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.
Scientific Theory: Introduction

People often say that science in general is “only a theory.” It’s important to remember that the term “theory” in science is not the same as it is in general usage. A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views.

Scientific theories are empirical (observable), measurable, testable, and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Using quantifiable, repeatable measurements, scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory," which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).

ahahaha.. eto ang common misconception ng mga theist sa word na theory pag pinag uusapan yung science.. na kung tutuusin ay mas kayang patuyan ang isang science theory vs. god na fact daw. example dyan ang theory of gravity vs. god

Ang unggoy bihisan man to, ungoi ka parin haha.:rofl:

:rofl:ahahaha tama I totally agree , parang yung ahas na nag sasalita sa hardin ng eden, ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
ahahaha.. eto ang common misconception ng mga theist sa word na theory pag pinag uusapan yung science.. na kung tutuusin ay mas kayang patuyan ang isang science theory vs. god na fact daw. example dyan ang theory of gravity vs. god

Elementary pa lang, sinasabi na yan.
Then 4 na taon sa HS
then 4-5 years sa college

magsasawa ka lalo kapag engineering, IT , general science or research yung course mo.

nakakapikon yung mga ganyan --- sayang yung tuition/ pinag-aralan kung basic pa lang, waley na.
 
Last edited:
Napalaking bagay sa scientific "theory" as established statement yung element na kayang ulit-ulitin kahit makailang experiments, or kayang icorroborate or falsify ng mga experts ang isang scientific theory para patunayan na totoo or mali siya, at no tears involved kung napatunayang mali siya thru extensive methods of empirical falsifications. Ibang-iba sa iniisip ng iba na gaya lang ito ng common word na "theory," na ang pakahulugan sa kanila ay karaniwang hula-hula lang.
 
Last edited:
Napalaking bagay sa scientific "theory" as established statement yung element na kayang ulit-ulitin kahit makailang experiments, or kayang icorroborate or falsify ng mga experts ang isang scientific theory para patunayan na totoo or mali siya, at no tears involved kung napatunayang mali siya thru extensive methods of empirical falsifications. Ibang-iba sa iniisip ng iba na gaya lang ito ng common word na "theory," na ang pakahulugan sa kanila ay hula-hula lang.

Well, we do have these types of arguments coming from them:

"Our Bible is not based on "THEORY", It is based of truth for it is the word of God." - on Creation Theory

Medji malaki ang stigma sa kanila ng word na theory e no?
 
Well, we do have these types of arguments coming from them:

"Our Bible is not based on "THEORY", It is based of truth for it is the word of God." - on Creation Theory

Medji malaki ang stigma sa kanila ng word na theory e no?

+9999

minsan boss dyan nagsisimula yung circular argument. palagi ko nararanasan yun.

how did you know it's the truth? -> god wrote it. -> How did you know it's god? -> It's in the bible, it's the truth.

---
sometimes, we clarify the definitions before going in.
 
Well, we do have these types of arguments coming from them:

"Our Bible is not based on "THEORY", It is based of truth for it is the word of God." - on Creation Theory

Medji malaki ang stigma sa kanila ng word na theory e no?

Yes. That is why I felt we need some brief refresher's course here. We want to have sound and valid arguments, not childish squabbles over basic errors of understanding of terminologies. Arguments that start on wrong footing gets lost in meandering little issues soon enough and ends in nothing, both parties not benefiting from the whole exercise. :)

I also think we need to make it (politely as long as possible—come on, let's show class na lang :)) clear as a rule that unless deists get out of their bibles to prove anything, there's no reason to start or engage in discussion any further. Experience tells us it adds nothing to our enlightenment, when one side is only ready to deny—or not listen to—anything.
 
Last edited:


Yes. That is why I felt we need some brief refresher's course here. We want to have sound and valid arguments, not childish squabbles over basic errors of understanding of terminologies. Arguments that start on wrong footing gets lost in meandering little issues soon enough and ends in nothing, both parties not benefiting from the whole exercise. :)

I also think we need to make it (politely as long as possible—come on, let's show class na lang :)) clear as a rule that unless deists get out of their bibles to prove anything, there's no reason to start or engage in discussion any further. Experience tells us it adds nothing to our enlightenment, when one side is only ready to deny—or not listen to—anything.

True. But the problem with that is, they only have their fairy tale book to go by.

