular biology and genetics to cosmology, cosmogony, quantum physics etc, the more you see that the common sense view of the world (which includes a godhead) is grossly mislead.

Nikirudi kwenye swali lako, kuhusu genetic information, naweza kukwambia kwamba genetic information imetoka katika evolutionary process. Na unaweza kwenda nyuma billions of years ukaangalia the evolution of DNA na hata nyuma zaidi kwenye RNA. Na wengine wamesema hata kuhusu theories kama lightning jolting energy into the primordial soup etc. Lakini hata pale ambapo sayansi haijui, au haina uhakika, sayansi haioni aibu kusema hapa hatujui na tunatafuta majibu.

Tatizo la dini ni kwamba iko tayari kukwambia habari nyiingi kuhusu mungu alivyoumba kila kitu etc etc.

Nimekujibu swali lako, wewe unayesema information haiwezi kutokea hivi hivi bila ya kuwa na muumba, nimekuuliza huyo muumba naye, ambaye naye ni entity ya information (unaweza kumfikiria) naye ametoka wapi? Si umesema information lazima iwe na muumba?

Kama mungu ana muumba, basi si "first mover".

Kama mungu hana muumba, basi information haihitaji muumba, na kama ni kweli information haihitaji muumba, who is to say kwamba life haijaanza spontaneously?

 

[Prof Griff]

who is to say kwamba life haijaanza spontaneously?

If I could paraphrase your above comment: kama life inaweza kuanza spontaneously, kwa nini Mungu asiweze kuanza "spontaneously"?

 

[Kiranga]

If I could paraphrase your above comment: kama life inaweza kuanza spontaneously, kwa nini Mungu asiweze kuanza "spontaneously"?

Kwa sababu by definition ya Judeo-Christian mungu ni first mover, haanzi, akishaanza ina maana ana mwanzo, si mungu huyo, ni kiumbe tu ambaye anaweza kuwa wa order nyingine, lakini si mungu. Kwa sababu atakuwa hajaiumba hiyo spontaneity, ila hiyo spontaneity itakuwa imemuumba yeye mungu.

Huyo mungu hawezi kuwa mungu kwa sababu atakuwa si muumba wa vyote.

 

[Prof Griff]

Kwa sababu by definition ya Judeo-Christian mungu ni first mover, haanzi, akishaanza ina maana ana mwanzo, si mungu huyo, ni kiumbe tu ambaye anaweza kuwa wa order nyingine, lakini si mungu. Kwa sababu atakuwa hajaiumba hiyo spontaneity, ila hiyo spontaneity itakuwa imemuumba yeye mungu.

Huyo mungu hawezi kuwa mungu kwa sababu atakuwa si muumba wa vyote.

Kwa hiyo, tatizo ni mantiki na mafundisho ya imani za Judeo-Christian tu (kulingana na wewe) kuhusu Uwapo/Chanzo cha Mungu, na siyo uhalali wa uwezekano wa kuwapo kwa Mungu (au Miungu?)

 

[Kiranga]

Kwa hiyo, tatizo ni mantiki na mafundisho ya imani za Judeo-Christian tu (kulingana na wewe) kuhusu Uwapo/Chanzo cha Mungu, na siyo uhalali wa uwezekano wa kuwapo kwa Mungu (au Miungu?)

Nishaongelea hapo juu, specifically Judeo-Christian, but also anything supernatural.

Ukiniambia mungu wako ni "the symmetry of nature", naweza kukukubalia, ukiniambia mungu ni "the elegancy of mathematics", naweza kukukubalia. Kwa sababu unaweza ku explain uumbwaji wa universe yote kwa kutumia hizi concepts, naturally, bila kutumia anything supernatural.

Lakini unapoanza hizi habari za miujiza na mythologies, watu wanasimamisha jua, wanapasua bahari na habari nyingine kama hizo, naona uzushi tu.

 

[Prof Griff]

Nishaongelea hapo juu, specifically Judeo-Christian, but also anything supernatural.

Ukiniambia mungu ni the symmetry of nature, naweza kukukubalia, ukiniambia mungu ni the elegancy of mathematics, naweza kukukubalia. Kwa sababu unaweza ku explain uumbwaji wa universe yote kwa kutumia hizi concepts, naturally, bila kutumia anything supernatural.

Lakini unapoanza hizi habari za miujiza na mythologies, watu wanasimamisha jua, wanapasua bahari na habari nyingine kama hizo, naona uzushi tu.

Kwa hiyo, kulingana na wewe, anything that subscribes to "spontaneous" creation is natural (i.e., opposite to the supernatural) to you, and therefore legit, as long as as its not backed up by lengthy, authoritative literature(s), about certain miracles, events, beliefs, mythologies and whatnot that supposedly took place over 2000 years ago or whatever?

 

[Kiranga]

Kwa hiyo, kulingana na wewe, anything that subscribes to "spontaneous" creation is natural (i.e., opposite to the supernatural) to you, and therefore legit, as long as as its not backed up by lengthy, authoritative literature(s), about certain miracles, events, beliefs, mythologies and whatnot that supposedly took place over 2000 years ago or whatever?

Your question is either misphrased or incomplete, but I think I get the gist of it.

Kulingana na mimi, hakuna mtu anayeweza kutuonyesha (kutujuza) kwamba kuna mungu. Kama yupo, hajatuonyesha.

Hiyo habari ya spontaneity ni moja tu ya njia nyingi ambazo ulimwengu unaweza kuwa hivi ulivyo. Not the most perfect explanation, but at least not as self contradicting as the god idea. Kama nilivyoonyesha hapo juu, unless you subscribe to a created god, the very genesis of a "first mover" / "unmoved mover" godhead is self contradictory. And even a created god with supernatural powers is full of mythologies than demonstrable reality.

I mean nikiweka spontaneity na the god idea on the bullshyt scale, the god idea is so full of bullshyt (ashakum si matusi) kiasi kwamba inaifanya spontaneity ionekane waaay better, even though spontaneity is not complete itself.

Ndiyo unaletewa habari za babu wa Loliondo na dawa zake, ukiuliza dawa imepimwa? Unaambiwa we kunywa kwa imani tu.

Inawezekana pia chanzo si mungu wala spontaneity, kuna kitu kingine wote hatukijui. Ninachokataa ni hii habari ya kusema mungu kaumba kila kitu, halafu watu wakiulizwa maswali wanakataa kujibu na kukwambia haya ni mambo ya imani, amini tu, usiulize.

Kama hatujui tuseme tu hatujui, ili tuongeze kazi zaidi katika research tuzidishe kujua, au tujue kwamba kuna mpaka wa kujua wapi.

Lakini hizi habari za kutaka kusema tunajua tusiyojua kwa kutumia dini inaturudisha kwenye dark ages tu.

 

[Prof Griff]

Kulingana na mimi, hakuna mtu anayeweza kutuonyesha kwamba kuna mungu. Kama yupo, hajatuonyesha.

Hiyo habari ya spontaneity ni moja tu ya njia nyingi ambazo ulimwengu unaweza kuwa hivi ulivyo. Not the most perfect explanation, but at least not as self contradicting as the god idea.

I mean nikiweka spontaneity na the god idea on the bullshyt scale, the god idea is so full of bullshyt (ashakum si matusi) kiasi kwamba inaifanya spontaneity ionekane waaay better, even though spontaneity is not complete itself.

Inawezekana pia chanzo si mungu wala spontaneity, kuna kitu kingine wote hatukijui. Ninachokataa ni hii habari ya kusema mungu kaumba kila kitu, halafu watu wakiulizwa maswali wanakataa kujibu na kukwambia haya ni mambo ya imani, amini tu, usiulize.

Wewe sema tatizo lako ni Judeo-Christian beliefs as to the Origins of God, lakini vinginveyo, bila hata ya kwenda mbali sana, umeonyesha wazi kuwa, kimantiki, huna sababu za msingi za kupinga uwapo wa Mungu Muumba zaidi ya kubabaisha na kuzingua watu na maneno meengi, dhana za kisomi na mantiki potofu ukiegemea haswa kwenye ujuzi wako wa lugha ya Kiingereza.

 

[Kiranga]

Wewe sema tatizo lako ni Judeo-Christian beliefs as to the Origins of God, lakini vinginveyo, bila hata ya kwenda mbali sana, umeonyesha wazi kuwa, kimantiki, huna sababu za msingi za kimantiki kupinga uwapo wa Mungu Muumba zaidi ya kubabaisha na kuzingua watu na maneno meengi, dhana za kisomi na mantiki potofu ukiegemea haswa kwenye ujuzi wako wa lugha ya Kiingereza.

Nimepinga kuwepo kwa mungu yoyote yule supernatural, au for that matter, any supernatural phenomena, for years hapa.

Mtu yeyote anayefuatilia mabandiko yangu atajua hilo. Hata ukirudi nyuma kwenye thread hii nabondea a supernatural god.

Hata signature yangu inabondea supernatural beliefs, what more do you want?

Unataka kunipangia ninachoamini ni nini sasa? Nishakwambia sio tu siamini mungu, siamini miujiza yeyote.

Najua mtu akifanya kazi anaweza kufanya kile ambacho kwa ufinyu wa mawazo yetu kinaonekana kama muujiza, kama vile mtu alivyofanya kazi katika aviation na kufanya "muujiza" wa mtu kupaa angani katika ndege uwezekane.

Waafrika moja ya sababu hatuendelei ni hizi habari za kuendeleza sana imani za miujiza, dini, uchawi (all supernatural) na kutofanya scientific research vya kutosha.

 

[Ozzie]

BTW as in "by the way", this is the kind of peeps I am dealing with.

If there is one with disjointed arguments, it is you and your ilk.

The fact that there is information in DNA, does not say anything that the DNA was encoded there by god. Can you show that the information in DNA came from god?

Tumeamka hatujui tulipotoka, tunajua tulipo tu, wewe unatuambia tumetoka Kilosa, wakati kuna sehemu mamilioni tunaweza kuwa tumetoka. Na unataka tukuamini kwamba tumetoka Kilosa, nakuuliza kwa nini unafikiri tumetoka Kilosa na sio Dodoma wala Zanzibar? Huna jibu, hujatoa jibu kwa nini unafikiri information iliyopo katika DNA ni lazima imewekwa na mungu.

The more you study science, from molecular biology and genetics to cosmology, cosmogony, quantum physics etc, the more you see that the common sense view of the world (which includes a godhead) is grossly mislead.

Nikirudi kwenye swali lako, kuhusu genetic information, naweza kukwambia kwamba genetic information imetoka katika evolutionary process. Na unaweza kwenda nyuma billions of years ukaangalia the evolution of DNA na hata nyuma zaidi kwenye RNA. Na wengine wamesema hata kuhusu theories kama lightning jolting energy into the primordial soup etc. Lakini hata pale ambapo sayansi haijui, au haina uhakika, sayansi haioni aibu kusema hapa hatujui na tunatafuta majibu.

Tatizo la dini ni kwamba iko tayari kukwambia habari nyiingi kuhusu mungu alivyoumba kila kitu etc etc.

Nimekujibu swali lako, wewe unayesema information haiwezi kutokea hivi hivi bila ya kuwa na muumba, nimekuuliza huyo muumba naye, ambaye naye ni entity ya information (unaweza kumfikiria) naye ametoka wapi? Si umesema information lazima iwe na muumba?

Kama mungu ana muumba, basi si "first mover".

Kama mungu hana muumba, basi information haihitaji muumba, na kama ni kweli information haihitaji muumba, who is to say kwamba life haijaanza spontaneously?

Wanasayansi wadogo na uchwara wanajifanya wanajua kufikiria sana na kwao Mungu hayupo, lakini kwa watu kama Newton, uwepo wa Mungu ni jambo lisilopingika.

 

[Prof Griff]

Nimepinga kuwepo kwa mungu yoyote yule supernatural, au for that matter, any supernatural phenomena, for years hapa.

Mtu yeyote anayefuatilia mabandiko yangu atajua hilo. Hata ukirudi nyuma kwenye thread hii nabondea a supernatural god.

Hata signature yangu inabondea supernatural beliefs, what more do you want?

Unataka kunipangia ninachoamini ni nini sasa? Nishakwambia sio tu siamini mungu, siamini miujiza yeyote.

Najua mtu akifanya kazi anaweza kufanya kile ambacho kwa ufinyu wa mawazo yetu kinaonekana kama muujiza, kama vile mtu alivyofanya kazi katika aviation na kufanya "muujiza" wa mtu kupaa angani katika ndege uwezekane.

Waafrika moja ya sababu hatuendelei ni hizi habari za kuendeleza sana imani za miujiza, dini, uchawi (all supernatural) na kutofanya scientific research vya kutosha.

Kama ulishakubali kwamba kuna uwezekano wa kutokea "spontaneous" life through natural means, basi ukubali tu kuwa logically kutakuwa na uwezekano pia wa kutokea "spontaneous" God and Creator regardless of whatever grand, established religious belief or tradition you happen to belong to. Afterall, existence of God the Creator, is independent of, and certainly outside any set of religious beliefs, among which the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

[Kiranga]

Kama ulishakubali kwamba kuna uwezekano wa kutokea "spontaneous" life through natural means, basi ukubali tu kuwa logically kutakuwa na uwezekano pia wa kutokea "spontaneous" God and Creator regardless of whatever grand, established religious belief or tradition you happen to belong to. Afterall, existence God the Creator, is independent of, and certainly outside any set of religious beliefs, among which the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Huyo god atakayetokea katika spontaneity atakuwa "god the created" na wala si "god the creator" strictly speaking hata si god, labda demigod if you catch my drift. But that is just for the sake of argument, hakuna anayeweza kututhibitishia kwamba hata huyo demigod wa kutokea katika spontaneity kwamba yupo, ni speculations tu.

Yaani huyo "mungu" anayetokea katika spontaneity na hao ma IT expert wanaotengeneza robots wenye artificial intelligence in essence watakuwa hawajapishana, watapishana katika complexity tu. Wote watakuwa wameumbwa. Kwa kugundua hili ndiyo maana the Judeo-Christian tradition (which by the way resembles Islam so much some scholars lump Islam as an off-shoot of the Judeo-Christian worldview, on the grand scale, strictly speaking).

One defining aspect ya mungu ni finality, sasa ukishaniambia mungu kaumbwa na spontaneity mimi nakwambia huyo si mungu, ni kiumbe tu. Hata awe na nguvu gani, lakini kama kaanzia sehemu fulani maana yake kuna kitu kimemuumba.

Kwa hiyo back to square one, unaweza kuonyesha kwamba mungu supernatural yupo?

 

[Kiranga]

Wanasayansi wadogo na uchwara wanajifanya wanajua kufikiria sana na kwao Mungu hayupo, lakini kwa watu kama Newton, uwepo wa Mungu ni jambo lisilopingika.

Newton ? Isaac Newton aliyeamini katika alchemy au Newton gani?

Kwa hiyo kwa sababu Newton kaamini kitu basi ni lazima kiwe kweli? Wewe unaamini alchemy pia?

 

[Prof Griff]

Huyo god atakayetokea katika spontaneity atakuwa "god the created" na wala si "god the creator" strictly speaking hata si god, labda demigod if you catch my drift. But that is just for the sake of argument, hakuna anayeweza kututhibitishia kwamba hata huyo demigod wa kutokea katika spontaneity kwamba yupo, ni speculations tu.

Yaani huyo "mungu" anayetokea katika spontaneity na hao ma IT expert wanaotengeneza robots wenye artificial intelligence in essence watakuwa hawajapishana, watapishana katika complexity tu. Wote watakuwa wameumbwa. Kwa kugundua hili ndiyo maana the Judeo-Christian tradition (which by the way resembles Islam so much some scholars lump Islam as an off-shoot of the Judeo-Christian worldview, on the grand scale, strictly speaking).

One defining aspect ya mungu ni finality, sasa ukishaniambia mungu kaumbwa na spontaneity mimi nakwambia huyo si mungu, ni kiumbe tu. Hata awe na nguvu gani, lakini kama kaanzia sehemu fulani maana yake kuna kitu kimemuumba.

Kwa hiyo back to square one, unaweza kuonyesha kwamba mungu supernatural yupo?

Kama umekubali kuwa unaweza kupata something from nothing in the natural, physical order of things (which is a totally absurd statement for anyone to come up with anyway), basi hata hiyo dhana ya "spontaneity" ina weza kuji-umba yenyewe from nowhere, achilia mbali Mungu ambaye atakuja baada ya "spontaneity" kuwa a fact of life (at least for argument's sake).

Si hivyo tu, bali ukweli ni kwamba utakuwa huna hata vigezo vya kusema kwamba "huyo si mungu, ni kiumbe tu. Hata awe na nguvu gani, lakini kama kaanzia sehemu fulani maana yake kuna kitu kimemuumba."

 

[Kiranga]

Kama umekubali kuwa unaweza kupata something from nothing in

Hujaelewa kabisa nilivyosema, nimesema inawezekana kupata something from spontaneity, sijasema unaweza kupata something from nothing. Big difference. Attention to details is required in these matters.

the natural, physical order of the natural world

Redundant

(which is a totally absurd statement for anyone to come up with anyway),

You introduced the absurdity by calling my spontaneity "nothing", my original assertion is not absurd at all.

basi hata hiyo dhana ya "spontaneity" ina weza kuji-umba yenyewe from nowhere, achilia mbali Mungu ambaye atakuja baada ya "spontaneity" kuwa reality of life.

Tuonyeshe kivipi basi

Si hivyo tu, bali ukweli ni kwmba utakuwa huna hata vigezo vya kusema kwamba "huyo si mungu, ni kiumbe tu. Hata awe na nguvu gani, lakini kama kaanzia sehemu fulani maana yake kuna kitu kimemuumba."

Sasa tofauti yake huyu na engineer wa magari wa Kijapani (ukiondoa degree ya complexity) ni nini ? Wote wameumbwa na process fulani, ukishaumbwa na process fulani wewe si mungu, wewe ni kiumbe. Hiyo ndiyo tofauti moja kati ya mungu na kiumbe, mungu anatakiwa kuwa kaumba kila kitu, ukishakuwa umeumbika kwa process fulani tu, unakuwa si mungu, bali kiumbe.

Definition ya kiumbe ni kile kilichoumbika, sasa huyu "mungu" atakayetokea katika spontaneity atakuwa si mungu bali kiumbe, kwa sababu kaumbika kwa process fulani.

Unaweza kutuonyesha kwamba mungu huyu supernatural, first mover, yupo ?

 

[Susuviri]

Mkuu Kiranga, heshima zote! Tokea ishu hii ya Loliondo ilivyoanza nimekaa kimya kwani nimesiktika kukosekana kwa diverse voices ambazo zinaweza kuhoji na kudadisi kwa angle tofauti, hivyo hata thread hii sikufungua mpk leo.
Ingawa mimi ni muumini hata hivyo naamini ktk usawa wa mawazo. Na pia naamini kuwa Mungu ametuumba na utashi ili tuweze kuhoji na si kukaa na kupokea bila kuhoji.
Arguments zako (atheism) si geni kwangu ila hearng it from a fellow citizen is a breath of fresh air. Asante kwa kuleta mchango wako.
Kuna sentensi moja imenigusa sana;
"Waafrika moja ya sababu hatuendelei ni hizi habari za kuendeleza sana imani za miujiza, dini, uchawi (all supernatural) na kutofanya scientific research vya kutosha."
Hii ina ukweli na ndo maana tutaendelea ku-import teknolojia!
I will continue to read your eloquent arguments which will definitely stimulate our minds!

 

[MIGNON]

Kuna mambo mawili makubwa ambayo yamejadiliwa sana hapa.Moja ni placebo effect na pili ni psychological cure.
Katika matibabu ya Babu hakuna rituals zinazofanyika ila ni kunywa maji yaliyotokana na mmea.
Kama tunavyofahamu dawa nyingi zimetokana na mimea,cinchona kwa quinine na hata artemisia annua kwa dawa hizi mpya za malaria.
Kwakuwa kuna mti unaochemshwa suala la placebo halipo.Kuhusu suala la psychological effect linaweza likawa na mshiko kwa watu wazima zaidi lakini vipi kwa watoto ambao wameonekana kupata nafuu??
Binafsi naamini inaweza ikawa na efficacy fulani ingawa ni mapema ila napingana kuwa inatibu magonjwa mengi.Kwa nilowahoji watu wa pressure na sukari wanapata nafuu ila pumu hakuna nafuu.

 

[Kiranga]

Mkuu Kiranga, heshima zote! Tokea ishu hii ya Loliondo ilivyoanza nimekaa kimya kwani nimesiktika kukosekana kwa diverse voices ambazo zinaweza kuhoji na kudadisi kwa angle tofauti, hivyo hata thread hii sikufungua mpk leo.
Ingawa mimi ni muumini hata hivyo naamini ktk usawa wa mawazo. Na pia naamini kuwa Mungu ametuumba na utashi ili tuweze kuhoji na si kukaa na kupokea bila kuhoji.
Arguments zako (atheism) si geni kwangu ila hearng it from a fellow citizen is a breath of fresh air. Asante kwa kuleta mchango wako.
Kuna sentensi moja imenigusa sana;
"Waafrika moja ya sababu hatuendelei ni hizi habari za kuendeleza sana imani za miujiza, dini, uchawi (all supernatural) na kutofanya scientific research vya kutosha."
Hii ina ukweli na ndo maana tutaendelea ku-import teknolojia!
I will continue to read your eloquent arguments which will definitely stimulate our minds!

Mkuu Susuviri it is refreshing to see a believer who is openminded enough to go through the rigors of my arguments without letting his belief cloud judgment. As it has been said before, a hallmark of intelligence is to be able to entertain a totally different worldview for it's merit, without necessarily having to give up yours.

That inquiry is what we can do more with. I need everybody (including myself) to undress this cloth of prejudices and adopt a fresh eye towards this.

Leo nikisema kichwa changu hakina opinion yoyote kuhusu mungu kwa sababu 1. Nikisema hakuna mungu outright nitakuwa nina assume kitu nisichokijua na nitakuwa nakosea kama yule anayesema "mungu yupo" bila kutuonyesha mungu yuko kwa msingi gani.

Nikaja na widely accepted method of inquiry, kwamba mzigo wa kuprove mungu kamwe haupo kwa yule anayesema hajui kama mungu yupo, kwa sababu hana ushahidi usiopingika kuonyesha hivyo, nikasema wanaosema kwamba mungu yupo wanionyeshe kwamba yupo kwa ushahidi usiopingika (and don't tell me about the so called creation either, we have discussed evolution as a creative process above so merely seeing natural patterns is no proof) nitaweza kuonyeshwa?

Sasa kuna mtu anaweza kutuambia mungu tunaweza kuonyesha ushahidi gani kwamba yupo?

Nafurahi ninavyosoma kwamba ushaona hizi arguments, kimsingi kina Erasthothenes, Anaximander, Socrates, Anselm, St. Augustine, Bertrand Russell na wengine chungu mzima washajadili haya mambo kwa mapana na marefu. Kwa hiyo hakuna jipya sana hapa.

Cha kushangaza ni kwamba sioni majibu ya upande wa waamini yanayokwenda katika level hiyo ya diction, labda uje kuokoa jahazi.

The only way out for believers is to say "god works in mysterious ways" na "mambo ya dini ni imani na hayawezi kupimika wala kuwekewa proofs". Which is really not a way out, but just the proverbial "burying of heads in the sand" na kusema "sitaki kuumiza kichwa sana, mie wazee wangu wakristo/ waislamu na wanaamini mungu, na mie naamini hivyo hivyo"

Watu wote wangekuwa hivyo basi tungekuwa katika mapango bado tunafanya hunting and gathering.