Home | LinkShare | Forums | Lyrics | Members | Shop | Arcade
Username   Password       Not yet a member? then register here! | Forgot Password?

Byte Alchemy Web Solutions
Consulting, Web design and development
For organizations and small businesses.

Edit Thread Delete Thread
TDP Forums

 Let's Talk
  |- Religion and Morals
       |- Atheism is Immoral?

           morals and religion
Page  1 .. 60  61  62  63  64   >> 
Post Reply New Thread

DPhp earned : 100%
Jan 25, 2013 09:12 pm    
joal0354861

Legendary Member

Level 57
Posts : 4011
DPhp 1.8M
Credibility : 100.0%
Excalibur
With divine powers
ATK + 120
INT +
Warning Bar:
Can you objectively explain the quote or not? The questions are very simple. Why are people of faith exempted to explain the validity of their gods? What kind of study or experiment did Aquinas conduct that he arrived with such a conclusion? I will not blindly submit myself to a speculation of your ability or inability to answer these questions, but I will only find out your capability to do so once I am (or not) given answers.



Okay, presupposition. Let's use the Church of the Cat-holics as an example. The Cat-holics pressume that only The God Cat is the one true god, (they do not have concrete evidence that this deity exists, and they also lack evidence that this deity is the one true deity and not the other known deities) and their Holy Fur Scripture is of divine inspiration (without presenting reliable data to back their claim, and also lacking in evidence that makes the other known scriptures refutable). They also describe their Cat God as undetectable and is able to transcend logic. How can an individual who is skeptic about these stories know the validity of the said events?

Another example. Person A lacks the knowledge to explain how events in the universe occur so he named these naturally ocurring events "gods." Apparently, another person (Person B) who also lacks the knowledge to exlplain these phenomena agreed with Person A, and the same could be said of person C, D, E, and F. Person G, possessing the knowledge to explain the phenomena, gave all the answers (provided with empiricism) to their questions but they underwent cognitive dissonance and have already been accustomed to what they previously believed, so they rejected person G's answers even though they were compelling enough. How can the ideas be proven false if they've been presupposed by customs?



Now, moving on to your "Oder." Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. Things that happen in nature, the recursive functions in the universe, such as the observable dominant self-replication of elementary particles all the way to the replication of the more complex carbon and water-based life, ARE NOT DEITIES. Escalating the arguments to metaphysics involving past popular worldviews should be done in the time when such worldview is acceptable, or simply in schools' philosophy courses.



Understanding the entire universe is limited by current technology. Quantum mechanics limits us to predict everything but allows us to predict the likelihood of anything. It has been suggested by a popular deceased scientist that everything can be known provided that we have enough input to our algorithms that function as our quantum models (now known as the classical deterministic view of the universe). This is the popular product of science that we all enjoy right now. The ability to know what we don't know and break the limitations of human perception. You now have your laptop and the jeepney. It's unfortunate that some people enjoy the benefits of science and at the same time totally reject the questions that science asks. The "burden of proof" is what these scientists use in their daily scientific lives. Scientist A "discovered" that neutrinos can actually travel the speed of light. Scientists and physicists all around the world will falsify this claim until it is proven true by further tests. If the discovery is true, then it will be used to improve human life. If proven wrong, then move to the next step and perform more tests to understand what is not known. Now, is it unfair to ask for an evidence of claims such as the existence of gods?
Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
Jan 25, 2013 09:27 pm   Edited : Jan 25, 2013 09:51 pm    

Level 6
Posts : 16
DPhp 24.7K
Credibility : 75.9%

Okay, presupposition. Let's use the Church of the Cat-holics as an example. The Cat-holics pressume that only The God Cat is the one true god, (they do not have concrete evidence that this deity exists, and they also lack evidence that this deity is the one true deity and not the other known deities) and their Holy Fur Scripture is of divine inspiration (without presenting reliable data to back their claim, and also lacking in evidence that makes the other known scriptures refutable). They also describe their Cat God as undetectable and is able to transcend logic. How can an individual who is skeptic about these stories know the validity of the said events?


That's a good example of "Argument from inconsistent revelation" where one organized religion claimed to have a "true" god and rejecting other's claims. - in other words, they are defining the certainty of "Absolute truth" in regards to their own god. - IF organized religions will submit themselves to "Absolute truth" therefore, it renders the validity of FINITE, therefore, absolute truth will negate INFINITY, that would mean that "Big Bang Theory" or the theory of singularity can be confirmed, if there is FINITE, the universe doesn't need a creator.



Another example. Person A lacks the knowledge to explain how events in the universe occur so he named these naturally ocurring events "gods." Apparently, another person (Person B) who also lacks the knowledge to exlplain these phenomena agreed with Person A, and the same could be said of person C, D, E, and F. Person G, possessing the knowledge to explain the phenomena, gave all the answers (provided with empiricism) to their questions but they underwent cognitive dissonance and have already been accustomed to what they previously believed, so they rejected person G's answers even though they were compelling enough. How can the ideas be proven false if they've been presupposed by customs?


another good example of "Bandwagon argument" where everyone agreed to something while there is one who don't, therefore, the belief must be true since many believed in it.

that is a very common claims of any organized religions.

### auto-merged ###

energen said:

Order in a way that something happened because it was meant to happen from the beginning of its existence. Example po ay ang buto ng isang prutas. The seed is meant to be planted on the ground. Then grow its roots, hold to the soil, suck nutrients and water, grow into a plant, grow more into a tree, then bear flowers which will eventually become a fruit where the next seed will come from. Thatís the order. But there are still some chances that not all seeds will grow into a tree. Some will be eaten by other animals. Or just decay in the ground and become part of the soil. But it still wonít stop the order from what the other seeds are primarily expected to grow into.


from seed to tree - nice EVOLUTION isn't it? the actual order of natural evolution and NOT an order from sky-daddy.

Some will be eaten by other animals. Or just decay in the ground and become part of the soil - a good example of NATURAL SELECTION isn't it?

and if it isn't a natural selection, therefore it is god's will, and if it is god's will, then he is a malevolent god, because he let something to decay or eaten by animal. - isn't it god a benevolent god?
Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
Jan 26, 2013 02:00 am   Edited : Jan 26, 2013 02:07 am    
energen

Forum Fanatic

Level 25
Posts : 694
DPhp 282.6K
Credibility : 100.0%
Avatar frame
You can put your picture here. Uploaded picture will be selectable as your avatar.
Hi pareng joal. Well you see, thatís my answer. Itís simple. I have faith in you. I thought youíll get it. If I donít have faith in your capability to explain and expound things, then whatever that you would say to me wonít matter because I will just not accept it because I donít have faith in you. But I have. So Iíll try to read all your explanations.

Presupposition is actually, a way of thinking that you think the person you are talking to is thinking that way. Itís going on ever since I joined this discussion. Giving out examples that can really be examples but will not matter on the discussion yet just because itís attached and stereotyped to believers like me. I am a catholic. And as far as the catholic doctrines are concerned, yes, the dogmas are concrete. But in terms of openness, it never closes its doors to possibilities. The Church itself evolved. It even never had the bible for more than a hundred years. Its history was never perfect. Its foundation was never so colorful nor magical. Its structure and hierarchy wasnít made in a day. It evolved. The bible even said it so. That knowledge will further and that some knowledge were too hard for the early Christians to receive and that the Holy Spirit is there to come and to tell them later on about these knowledge when they are ready. Thereís a verse for that. And bible alone believers doesnít like that verse. But I wonít go deeper into that. It will not matter in the discussion. You donít believe in the bible anyway. You donít have faith in it. But I just have to say it because you say something about it. My explanation is for the believers. Not for you. Because you donít have faith. And this adds up to my explanation on your first question.

And like I said previously, talking about religion on this kind of discussion wonít help. It will just create an opening for insulting, offensive and generalizations of every religion in this world. But still, we wonít end up with a good discussion about Godís existence. Just a bunch of us arguing about religion whether itís bad or not.

And regarding what type of that entity or energy or whatever that is weíre trying to discuss about, I think it wonít matter for now what kind of personality or character he has whether heís benevolent or not. Weíre not yet there. Letís try not to skip too high from the discussion. Like what I said in my earlier posts, without the benefit of a bigger view of whatís happening out there, out there meaning the whole of the universe, such happenings on this planet which we might perceive as bad can be really not that bad. We donít have the bigger picture yet to judge with finality. And Iím happy that science is giving us a bigger picture on a daily rate. A lot of things that we thought of as nuisances in the past are now being known and regarded to be very helpful to us human beings. But to judge one thing as intrinsically bad just because of our limited view and blaming everything about it to god that atheists do not believe isnít fair. And it wonít help us in this discussion either. Maybe later. But I believe, not for now.


Evolution. If weíre talking about evolution of the organisms, it is something that is not possible for man to observe. For it never happen in a hundred years if the theory is to be followed. Itís longer than the span of the existence of human specie according to that same theory so it will not be possible now. But it can be done maybe in the future if all these data are recorded and will continue millions of years from now to the future humans and we start to see changes in the living things around us. Including us. Well, not unless this world comes to an end before that. But for now, we can use samples. Those that were dug up. Those extinct organisms are used as evidences of evolution by evolutionists. So far, some scientists are achieving great lengths when it comes to discovering fossils of old organisms. But unfortunately, there is still what they call the missing links. Though they will still try to dig and look for them. They will continue looking for the ďmissing linksĒ on each transitional evolutionary line to further strengthen the study of this theory. They say they are getting closer in connecting the links. Thatís good. These might be true. But until they found the missing links, some will still be skeptical about it. They will still wait for the evidence. But for sure, the evolutionists will still believe about the authenticity of evolution. They have faith that the missing links are there. They might not be found out later on, but Iím pretty sure that a lot of them have faith that there is. Or there was.

Sometimes, Iím also getting into thinking that the biggest difference between the evolutionists and the creationists is that the former believes on whatís not yet found in between while the creationists believes on what canít be sensed yet in the beginning. The evolutionists believes that by chance, all things in the universe came into being, happened, became, existed, grown, changed by time to what they are in the present that even though they didnít see that it happened and that evidences are still lacking, they have faith that somewhere, sometime, somehow, they will find those things that are missing in between to prove finally that what they believe is true. But lots of them believe that itís true, with or without the evidences; While the creationists think that everything on this universe are existing for a purpose whatever that is, it could be a big one like the sun giving life to this tiny third rock away from it or just a decaying seed that helps give life to another growing plant and that all these things didnít existed just by chance but had started from a beginning that could be caused by someone or something that is powerful enough to create the ripples of motions that put the start of everything on this universe but for now, canít show a concrete evidence or grasp what kind of element or entity or energy, or if there really is one, out there that started it all. But for now, by faith, the creationists believe that there is, whatever or whoever that is.

-----
Sustansyang Pagkainumin

Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
Jan 26, 2013 02:29 am   Edited : Jan 26, 2013 02:33 am    

Level 6
Posts : 16
DPhp 24.7K
Credibility : 75.9%
energen said:

Evolution. If weíre talking about evolution of the organisms, it is something that is not possible for man to observe. For it never happen in a hundred years if the theory is to be followed. Itís longer than the span of the existence of human specie according to that same theory so it will not be possible now. But it can be done maybe in the future if all these data are recorded and will continue millions of years from now to the future humans and we start to see changes in the living things around us. Including us. Well, not unless this world comes to an end before that. But for now, we can use samples. Those that were dug up. Those extinct organisms are used as evidences of evolution by evolutionists. So far, some scientists are achieving great lengths when it comes to discovering fossils of old organisms. But unfortunately, there is still what they call the missing links. Though they will still try to dig and look for them. They will continue looking for the ďmissing linksĒ on each transitional evolutionary line to further strengthen the study of this theory. They say they are getting closer in connecting the links. Thatís good. These might be true. But until they found the missing links, some will still be skeptical about it. They will still wait for the evidence. But for sure, the evolutionists will still believe about the authenticity of evolution. They have faith that the missing links are there. They might not be found out later on, but Iím pretty sure that a lot of them have faith that there is. Or there was.


evolution happens in many ways, you are referring to "prehistoric" evolution where it cannot be observe anymore, however, the transitional fossils gives scientist something to work-on, however, you are dismissing the "micro-evolution" WHICH is very observable. - i.e. viruses, bacterias and other micro entities evolves in a short period of time. take the H1N1 virus, the ebola virus even the tuberculosis virus, they do evolve and adapts very quickly and that is why there are many H1N1 variants, some can be killed by the current medication and some can't and doesn't have a cure yet because they keep on evolving to resist the medications.

no self-respecting bio-scientist would claim that evolution is not observable, because everyday in their lab, they have evolution in their petri dishes and microscopes.

so don't claim that evolution is not observable because you are wrong, evolution is happening even as we speak. if evolution can happen in microscopic way, give those microscopic entities a million years by not eliminating it and let it go forth, it will evolve into something very big like the dinosaurs or even human and since those small entities are harmful to humans, it gets killed before it can evolve into something else.
Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
Jan 26, 2013 12:22 pm   Edited : Jan 28, 2013 06:26 pm    
joal0354861

Legendary Member

Level 57
Posts : 4011
DPhp 1.8M
Credibility : 100.0%
Excalibur
With divine powers
ATK + 120
INT +
Warning Bar:
Your answer is not "simple." It's irrelevant. Let me repeat the questions.

Why are people of faith exempted to explain the validity of their gods? (This question is asking for a reason)
What kind of study or experiment did Aquinas conduct that he arrived with such a conclusion? (This question is asking for a process of acquisition of Aquinas' definitive conclusion)



Let us put this presupposition to test. Person A is a professional driver. Presumption = Person A has a valid driver's license. Person B is skeptic to Person A's status of being a professional driver, so person A shows Person B the license.

Another one. Person A worships a god. Presumption = God exists. Person B is skeptic to the existence of this god. Person A is now obliged to prove his claim of this god's existence.

You get the idea now? If an individual claims that a god exists (whatever its nature is), the burden of proof lies on him to present facts and evidence that this god exists. Describing this god as undetectable and being able to transcend logic is not a valid evidence to assert its existence.



Ah, "EVOLUTIONISTS", a word that creationists use to make it appear that evolution is also a position of faith. A scientific theory is an explanation of a phenomenon, not a speculation or a hypothesis. Evolution is true whether creationsists like it or not. I don't see scientists challenging creationists to test the gravitational theory by jumping off buildings, or challenge people who do not believe in the germ theory to not disinfect their hands before eating. The truth is not a democracy. Evolution allows your jeepney to run on fossil fuels. Evolution is the reason why you take vaccines and medicine against diseases. Why are creationists heavily opposing evolution? Because knowing that modern humans evolved from less complex organisms before macro-evolving into modern day bipeds will kill the myth of creations. Adam and Eve didn't happen, nobody ate the fruit of the original sin, whoever prophet died for no sins, and no deity created them.



My explanation is for the believers. Not for you.


Your answer is valid for a specific set of people and not for some because of whatever reason. I wonder what this reason is. ;)

Because you donít have faith.


Oh! Does it mean that having this faith you're speaking of makes assertion of ideas acceptable?
Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
Jan 26, 2013 01:47 pm   Edited : Jan 26, 2013 01:48 pm    

Level 6
Posts : 16
DPhp 24.7K
Credibility : 75.9%
perhaps, this will enlighten energen the concept of "burden of proof"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY


and a proper understanding of evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0
Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
Feb 23, 2013 09:54 am    
ukzimba

Member

Level 5
Posts : 29
DPhp 4
Credibility : 76.2%
burden of proof.

kayo may sinasabing may nag eexist, kayo magbibigay ng proof.
Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
May 06, 2013 02:24 pm   Edited : May 06, 2013 02:27 pm    
energen

