back to writing diaries i guess. can't keep having those agnostic posts. kinda like out of place and time i suppose. life so far?
weeks, if not months ago, applied for medicine in jpa. meaning i had to do my attachment for 5 days in the hospital. the fact that medicine wasn't a very popular choice among my friends meant that it was kinda lonely. and the fact that i got into the same group with kedah's best student still makes me wonder why didnt i use the electrical saw and hid the body in the morgue when i had the chance. then came the jpa interview. didnt get grouped together with the same person again, but i doubt it was any better than the attachment. had to wait like 2 or 3 hours for a bloody 45 minutes session and i don't think the interview went that bad. let's ignore the fact that one person from my group got the bank negara scholarship to do medicine in uk and i didn't take the chance to blast him to pieces. did feel rather useless as a debater for missing that window to outspeak him and tear him apart.
and now, i got offered to go to penang matriculation. i did get the one year course, meaning it's shorter than form 6. so most likely i'll go and follow my bro's footsteps to do medicine. only two problems, the first is the same one for the attachment and the interview.....i've got no one there...except for a few classmates or schoolmates. the other is that i have to bring along my songkok and baju melayu......you know what that means. and if i change my mind in the last minute, blame the baju melayu especially. if not matriculation, then form 6. hey, jpa would do too. just as long as i dont get sent to indonesia or middle east countries, don't think i'll complain.
and debate? it has started, with the competition date clashing with the matriculation registration date and the result of the jpa scholarship. big day huh? 11th may.......monday. always hated mondays.
on words
perhaps the whole evolutionist and creationist conflict is nothing but a big conundrum, caused by merely a play of words perhaps, which keeps going down the spiral of confusion. my argument is simple. a creationist can claim that he believes that god exists, and that is safe by all means. problem arises when creationist claims that he knows that god exists.
play it in a different scenario. someone is buying a lottery. he does so because he believes that he can win, not because he knows he can. there's absolutely no way, if played fairly, a man can know the outcome of the lottery draw. what he knows, is the probability of winning, which leads to his belief, even perhaps, certainty in his ability to win. but above all that, he does not know whether he can win or not. that is an unquestionable statement.
evolutionists, perhaps agnostics and atheists alike, don't give a damn when a theist claims that he believes in god. if that is his belief, then it should be respected, tolerated the very least. but of course, there are those that claims that they know god exists. without any scientific evidence at hand, a scientific claim is made. any scientist, who's dedicated their lives in pursue of knowledge and discoveries, would object this subversion against science as a body of knowledge.
so perhaps creationists might just want to stick with "believing", leave the "knowing" to evolutionists, because they're the one with science and not just faith.
play it in a different scenario. someone is buying a lottery. he does so because he believes that he can win, not because he knows he can. there's absolutely no way, if played fairly, a man can know the outcome of the lottery draw. what he knows, is the probability of winning, which leads to his belief, even perhaps, certainty in his ability to win. but above all that, he does not know whether he can win or not. that is an unquestionable statement.
evolutionists, perhaps agnostics and atheists alike, don't give a damn when a theist claims that he believes in god. if that is his belief, then it should be respected, tolerated the very least. but of course, there are those that claims that they know god exists. without any scientific evidence at hand, a scientific claim is made. any scientist, who's dedicated their lives in pursue of knowledge and discoveries, would object this subversion against science as a body of knowledge.
so perhaps creationists might just want to stick with "believing", leave the "knowing" to evolutionists, because they're the one with science and not just faith.
reminder : don't do this in matriculation
how does one tell fiction from reality? no, seriously.....what's the difference?
how do you know that superman doesn't exist? how impossible is it for a human-like alien which can fly in red underwear, to exist?
what about santa? why don't you believe in a fat guy wearing a red suit flying in a sleigh pulled by deers, round the world in a matter of hours just to give kids some toys.
moving on, the monster under you bed, or in your closet. why do they exist only in your childhood?
if any of these can't exist...........why can god?
how do you know that superman doesn't exist? how impossible is it for a human-like alien which can fly in red underwear, to exist?
what about santa? why don't you believe in a fat guy wearing a red suit flying in a sleigh pulled by deers, round the world in a matter of hours just to give kids some toys.
moving on, the monster under you bed, or in your closet. why do they exist only in your childhood?
if any of these can't exist...........why can god?
random
i ought to be cursing my phone right now. first, it doesnt have a dictionary function. second, it's got unbelievably small inbox and sentbox. *bangs head on keyboard. now i need a time machine...though amnesia would do too. clearing my phone memory card, its full. thought these two looked kinda cool, so there.........an update
numb
if hoping isn't the same as believing, i hope the big guy exists and do something about yesterday. damnit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)