Babu wa Loliondo "avuliwa nguo"

[Kiranga]

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.

Tatizo babu anaintroduce some supernatural elements katika dawa yake. Mimi sina tatizo na herbalism, nishasema hapo juu, kwani herbalism ina a scientific base, unakunywa maji ya mmea, mmea una kemikali zina react na mwili wako, zinaua vidudu, unapona. Hili sina tatizo nalo.

Tatizo la babu anataka ku present tiba na uponyaji wake kama muujiza wa mungu, watu hatuamini hata kama mungu yupo na ukishaanza kuongea habari za mungu na imani tunaona hata watakaopona watapona kwa placebo effect tu, na huwezi kuponya chronic diseases apart from the statistical fluke ya kupata afadhali na badala ya kufa miezi mitatu mtu anakaa mzima miaka mitatu.

 

[Hukumuzuku]

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.

Mind explaining just how "spontaneity" comes about in the natural, physical world?

Redundant

Please refer to corrections made prior to your reply.

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

Which is??

Tuonyeshe kivipi basi

Kwa vile wewe ndiyo uliye leta dhana ya "spontaneity", si vibaya labda ungetupatia mifano ya jinsi "life" ilivyoanza "spontaneously"?

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

Everything is relative isn't it? Kwa maana hiyo, hiyo defintion yako could hardly apply/make sense in other religious/faith belief systems other than the Judeo-Christian tradition ambayo ndiyo umeshupalia.

Unaweza kutuonyesha kwamba mungu huyu supernatural, first mover, yupo

Hiyo pia ni relative, kwa maana kwamba, siyo lazima uchambue kila kitu kutiokana na imani za Judeo-Christians. Kuna maelfu ya aina tofauti za dini na imani duniani, kwa nini ung'ang'anie tu Judeo-Christian based religious beliefs and traditions?

 

[Kiranga]

Mind explaining just how "spontaneity" comes about in the natural, physical world?

I can tell you.

Spontaneity is not something I claim to know to be responsible for creation, it is just an alternate and more plausible theory than god. Therefore I am not obliged to explain something that I did not claim to know to be there. You and your fellow believers who know (or is it believe? Do you know or do you believe that god is there?) that god is there, have the burden of proof.

Please refer to corrections made prior to your reply.
Which is??

This part is incogruent to me.

Kwa vile wewe ndiyo uliye leta dhana ya "spontaneity", si vibaya labda ungetupatia mifano ya jinsi "life" ilivyoanza "spontaneously"?

Nimesema hapo mwanzo kwamba hakuna anayejua exactly life imeanza vipi, lakini explanation ya kwamba life imeanza baada ya carbon na elements nyingine kuchanganyika katika a primordial soup na kupata energy kama ya lightning kupata energy level ya kuanzisha simple crystals zilizo ji duplicate na kupata complexity kwa evolution/ survival of the fittest/ natural selection. This makes more sense. In this context, aAny system that moves from the less complex to the more complex makes more sense to me than a system that moves from the more complex to the less complex (as in a more complex god creating a less complex creation). The arrow of entropy supports a system getting more complex as opposed to getting less complex.

Everything is relative isn't it?

How do you know that?

Kwa maana hiyo, hiyo defintion yako could hardly apply/make sense in other religious/faith belief systems other than the Judeo-Christian tradition ambayo ndiyo umeshupalia.

Unauliza swali "everything is relative" halafu kabla hata hujajibiwa umesha assume kwamba nitakubali na ku form wrong conclusion from wrong assumption. Ndiyo maana arguments zako hazisimami, una pre conceived destination unayotaka, hata hunipi muda wa kujibu swali ushanijibia na kunipa critique jibu ambalo umenipa wewe huku ukiwa na uhakika kabisa kwamba nitasema "ndiyo" kwa swali lako la "everything is relative"

Kumbe jibu langu ni "hapana", not everything is relative. Hata huyo baba wa relativity Einstein alikasirika sana watu walivyojustify mambo yao ya ajabu kwa kisingizio cha "everything is relative". Hata Albert Einstein mwenyewe hakuamini kwamba "everything is relative". Kamsome zaidi historia yake uelewe.

Hiyo pia ni relative, kwa maana kwamba, siyo lazima uchambue kila kitu kutiokana na imani za Judeo-Christians. Kuna maelfu ya aina tofauti za dini na imani duniani, kwa nini ung'ang'anie tu Judeo-Christian based religious beliefs and traditions?

Nimeshachambua hapo juu. Unafahamu nini maana ya supernatural? Umeshasoma Dhammapada? Bhagavad Gita? The Vedas? Unajua kama hizi si traditions za Judeo-Christian hata kidogo? Unajua kwamba na wao wanaamini in the supernatural god/ gods ?

Ukisema supernatural beliefs zinaishia katika Judeo-Christian traditions tu unanionyesha kwamba huu mjadala uko one sided, in other words hatuwezi kuelewana kwa sababu inabidi kwanza kujifunza the basics kabla ya kujitia kujadili the phiolosophy of religion.

 

[Chapakazi]

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" ?



Watu wa dunia ya sayansi wanataka kujua, hawataki kuamini.



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.

Kwa hiyo sayansi haina jibu. Asante kwa hilo!
Tofauti ya kutaka kujua na kutaka kuamini ni nini? Wewe unafanya imani kuwa ni kitu kisicho na thamani yeyote! vitu vingapi wewe unaambiwa kwenye sayansi na unaamini? Unaweza ku-prove vingapi wewe binafsi? hata 1 + 1 = 2 unaweza kui-prove? Au do you take it as a given? the distance to the moon? have u been there au do you take it as a given? sasa imani yako kwenye hivi vitu ina tofauti gani na imani yangu kwa Mungu?
bearing in mind kuwa wewe ulisema imani = lack of knowledge! which is absolutely absurd!!

 

[Kiranga]

Kwa hiyo sayansi haina jibu. Asante kwa hilo!

Sayansi haina majibu yote, na ingawa ina majibu mengi ya kweli kuliko dini, ina staha na humility za kutosha kukubali pale inapokuwa haina majibu.

Dini haina majibu mengi ya kweli kuliko sayansi (ukiondoa kwa maswali ya saikolojia na placebo effect) lakini inakuwa na arrogance ya kudai ina majibu ya maswali yote.

Sayansi ni kama mtu mwenye akili na maarifa sana, lakini ukimuuliza anajionaje kuhusu ujuzi wake anakwambia hafikiri kwamba anajua mengi sana (Unavyozidi kujua ndivyo unavyozidi kujua kwamba hujui mengi). Ndiyo maana hata huyo Newton alivyoulizwa unajionaje watu wanavyokusema kwamba wewe ni mwanasayansi maarufu umegundua vitu vingi? Akajibu mimi najiona kama mtoto aliyesimama ufukweni, huku kashika kijiwe kimoja wakati bahari nzima ya ukweli iko mbele yangu, sijaifahamu. Huyo ni mtu mjuzi, kwa ujuzi wake kajua kwamba kuna ukweli mkubwa sana hajaujua bado. Hii ndiyo attitude ya sayansi.

Upande mwingine tuna dini. Dini haina majibu mengi kama sayansi, certainly haina majibu ya kila kitu kwa hiyo haiwezi kujisema kama ni bora kuliko sayansi kwa kuwa ina majibu ya kila kitu. Ukiuliza katika dini mungu katoka wapi, au kaanzaje, hupati jibu. Kwa hiyo tusitake kusema dini ina majibu ya kila swali. Halafu hata hayo maswali ambayo inajaribu kuyajibu inayajibu ki authoritarian. Kwa kifupi dini inaendekeza udikteta, ukishaambiwa mungu ndiye mkuu huna haki ya kuhoji, ukihoji unaambiwa unakufuru. Ukitaka proof unaambiwa haya ni mambo ya imani.

Imani, na hapo ndipo ninakuja kwenye swali lako la imani na ujuzi. Imani inakuja tu pale ambapo hakuna ujuzi. Nikisema naamini Chapakazi yuko kwake, ina maana sina uhakika. Nikienda nyumbani kwake na kumuona Chapakazi kakaa kwenye kochi anakunywa chai siwezi kusema naamini Chapakazi yupo nyumbani kwake, maana namuona, najua, siamini tu, nina zaidi ya imani, nina ujuzi.

Sasa sayansi haitaki kuamini, sayansi inataka kujua. Ndiyo maana watu wanafanya experiments ku verify vitu. Ndiyo maana mwanasayansi wa kweli hawezi kuamini mungu, kwa sababu sayansi kwanza haiendani na imani, inaendana na ujuzi. Kwa hiyo mwanasayansi wa kweli atataka kujua kama kuna mungu au hakuna, siyo kuamini. Na kujua inabidi watu wafanye verifiable and peer reviewed experiments, bila verifiable and peer reviewed experiments hujafanya sayansi bado. Na kwa sababu mungu hawezi kuwa verified experimentally, mungu hayupo kwa mujibu wa wanasayansi. Mungu anakuwa ni myth tu sawa na popobawa, The Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus etc.

Imani ni lack of knowledge, hata biblia imesema The Biblical Definition Of Faith "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV)"

Did you get that? Things hoped for... kwa hiyo unaweza kukaa hapa na kutumai kwamba utashinda bahati nasibu ya mabilioni, tayari una imani, lakini hiyo haimaanishi kwamba imani yako ni kweli, hujui kwamba utashinda lotto, unaamini tu.

It is absurd that this supposedly book of god is bullshytting people that faith is "the evidence of things not seen", how can you have evidence of things not seen? That to me is wishful thinking, because for one to have evidence you need to see things. I mean even the unseen things (like atoms) can be demonstrated experimentally that they are there, now once you demonstrate the presence of atoms by their effect, you no longer have faith, you have knowledge. Once you have evidence you cannot have faith, you have knowledge, and before you have evidence you cannot have knowledge, you have faith. So this business of "evidence of things not seen" is total bs to me, designed to fool some medieval people but it is not going to work on a modern mind that could deconstruct the inconsistence of a sentence in a logical truth table.

Tofauti ya kutaka kujua na kutaka kuamini ni nini?

Nimeongelea hapo juu kuhusu tofauti ya knowledge na faith.

Wewe unafanya imani kuwa ni kitu kisicho na thamani yeyote! vitu vingapi wewe unaambiwa kwenye sayansi na unaamini?

Nimesema hapo juu sayansi imejengwa katika ujuzi, na si imani.

Unaweza ku-prove vingapi wewe binafsi?

Vingi sana, wewe unakusudia kipi specifically ?

hata 1 + 1 = 2 unaweza kui-prove?

Number theory took care of this ages ago, and in base ten 1 + 1 = 2. Sasa ukianza kubishana kuhusu 1 + 1 = 2 ntakuona umeishiwa, kwani unaelekea kubisha hata uwepo wako sasa, tunaweza kubishia kila kitu. Hata wewe uwepo wako unaweza kubishiwa. Unajuaje kama wewe si wazo tu kichwani mwa computer fulani? Au kwenu nyie mnaoamini kwamba mungu yupo, unajuaje kwamba wewe si wazo tu katika kichwa cha mungu?

Au do you take it as a given?

I don't

the distance to the moon?

The notion of "the distance to the moon" is a fallacy. There is no such thing as "the distance to the moon". You need to define your question much finer for it to make sense.

have u been there au do you take it as a given?

Because of my above response, this question is now rendered irrelevant.

sasa imani yako kwenye hivi vitu ina tofauti gani na imani yangu kwa Mungu?

Mara nyingine mna assume nina imani wakati hata maswali yenu sijawajibu, unauliza swali, hujapewa jibu, usha assume jibu langu litakuwa hivi, ushaform critique kwenye jibu ambalo hata si langu. Kwenye chess wewe unapigwa checkmate kirahisi sanaa tu.

Ukiuliza swali angalau ngoja nijibu kabla ya kurukia jibu ambalo unafikiri litakuwa langu.

bearing in mind kuwa wewe ulisema imani = lack of knowledge! which is absolutely absurd!!

Imani ni lack of knowledge, you can't believe and know the same thing at the same time, if you know you have surpassed belief and saying you believe is absurd, if you believe you can't possibly know because believing carries within itself the condition of not knowing.

So do you know that there is a god, or do you believe that there is a god ?

 

[dazbaba]

Kuhusu Babu formula ni rahisi na ilikuwa bayana toka awali kwamba hiyo dawa inaenda na Imani ya mtu. Babu alisema hivi, nyie mnaokunywa hii dawa mnapaswa kuamiini na pia kutokurudia mambo yaliyowafanya muugue. simple. kama ulienda na ngoma, ukapewa kikombe ili upone ilipaswa uamini katika hiyo nguvu ya dawa, lakini suala la pili, ukishwakunywa hicho kikombe na kupona hukutakiwa urudi kwenye uzinzi na uasherati. Haya yalikuwa clear tokwa mwanzo. Mtu kanywa kikombe cha Babu, kapona kisukari, kesho anaanza ulevi..... haya yako wazi, tatizo wabongo wanataka wakishapona ngoma, kisukari kwa kikombe ambacho kianendana na Imani ya Kimungu, wanataka warejee kwa nguvu katika uzinzi na ulevi. Kwa hiyo kama ukiamini na kuacha njia za uovu ungepona. Nyie mnataka mponeshwe na Mungu halafu mrudi kumtumikia shetani, lazima mkutane na balaa lake. Mungu siyo mwanadamu, hii sayansi ambayo tunaona inatatua matatizo mbalimbali bado ni utukufu wa Mungu tu, tusijifanye wenye hekima saana, kumbe hekima zetu mbele ya Mungu ni upumbavu tu!!

 

[124 Ali]

Kwa hiyo sayansi haina jibu. Asante kwa hilo!<br />
Tofauti ya kutaka kujua na kutaka kuamini ni nini? Wewe unafanya imani kuwa ni kitu kisicho na thamani yeyote! vitu vingapi wewe unaambiwa kwenye sayansi na unaamini? Unaweza ku-prove vingapi wewe binafsi? hata 1 + 1 = 2 unaweza kui-prove? Au do you take it as a given? the distance to the moon? have u been there au do you take it as a given? sasa imani yako kwenye hivi vitu ina tofauti gani na imani yangu kwa Mungu?<br />
bearing in mind kuwa wewe ulisema imani = lack of knowledge! which is absolutely absurd!!

<br />
<br />
Well said!

 

[Android]

ujasiriliamali wa babu umemlipa sana.