- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
^- Yep, i feel like talking about anything. hehe
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
- Thread starter Robotculator
- Start date
- Replies 12,090
- Views 437,833
- Status
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
The Catholic Church is locked into rules that cannot be changed by them despite the desire of some of them to change, even the Pope. The Church only meddles with societal issues solely on moral ground. And when it comes to moral issues, the Catholic Church has maintained a very hard line teaching what we might call traditional or objective morality, even in the face of widespread protest. No matter what pressures the changing culture will put on the Church to change the teachings of Jesus, they will not change. This is why the Catholic Church has always been counter-culture and often gets the reputation as being oppressive. It does not conform its core teachings to fit the changing culture of the world. Jesus, Himself, said His church wouldn't be popular. He never changed His positions to gain popularity. And the Church is basically following that lead.
The two previous world wars were basically caused by clashes of different ideologies and they are not religious but rather secular political ideologies. Both of these world wars revolved around secular ideas that supplanted religion from which racial theories like social darwinism and scientific racism were used as actual justifications for slavery, racial segregation and genocide carried out by people who hold a nationalistic view, from the European imperialists in the early modern period to the malevolent dictators in the 20th century like Hitler and Stalin. These deadly ideas were actually born from and inevitable consequence of the Enlightenment when Enlightenment thinkers sought scientific validation to legitimize their rights as a superior race. This was un-Christian. This was the beginning of the era of secularism and scientism. Religion was totally out of the picture here. And the 20th century was the time when the restraining power of religion finally completely collapsed for which it helped push the war in the era of total war. And this only proves that when the objective moral standards of religion are replaced by atheistic ideologies, it's a slippery slope to hell.
How could religion unite these countries when their leaders were either people who had long abandoned their religious faith or who professed to be Christians (in order to get the support of the majority of their citizens) but did otherwise? But thankfully, these once atheistic countries (East Germany, Soviet Union, China) finally learned their lesson. And history speaks for itself that a world without religion will even push the world into a total warzone.
Slovak and Czech people are essentially from the same West Slavic ethnicity (they share virtually the same genetic makeup) but one of them is religious which kind of makes intelligence a non-factor in the argument against the irreligiosity of the other. Czech Republic is now irreligious primarily due to its proximity to and influence by East Germany which used to be atheistic. Nothing to do with intelligence
The fact that 8 of 10 of people with the highest IQs in the world are theists, and 6 of them are Christians proves that all these "findings" showing the inverse proportional relationship between religion and intelligence are dubious and sketchy. They are only done to support already existing stereotypes about race, sex, class and religion but are, in fact, not scientific. Not only do scientists who believe in God outnumber those that are atheists, religious people are also a majority among all educational levels. proving again that intelligence and education play a smaller role in determining the religiosity of an individual than income does.
The rise of atheism in wealthy nations is actually generally a response to, and not the cause of, their increased standard of living, but it is not directly linked by causation since there are also wealthy people who are religious.
The Native American civilizations were not as advanced as their counterparts in Europe, the Middle East/North Africa and Asia. Virtually all of the scientific, religious, political and economic knowledge we have today have their origin in ancient Old World civilizations.
Human sacrifices were much more common before modern religions, which all prohibit it. Before Christianity was introduced to Europe and the Americas, human sacrifices were normal. There was no evidence to the contrary. The Jews never sacrificed humans for God. There was no evidence of it either. They sacrificed animals. About Abraham, God was just testing his loyalty to see if he would actually kill his own son. But God did not intend Abraham's his son to be killed that's why he stopped him. It was only a test of faith something unbelievers can't seem to grasp because they lack this essential thing. And the death of Jesus actually ended greater barbarism.
Science is not a poll. It is an unbiased pursuit of the truth (although nothing humans do is free from bias). Thus, 100% of scientists can believe or not believe in something, but that has no bearing on whether it is true. If a number of scientists agree with something in the realm of science, they are more LIKELY to be correct, but it is still not a guarantee. (A lot of scientists used to believe in the many now outdated scientific ideas at one point.) But when scientists are polled on something outside the realm of their expertise (like religion or theology), they are no more likely to be correct than any other random people chosen for a poll. So it really doesn't matter whether most scientists are religious or atheist. It does not prove anything one way or another.
The Bible is basically a political book. It talks about civil government just as much as it talks about religious truths and salvation history. And I'm not just merely talking about its obvious and undeniable influence in the U.S. Constitution, but actual political and legal concepts and principles which are the basis of a democratic society that all exist in one form or another in the Judaeo-Christian Bible. The principle of secularism has it roots in the Bible. Even evangelical atheists don't deny this fact. Another is the principle of religious freedom which is discussed extensively in the Bible. Also, a lot of the liberties that are being enjoyed in the West particularly the ones based on freedom of conscience (speech, press, association, worship, etc.) are rooted in the theologies of the groups that sprung from the Protestant Reformation. They are born in post-biblical environment. The English common law, which is the standard judicial system in many countries particularly those former British colonies even the non-Christian ones, is again rooted in the Christian Bible. There are a whole lot more biblical influences not just in politics but also in economics, arts, literature but I'm not going to post them all for now. Anyway, you can attack, deny, and discount these all you want but as long as all these civic principles exist in the Bible and they can be read objectively by anyone who doesn't have any preconceived bias, this fact will never be erased. Just like what I've said previously, the western civilization was not born in a vacuum. It is a part of the continuum of Judaeo-Christian civilization, so those who try to revise the history of the Christian West have a rather impoverished argument given the fact that this is already legally recognized in the Constitution not only of the United States but also of the United Kingdom apart from the obvious pattern and many scholarly books that have already been published. If you want to be completely free from the influence of Christianity, why not go to Afghanistan or North Korea?
Hinduism is naturally a pluralistic religion. It is Hindus that are not. Same for other religious adherrents. Religious people don't always practice what they preach. But the very adage of Hinduism, "Truth is one; but sages call it by different names," clearly indicates that it is pluralistic. It doesn't even require conversion as everyone is a Hindu by default bound by the laws of karma and subject to the cycle of death and reincarnation until one finally achieves moksha. All the other Dharmic religions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism) are pluralistic. Buddhism is even compatible with certain elements of Christianity while Zen Buddhism is a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism, another pluralistic eastern religion. Judaism is also another religion which doesn't encourage gentile conversion as it views it not necessary for salvation. It is a national covenantal religion that is exclusive only for the descendants of Jacob. It, however, maintains that all the righteous regardless of faith have a place in the world to come and that makes it pluralist and tolerant in its attitude towards other religious faiths. Islam also has quranic references to pluralism. (Catholic) Christianity is also pluralistic to a certain extent. It doesn't claim to be the only source of truth {as it views other religions to contain some truths in them} but rather, the "fullness of truth." A lot of Protestant denominations are even more pluralistic and inclusive. All religions are pluralistic to varying degrees. It is the false ones who ussually make exclusive claims to truth
After all this time, you are still espousing the unpopular non-academic view on the supposed pagan origins of Christianity that are either completely unfounded or have been refuted already even by secular historians but for some reason tend to stick around in the minds of the indifferentists. Just because one person theorized it, doesn't make it factual. That's basically the problem with these kind of hypotheses. Rhere is pretty much no way to verify the ideas contained therein that's why it's difficult to establish any sort of historical validity. Parallelism exists among religions but that does not mean that any one of them "stole" from the other. All people were descended from Noah and the same beliefs that all religions share were handed down from a common ancestor group. These ideas predate the Indus Valley civilization. The idea you just presented are the sort of ideas that failed to gather any academic consideration but tend to present themselves as "facts" and are easily believed by uncritical readers online for where it is easier to publish such conspiracy theories.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm not familiar with the scientists you mentioned behind that quantum potential whatever the name of that theory is but I'm pretty sure I've come across that theory a couple of months ago. I just didn't pay much attention to it as I thought it was not interesting and not any different from several other (theoretical/speculative) models for the universe I've read before.
But what interests me more is that you talk in a rather pretentious condescending tone as if that idea is an established scientific theory that is backed already by many in the scientific community and that I have missed out on big time when in fact it is nothing more than just another speculative theories that only went viral in social media due to its controversy but since then failed to garner peer acknowledgment and citation.
Yes. You really should not get ahead of yourself. Until that theory becomes finally incorporated into actual scientific literature, and not just published in the journal's section of some science-based website, there is really no point blustering that for now. Religious people have no reason to feel threatened by the emergence of all these new "scientific" ideas when it is atheists that have come up with many philosophical and scientific ideas in recent centuries but have only been eventually discredited.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Precisely. The Catholic Church is endemically locked into systemic ways out of touch with the realities of modern societies in their current form and expression, more concerned in protecting its interests rather than the interest of its adherents, meddling with empires and regimes, even becoming the center of worldly power themselves. Who would want to relinquish such control over men? Let us be clear: its creed are not always Jesus-centric; otherwise, why would other Christian denominations follow a course distinctly opposite the Catholic Church’s.
- - - Updated - - -
Very briefly, the direct cause of World War I stems from the convoluted issues of territorial disputes, international economic competition, countries rushing to protect citizens caught in the crossfires inside colonies, and the resulting alliances that culminated in the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. World War II is just Germany and its newfound allies seeking retribution from what it saw as the injustice Germany suffered from World War I.
As you can see, ideologies and matters of religions hardly figure in real politik. We think they would, but mostly we are only deluding ourselves. We think religion would unify people, but it only adds to the banners and flags that men display over their sleeves and seek to protect at all cost. Humans go to war over loyalties, and religion adds another layer of loyalties that men would easily march into battlefields for, even by detonating bombs attached to their bodies.
Evidently you are not paying close attention to the details of your creed. Like how could you tag social Darwinism as the only cause of slavery, segregation, and genocide? Perhaps you need to revisit your Old Testament to recall how your god himself was not averse to these ideas, even advising its loyal fanbase to decimate enemy populations from babies to senile folks just because they were not of the blood, or that if they were, they transgressed against heaven over some petty rules like women touching the dress of some Levite inadvertently or something like that.
My point is this: no matter how you brainwash, immerse, or tie people and nations to a certain religious belief, there will come a time they would outgrow them and seek other ways—or the entire nations die off the face of the earth if they remain in that system over time.
You certainly have a way of twisting history to defend your claims. Let’s not play selective history. You forgot that the Age of Enlightenment was Europe’s direct response against the abuses of the Catholic Church, which had at this point in history became trigger-happy burning perceived enemies at the stake, while planting and encouraging superstitions and selling indulgences over petty sins at the sides.
Stalin and Hitler were two sides of the same coin: one was mad tyrant who saw himself as a sworn Christian out to take revenge on the perceived crimes of the Jews against their blood in Jesus, while the other was a self-styled despot who saw himself at the apex of the evolutionary chain and looked at power as the ultimate right on earth.
Let us not talk of the restraining power of religion, when Holy Roman emperors themselves were quick to start wars over the pettiest detail. There are just so many loopholes in your statements that I could go on and on to burst them all. Check a non-biased book of history, not the official canons of your creed. Tsk, tsk….
Let’s not even talk about a slippery slope to hell: humanity just got out of there, in the dark ages when the Catholic Church had total hegemony over much of the face of Europe and colonized territories.
Do not make too much of the figures profiling atheists and theists. It is an ongoing project, subject to changes in the foreseeable future. But if the trend holds, it’s interesting how human civilization would look like a century or more hence.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Truth is unchanging; it is not a concept that adapts to a particular time, and the Church is upholder of truth. Society's deviation from the truth will have bad repurcussions in the end. The Church basically views this current generation as misguided but it does not try to judge anyone. It's just here to guide and not to control. Most of the Church's teachings have often been violated even by Catholics. How many Catholics have had divorce, premarital sex, abortion but have you ever seen the Church judge or ostracize anyone? The Church maintains a firm position on all its doctrines but if anyone violates them, then it can only do nothing but to pray for and forgive that person.
The Church in a sense claims much less authority over the teachings of Christ than do the majority of other "Christian" denominations, because the Catholic Church does not claim the authority to change any of Jesus' teachings.
I don't mean to undermine your knowledge but you awfully need to get some serious education on European history because you have everything totally messed up. You completely ignore the historical context surrounding the terrible events that you are associating Christianity with. It's you that need to check your sources because it's clear in your post that your source is dedicated only in altering history and propagating nothing but biased, hateful disinformation. Now listen to the correct version of history that you misapprehended.
The period when the Catholic Church had complete dominance over Europe was replete with bloodbath because it was the time when Europe fell into complete social anarchy caused by the fall of the Roman Empire. And it was only until the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire, after many failed attempts, success came to unite most of Western Europe and the complete state of lawlessness was ended when Europe finally divided into feudal kingdoms and duchies. The "Dark Ages" in Europe ended with the beginning of the Age of Discovery, the time when the Catholic Church's political power in Europe started waning. It was only after the "Dark Ages" when Spain started the era of European colonization, and the Age of Enlightenment that followed heralded the new era of European imperialism. Slavery and genocide was prevalent across the world since antiquity but they had never been done on a massive scale until the European Enlightenment. Yes. This so-called "Age of Reason" provided for an intellectual breeding ground to flourish for Europeans to develop ideas about civilizations and the concept of races which consequently provided philosophical and scientific justification for European imperialism and colonialism and tyranny for much of the 18th to 20th centuries. But the ignoramus (I say this in general) try to blame all the horrible atrocities and bloodletting that occurred during these later centuries to the Church when the Church had, in fact, lost total control of Europe even a century earlier. The Church's height of temporal power was during the reign of Pope Innocent III in the late 12th century. But after his death in the early 13th century saw a gradual decline in the Church's power until it almost completely collapsed in the 16th century. For centuries that followed the governments of France, England and Germany were controlling the Church and using it as a political tool in those days, not the other way around.
These modern-day European countries owe so much from the Catholic Church. Europe was just completely hopeless after the fall of the Roman Empire. The unifying force in Europe was gone during that period thus it went into total chaos. No government, no economic activity, no education, no cultural progress. The only unifying force of any sort left was the Church. The barbarians of Europe that formed their own tribal kingdoms did not have the knowledge and abilities to reconstruct society until they were christianized and civilized. That's the civilizing effect of Christianity for you. The Holy Roman Empire that you are vilifying was, just as mentioned, the first successful attempt to form a stable secular government and had also prevented Islam from expanding in Europe for which it had already conquered much of Southern Europe. The government structure during those times was aristocratic and autocratic because it was the only viable system during those "Dark Ages." Society just had to start all over again. Democracy would have not worked especially when the general population was uncivilized. The Inquisition that earned an infamous reputation was instrumental in civilizing Europe as well as in providing a model for a fair judicial system during those barbaric times. The centuries of Muslim aggression and conquest of Europe had to be stopped and the Crusades were the answer to that. The Protestant Reformation also had their great ccontribution in the shaping of modernity. All of these historic events were bloody violent but if they never took place, none of these great European nations. and the freedoms that they enjoy, and the modern ideas and vast amount of knowledge that benefit them today and the whole world would have emerged. They were all bound to happen. And it's disappointing that some people can't look past their historical and religious prejudices instead of reconsidering and aiming for a deeper understanding and perspective of history.
There can only be two real factors in order for religion to lose its foothold in society: government-sactioned suppression of religious freedom, and economic prosperity. Humans will never outgrow religious beliefs because they are religious by nature. Restriction of religious freedom is the reason for the decline of religiosity in some countries especially those that had been under communist rule (China, Czech Rep., Estonia) and this government control of freedom is also the main reason that human rights abuses continue to this day. It is clear that restricting freedom is more dangerous than any belief as shown by widespread religious persecution by communist regimes in the 20th century. For other nations especially the wealthy democratic ones in Europe, their very high and stable economic condition provides them existential and material security which basically renders religion useless. They just find that they have no need for God, since they have most all they want. Take those things away, though, and these atheists will beat a path to the doors of churches.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
hihingi lang ako ng apple juice ts.Kumusta ang mga enlightened diyan!
House Rules
- Hindi maaaring magdebate ang Atheists at Agnostics.
- Atheists igalang mo ang pananalig ng mga Agnostics
- Agnostics huwag mong personalin ang mga Atheists
- Mabuhay tayo ng may katibayan. Yehey!
Alin ang pwede
SQUARE SOCRATIC ARGUMENT LANG ANG PWEDE! NO FALLACY KUNG HINDI I-REREPORT NAMIN KAYO! Logical and Philosophical Analysis should also work, Scientific evidence must be provided with logical explanations too.
Thread Purpose
Upang magkaroon ng lugar at diskusyon ang mga Atheists at Agnostics.
For Our Visitors
If you have to ask anything, feel free. btw, we have apple juice on the frigged.
btw, naniniwala ako na God really exist.
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Stormer, dyan ka pa ba?
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
i'm back...!
tied myself to another contract, but lemme see if i could snatch some time and get back to some of the last discussions here.
@ rueryuzaki — what's up man? found the last exchanges interesting so far? or tired of them yet?
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Yep, I'd like to take a different approach - by asking lots and lots of questions.
It was kinda good but it will take some time to reach the conclusion. ehehehe
It was kinda good but it will take some time to reach the conclusion. ehehehe
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
If the Spanish colonizers did not destroy all the important artifacts of civilization of the Mesoamerican culture in their hands, we could have a better appreciation of what the ancient peoples there have achieved, to enable us to compare it to, say, Europe, Asia, the Near East, South Asia, and the like. Yet, even without those, the available evidence and existing ruins, or what we could make of them, suggest that the ancient South American civilizations have made extraordinary inroads in astronomy, architecture, mathematics, engineering, and urban planning. The fact that many monuments and structures stand to this day is testament to their ingenuity.
Many of us take it for granted that the Amazon is nothing but a large swath of utter wilderness. Now we know better.
Consider that even old conquistadores chronicled of megacities in the middle of the Amazon, of markets and streets brimming with people as far as the eyes could see. In the past, such talk has met with skepticism from experts, seeing them as nothing but forms of extreme fantasizing and overexaggeration. In the light of current findings, however, the brilliant archeologists are just about ready to modify their long-held views: for recent surveys of the Amazon have revealed megastructures that confirm all the old tales written by the first Spanish colonizers. Now how do you reconcile that with the thought that these ancient cultures are behind the other civilizations?
Human sacrifice was a rare but widespread practice in ancient Near Eastern religion, and there is evidence that until about the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, it was an acceptable part of Israelite and Judean religion as well. There's the story of the near-sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham. It is popularly believed that because an angel prevented Abraham from killing his son at the last moment, the story constitutes a condemnation of child sacrifice. But that's not the case. Isaac is spared not because human sacrifice is seen to be immoral, but because Isaac was the child of promise and needed to survive. In reality, the account depends upon the logic of human sacrifice, because Abraham is praised for his willingness to kill his own son to appease Yahweh.
There is evidence that ancient Israelites believed that human sacrifices could be offered to Yahweh in exchange for victory in battle against their enemies. The Israelite warrior Jephthah sacrificed his virgin daughter to Yahweh in fulfillment of a vow he made in order to secure Yahweh's help in battle. The same ideology can be seen in some early accounts of the Canaanite conquest, in which Yahweh gives Israelites victory against Canaanite armies, and the Israelites in turn slaughter all of the women and children in payment to Yahweh for his aid.
There's also evidence that Yahweh commanded human sacrifice in the law of Moses. Later, when the practice of human sacrifice fell into disrepute among elite circles, the prophet Ezekiel confirms that Yahweh commanded human sacrifice, but interprets that command as a form of punishment for Israel's disobedience. Ezekiel needed a way to deal with that tradition found in Exodus 22, and did so by claiming that Yahweh ordered them to kill their firstborn sons as a way of getting back at them for their lack of faith in him. Obviously Ezekiel's solution to the problem was problematic in itself, but at least we can thank him for helping to put an end to the institution of child sacrifice in Israelite religion.
The whole political ideas of the west rest on classical Greece and Rome, the former especially, where the dissection of political ideas reached its zenith in the works of such thinkers as Plato and Aristotle, standard fare for any aspiring student of politico-philosophical thought.
Where the Judaeo-Christian made its mark is in the sponsorship of the idea of the Divine Right of Kings, the whole idea of which was thwarted by the arrival of Magna Carta and expressed in highest form in the Bill of Rights.
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
he is not exist,
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
While it is easy to fall into the conclusion that Hinduism or Buddhism is pluralistic, as is the fashion for the last few decades or so, we must always wonder why its adherents could easily fall into the trap of aggression in the face of overwhelming challenges to their established systems.
Built in into religious systems are the very definitions of a whole way of life. It can be seen in the economic, social, philosophical, political, ritualistic spheres. Hinduism, for example, limits who have access to the cream of a nation's resources (the Brahmins), who ascends to higher political offices, which caste one should marry into, how sons and daughters are to be treated, how women are to be approached, even how sacred entities, like cows, are to be off-limits to some human activities. Look at this way, religions must always be set up to clash with other systems. So it proves when you look at the bloody confrontations between Muslims and Hindus in the whole South Asia (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kashmir). The notion of pluralism is a romantic ideal, best achieved in sparse settings of foreign territories, not in the cauldron where the main adherents dwell. If religions are pluralists, they should be more than willing and ready to die off from the invasion of proselytizing external faiths, but there is no such events recorded in history. The contrary is what we always see.
When you apply the same thoughts to Christianity and Islam, and couple them with the fundamentals of mutual exclusivity in the core tenets of each religion (Jesus the only way to salvation vs. Mohammed and Islam the only realities), the whole idea of pluralism approaches farcical levels. Again, we only need look at the bloodshed around us to see how our ideals are so much departed from reality.
AS for the pagan origins of Christianity, a cursory look at the materials available is sufficient to confirm the extensive borrowings of Christianity from previous belief systems. Choose your poison: Mithraism, Greek and Egyptian mythologies, Buddhism, or Hinduism. And they are not non-academic as you say. Unpopular, perhaps, especially from people of the Christian faith, but who would want to be accosted in the face of such truth? I was once a Christian myself, so I know the feeling.
- - - Updated - - -
There is so much going on not just in cosmology, physics, mathematics, but also the whole of science and other fields today. Fortunately, my work enables me to be at the forefront of the latest trends in human knowledge acquisition.
Contrary to what you believe, the paper about the new interpretation of Steady State Theory is heavily peer reviewed, and cited by many scientists in the field. It was not published in some derelict educational or professional establishment, but in one of the biggest venues for such material. The authors themselves are respected scientists who are connected with some of the biggest experiments of our age, like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Switzerland.
It is understandable for people of the faith to quickly shun such materials that challenge the very core of their faith. In your early posts you have been very cocky stating that the Steady State Theory is obsolete—dead. When I came along—pointing out that as far as the current affairs of cosmology and physics stand nothing is dead, even old theories, as new discoveries come along and even the Standard Model is at a loss to explain them away—you are too swift to claim injury. That is why I just love posters who could not take it in the chin like real men do: they think they can dish out anything they like, but complain when the tables are turned against them and cower behind their mother’s dress.
There is a reason I have to tone down any enthusiasm about the theory: at this stage, nothing is final, as ever is in any field of science. Compare that with your creed, for which, as far as it is concerned, everything is already known ever since those shepherds came out of their caves to pronounce their deities and some vicious group out for control put them down into some form of text that is deemed worth a book to ram into the throats of children and men to make them easily pliable and manipulable.
- - - Updated - - -
So there: no more mistaking you for being a staunch supporter of the Catholic Church’s stands even if they fall direly out of synch with the times and new findings (let’s not say “truths” yet). Obviously you still cling to that tenet central to the Catholic Church and the bane of humanity for ages past: infallibility.
I am sure many readers here are intelligent enough to make out and be able to read between the lines of what your post indicates. And the internet is littered literally of why such stand runs smack and afoul of affected nations’ economies, contingencies, developmental planning, social unrest. Homophobia, opposition to birth control, etc., are issues devoid of purely black and white issues about them, and yet here you are persisting to make “truths” of your position—the Church’s position—in those matters. This insistence that you alone have the key to the “truth” is an affront and direct assault to the intelligence of men everywhere, even to other Christian denominations who hold their own version of what the essence of Jesus’s teachings really is—without labeling them “truth” as the habit of the Catholic Church is.
- - - Updated - - -
Now, now, having scored you about your woeful version of recent history, you think you could push the envelope to antiquity and get one over me. I am sure your creed has something to say about presumptuousness, but then again I could be wrong about that too, for the attitude seems to be a defining characteristic of your type in venues such as this.
Of course I have an inkling why you should view my post as biased and hateful, even as I have done nothing but present facts and arguments counter to your own. It is a free market of ideas, is it not, and if you cannot present sound proofs to your arguments, well I am sure the readers here are smarter than what you assume them to be to be able to judge themselves.
You think you know your history. European history as far as the activities and involvement of the Catholic Church is concerned. Let’s see.
Most people are severely lacking with respect to how the Catholic Church climbed to ascendancy of power in Europe. In fact, it was a simple case of the application that nature abhors vacuum, and when the Roman Empire fell, the whole of Europe was open to anyone who had the means to take over the whole place. It was just not to be for the bit players, no matter how powerful as barbarian tribes they were. They operated separately and within their limited areas of influence, or where their foot soldiers and smallish army of ships could take them, but they lacked the centralizing philosophies necessary to make divergent cultures coexist under one common wing. Even for the Church, as humble as it was, the door was largely left open for it to take over. But that could be said now in hindsight—after the fact.
As it was, the Catholic Church had, in the very beginning, the one critical element to make it the lord of Europe: at its heart was a central, unifying tenet that could be used for wider applications, not just in the religious sphere.
Even before Europe fell into abysmal disrepute after Rome, early Christians, sick of the perceived corruption of the world, retreated into the mountains of solitude as hermits, or found solace with brothers of the faith and established the orders that soon became a defining characteristic of the Church in its later history.
These orders took with them many forms of repositories of knowledge, but most importantly for the times, they brought with them practical know-how in the field of agriculture and animal husbandry. When individual farmers left their farms, they left open vast fields stagnating from fear of returning marauders and various bands of armed men more than willing to take their lives for a piece of one bread or kernel of corn.
These empty fields would become productive again in the hands of the early Christian orders, and the former owners either reward them for it, or turn over the whole estates to them in appreciation for their works. Similarly, when Europe started to find some measure of order and civility in the lands, and seeing the good work previously rendered by the Christian orders, rewarded them handsomely with vaster estates as a sign of appreciation of their work, setting the stage for a Church that held, at one time, more estates than perhaps other nation-states in other regions of the world.
In the beginning, the early Christians stuck to their simple lives and faith, seeing over large portions of lands and larger number of hands attending to these plantations and estates.
Ironically, the possession of these vast estates and people, and the system that effectively administered them, became an overly object of desire for men outside their faith. Now rulers crave for them, and they found a way to appropriate positions within the Church while melding its systems with the means of rulership. It does not take a rocket scientist where all this led to, as we see the concept of Church and State being one and the same in the early play of history of Europe. The political and religious powers often coming to overlap, we see divine rulers purposely declare a church position vacant in order to receive gainful biddings from greedy and ambitious men to assume the position. Thus the marriage of state and religion was complete at this stage. Of how the Church found itself inescapably embroiled in the affairs of Europe outside of its own faith—the internal corruption of the Church, as some would have it.
You mention that perhaps this was a period necessary for the subsequent events that followed in history: the successful push against Islam spread in Europe, the unification and civilization of vast regions under one roof—even at the cost of severely censoring any opposition to itself—in philosophy, military, science, etc. In similar vein, shouldn’t we be maligning the rules of Stalin, Hitler, etc., putting down those against them, just because they are in the process of consolidating, stabilizing, and unifying their respective rulership? Think about that.
In retrospect, let me put it this way: yes, there is so much to owe to the Catholic Church, no matter the errors in its way that we find now, in the same way that we love our parents who nurtured us in the best possible way they deemed was necessary. The story goes a long way when we have grown wiser to those negative ways and still approve of them, even tolerate them in the light of what we know now.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Pst manong,
Citations po. I'm interested to know what's new with the revised SST .
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Pst manong,
Citations po. I'm interested to know what's new with the revised SST .
it was formally submitted to physics letters for review;
compare here
how some take it
how it differs from the old SST
alam ko marami ako napost earlier related dito.
and, mind you, the authors themselves would be averse to perhaps formally naming the theory a remolding of SST. the moniker of new SST came from people who thought it bears some close resemblance to the original SST.
- - - Updated - - -
Men of the Christian faith would naively follow the Scholastic strain of thought looking at free will as so free that it can never be constrained, the same vein of reasoning that goes all the way to Descartes, Suarez, and Scotus. But imagine how it would surprise them now if they knew of the many layers of determinants that undermine free will conceived as such. Indeed, the mainstream view now is that we can readily conceive willings that are not free. Much of the debate about free will centers around whether we human beings have it, yet virtually no one doubts that we will to do this and that. The main perceived threats to our freedom of will are various alleged determinisms: physical/causal; psychological; biological; theological. For each variety of determinism, there are philosophers who (1) deny its reality, either because of the existence of free will or on independent grounds; (2) accept its reality but argue for its compatibility with free will; or (3) accept its reality and deny its compatibility with free will. There are also a few who say the truth of any variety of determinism is irrelevant because free will is simply impossible.
A recent trend is to suppose that agent causation accounts capture, as well as possible, our prereflective idea of responsible, free action. But the failure of philosophers to work the account out in a fully satisfactory and intelligible form reveals that the very idea of free will (and so of responsibility) is incoherent or at least inconsistent with a world very much like our own. Some scientists take a more complicated position, on which there are two ‘levels’ on which we may assess freedom, ‘compatibilist’ and ‘ultimate’. On the ultimate level of evaluation, free will is indeed incoherent.
The will has also recently become a target of empirical study in neuroscience and cognitive psychology. A study in 2002 conducted experiments designed to determine the timing of conscious willings or decisions to act in relation to brain activity associated with the physical initiation of behavior. Interpretation of the results is highly controversial. Libet, the scientist who made the experiment, concludes that the studies provide strong evidence that actions are already underway shortly before the agent wills to do it. As a result, we do not consciously initiate our actions, though he suggests that we might nonetheless retain the ability to veto actions that are initiated by unconscious psychological structures. Another work amasses a range of studies (including those of Libet) to argue that the notion that human actions are ever initiated by their own conscious willings is simply a deeply-entrenched illusion and proceeds to offer an hypothesis concerning the reason this illusion is generated within our cognitive systems.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Sorry to inform you, but it turns out that paper published by Ali and Das has been debunked already and rejected from the PRD (Physical Review D).
Give a look here.
Other sites refuting the hypothesis:
http://futurism.com/popular-press-announces-big-bang-didnt-happen/
http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...are-claiming-that-the-big-bang-never-happened
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/02/has-big-bang-theory-been-disproved.html
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/..._has_the_big_bang_theory_been_disproved/best/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...tum-fluid-of-hypothetical-massless-particles/
You have a rather distorted view of both science and religion if you really think that the emergence of scientific ideas challenge religious faith. You should start learning about the philosophy of science so as not to conflate your own materialistic worldview which is called "scientism" (a kind of philosophy and the one which actually tries to challenge religion) with proper science. Believe it or not. But science is not entirely a bias-free enterprise. It reflects one's beliefs, interests and ambitions. That's why the same Science that is used to defend one's premises can also be used to attack them. And while you're at it, why not try to look up the history of science as well? Since philosophy started in the pre-Socratic era, there was no distinction between science, philosophy and religion/theology. The distinction began only in the early modern period when natural philosophy (physical/natural sciences) was separated from moral philosophy (theology, philosophy proper, metaphysics). And the scientific (inductive) method which is widely used in the natural sciences actually bars science from making any statement for and against the other disciplines. Science, itself, says that there's flat-out ZERO way of PROVING anything. So any attempt used to discredit the other disciplines and their scope of knowledge by using (physical/natural) science (and its method) shows a great misconception about the nature and practice of science and should outright be dismissed. That's why I try to avoid all sensationalist "science" articles making ridiculous claims like "*insert new scientific theory* disproves god" like the one in your links. I know they were written by hacks and crackpots, not by real scientists, or they were not intended by their actual authors to be portrayed in such manner.
What I've noticed from your arguments is that you are fond of deferring from popular opinion by espousing radical ideas/theories (both in science and history) based on unfounded assumptions, and supporting/perpetuating guilt theories (in religion) that have very little to no evidence and have been discarded for the most part even by majority of modern scholars. I'm not going to try to change your position or refute all the errors in your arguments. But I want to remind you that in this day and age of media hotheads and internet warriors, academic consensus especially in the social sciences (subjects most prone to many ideological biases) is most important. Nothing in life is and can be proven with absolute certainty but an objective and unweighted academic consensus, regardless as to the subject matter, is indicative that the opinion of the EDUCATED majority is MOST likely to be correct. Countless books have been written about the relationship between religion and science, religion and civilization, Christianity and western civilization. The great majority of these have argued for a positive relationship between them. Oddly, though, the myths about religion being a detrimental and obstructive force persist purely due to historical ignorance and their illustrious pedigree (when myths have been repeated for too long they become truth in the eyes of the uninformed and bigoted people), and the fact that people insist on making the past fit into a modern framework (exactly what you're trying to do in comparing the violence in the Christian Middle Ages to the atrocities of Communism which occurred in the modern period).
- - - Updated - - -
About your comment on free will, it's worth noting that the findings of neuroscience about free will are not conclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
Also, there are opposing support between neuroscience and quantum physics regarding free will. It's not settled science.
Anyway, all these studies about the existence of free will and soul are perfunctory in that they assume that free will and the soul reside in the human brain and that we are just a sum total of the our physical parts. You have to discredit the notion of dualism first before you can address the impossibility of free will because you are erroneously ascribing it as not more than just a faculty of the brain.
Give a look here.
Other sites refuting the hypothesis:
http://futurism.com/popular-press-announces-big-bang-didnt-happen/
http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...are-claiming-that-the-big-bang-never-happened
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/02/has-big-bang-theory-been-disproved.html
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/..._has_the_big_bang_theory_been_disproved/best/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...tum-fluid-of-hypothetical-massless-particles/
You have a rather distorted view of both science and religion if you really think that the emergence of scientific ideas challenge religious faith. You should start learning about the philosophy of science so as not to conflate your own materialistic worldview which is called "scientism" (a kind of philosophy and the one which actually tries to challenge religion) with proper science. Believe it or not. But science is not entirely a bias-free enterprise. It reflects one's beliefs, interests and ambitions. That's why the same Science that is used to defend one's premises can also be used to attack them. And while you're at it, why not try to look up the history of science as well? Since philosophy started in the pre-Socratic era, there was no distinction between science, philosophy and religion/theology. The distinction began only in the early modern period when natural philosophy (physical/natural sciences) was separated from moral philosophy (theology, philosophy proper, metaphysics). And the scientific (inductive) method which is widely used in the natural sciences actually bars science from making any statement for and against the other disciplines. Science, itself, says that there's flat-out ZERO way of PROVING anything. So any attempt used to discredit the other disciplines and their scope of knowledge by using (physical/natural) science (and its method) shows a great misconception about the nature and practice of science and should outright be dismissed. That's why I try to avoid all sensationalist "science" articles making ridiculous claims like "*insert new scientific theory* disproves god" like the one in your links. I know they were written by hacks and crackpots, not by real scientists, or they were not intended by their actual authors to be portrayed in such manner.
What I've noticed from your arguments is that you are fond of deferring from popular opinion by espousing radical ideas/theories (both in science and history) based on unfounded assumptions, and supporting/perpetuating guilt theories (in religion) that have very little to no evidence and have been discarded for the most part even by majority of modern scholars. I'm not going to try to change your position or refute all the errors in your arguments. But I want to remind you that in this day and age of media hotheads and internet warriors, academic consensus especially in the social sciences (subjects most prone to many ideological biases) is most important. Nothing in life is and can be proven with absolute certainty but an objective and unweighted academic consensus, regardless as to the subject matter, is indicative that the opinion of the EDUCATED majority is MOST likely to be correct. Countless books have been written about the relationship between religion and science, religion and civilization, Christianity and western civilization. The great majority of these have argued for a positive relationship between them. Oddly, though, the myths about religion being a detrimental and obstructive force persist purely due to historical ignorance and their illustrious pedigree (when myths have been repeated for too long they become truth in the eyes of the uninformed and bigoted people), and the fact that people insist on making the past fit into a modern framework (exactly what you're trying to do in comparing the violence in the Christian Middle Ages to the atrocities of Communism which occurred in the modern period).
- - - Updated - - -
About your comment on free will, it's worth noting that the findings of neuroscience about free will are not conclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
Also, there are opposing support between neuroscience and quantum physics regarding free will. It's not settled science.
Anyway, all these studies about the existence of free will and soul are perfunctory in that they assume that free will and the soul reside in the human brain and that we are just a sum total of the our physical parts. You have to discredit the notion of dualism first before you can address the impossibility of free will because you are erroneously ascribing it as not more than just a faculty of the brain.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Except for the paper by E. I. Lashin, all the other links that you showed present comments from nonprofessionals or nonscientists who know nothing of Bohm except that it sounds like a common kitchenware, much less of de Broglie (not broccoli, mind you) from where Bohm originally drew his works, talking about rejection from PRD when the fact of the matter is that it is an ongoing process. Anyway, Das and Ali themselves have refuted the refutation by Lashin here, and we shall see what comes of it, shall we?
The BBT is such a cherished pet of nonsecular crowd seeing that it was one of their own, Georges Lemaître, who came up with it. Okay, you might now say, even assuming you are familiar with it, how about the COBE and the red shift? Well, COBE accounts for background emission, and there are many ways to look at its source. As for the red shift, Ali and Das clearly enunciate how their formula took care of dark energy and dark matter in one fell swoop.
Only brazen fundamentalists ready to defend their faith no matter what would think that scientific findings have no bearing to religious doctrines. The attitude of your kind belies the truth that when certain theories serve your end, it would take but a minute for your henchmen to flood all media outlet to trumpet such a case. But never mind, it is not only you—many do it for any cause.
There is no sensational theory per se. But you can be sure the media will do all they can to sell their content. In the case of Ali and Das, for example, many in the media overhyped the theory to the point where it is all but lost that their output is really a work in progress, though they are confident that some form of their theory would conform with any future system, seeing it makes coherent fusion of general relativity and quantum physics, a feat that up to now only string theory could lay a claim to.
Your arguments reveal a person well-versed in the typical scripted language drills of apologetics, who relish in turning over hubris in arguments and projecting the same to the opposing side. All the while, you have made all unsubstantiated, belabored claims while I refute all your little details from point to point.
Let’s not get started about civility in science and religion. What we have is perhaps decades long period of détente, but there is a reason secularists do all they can to prevent encroachment of religious fairytales in the system of education again. Until scientists submit their papers to the Vatican, let us not delude ourselves of what’s really happening beneath the scenes.
It is all well to speak of the philosophy of science. But: are you willing to go to any length dissecting with me the works of all the early Greek and Roman thinkers up to Bacon, Schopenhauer, Hume, Berkeley, Kant, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, Spinoza, Rousseau, Popper, Rand, and the like? You don’t understand at all: you think I’m floating on thin air without being grounded to all these thinkers who made such impact on my total makeup. Now perhaps you understand that presumptiveness could easily get back in your face.
The fatal flaw in your statement is to assume that what people make of scientific findings is the same as science. No. Scientific findings must necessarily have corollary extensions and applications to many facets of life, even in matters of faith or religion, yes. Have you forgotten how it was before when people thought lightning came from the handiworks of angry gods or demons, until the works of Faraday to Maxwell made the belief so absurd? Or how science freed men from the dark days of many superstitions (especially those espoused and by encouraged by the Church, either covertly or overtly) and the restrictions they entail, of how science consigned those very superstitions to the dustbin of history by showing the naturalistic causes of things? Remember that even the rite of human sacrifice is rooted from such utter fear of those angry gods, that men thought the practice was the best way to appease them. Science does what it has to do, but the results must always have other consequences in the whole spectrum of human life, open to interpretations of other fields or the laymen themselves. You speak like science is a field divorced from the totality of human experience.
Ah, now perhaps you are alluding to Godel’s two incompleteness theorems. Tell me again, how far have you gone probing the subject? If you have heard of the work of Chaitin, Cahill, then we have a good discussion to start on. Maybe.
A common misunderstanding is to interpret Gödel's first theorem as showing that there are truths that cannot be proved. This is, however, incorrect, for the incompleteness theorem does not deal with provability in any absolute sense, but only concerns derivability in some particular formal system or another.
Mysticism and the existence of God? Sometimes quite fantastic conclusions are drawn from Gödel's theorems. It has been even suggested that Gödel's theorems, if not exactly prove, at least give strong support for mysticism or the existence of God. These interpretations seem to assume one or more misunderstandings as indicated above: it is either assumed that Gödel provided an absolutely unprovable sentence, or that Gödel's theorems imply Platonism, or anti-mechanism, or both.
Now there’s the clue why it baffles you that I do not tarry on the “popular” theories or isms in social sciences (not just history). The answer really is very easy and requires nothing but common sense: you do not forge ahead by sticking to what’s already done or discovered. Sooner or later they’d be stale and colored by many other forms of prejudice or taken over by some interest groups (say, the Vatican’s attempt in the last 50-100 years to clean up its bad boy image and cultivate cordialities with the academe, professions, policymakers, etc., which do not always work the way they imagined).
Only the clueless is really satisfied with what’s already at hand, be it in matters of ideas, technologies, or what have you. Yet many things are left unsettled in many areas—especially if one is aware of them. That is why many fields of science now see a proliferation of new research in search of answers to old and new questions that arise from previous research and theories. Cutting edge—that is the currency of the truly curious. Only fools think that education stops at any point in life. Only those deeply entrenched in the dogmas of their sects and creeds can believe that there is nothing new in the world anymore. Nothing can be further from the truth.
What I am truly saying is nothing new. Perhaps it can be illustrated clearly by what’s happening in the scientific community, specifically in the field of general relativity and quantum physics.
For those of you who are not aware of it, the attempt to unify these two fields has left scientists stumped for a good century after the publication of Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. That illustrious group of physicists from Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, Pauli has left a task so daunting that Einstein himself and a few physicists spent a good part of their later lives searching for a way to reconcile the two major descriptions of the world. When they failed, it dawned on those left that the solution may be so unheard of that the path might just require the craziest ideas anyone could ever conjure. So it proves, such that the field is now littered with such absurd and mind-boggling ideas that failed along the way, until string theory came along. This is another story, but suffice to say that even now, the consensus is that craziness might just be the biggest currency of all in the field of science, and this has spurred research in all directions, including the ones by Das and Ali, or that holographic principle by Juan Maldaceña. At the moment, supersymmetry is one of those heading to the dustbin.
As for the matter of religion, has it ever occurred to anyone that when surveying the literature at hand, what we call the mainstream output is severely limited, many of which merely echo the work of the others, and mostly in the form paying respects to political correctness for fear of stirring the waters of perceived cordiality among the Church at one hand, and those who suffered from its high-handedness in the past on the other hand. What about those who fell by the wayside from its past actions? Where are they, and what have they got to say? What about those old religions whose very own ideas and rites birthed the very own ideas and rites of the Church? Can you see the pattern of what I’m trying to say? True research must go beyond the limits of the perceived normal, as scientists now realize. Truth often lies in the path not taken by the many, taken captive as they are by the limitations of their own peers and the pressures that go with it.
- - - Updated - - -
Again, this link you included in your post supports my previous statements instead, all the thrown criticisms coming from pure philosophers who seem to abhor the science involved. There is no need to mention dualism. All we need is to focus on the art of willing itself. Interestingly I know I've come across almost similar works in the field of quantum physics in relation to the workings of the brain: essentially, it pertains to how reality seems to be determined by our subconsciousness rather than the conscious one, and that nothing is certain until the Schrodinger wave fixes itself upon the dictates of the subconsciousness—again by a few milliseconds before conscious effort time.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
it was formally submitted to physics letters for review;
compare here
how some take it
how it differs from the old SST
alam ko marami ako napost earlier related dito.
and, mind you, the authors themselves would be averse to perhaps formally naming the theory a remolding of SST. the moniker of new SST came from people who thought it bears some close resemblance to the original SST.
- - - Updated - - -
Men of the Christian faith would naively follow the Scholastic strain of thought looking at free will as so free that it can never be constrained, the same vein of reasoning that goes all the way to Descartes, Suarez, and Scotus. But imagine how it would surprise them now if they knew of the many layers of determinants that undermine free will conceived as such. Indeed, the mainstream view now is that we can readily conceive willings that are not free. Much of the debate about free will centers around whether we human beings have it, yet virtually no one doubts that we will to do this and that. The main perceived threats to our freedom of will are various alleged determinisms: physical/causal; psychological; biological; theological. For each variety of determinism, there are philosophers who (1) deny its reality, either because of the existence of free will or on independent grounds; (2) accept its reality but argue for its compatibility with free will; or (3) accept its reality and deny its compatibility with free will. There are also a few who say the truth of any variety of determinism is irrelevant because free will is simply impossible.
A recent trend is to suppose that agent causation accounts capture, as well as possible, our prereflective idea of responsible, free action. But the failure of philosophers to work the account out in a fully satisfactory and intelligible form reveals that the very idea of free will (and so of responsibility) is incoherent or at least inconsistent with a world very much like our own. Some scientists take a more complicated position, on which there are two ‘levels’ on which we may assess freedom, ‘compatibilist’ and ‘ultimate’. On the ultimate level of evaluation, free will is indeed incoherent.
The will has also recently become a target of empirical study in neuroscience and cognitive psychology. A study in 2002 conducted experiments designed to determine the timing of conscious willings or decisions to act in relation to brain activity associated with the physical initiation of behavior. Interpretation of the results is highly controversial. Libet, the scientist who made the experiment, concludes that the studies provide strong evidence that actions are already underway shortly before the agent wills to do it. As a result, we do not consciously initiate our actions, though he suggests that we might nonetheless retain the ability to veto actions that are initiated by unconscious psychological structures. Another work amasses a range of studies (including those of Libet) to argue that the notion that human actions are ever initiated by their own conscious willings is simply a deeply-entrenched illusion and proceeds to offer an hypothesis concerning the reason this illusion is generated within our cognitive systems.
Maybe you should index our posts and put them in signatures.
All the attachments that you've sent, including the previous... I think I've misplaced them somewhere... in the bold movies folders, i guess. I'll sort them out, sorry po.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Maybe you should index our posts and put them in signatures.
All the attachments that you've sent, including the previous... I think I've misplaced them somewhere... in the bold movies folders, i guess. I'll sort them out, sorry po.
who knows, i might just do that, or even better. i could also send you the bookmarks i have. that way you have instant access to all the material lying somewhere in my disc/browser for easy access. i do organize my bookmarks better nowadays thru xmarks of course.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 28
Yes! God exists. How? Would you suggest a miracle to proof His existence? I'll give you a simple yet huge miracle. Close your eyes. Hold your breath as long as you can. Can't hold any longer? Breath calmly. See? You have just experienced the gift of life thru simple breathing. Imagine your self unable to breath, won't you panic? Have you not wonder on your daily living how you wake up every single day, breath air, experiencing many things; happiness and pain. I mean, there should be other people worthy to live yet they lost life at early age and there's YOU who is still breathing and lives until today. Isn't that enough for you to say that "God does exist."?
better to reconstruct your line. "He does not exist."
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Breathing aka Respiration... Hmmm.
I breathe because there is a combined nitrogen-oxygen in the air. I can't hold my breathe that long because that's the physiological limitation of my lungs. That explains the stuff and not called a miracle anymore.
Miracles doesn't convince me. Maybe sa ibang tao -- not me.
I breathe because there is a combined nitrogen-oxygen in the air. I can't hold my breathe that long because that's the physiological limitation of my lungs. That explains the stuff and not called a miracle anymore.
Miracles doesn't convince me. Maybe sa ibang tao -- not me.
- Status