Forum Fanatic

Level 25
Posts : 694
DPhp 282.6K
Credibility : 100.0%
Avatar frame
You can put your picture here. Uploaded picture will be selectable as your avatar.
the_krome_999 said:


evolution happens in many ways, you are referring to "prehistoric" evolution where it cannot be observe anymore, however, the transitional fossils gives scientist something to work-on, however, you are dismissing the "micro-evolution" WHICH is very observable. - i.e. viruses, bacterias and other micro entities evolves in a short period of time. take the H1N1 virus, the ebola virus even the tuberculosis virus, they do evolve and adapts very quickly and that is why there are many H1N1 variants, some can be killed by the current medication and some can't and doesn't have a cure yet because they keep on evolving to resist the medications.

no self-respecting bio-scientist would claim that evolution is not observable, because everyday in their lab, they have evolution in their petri dishes and microscopes.

so don't claim that evolution is not observable because you are wrong, evolution is happening even as we speak. if evolution can happen in microscopic way, give those microscopic entities a million years by not eliminating it and let it go forth, it will evolve into something very big like the dinosaurs or even human and since those small entities are harmful to humans, it gets killed before it can evolve into something else.


of course po, im talking about evolution as what we understand it.the concept of evolution as we know it.

and maganda po yung pinresent ninyo na example. yung mga virus po. tama po, nakakapagtaka ngayon ang mga virus. dati nagagamot na, ngayon hindi na naman. meron naman nagkaroon ng same na sakit dahil sa isang virus. pero iba ang epekto dun sa katawan nung isa. yung isa parang wala lang, yung isa namatay. bakit ganon? dahil sa evolution? Sa pagkakabasa ko po kasi dito ay hindi naman po talagang nag eevolve ang mga virus. Tulad ng tao, kumplikado din sila at may kanya kanya silang immunity at reaction sa mga chemicals or drugs na pumapasok sa kanila. Naging common na knowledge lang sa mga tao na "nageevolve" ang mga virus dahil sa personal observation nila sa paligid nila o sa mismong sarili nila o sa kapamilya nila. Pero kung titingnan nila in general, e hindi naman nag eevolve talaga. Iba iba lang talaga ang reaksyon bukod sa mismong virus ay ng katawan na rin mismo ng apektado nito.

Sources ko po? marami. di na lang po ako nag post dahil hindi rin naman po kayo nag post ng sources. Puede naman po mag google ang mga mambabasa. ahehehe

### auto-merged ###

and salamat din po sa burden of proof vid. pero di na po yan ang pinag uusapan dito sir krome kasi nagpost naman po ako ng mga proofs na rin dito. at isa pa, kadalasan din ang burden of proof ay hindi lang lagi dun sa nagpprove ng existence, madalas din yan ay napupunta sa taong gustong sumubok o mag-challenge sa common understanding,meaning ng mas nakararami. sa pagkakaalam ko ay mas marami pa rin ang theist. so pareho lang tayong may "burden" kung yan ang gusto nating pag batayan. ahehehe.

-----
Sustansyang Pagkainumin

Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
May 10, 2013 08:55 pm   Edited : May 11, 2013 12:32 am    
joal0354861

Legendary Member

Level 57
Posts : 4011
DPhp 1.8M
Credibility : 100.0%
Excalibur
With divine powers
ATK + 120
INT +
Warning Bar:
Ano ba pagkakaintindi mo sa evolution?

Evolution = change over time

Theory = explanation/mechanics of a fact or phenomenon

Theory of evolution = explanation of how change among living things occur over time

Oh ayan, viral biology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolution

You seem definitive in your findings about viral non-evolution. Please write down your works and have it peer-reviewed. I guarantee you that you will win a nobel prize for one, JUST ONE evidence against evolution.


Wala kaming burden of proving dahil we never made the claim of something to exist. Kung naiintindihan mo yung video, alam mo na common theist escape lang yung shifting of burden.


So let me get this clear, theists do not accept evolution. You do not accept the fact that living things change over time. Tama ba?
Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
May 10, 2013 10:27 pm    
mikerapphone

Forum Addict

Level 28
Posts : 406
DPhp 140.7K
Credibility : 90.0%
Avatar frame
You can put your picture here. Uploaded picture will be selectable as your avatar.
Warning Bar:
As an agnostic theist i have been with some athiest friends at ang masasabi ko lang ay hindi naman sila mga imoral n tao. May mga marunong makipag kapwa tao at nakakatuwa nga dahil knowing na gumagawa sila ng mabuti without expecting any reward, thats how people should be diba?

-----
ROFLMAOPORLOLOMG!!!

Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
May 14, 2013 11:15 pm   Edited : May 14, 2013 11:17 pm    
energen

Forum Fanatic

Level 25
Posts : 694
DPhp 282.6K
Credibility : 100.0%
Avatar frame
You can put your picture here. Uploaded picture will be selectable as your avatar.
joal0354861 said:
Ano ba pagkakaintindi mo sa evolution?

Evolution = change over time

Theory = explanation/mechanics of a fact or phenomenon

Theory of evolution = explanation of how change among living things occur over time

Oh ayan, viral biology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolution

You seem definitive in your findings about viral non-evolution. Please write down your works and have it peer-reviewed. I guarantee you that you will win a nobel prize for one, JUST ONE evidence against evolution.

Yaan mo try ko minsan. hehehe. pero seriously, again,evolution is just a word. Puede mong gamitin ang term to define one thing, and then on another thing which seems similar. And use it as your proof. Like God. "God" is a word. Same as evolution.

Besides, may mali ba sa sinabi ko about human body reactions on viruses? na iba iba ang effect kahit pa pare pareho ang treatment? Kailangan pa ba ng study sa common knowledge na ito?

And yung binanggit din sa taas na kaya daw di nagtutuloy tuloy ng evolutions ng viruses and bacteria ay dahil sa researches na ginagawa para patayin agad ang mga ito. Ito ba ay backed up by evidences?

Wala kaming burden of proving dahil we never made the claim of something to exist. Kung naiintindihan mo yung video, alam mo na common theist escape lang yung shifting of burden.

so pano yun, lahat na lang ng sasabihin ng atheists ay ok na lang patungkol sa pagkakabuo at bahabahagi ng universe at ng mundo dahil wala kayong burden of proof about a creator?


So let me get this clear, theists do not accept evolution. You do not accept the fact that living things change over time. Tama ba?


No. That's not true. Not sure with other sects but catholicism is quite clear about this. Sa mga hardcore fundamentalists siguro, hindi nila tanggap yan. di nga naniniwala yung iba sa dinosaurs eh. hehehe. pero sa catholicism ay iba. tanggap ang evolution theory, but depende nga sa understanding mo ng evolution. And theory of evolution was there even before Darwin was born. And yung theory ng Darwinism ang pinropagate ng mga tao na ayaw tanggapin ang naunang theory. Mas ok sa kanila ang Darwinism for obvious reasons.

If you will check my previous statements, careful ako na sabihing hindi totoo ang evolution. I'm consistent in saying that it's possible and might be true. Pero lahat syempre, i-scrutinize natin, hindi basta tanggap lang porke sinabi ng isang researcher na ganon, e ganon na agad.

And fyi, may encyclical pa nga ang Santo Papa noong 1950s patungkol sa evolution para linawin ang ideya at position ng simbahan dito.

-----
Sustansyang Pagkainumin

Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
Jun 01, 2013 04:16 pm   Edited : Jun 01, 2013 04:34 pm    
joal0354861

Legendary Member

Level 57
Posts : 4011
DPhp 1.8M
Credibility : 100.0%
Excalibur
With divine powers
ATK + 120
INT +
Warning Bar:
I'm serious. Let me see your work, and your proof.

Dude, "Evolution" (in biology) is a word that pertains to change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations (not individuals) over successive generations.

Evolution of virus is specific and not your typical "just a word and based on how one conceptualizes it" excuse.

A population of virus develops new characteristics over successive generations. Simple as that.


Well, we humans have an immune system to fight these pathogens. How is this relevant to what we're discussing?

Also, you said "Pero kung titingnan nila in general, e hindi naman nag eevolve talaga."

Tell me how and why they don't evolve "talaga."


energen said:

so pano yun, lahat na lang ng sasabihin ng atheists ay ok na lang patungkol sa pagkakabuo at bahabahagi ng universe at ng mundo dahil wala kayong burden of proof about a creator?


Did you even pay attention to the video? There is only one rule. If you make a claim, you prove it. You'll prove it all the way until none of your arguments can be shot down anymore. The only thing we atheists do is shoot down your fallacious arguments.

Also, we don't just believe what researchers say just because they say it. Science is not a church. A scientific claim is peer-reviewed and verified, not just "believed" in because researches say so.



energen said:
And yung binanggit din sa taas na kaya daw di nagtutuloy tuloy ng evolutions ng viruses and bacteria ay dahil sa researches na ginagawa para patayin agad ang mga ito. Ito ba ay backed up by evidences?


You don't know what happened to smallpox?
Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
Jun 01, 2013 05:04 pm   Edited : Jun 01, 2013 06:04 pm    
blurem23

Newbie

Level 1
Posts : 2
DPhp 10.2K
Credibility : 75.5%
neutrinos travel at the speed of light? .. hmm.. if im not mistaken, the argument was "neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light".. speaking of Quantum Mechanics, i really would appreciate if i would be pointed to a good explanation about the Entanglement Theory.

my point here is, there are questions both in science and religion, in science you may refer them as problems, conjecture, hypothesis,etc.. in religion, mystery.

But both aim for one purpose, the quest for truth. Do not let science and religion go against each other.

as a human, to judge is a position we cant fill..

What keeps us from being qualified to judge?

We do not know all the facts.
We are unable to read motives.
We find it impossible to be totally objective.
We lack "the big picture."
We live with blind spots.
We are prejudiced and have blurred perspective.

Most of all, we ourselves are imperfect and inconsistent.
Source:[ http://www.insight.org/library/insight-for-today/a-position-we-cant-fill.html]


  • ### auto-merged ###

    So far, some scientists are achieving great lengths when it comes to discovering fossils of old organisms. But unfortunately, there is still what they call the missing links. Though they will still try to dig and look for them. They will continue looking for the ďmissing linksĒ on each transitional evolutionary line to further strengthen the study of this theory. They say they are getting closer in connecting the links. Thatís good. These might be true. But until they found the missing links, some will still be skeptical about it. They will still wait for the evidence. But for sure, the evolutionists will still believe about the authenticity of evolution. They have faith that the missing links are there. They might not be found out later on, but Iím pretty sure that a lot of them have faith that there is.


    some people put their faith on pieces of dug up hardened mud.

    thanks for the insight.

    ### auto-merged ###


    Sometimes, Iím also getting into thinking that the biggest difference between the evolutionists and the creationists is that the former believes on whatís not yet found in between while the creationists believes on what canít be sensed yet in the beginning. The evolutionists believes that by chance, all things in the universe came into being, happened, became, existed, grown, changed by time to what they are in the present that even though they didnít see that it happened and that evidences are still lacking, they have faith that somewhere, sometime, somehow, they will find those things that are missing in between to prove finally that what they believe is true. But lots of them believe that itís true, with or without the evidences; While the creationists think that everything on this universe are existing for a purpose whatever that is, it could be a big one like the sun giving life to this tiny third rock away from it or just a decaying seed that helps give life to another growing plant and that all these things didnít existed just by chance but had started from a beginning that could be caused by someone or something that is powerful enough to create the ripples of motions that put the start of everything on this universe but for now, canít show a concrete evidence or grasp what kind of element or entity or energy, or if there really is one, out there that started it all. But for now, by faith, the creationists believe that there is, whatever or whoever that is.


    sayang naman ang faith to an unknown god, history repeats itself.. Acts 17:22-24

    -----
    ..i want to be the proof..

  • Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
    Jun 10, 2013 04:55 pm    
    JuanaTomasa

    Forum Superstar

    Level 46
    Posts : 1701
    DPhp 651.7K
    Credibility : 100.0%
    Warning Bar:
    Why are people of faith exempted to explain the validity of their gods?


    They would not be relying on faith if they can, would they?

    -----
    Scientia est lux lucis

    Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
    Jun 11, 2013 08:36 am    
    energen

    Forum Fanatic

    Level 25
    Posts : 694
    DPhp 282.6K
    Credibility : 100.0%
    Avatar frame
You can put your picture here. Uploaded picture will be selectable as your avatar.
    joal0354861 said:
    I'm serious. Let me see your work, and your proof.

    Dude, "Evolution" (in biology) is a word that pertains to change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations (not individuals) over successive generations.

    Evolution of virus is specific and not your typical "just a word and based on how one conceptualizes it" excuse.


    Dude, did you even read my post? I said, we catholics believe in evolution studies and theories. Pero ang evolution theories kasi ay marami at malawak. AT hindi lahat ay inaayunan namin. Nag-eexcuse lang ba ako? No. Ganito lang kasi ang nangyayari. It's my words against you. It's my "links" against yours. It's my "faith" on some scientists and your "faith" on others,dude.




    Well, we humans have an immune system to fight these pathogens. How is this relevant to what we're discussing?

    Also, you said "Pero kung titingnan nila in general, e hindi naman nag eevolve talaga."

    Tell me how and why they don't evolve "talaga."

    Ewan ko. di ko na maalala sinabi ko. You're quoting parts of my sentences lang eh and then asking me to explain it. Balikan mo ng buo para makuha mo ang context.


    energen said:

    so pano yun, lahat na lang ng sasabihin ng atheists ay ok na lang patungkol sa pagkakabuo at bahabahagi ng universe at ng mundo dahil wala kayong burden of proof about a creator?


    Did you even pay attention to the video? There is only one rule. If you make a claim, you prove it. You'll prove it all the way until none of your arguments can be shot down anymore. The only thing we atheists do is shoot down your fallacious arguments.

    Also, we don't just believe what researchers say just because they say it. Science is not a church. A scientific claim is peer-reviewed and verified, not just "believed" in because researches say so.


    That's faith if you still don't get it. You can call it fallacious but we'll still live here living our life and doing researches and discoveries side by side with you. Sayang lang, we can't live longer para masabi ko sa yong "sabi ko sa yo eh". lol. just joking.

    Ok ok, I get your point. Just remember that even scientific claims accepted as truth in the past are getting debunked as time goes on. At least, on our faith, it's the other way around. We're discovering what the explanations behind of what were told. For sure, di ka aware sa sinasabi sa bibliya nung umaakyat ang Panginoon sa langit at sinasabing may darating pa na "Comforter" na siyang magpapaliwanag ng mga bagay na di pa kayang tanggapin ng isipan ng mga tao noon. I'm not sure if the other sects believe in that. Sa kanila kasi, kailangan lahat nakasulat. Pero sa katoliko, naniniwala kami dito sa sinasabi na ito sa bibliya kaya progresibo ang Simbahan sa pagtanggap ng mga bagong kaalaman at discoveries. But of course, as long as it is according to the moral teachings of the Church.

    At syempre, alam ko namang di mo pinaniniwalaan ang "moral standard" namin. Just sharing our side.



    '
    energen said:
    And yung binanggit din sa taas na kaya daw di nagtutuloy tuloy ng evolutions ng viruses and bacteria ay dahil sa researches na ginagawa para patayin agad ang mga ito. Ito ba ay backed up by evidences?


    You don't know what happened to smallpox?


    Naging bigpox ba sya? biro lang.
    I don't. Tell me. I don't know everything.

    -----
    Sustansyang Pagkainumin

    Votes : 0. Rating : 5.00.
    Back to top | Page  1 .. 60  61  62  63  64   >>   
    Post Reply

    Recent Posts

    New Threads

    Popular Threads

    Online


    21 guests online.

    etc

    Free File Hosting - 100Mb
    eXTReMe Tracker

    You can help TDP:



    All Rights Reserved © 2004-2009, The Digital Pinoy / Byte Alchemy. Please contact me thru admin [at] thedigitalpinoy (dot) com for site and advertising inquiries.
    Powered By PHP/MySQL | webfindr | This page was created in 0.473604917526 seconds.