Atheists and theist

[Monseratto]

Ilan religious threads na closed ng mga mods dahil sa paikot-ikot na argument... Mods please do thy bidding. No popcorn this time.

[minicarph]

the WEAKEST argument in town but some do think it's valid reasoning LOL

the quickest way to kill this argument is to ask which god/s. there are thousands. if you could believe & worship all of them then yes pascal's wager might make sense for you. but i bet you believe in just one god, so what if you picked the wrong god

simple lang naman yan eh pag napunta ka sa Japan don't bother with the so many shrines and temples na kasama sa itinerary nyo sa tour say for example sa Fushima Inary, wag na intindihen kung ano story dun kasi unang-una hindi ka naman Buddhist! so why bother

tapos pag say may nagsabi sayo, na mali ang feng shui ng bahay mo, wag mo intindihin kasi hindi ka naman Chinese astrologer

so andali pumili ng Diyos diba,

[n_spinner06]

Fair enough. It took a long time IF it did happen. And yes, proteins snapping into each other like lego, yes it happens. But an organic membrane suddenly coming into life...that's not 10 billion years. That's a singular moment when something not live became alive. Also i think you are confusing this with evolution. Evolution can explain changes through time...it cannot explain origins.

And why the double standard? Science like the rest is an 'incomplete' explanation. Who knows when it can be completed...if it at all when you have scientists who can't agree up until now if one egg a day is better for you than 1 egg a week. Whose science is correct then? If you are to teach logic and reasoning and math and sciences and the arts and literature...why not theology?

The inquisition...the spanish colonization. Come on. That's not theists forcing their beliefs. That's a few people who used religion as a tool for power and control.

Oxygen starvation leading to erratic neural activity.

Anyone with sleep apnea can tell you how vivid and real your dreams become when you can't breathe in your sleep.



No they don't "suddenly burst into life". It took a very long time for organisms to develop. We have proof that organic molecules and organic precursors can form and have formed off of Earth. We also understand how these molecules can and do assemble into coherent membranes.

Basically, organic molecules are like LEGO blocks which can "snap" together in certain orientations. Think of magnetic building blocks. Mix them together in an organic soup for billions of years and there's bound to be some sort of organization. Any form of organization that perseveres and then replicates will spread, eventually.

Admittedly, there are many steps that still have to be fleshed out, but scientists have recreated many of the steps needed for abiogenesis. It's too much to ask that they complete all the steps. You can't compress a billion years of evolution into a single lifetime.

-

Also... theists don't shove their beliefs down people's throats? Are you kidding me? Bibles for Marawi? The Spanish Inquisition? The colonization of the Philippines? Have you never actually LISTENED to the sermons in a Catholic Church where they lambast the Born Again and Protestants? (I have and do, because my Mother is Protestant) Are you not aware of the movement in the US to introduce Creationism into classrooms?

SOME Atheists proselytize. But this is the truth: Our concept of the beginnings of life is incomplete, and scientists will admit that there is much they don't know. But they will state what they do know. And this is what's taught in schools. Trying to shove alternate explanations down our childrens' throats without any proof or rational theoretical framework teaches them magical thinking. Not logic.

Simple lang yun. Parang math. Show your solution. Scientists do. If you can't understand the solution, then study the science until you can.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

[Vodka]

Fair enough. It took a long time IF it did happen. And yes, proteins snapping into each other like lego, yes it happens. But an organic membrane suddenly coming into life...that's not 10 billion years. That's a singular moment when something not live became alive. Also i think you are confusing this with evolution. Evolution can explain changes through time...it cannot explain origins.

And why the double standard? Science like the rest is an 'incomplete' explanation. Who knows when it can be completed...if it at all when you have scientists who can't agree up until now if one egg a day is better for you than 1 egg a week. Whose science is correct then? If you are to teach logic and reasoning and math and sciences and the arts and literature...why not theology?

theology. you're kidding right? give me one example of theology's contribution to knowledge in the last 300 years. wala zero

it would be nice if so-called theologians once in a while release things like computers, or anti-lock brakes. pero wala eh. sorry theology is just monkey business

[minicarph]

it would be nice if so-called theologians once in a while release things like computers, or anti-lock brakes. pero wala eh. sorry theology is just monkey business

science ang nagsabi na galing tayo sa monkey

[Flipo]

Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | The God Delusion Debate

Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | The God Delusion Debate - YouTube

[dr. d]

science ang nagsabi na galing tayo sa monkey

science also said, the bumblebee can not fly.
and the earth is the center of the universe.
and the earth is flat.
and that wind created the badlands.
and men have more teeth than women.

the science of science, is evolving.

[niky]

Actually pascal's wager makes sense..
1. If i belived in wrong God and there is God, then i will be the same with the group of people who does not believed in God. But there is probability of choosing the right God. If you dont believed in God. Then your probability will be zero
2. Blaise Pascal is more intelligent than me and he believed in the existence God and most probably he is more intelligent than bart simpsons.

If entry into "Heaven" is based on the belief in the proper God and following his rules properly, then we're all ****ed

Because nobody knows which religion is "right"... and if primacy were a valid test of legitimacy, then there are many religions with a better claim to being "true" than any of the Abrahmic religions. (which borrowed heavily from several other proto-religions and older religious traditions... I studied a lot about religion in both High School and College).

In other words, you're playing the God Lottery without a full set of numbers to choose from.

Fair enough. It took a long time IF it did happen. And yes, proteins snapping into each other like lego, yes it happens. But an organic membrane suddenly coming into life...that's not 10 billion years. That's a singular moment when something not live became alive.

No, it won't suddenly "come to life". First you have persistent membranes that form, like bubbles, which allows isolation from the environment. These bubbles become persistent, and chemical reactions start taking place inside.

Before you continue on ranting about abiogenesis, you might as well educate yourself on current theories. They're fascinating.

Also i think you are confusing this with evolution. Evolution can explain changes through time...it cannot explain origins.

Evolution doesn't have to. The theory of evolution merely states that whatever system multiplies... multiplies. The explanations themselves are another matter. This is the funny thing about Creationists/Intelligent-Design-advocates... they can't deny "micro-evolution", that changes do occur over short time periods... but they say that somehow this doesn't result in changes over long periods of time... which flies in the face of all available evidence.

And even if it can't describe the exact beginnings of life, that doesn't make it any less valid.

And why the double standard? Science like the rest is an 'incomplete' explanation. Who knows when it can be completed...if it at all when you have scientists who can't agree up until now if one egg a day is better for you than 1 egg a week. Whose science is correct then? If you are to teach logic and reasoning and math and sciences and the arts and literature...why not theology?

No double standard. Science accepts what is "best fit" based on current evidence and theory. If something else fits better, that becomes accepted. It may bug some people... the impermanence of surety. But if you can't change your mind based on new evidence, then you won't get very far in life if what you believed in at first wasn't right.

I studied religion. Under humanities. That's science. Social sciences, to be more precise.

Studying it as theology? That's indoctrination. Theology is philosophical musings based on unprovable/unfalsifiable assumptions.

Logic can be taught in such an abstract manner... but it is understood that arguments given in the study of logic are purely abstract and have no bearing on the real world. When you apply logic to actual, physical evidence, it then becomes science.

The inquisition...the spanish colonization. Come on. That's not theists forcing their beliefs. That's a few people who used religion as a tool for power and control.

Power through forcing belief. How about the struggle over religion in school? Or gay marriage? The resistance to gay marriage is PRECISELY the religious forcing belief on others.

Also, it's apparent you've never had someone try to "convert" you. I got that a lot in College, because my beard and hair makes me look vaguely non-Christian.

[jut703]

The fact that there are very few (if any) top-tier elementary schools that aren't catholic schools goes against the claim that "theists don't force religion down your throat".

Xavier, ICA, Ateneo, La Salle, Assumption, Miriam, St. Paul. Aren't all of them catholic schools?

I can only think of UPIS as the non-catholic school that is of good quality although arguably the aforementioned private schools are still better.

And even in a non-religious setting, religion is still deeply ingrained in our curriculum. In PSHS we still had Values Ed which was basically Christian Living with a new name. Morality still wasn't separated with religion.

Only when I got to college (ironically in a Jesuit university) were we really able to thresh out the two. And even if we had theology classes, it was never about indoctrinization. Heck, my Muslim friend appreciated Christian theology because only the universal principles of human decency are discussed and not in the usual sanctimonious manner.

I heard the other famous priest-run university isn't as liberal with their teachings.

Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

[n_spinner06]

If entry into "Heaven" is based on the belief in the proper God and following his rules properly, then we're all ****ed

Because nobody knows which religion is "right"... and if primacy were a valid test of legitimacy, then there are many religions with a better claim to being "true" than any of the Abrahmic religions. (which borrowed heavily from several other proto-religions and older religious traditions... I studied a lot about religion in both High School and College).

In other words, you're playing the God Lottery without a full set of numbers to choose from.



No, it won't suddenly "come to life". First you have persistent membranes that form, like bubbles, which allows isolation from the environment. These bubbles become persistent, and chemical reactions start taking place inside.

Before you continue on ranting about abiogenesis, you might as well educate yourself on current theories. They're fascinating.



Evolution doesn't have to. The theory of evolution merely states that whatever system multiplies... multiplies. The explanations themselves are another matter. This is the funny thing about Creationists/Intelligent-Design-advocates... they can't deny "micro-evolution", that changes do occur over short time periods... but they say that somehow this doesn't result in changes over long periods of time... which flies in the face of all available evidence.

And even if it can't describe the exact beginnings of life, that doesn't make it any less valid.



No double standard. Science accepts what is "best fit" based on current evidence and theory. If something else fits better, that becomes accepted. It may bug some people... the impermanence of surety. But if you can't change your mind based on new evidence, then you won't get very far in life if what you believed in at first wasn't right.

I studied religion. Under humanities. That's science. Social sciences, to be more precise.

Studying it as theology? That's indoctrination. Theology is philosophical musings based on unprovable/unfalsifiable assumptions.

Logic can be taught in such an abstract manner... but it is understood that arguments given in the study of logic are purely abstract and have no bearing on the real world. When you apply logic to actual, physical evidence, it then becomes science.



Power through forcing belief. How about the struggle over religion in school? Or gay marriage? The resistance to gay marriage is PRECISELY the religious forcing belief on others.

Also, it's apparent you've never had someone try to "convert" you. I got that a lot in College, because my beard and hair makes me look vaguely non-Christian.

This much i can glean from what you said...that science is a process or in a prpcess and what was arrived at at this point is most plausible explanation...but that doesnt mean it is the correct explanation. Just the best fit with watever we have at this point by virtue of evidence, experiments, whatnot. So whatever science says we need to take with a grain of salt because tomorrow another explanation might arrive which is better.

On the double standard i still disagree. Take for example gay marriage. (No offense on the gay/lgbt community). On one side people are saying we champion a certain ***uality so we want to have gay marriage so we can enjoy the benefits that law provides. Don't force your religion on us. On the other hand we have people pushing back saying that is wrong and unacceptable. Don't force your gay or whatever beliefs on us. If there's mutual respect at this point i think ok pa e. But when one side demands that the other conform to their way of thinking that's when we get problems. Marriage is obviously considered sacred by most and as i understand it, all things sacred must ascribe to specific criteria. If it doesn't e di hindi na sacred. Why force whatever church then to recognize gay marriage? Kanya-kanyang trip na lang walang basagan. As long as the state accepts, why the need to force specific institutions to conform to that way of thinking too?

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk