What's new
Symbianize Forum

Most of our features and services are available only to members, so we encourage you to login or register a new account. Registration is free, fast and simple. You only need to provide a valid email. Being a member you'll gain access to all member forums and features, post a message to ask question or provide answer, and share or find resources related to mobile phones, tablets, computers, game consoles, and multimedia.

All that and more, so what are you waiting for, click the register button and join us now! Ito ang website na ginawa ng pinoy para sa pinoy!

Atheists and Agnostics Meeting Place

Status
Not open for further replies.
renmazuo274 said:
Good enough. I'm a simple person, really. I learn stuff simply by living my live. I mostly learn from my personal experience, as well as others. I did some reading before though so I have some sources to quote when I need to bring out my aces to the game.

Honestly, I only come across those names by coincidence. I rarely have time to read stuff nowadays (though I used to read a lot during my elementary and high school years). I do scrutinize resources well though, hence the exchanges before with a certain someone who just got boomeranged by his own links (still waiting for a hilarious response though). And man, your posts are quite hard to swallow for an average joe like me, but they are eye openers din. Might as well start looking for pdf that I can read while on the go. Looks like interesting reading materials for me.

As for me, I will do things my way. I will eat, sleep, work, enjoy my life, create a family, survive life's ups and downs, let my legacy continue in my children's hands and also build their own, and see things through to the end, which is when I already tire of living. Immortality is not, and will never be an option. It is for survival, but not for living.
Click to expand...

Fortunately (or is "unfortunately" the better word for it...? :)) for me, I usually come across the newest knowledge materials among many because of the nature of my work. Whereas before I read for the fun of it, and on my spare time, nowadays I find I rarely have the patience to do more reading aside from the time I do it at the office. And since my work requires that I understand what materials I come across in order to do anything of any good to them, I cannot but help tap on them, consciously or subconsciously, each time I venture into such forums as sb.

I try to present my thoughts as simply as I could, but of course it wouldn't always come out that way most of the time. I sometimes venture into the vernacular, hoping to recapture what I believe was a promising talent in my youth, and hope I am not deluded enough in that self-assessment. :lol:

I don't know if you saw the extra line I added to one previous post about immortality and all that, but in any case, I said there: I for one would love to have the option to live for as long as I could handle it, if only to finally understand how the whole universe ticks—and I imagine it would take one helluva time —then have the option to push the "End" button once I'm done.
 
Last edited:
renmazuo274 said:
Hay... Cherry pickers...
Kaya sinasabi ko sayo na basahin mo yung article mo bago ka pumutak eh... You say it is infallible, that none has changed yet let's quote you vs your source:



Vs.

"With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% (5) of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added." - your source

From those words alone, you just ate your words. Your fairy tale book is not 100% free of discrepancies (so much for being absolute LOL). Changes in spelling and word orders can really mess up a sentence. Even more so adding words to it. Who changed it? MAN. Now, this is your infallible source? With changes to an original document, that invalidates it's authenticity.

Now let's go back to my points and focus on these. Please tell me that:

1. man, which you claim, who are prone to mistakes, were not the ones behind the canonization of your fairy tale book
2. all of them were canonized at the same time.
3. you only have one ABSOLUTE version of the said book.
4. christians are all united in their faith in these books and have only one interpretation.
5. all the documents canonized have no omissions during canonization and were never cherry-picked.
6. canonization is final

Una was Einstein (this always cracks me up), next is your source, any more embarrassments you'd like to have?
Click to expand...

Di mo man lang inisip na sa kalumaan ng manuscript na bura na iba letter and dahil manuscript lang ito marahil napagpalit palit yong mga pages? Babaw talaga tskkkkk.. So may 90+ percent kaming claim for its authenticity tama? yong theory mo ilang percent kaya? may proof kaba dyan?

Yong sinasabi dyan sa pinaniniwala laan mo puro assumptions lang eh.. Puro "BAKA" ganito nangyari, baka ganyan.
BAKA BAKA HAN. Magpastol nlang kaya kayo ng baka eh noh..? haha joke lang :rofl:

- - - Updated - - -

Stormer0628 said:
Why Atheism For Many of Us

About 13.7 billion years ago the Big Bang created a universe of only hydrogen, helium, and small amounts of lithium. All other elements were created in the cores of stars and in supernovas when some stars exploded. About 4.5 billion years ago our solar system was formed out of the remnants of supernovas, and we are formed out of our solar system. We are stardust. As physicist (and occasional philosopher) Lawrence Krauss said, "Forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today."

All living things die. All planets and stars will eventually die. Current evidence shows that even our universe will fade out over trillions of trillions of years. I find this amazingly liberating, and realize that life is to be lived joyfully and fully in the present, which is all we really have — while remembering the past and projecting into the future to give us guidance as to how to live now.

Some people think that our mortality means that our lives are meaningless. When we experience a good movie, play or book, we can find meaning in them despite the fact that they are finite. Why should our lives be different?

Many religious people ask how atheists can be happy without a god. For me and for many atheists I know, the realization of our atheism has been extremely freeing and has opened us to our innate happiness.

  • Atheism helps us to see reality as it actually is, without the mental filters of superstition preventing us from directly experiencing it.
  • Atheism opens us to experience our selves, without the debasing ideas that we are innately broken, evil or sinful.
  • Atheism allows us to experience true interpersonal love, without any imaginary supernatural intervention.
  • Atheism gives us the freedom to think for ourselves, to construct our own meanings. We each can choose what we think has value.
  • Atheism shows us that we can gain meaning by seeking to make our world a better place, for ourselves and our posterity.
  • Atheism teaches us to take responsibility for our behaviors in the here and now, not for a reward in an imaginary afterlife.
  • Atheism lets us see that we have to make choices about our future. No big daddy god is going to protect us from bad decisions.
  • Atheism teaches us to treasure this moment, this life, and this world — because we realize that it’s all we have.


Here are three more quotes that show the advantages of atheist life and thought:

“When I became convinced that the Universe is natural — that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, of the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust.”
— Robert Ingersoll, 1896

“We experience happiness and suffering ourselves; we encounter others in the world and recognize that they experience happiness and suffering as well; we soon discover that 'love' is largely a matter of wishing that others experience happiness rather than suffering; and most of us come to feel that love is more conducive to happiness, both our own and that of others, than hate. There is a circle here that links us to one another: we each want to be happy; the social feeling of love is one of our greatest sources of happiness; and love entails that we be concerned for the happiness of others. We discover that we can be selfish together.”
— Sam Harris, The End of Faith

“There is no evidence for a god, no coherent definition of a god, no good argument for a god, good positive arguments against a god, no agreement among believers about the nature or moral principles of a god, and no need for a god. We can live happy, moral, productive lives without such belief, and we can do it better.”
— Dan Barker, of Freedom From Religion Foundation

Many theists complain that atheism provides no values, no code of ethics, no standard by which to measure any human conduct. This is true, but it's like saying that quantum mechanics provides no such values. Like quantum mechanics, atheism is simply a conclusion about how the universe is — based on the reliable evidence. This is why most atheists are also Secular Humanists, or just Humanists. The philosophy of Secular Humanism takes the atheist position and adds another layer. It declares that humans are most important, not any imaginary gods. We have the power, thru love, reason, science, courage, and vision, to solve our problems. We shape our destiny. We are each capable of personal development and satisfaction. Secular Humanism holds as its highest goal the happiness, fulfillment, and freedom of all humankind.

Also, for those who need them, there are many local and nationwide nontheist groups throughout the world.
Click to expand...


Thanks stormer. I really appreciate it.


Question: The author of that theories and facts is mga scientist tama?.. Tanong ko lang, "DI BA NAGKAKAMALI YANG MGA YAN"? TAO LANG YAN DIBA? :)
 
Last edited:
jfmjason said:
Di mo man lang inisip na sa kalumaan ng manuscript na bura na iba letter and dahil manuscript lang ito marahil napagpalit palit yong mga pages? Babaw talaga tskkkkk.. So may 90+ percent kaming claim for its authenticity tama? yong theory mo ilang percent kaya? may proof kaba dyan?

Yong sinasabi dyan sa pinaniniwala laan mo puro assumptions lang eh.. Puro "BAKA" ganito nangyari, baka ganyan.
BAKA BAKA HAN. Magpastol nlang kaya kayo ng baka eh noh..? haha joke lang :rofl:

- - - Updated - - -




Thanks stormer. I really appreciate it.


Question: The author of that theories and facts is mga scientist tama?.. Tanong ko lang, "DI BA NAGKAKAMALI YANG MGA YAN"? TAO LANG YAN DIBA? :)
Click to expand...

O pre, iwas pusoy ka nanaman. Ang punto:

Tao ang nagbago ng laman ng orihinal na dokumento. Kapag binago mo ang content ng isang document, di na ito orihinal. Authentic mo pa ba masasabi yan? Lalo pa sa claim mo na absolute yan, na di teorya yan, na yan ay katotohanan. Dapat walang mali (kasi nga si mamang nasa langit ang may gawa). Dapat, 100% walang mali. E 99.5% lang. Whoops, nagkamali ang word of god nyo kung ganun.

Eto ulitin ko ha? Wag kang lalayo dito dahil dito tayo umiikot.

Now let's go back to my points and focus on these. Please tell me that:

1. man, which you claim, who are prone to mistakes, were not the ones behind the canonization of your fairy tale book
2. all of them were canonized at the same time.
3. you only have one ABSOLUTE version of the said book.
4. christians are all united in their faith in these books and have only one interpretation.
5. all the documents canonized have no omissions during canonization and were never cherry-picked.
6. canonization is final
 
trigun16mpd said:
Paalala lang mga brother..wisest decision na ung magkaroon ka ng inaasahang Dios kesa wala. Mas masarap mabuhay ng may sinusunod kang mabubuting utos at aral para maging mabuting tao.
Click to expand...

paalala lang din pogi...

mas masarap mabuhay ng mapayapa... lalo na sa kasinungalingan na tinuturo ng ibang tao...

mas masarap mabuhay na sinusunod ang batas pang tao...

mas masarap mabuhay na walang diskriminasyon sa iyong napiling relihiyon o diyos...

at paalala lang, hindi mo kelangan magkaron ng diyos para maging mabuting tao ka...

paalala lang, may mga relihiyon na gumagawa ng kapahamakan sa mga taong hindi nila miyembro...
 
ronell10 said:
paalala lang din pogi...

mas masarap mabuhay ng mapayapa... lalo na sa kasinungalingan na tinuturo ng ibang tao...

mas masarap mabuhay na sinusunod ang batas pang tao...

mas masarap mabuhay na walang diskriminasyon sa iyong napiling relihiyon o diyos...

at paalala lang, hindi mo kelangan magkaron ng diyos para maging mabuting tao ka...

paalala lang, may mga relihiyon na gumagawa ng kapahamakan sa mga taong hindi nila miyembro...
Click to expand...

apir naman tayo diyan! haha :)

- - - Updated - - -

jfmjason said:
Thanks stormer. I really appreciate it.


Question: The author of that theories and facts is mga scientist tama?.. Tanong ko lang, "DI BA NAGKAKAMALI YANG MGA YAN"? TAO LANG YAN DIBA? :)
Click to expand...

You are welcome jason.

Tama ka sa sinabi mo brod. Una, mga scientists nga ang otor ng theories na pinag-uusapan natin. Pangalawa, syempre naman nagkakamali din sila. Di lang isa, di lang dalawa, makailang ulit pa. Pero eto ang mahalaga: kapag dumaan na sa maraming proseso ng falsification ang experimento, sa bandang huli ay natitira ang isang proposition na mahirap na pulaan kelanpaman.

Bibigyan kita ng halimbawa brod: sa nakaraang pagsasaliksik para makita ang Higgs particle, dumaan muna ang ilang dekada bago napatunayan na nakita na nila ito sa Large Hadron Collider (LHC sa Europe). Familiar ako sa development nato dahil may ginawa akong panulat sa topic. Para sa iyong karagdagang kaalaman, halos lumuha ng dugo si Peter Higgs, ang otor ng Higgs Field theory, bago pa man lumusot ang kanyang doctoral dissertation na ito (1960s pa). Ang dahilan: iba ang pananaw ng kanyang advicer. O di ba ang saya ng kwento niya.

Pagkatapos niyan, unti-unting naging bahagi ng Standard Model ang Higgs Field/particle. Magmula nuon, matagal na hinunting ng mga syentipiko ang nabanggit. Isipin mo nadetect na lahat, mula quarks, z/w particles (electroweak particles yan) at syempre ang photons and electrons, etc. Pero ang Higgs particle mailap. Sa wakas ay gumastos ng napakalaki ng maraming mayamang bansa para buuhin ang LHC. Sa consortium na ito, isa ang higgs sa pangunahing pakay na madetect.

At sa bandang huli ay dumating ang punto na natagpuan din nila ito, pagkatapos ng masusing pagsusuri at maalis ang chance na di mga particles na gaya niya lang ang nadetect.

Ano ang chance na nagkamali ang mga nabanggit na syentipiko? Ang technical term nila ay tinatawag na 5-sigma. Sa ating normal na nilalang, ang mas malapit na numerical value ay 99.999999999 chance na tama, or 0.0000000001% chance na di higgs ang nakita nila. Kung titingnan natin ay halos 100% na yan, at kung di natin susuriin ang ating isip, maaaring sabihin natin na para ano pa na di pa ginawang saktong 100% yan. Ang sagot: kelangan na maging malinaw kung hanggang saan ang certainty/uncertainty level, para sa ganun ay maverify sa kung sino man ang gusto suriin ulit sa ibang experimento naman. Laging may chance na may mali. Pero sa liit ng figure na yan, halos di na natin maiisip ang porsyento ng kamalian.

At kagaya ng pagkadiscover ng electrons, sino ang magsasabi kung anong biyaya ang ihahatid satin ng nabanggit na discovery sa kalaunan. Sana ay malinaw ang lahat. Kung hindi, pasensya na at followup na lang. :)
 
Last edited:
mga boss, sino na po yung nakapanuod nung god is not dead? may nasipat kasi ako kagabing dvd on the way home kaso di ko pa napapanuod. @ gano kaya ka bias yung movie?
 