Being the somewhat open minded person that I am (with a bit of sadistic tendencies), I give them a chance to present a valid source. I always begin with their childrens'book's (*cough*) authenticity. If I see redundancies from previous arguments that I've had (they are almost all the same), I amuse myself a little bit then drop them, as even my patience with stupidity and redundancy have limits.

And I'm even one of the milder ones among the oldies in this thread. You should see the older aliester, greyhounds, dhanzboy, and the like. When inflicting burns on firebrand theists, I merely fling torches at them, they bring out the flamethrowers.
 
Last edited:
True. But the problem with that is, they only have their fairy tale book to go by.

Being the somewhat open minded person that I am (with a bit of sadistic tendencies), I give them a chance to present a valid source. I always begin with their childrens'book's (*cough*) authenticity. If I see redundancies from previous arguments that I've had (they are almost all the same), I amuse myself a little bit then drop them, as even my patience with stupidity and redundancy have limits.

That is why I love being atheist. Being free to be nasty and biting one time and the civilized sophist another time, all without the guilt trips :rofl:

I see your point clearly. Yep, trouble is if you take away their bible from them, what are they going to be left with. Hmmm. Paano nga ba... :think: :think:

Inis talo na lang!!! :rofl: :rofl:

...on second thought, we need the moderator here to show more leniency than they normally do... :lol: otherwise lilinis thread na to wala matitira... :lol:

on a more serious note, there is really always a limit to how much bull one can take. on a good day, we could work around them through wit and humor and gifts of glib, but on a worse day, oh, well, for myself, for example, i can be more brutal than the worse of them around, though i've learned to control myself better since this approach does not help anybody in the end really.
 
Last edited:
That is why I love being atheist. Being free to be nasty and biting one time and the civilized sophist another time, all without the guilt trips :rofl:

I see your point clearly. Yep, trouble is if you take away their bible from them, what are they going to be left with. Hmmm. Paano nga ba... :think: :think:

Inis talo na lang!!! :rofl: :rofl:

...on second thought, we need the moderator here to show more leniency than they normally do... :lol: otherwise lilinis thread na to wala matitira... :lol:

They are lenient. I survived a lot of thread suspensions after all. They do allow discussions like these every now and then. Heck, I'm not sure if Papa Pio (no, not that Fafa Piolo. Padre Pio, the mod) is still active, but he did hang around here quite often in the olden days. He allows theists to engage in a heated, but healthy discussion. That is, until things get out of hand. Then he will dish out his mighty wink of justice.
 
They are lenient. I survived a lot of thread suspensions after all. They do allow discussions like these every now and then. Heck, I'm not sure if Papa Pio (no, not that Fafa Piolo. Padre Pio, the mod) is still active, but he did hang around here quite often in the olden days. He allows theists to engage in a heated, but healthy discussion. That is, until things get out of hand. Then he will dish out his mighty wink of justice.

well you missed my latest edit in that excerpt, but what you say here sounds fairly reasonable enough. after all, what can mere posting do...? :lol: i've seen worse in listverse, for example, but otherwise they tend to settle down in the end. i even suspect some of them end up with fatal *** attractions for each other too. :rofl:
 
well you missed my latest edit in that excerpt, but what you say here sounds fairly reasonable enough. after all, what can mere posting do...? :lol: i've seen worse in listverse, for example, but otherwise they tend to settle down in the end. i even suspect some of them end up with fatal *** attractions for each other too. :rofl:

I'm still in moderation with my antics, I believe, if I'm basing it on the previous standards we had here.

Para di na masyado humaba discussion, I treat em like a piece of gum:

I chew on them until I've had my fun (gum can only be fun the first few minutes you chew on them), then spit them out and move on to another piece.

This one I'm chewing on right now is starting to lose its flavor. Unless it magically produces flavor all of a sudden, it's almost time to spit it out too.
 
I'm still in moderation with my antics, I believe, if I'm basing it on the previous standards we had here.

Para di na masyado humaba discussion, I treat em like a piece of gum:

I chew on them until I've had my fun (gum can only be fun the first few minutes you chew on them), then spit them out and move on to another piece.

This one I'm chewing on right now is starting to lose its flavor. Unless it magically produces flavor all of a sudden, it's almost time to spit it out too.

:lol: well, just as i said somewhere also here: it was fun at first, but it got old real quick. :lol:
 
Question for our times, and for both theists and nontheists: how would success in human longevity research (i.e., effective immortality) affect your life as a whole?

For Reference, look at the following developments:

  1. http://gizmodo.com/anti-aging-experts-made-a-million-dollar-bet-on-who-die-1687470325
  2. http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/d...-thiel-and-tech-titans-search-for-immortality
  3. http://techgenmag.com/2015/04/07/wi...-forever-the-genetics-of-immortality-say-yes/
  4. http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Immortality-may-be-closer-than-you-think-20150314
  5. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-pledges-1-million-prize-person-live-123.html

Key point:
Genetic level research (mostly via the telomerase) in the last five years or so effectively gives us a way to manipulate aging at the point where we can now discuss the possibility of administering immortality without the stigma of being branded as crackheads. But more importantly, how would it impact humanity at the deepest spiritual and practical level?
 
Last edited:
Question for our times, and for both theists and nontheists: how would success in human longevity research (i.e., effective immortality) affect your life as a whole?

For Reference, look at the following developments:
  1. http://www.symbianize.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=215016
  2. http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/d...-thiel-and-tech-titans-search-for-immortality
  3. http://techgenmag.com/2015/04/07/wi...-forever-the-genetics-of-immortality-say-yes/
  4. http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Immortality-may-be-closer-than-you-think-20150314
  5. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-pledges-1-million-prize-person-live-123.html

Key point:
Genetic level research (mostly via the telomerase) in the last five years or so effectively gives us a way to manipulate aging at the point where we can now discuss the possibility of administrating immortality without the stigma of being branded as crackheads. But more importantly, how would it impact humanity at the deepest spiritual and practical level?

I can only speak for myself since everyone has different opinions on the matter.

I for one, wish for a long life, but I will never wish to become immortal. As I have said before, I have limits with my patience with redundancy. That includes living.

I also don't think immortality is practical, for now at least. If that becomes a reality, I think only rich and powerful people can get access to that for a while, which needs to be regulated somehow.

But if that becomes a common thing, if everyone is immortal age-wise, how do you create more resources for people who don't age and retire, yet continuously reproduce? Lots things need to be considered first before this becomes practical. Resource hoarding/monopolies by the rich/powerful is one. Also, we limit reproduction, turning it into as a "per need" basis; basically maintaining an absolute number. One dies due to causes other than aging, we make another one to replace the loss. Earth can only support so much humans in it, since we already are screwing up the planet as it is. We know of some habitable planets out there, but do we repeat the same cycle on those planets if we get to those? We also have cultural adjustments, economical, psychological, spiritual, moral, etc etc. Lots of adjustments to make to pave the way to practical immortality. Miss one of those, then the planet as we know it is screwed.

Spiritually speaking, living a long life is good and all, but I don't think anyone can handle being alive forever. You experience everything normal people can get, then what? You become insane until you get tired of it, then what? You become normal again and so on and so forth? Let's say you place a reset button in case you get tired of everything. Then that defeats the purpose of being immortal since you didn't even know you lived the life you knew before the reset.
 
I can only speak for myself since everyone has different opinions on the matter.

I for one, wish for a long life, but I will never wish to become immortal. As I have said before, I have limits with my patience with redundancy. That includes living.

I also don't think immortality is practical, for now at least. If that becomes a reality, I think only rich and powerful people can get access to that for a while, which needs to be regulated somehow.

But if that becomes a common thing, if everyone is immortal age-wise, how do you create more resources for people who don't age and retire, yet continuously reproduce? Lots things need to be considered first before this becomes practical. Resource hoarding/monopolies by the rich/powerful is one. Also, we limit reproduction, turning it into as a "per need" basis; basically maintaining an absolute number. One dies due to causes other than aging, we make another one to replace the loss. Earth can only support so much humans in it, since we already are screwing up the planet as it is. We know of some habitable planets out there, but do we repeat the same cycle on those planets if we get to those? We also have cultural adjustments, economical, psychological, spiritual, moral, etc etc. Lots of adjustments to make to pave the way to practical immortality. Miss one of those, then the planet as we know it is screwed.

Spiritually speaking, living a long life is good and all, but I don't think anyone can handle being alive forever. You experience everything normal people can get, then what? You become insane until you get tired of it, then what? You become normal again and so on and so forth? Let's say you place a reset button in case you get tired of everything. Then that defeats the purpose of being immortal since you didn't even know you lived the life you knew before the reset.

Well put, as usual. That's the thing about immortality, of the idea of living to eternity: people think it's a good thing generally, until they stumble upon the idea of redundancy, the utter boredom and uselessness of eternal repetition. I once came across a beautiful poem whose essential point is this: everyone is fundamentally one I, the point being that reincarnation ends when each one has lived thru the lives of countless others—heck, even thru living the life of one Jesus. Beautiful, right? :)

Isaac Asimov's novel also expounds on many of the themes of immortality. The Foundation Series's main protagonist, Daneel Olivaw, is the paragon of immortality: extending his life for as long as he could serve the cause of humanity, to the point where he becomes essentially a god, able to manipulate events at intergalactic level.

On another level, practical longevity strikes at the belief that is at the very heart of Christianity: of life after death, of an afterlife. With human-engineered immortality, what happens to this fundamental Christian tenet? What happens to religions in general founded on this assumption?

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:
Well put, as usual. That's the thing about immortality, of the idea of living to eternity: people think it's a good thing generally, until they stumble upon the idea of redundancy, the utter boredom and uselessness of eternal repetition. I once came across a beautiful poem whose essential point is this: everyone is fundamentally one I, the point being that reincarnation ends when each one has lived thru the lives of countless others—heck, even thru living the life of one Jesus. Beautiful, right? :)

Isaac Asimov's novel also expounds on many of the themes of immortality. The Foundation Series's main protagonist, Daneel Olivaw, is the paragon of immortality: extending his life for as long as he could serve the cause of humanity, to the point where he becomes essentially a god, able to manipulate events at intergalactic level.

On another level, practical longevity strikes at the belief that is at the very heart of Christianity: of life after death, of an afterlife. With human-engineered immortality, what happens to this fundamental Christian tenet? What happens to religions in general founded on this assumption?

Ahhh... Heaven. Though I may not be more into complicated research, I have one that is a bit relatable. I remembered that even a children's movie actually tackled the issue of the redundancy in immortality (in heaven, even).

Most kids know of the classic 90's cartoon movie "All dogs go to heaven". I have no plans of rewatching the said movie, but from what I recall, the main character there was actually a dog in heaven (go figure. Let's call him number 1). Meeting with his recently heavenized best friend (also a dog, let's call him number 2, hehe), number 2 questioned why he looks bored while he's in heaven. He goes for the song "It's so heavenly here", a very sarcastic song wherein all he sees in heaven are everything going out positively. Everything is good and almost nothing bad happens (until the horn that opens the gates to heaven gets stolen at least). Everyone's deader than dead. Redundancy apparently tires those who are in heaven too. When the horn gets stolen by another dog (apparently number 1 is not the only one affected by it) , 1 immediately jumped into the opportunity to be sent back to earth to retrieve it, bringing number 2 with him. There he finds a new master, blah blah blah, the horn is retrieved, the dog who stole the horn gets sent to hell to become the only dog in a place populated entirely by cats, and 1 was given the chance to become alive again. 2 decided to go back to heaven but who knows what'll happen if he gets tired of it too, just as 1 did? And what if 1 dies again? Cycle repeats itself over and over again.

If I get to choose, I'd choose reincarnation (as in I will not be able to even remember my past life, just live a life of a new person/animal) over immortality in heaven.

Now, back to reality. I doubt theists (real, devout ones, at least) will yearn for immortality age-wise. That will prevent them from reaching the heaven "promised" to them (which some of them can even buy, apparently). But we all know most of them are hypocritical so we might get to see an immortal pope if that ever happens.

"It's ok", some will say. "We will still die when the apocalypse comes. We still go to heaven either way so we might as well live forever until that comes". Well, scientists do agree that all life on earth will end once our sun goes kaboom in the form of a supernova (at least not in several millions of years). Biblically speaking or not, if that is the case then everyone will die indeed, regardless of age immunity. But we do know that there are habitable planets we can go to. If space exploration and several other sciences advance, we might be able to migrate earth to those planets. Are they devout enough to remain here in this planet to die and go to heaven? Or will they join the bandwagon and avoid heaven as much as possible by migrating to the new planet?
 
Last edited:
Ahhh... Heaven. Though I may not be more into complicated research, I have one that is a bit relatable. I remembered that even a children's movie actually tackled the issue of the redundancy in immortality (in heaven, even).

Most kids know of the classic 90's cartoon movie "All dogs go to heaven". I have no plans of rewatching the said movie, but from what I recall, the main character there was actually a dog in heaven (go figure. Let's call him number 1). Meeting with his recently heavenized best friend (also a dog, let's call him number 2, hehe), number 2 questioned why he looks bored while he's in heaven. He goes for the song "It's so heavenly here", a very sarcastic song wherein all he sees in heaven are everything going out positively. Everything is good and almost nothing bad happens (until the horn that opens the gates to heaven gets stolen at least). Everyone's deader than dead. Redundancy apparently tires those who are in heaven too. When the horn gets stolen by another dog (apparently number 1 is not the only one affected by it) , 1 immediately jumped into the opportunity to be sent back to earth to retrieve it, bringing number 2 with him. There he finds a new master, blah blah blah, the horn is retrieved, the dog who stole the horn gets sent to hell to become the only dog in a place populated entirely by cats, and 1 was given the chance to become alive again. 2 decided to go back to heaven but who knows what'll happen if he gets tired of it too, just as 1 did? And what if 1 dies again? Cycle repeats itself over and over again.

If I get to choose, I'd choose reincarnation (as in I will not be able to even remember my past life, just live a life of a new person/animal) over immortality in heaven.

Now, back to reality. I doubt theists (real, devout ones, at least) will yearn for immortality age-wise. That will prevent them from reaching the heaven "promised" to them (which some of them can even buy, apparently). But we all know most of them are hypocritical so we might get to see an immortal pope if that ever happens.

"It's ok", some will say. "We will still die when the apocalypse comes. We still go to heaven either way so we might as well live forever until that comes". Well, scientists do agree that all life on earth will end once our sun goes kaboom in the form of a supernova (at least not in several millions of years). Biblically speaking or not, if that is the case then everyone will die indeed, regardless of age immunity. But we do know that there are habitable planets we can go to. If space exploration and several other sciences advance, we might be able to migrate earth to those planets. Are they devout enough to remain here in this planet to die and go to heaven? Or will they join the bandwagon and avoid heaven as much as possible by migrating to the new planet?

People just do not get it: there's just no fun in all-goody stuff ;) As Voltaire would say, if you want to make the place interesting, somebody must play the naughty devil and let him do his part. If you come to think of it, that just might be the whole essence of the entire yin-yang eastern philosophies :lol:

Interestingly, current developments in science and technology all seem to point in the direction of Asimov's work. It's as if he'd foreseen it all. Immortality, mind-bending technologies, the spread of humans among all the stars and outside their own galaxy, etc., are the stuff that comprise his body of work. To some degree, Alvin Toffler had tackled these same issues in his past works (esp. Future Shock, The Third Wave), but more importantly, the social implications of such events.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

I hope that you do not fall into the trap of stereotypes, of assuming that atheists/agnostics are society's wayward elements :). For myself, I hope you go through this link, http://www.symbianize.com/showthread.php?t=215016&p=20922355&viewfull=1#post20922355, to have a basic grasp of what many of us hold to.

Thank you.
 
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.

Mas masarap mabuhay sa takot na ikaw ay parusahan ng isang bagay na kathang isip lang ng tao? Na ang inaasahan mo ay isang bagay na wala naman talagang binibigay, na ang lahat ng tinatamasa mo sa buhay ay galing talaga sa sariling dugo at pawis? Wise indeed.

Never needed a god so far to get where I am now, especially the christian one, and I never will. Prove me wrong, and I join you. But so far, none of you can.

- - - Updated - - -

People just do not get it: there's just no fun in all-goody stuff ;) As Voltaire would say, if you want to make the place interesting, somebody must play the naughty devil and let him do his part. If you come to think of it, that just might be the whole essence of the entire yin-yang eastern philosophies :lol:

Interestingly, current developments in science and technology all seem to point in the direction of Asimov's work. It's as if he'd foreseen it all. Immortality, mind-bending technologies, the spread of humans among all the stars and outside their own galaxy, etc., are the stuff that comprise his body of work. To some degree, Alvin Toffler had tackled these same issues in his past works (esp. Future Shock, The Third Wave), but more importantly, the social implications of such events.

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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom