nedjelja, 28.04.2024.
Mars u troquratz, pa da Zagreb oslobađaš
...i jos jednom marš u 3 p****e mtrne!
subota, 27.04.2024.
Kada se pomijesaju ribokice i opanci...
?!?!?!?
...ok. Then, please, Dr. Lennox, please, do not ever - EVER!- again put "Einstein" in the context of religious beleif which you have done quite often in many of your apologetic observations
Einstein:
"The idea of personal God is quite alien to me and seens even naive"
Amen
Zasto religiozni ljudi uporno pokusavaju pomiriti znanost i religiju?!
...inace briljatni John Lennox...
Firstly, author, please, either change the title of your channel or start working on videos that do have something to do with wisdom that is not coming from Christian faith.
You are a religious person, and what you are trying to do through these videos is one of the classical alogism that any theist, like yourself, does: if you want to be wise or wiser you need to be religious. What would be the other purpose of all those videos?
And btw, are Muslims, Hindus, Budhista "unwise"?
Also I'd say that your explanation at the end of the video about the purpose of the video is in quite a mismatch with those capital letters: "EXPOSE". The reason for emphasizing it is clear to anybody who has ever talked to a religious person: you are tying, and you are trying hard.
Moving forward.
God scientifically explained? In the Bible? I find it wrong on many levels.
Firstly, if you believe in god, then you, as a religious person, NEED to believe in every single word that is written in the Bible. This is where I believe prof. J. Lennox has failed since he believes in biological evolution. Because of which he has been criticised by renowned theologists and his fellow Christian apologists.
In order to harmonize biblical faith with what he deems as true science, he needs to use what seems to be the only argument against those whose religious belief is in full compliance with a fundamental pillar of Christian faith indeed: creationism. Hence, he just diminishes their credibility by an easy argument: they read the Bible "literalistically”.
So, Genesis account of six literal days of creation is now what exactly? If taking these 6 six days is to "literally" what is then the main point in the Bible, resurrection of Jesus? Is that when you are supposed to read the Bible "not literally"?
Or turning water into wine? Or curing leprosy? Or getting pregnant by a ray of light?
Back to what I see as an inconsistency of prof. J. Lennox in his argumentation against creationism in the Bible. He would need to work on HIS "categorization" as he looks to as the one who is producing "gaps", and these are in his own Christian faith, and also he is seeing gaps in the faith of his fellow theists.
Secondly, he likes to refer to Hume when he finds it suitable, and puts a general causal principle in place when he asks a question in his criticising Hawking's "Grand Design": who created the Universe? The logical counter question is "who created Creator?" As Dawkins did try to put it through J. Lennox. But he applied his famous rhetorical escapade: god is eternal as the Bible claims. And more or less that is all there is to be provided as an argument.
And that "logic" has been presented here as a game, set and match point. That doesn't look to me as an "exposure"... How this essential property of god is supposed to convince "us" to accept the existence of god, J. Lennox didn't answer here nor has he ever answered it at any of those panels.
If you, the author, sees that he did, please, do share where in this video of yours did it happen exactly.
For the end, the analogy with the cup of tea is an old story, and again a logical fallacy quite often used by many Christian apologists. Basically a wrong tool used to point out the causality issue used here as a superficial etiquette against those who think differently.
J. Lennox WANTS a creator to be out there because of his love for him that has been in his heart since he had become a reasonable person.
And for the same reason J. Lennox wants the water to boil: he wants a cup of tea, because he LOVES tea. How this analogy has brought Eric and John to the conclusion that scientific and god explanations are both correct, remains a mystery to me...
There is no choice between religion and science. That is just preposterous, that I would like to bring both Eric and John to my neighbour who has never heard about Newtonian mechanics and still he doesn't believe in god.
And please, don't bring fear here. As fear is the main driver of any faith. "We" on the other hand don't need religion in order to be good and honest human beings. Religios people do. Because they are afraid.
Back to what I said at the beginning:
Do you, the author, believe in all those biblical miracles? Of course you do. Because there is your god in all these. That is the essence of Christian faith. And the reason for it.
Now if "we" would like you to explain these in simple words, that J. Lennox is trying to use on "us", what would be your explanation of how it was possible for all these to happen?
Obviously, here "we" don't need the henry ford analogy or the architect, gardener, author, composer ones anymore. There we have a god himself in action. Any "categorization argument" breaks down now: "we" cannot make that mistake anymore, the same that Dawkins has made, as per J. Lennox. As we simply don't need it. "We" have been convinced for 2000 y. that these ARE proof of god. No analogy fits in anymore.
Hence now I'd kindly ask you, the author of the video, if you are so confident in the power of this particular daily dose of wisdom, do tell me how can you prove "us" now and here that these biblical miracles are acts of god.
I think that you cannot. And using your rhetoric, I would call this is an exposure of the inability of religion to cope with the reason.
Zeru o liku koji je mogao biti nas Neil deGasse Tyson...
1.
...steta 1...
Voditelju podcast Lood koji je bio ugostio KMa
... prije 20 g. sam bio odustao id NRZ i KMa, jer sam nakon 5,6 emisija, tada samo 1x mjesecno, skuzio da je KM zaista plitak i povrsan u materiji o kojoj je bio govorio, no najvise me bila zacudila pseudoznanstvena banalnost kojom je prolazio temama, te lakomost kojom je bio diskvalificirao eksperimentima i observacijama dokazane znanstvene teorije. U skladu s tim bio je i izbor gostiju...
Voditelj,
Mogao si pokazati mrvu hrabrosti, pa i "subverzivnosti" (osim ako nisi u potpunosti KMov istomisljenik, stoga oprosti na krivoj premisi) kojom se i tvoj gost dici vec 20+ godina i npr. ga podsjetiti na ovo:
https://faktograf.hr/2019/10/04/notorne-gluposti-kresimir-misak/
...ili pak na"izdaju" njegovog najveceg "saveznika" glede glob. zatopljavanja:
https://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=773723
Vjerujem da bi promptan odgovor KMa bio: "mi alternativci vs. njih mainstreama" ( pa makar to bio bivsi istomisljenik V. Paar) , jer drugog odgovora ne bi niti bilo unatoc KMovoj zadivljujucoj elokvenciji i brojnosti referenci kojima barata.
KM je u biti jedna tuzno-smijesna prica o covjeku koji je pozelio biti referenca, a zavrsio je kao objekt sprdnje ljudi koji su za razligu od njega cijeli svoj prof. zivot proveli baveci se temana koje je KM tek povrsinski bio zagrebao. Nije ih zelio shvatiti, a niti mozda "bolje upoznati protivnika kako bi ga lakse porazio". Jer je KM sasvim dovoljno inteligentan da zna da bi u npr. javnom suceljavanju sa bilo koji "mainstream" autoritetom lose prosao, pa zato pazljivo NE BIRA bitke koje zna da ne moze dobiti.
Osim da gostuje u podcastu sa cijim voditeljem ovako rezonira, kao i sa publikom.
2.
... steta 1...
Lik koji se u dvije recenice moze posrati na kompletan opus jednoga Heisenberga, Plancka, Schrodingera, Einsteina, Hawkinga... A koji su svoje zivote posvetili da kroz EKSPERIMENTE, OBSERVACIJE, koristenjem PRIRORDNIH ZAKONA, i pukim znanstvenim skepticizmom, objasne kako ovaj svijet i svemir, vidljiv i nevidljiv, funkcionira.
Ali, avaj, kaj vrijedi sav taj znanstveno-lazljivi mainstream kad mi zapravo - ne postojimo.
Decko je nacitan knjigama koje cita 2% populacije, elokventan i sarmantan, no i preko nekoliko puta se bavio stvarima o kojima zna malo ili ne zna nista. Zbog toga je i precesto bio prokazivan kao najobicniji sarlatan od strane onih sa kojima se NIKAD nije usudio upustiti u razmjenu argumenata
Jer i predobro zna NE BIRATI bitke koje ZNA DA NE MOZE DOBITI!
Jer bi ga na prim faktore rastavio svaki inzenjer sa PMFa ili diplomant astrofizike ili filozofije.
Zato i adresira OVAKVU publiku. Kojoj, narodski receno, uz minimalan mentalni napor se moze prodati magla koje se niti kreten od Ickea ne bi posramio.
Hrvatska 21og stoljeca. 