 
Dun sa kabilang thread ang lakas makahirit ng unggoy. :lol:

Kung alam nya lang yung nangyari sa Dover Case in Texas.

Evolution is a fact and proven correct in courts and scientific peer reviews. Andaming evidence. Hindi ko alam kung ano uunahin. DNA? Radioactive Dating? Fossils? Oh well.

Kahit butasin nila ng butasin ang Evolution down to the point na wala na --- That doesn't mean creationism is correct. Wala pang matinong evidence (so far) sila na-present.
 
rueryuzaki said:
Dun sa kabilang thread ang lakas makahirit ng unggoy. :lol:

Kung alam nya lang yung nangyari sa Dover Case in Texas.

Evolution is a fact and proven correct in courts and scientific peer reviews. Andaming evidence. Hindi ko alam kung ano uunahin. DNA? Radioactive Dating? Fossils? Oh well.

Kahit butasin nila ng butasin ang Evolution down to the point na wala na --- That doesn't mean creationism is correct. Wala pang matinong evidence (so far) sila na-present.
Click to expand...

Angas nga eh. Makikipagtalo pero turuan daw muna sila sa mga topics na involved. Napagkamalan tayong skul d2. haha
 
Stormer0628 said:
Natawa ako sa mga review sa film na yan. Check these out:
  1. http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/04/08/review-gods-not-dead/7457995/
  2. http://variety.com/2014/film/reviews/film-review-gods-not-dead-1201142881/
  3. http://www.avclub.com/review/gods-not-dead-mess-even-christian-film-standards-202571
  4. http://cinema-crazed.com/blog/2014/05/07/gods-not-dead-2014/
  5. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/04/review-gods-not-dead-dir-harold-cronk-2014.html
  6. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/gods-not-dead-film-review-690393
:)
Click to expand...

ahahaha. ampangit ng review, pati pala mga christian hindi natuwa.. bukas ko nalang papanuorin pag solo na ako. meron kasing bisita mas gusto panuorin yung fifty shades of gray uncut.makaka garahe nanaman sa wakas yung susi ko sa kotse ng bisita.:lol:
 
rueryuzaki said:
Dun sa kabilang thread ang lakas makahirit ng unggoy. :lol:

Kung alam nya lang yung nangyari sa Dover Case in Texas.

Evolution is a fact and proven correct in courts and scientific peer reviews. Andaming evidence. Hindi ko alam kung ano uunahin. DNA? Radioactive Dating? Fossils? Oh well.

Kahit butasin nila ng butasin ang Evolution down to the point na wala na --- That doesn't mean creationism is correct. Wala pang matinong evidence (so far) sila na-present.
Click to expand...

dami ko ngang tawa sa taong yun... bakit daw? nakita ko daw ba noon ang process sa kauna unahang tao? :lol: :lol: :lol:

so kinontra ko by saying ganyan ganyan...

tapos binalik ko sa kanya, bakit andun ka ba sa panahon ni hesus? :lol:

hayssss nakakatawa lang, pang ubos oras.
 
makikiraan lang mga bro.....
mukhang marami rami akong babasahin ulit dito para makahabol sa mga usapin he he he....
 
ronell10 said:
dami ko ngang tawa sa taong yun... bakit daw? nakita ko daw ba noon ang process sa kauna unahang tao? :lol: :lol: :lol:

so kinontra ko by saying ganyan ganyan...

tapos binalik ko sa kanya, bakit andun ka ba sa panahon ni hesus? :lol:

hayssss nakakatawa lang, pang ubos oras.
Click to expand...

:lol:
sakin naman ganito sagot ko sa isa: eh kung ganyan ang katuwiran mo, hindi mo rin mapapatunayan na nag-eexist ka ngayon. bakit kamo? eh kase kaya mo bang bumalik sa sinapupunan ng ina mo para matiyak at maobserbahan mo ang pagluluwal sayo? :lol: :lol:
 
Last edited:
Stormer0628 said:
:lol:
sakin naman ganito: eh kung ganyan ang katuwiran mo, hindi mo rin mapapatunayan na nag-eexist ka ngayon. bakit kamo? eh kase kaya mo bang bumalik sa sinapupunan ng ina mo para matiyak at maobserbahan mo ang pagluluwal sayo? :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...


kausap mo na nga eh hindi pa nag-eexist, bakit ung diyos nyo ba pag tnxt mo magrrply ba, try mo txt c ronell10 pag d yan nag rply o sumagot sa comment mo di na yan nag-eexist,, wag nang ipilit kc eh...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom