Atheists and Agnostics Meeting Place

[taolaba]

Check ko later (mukhang mahaba article, hehe). Pati yung video pala before this.

Hahaha mahaba talaga yan pero worth po na basahin.

 

[serialkey07]

Ano pong masasabi niyo dito mga sir?

 

[Stormer0628]

Ano pong masasabi niyo dito mga sir?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8TGtBrGb8

Bumalik na naman tong video na to. Okay for the sake of discussion, let's run down the three arguments and my reply for each:

1. The Universe had a beginning from nothing
Cites the views of Whittaker and Milner, two minor Christian cosmologists in the 1920s highly favored by the Catholic Church. Take note of that: in the 1920s because I will get back to it shortly.

About the universe from nothing: does it not look familiar? Yes, it's straight out from my other thread. The difference? I said I will get back to the time Milner and Whittaker came out with their statements. I am doing it now to answer how my thread and those two Christian cosmologists differ: in the 1920s, scientists barely had any inkling about the physics of quantum fluctuations, although Planck earlier had a whiff of it. Indeed, the universe emerged from nothing, but it was not a creator who suddenly caused it to happen. It's the quantum fluctuations, as elaborately explained in my other thread indicated above.

Additionally, the video mentioned how Einstein fudged something: Einstein did fudge something, but the equation in question is in no way supportive of a Creator for the universe, fudged or not. The equation in question is the cosmological constant which he added then retracted later on for his General Relativity Theory equations. Without it, there is no expansion; with it, there is an expansion, which supports Friedmann, Lamaitre, and Hubble's expanding universe view. Talk about twisting of historical facts to support one's claims. And boy, don't these people ever get tired of the nasty way they mislead people by quoting people, even scientists, out of context? Grabe.

2. the universe is just right for life
We can't really say that. If the universe is just right for life, then we should have seen life in most regions of the universe instead of just here in our pocket of the universe. Yes, there can be life under the right conditions, but these conditions do no appear as expansively as one would assume if there were a grand designer bent on seeing life fill his purported universe. Moreover, to say that the universe is fine-tuned for life does not count the now distinct possibility of multiverse, where much more universes would have conditions not favorable to life, universes with their own distinct laws of physics not always like our own.

Parang ganito yan: would you suggest that winning the lotto is the norm in the universe if you suddenly won, discounting the fact that infinitely more combinations and bettors were disappointed to learn they did not win again? Hehe

3. DNA coding reveals intelligence
DNA coding reveals the ideas of haphazard evolution and adaptation rather than intelligence from the start. If you posit a grand designer for the DNA, how would you account for the fact that much of it is junk rather than useful, more than 90 percent of it anyway?

Pity those who think this video helps the position of Creationists and Intelligent Designers in any way. These are old ideas recycled for the umpteenth time while wishing there would be no thinking viewer to refute it again and again. The catchy video would easily convince the naive and gullible, but not those who know exactly what's going on.

 

[taolaba]

Bumalik na naman tong video na to. Okay for the sake of discussion, let's run down the three arguments and my reply for each:

1. The Universe had a beginning from nothing
Cites the views of Whittaker and Milner, two minor Christian cosmologists in the 1920s highly favored by the Catholic Church. Take note of that: in the 1920s because I will get back to it shortly.

About the universe from nothing: does it not look familiar? Yes, it's straight out from my other thread. The difference? I said I will get back to the time Milner and Whittaker came out with their statements. I am doing it now to answer how my thread and those two Christian cosmologists differ: in the 1920s, scientists barely had any inkling about the physics of quantum fluctuations, although Planck earlier had a whiff of it. Indeed, the universe emerged from nothing, but it was not a creator who suddenly caused it to happen. It's the quantum fluctuations, as elaborately explained in my other thread indicated above.

Additionally, the video mentioned how Einstein fudged something: Einstein did fudge something, but the equation in question is in no way supportive of a Creator for the universe, fudged or not. The equation in question is the cosmological constant which he added then retracted later on for his General Relativity Theory equations. Without it, there is no expansion; with it, there is an expansion, which supports Friedmann, Lamaitre, and Hubble's expanding universe view. Talk about twisting of historical facts to support one's claims. And boy, don't these people ever get tired of the nasty way they mislead people by quoting people, even scientists, out of context? Grabe.

2. the universe is just right for life
We can't really say that. If the universe is just right for life, then we should have seen life in most regions of the universe instead of just here in our pocket of the universe. Yes, there can be life under the right conditions, but these conditions do no appear as expansively as one would assume if there were a grand designer bent on seeing life fill his purported universe. Moreover, to say that the universe is fine-tuned for life does not count the now distinct possibility of multiverse, where much more universes would have conditions not favorable to life, universes with their own distinct laws of physics not always like our own.

Parang ganito yan: would you suggest that winning the lotto is the norm in the universe if you suddenly won, discounting the fact that infinitely more combinations and bettors were disappointed to learn they did not win again? Hehe

3. DNA coding reveals intelligence
DNA coding reveals the ideas of haphazard evolution and adaptation rather than intelligence from the start. If you posit a grand designer for the DNA, how would you account for the fact that much of it is junk rather than useful, more than 90 percent of it anyway?

Pity those who think this video helps the position of Creationists and Intelligent Designers in any way. These are old ideas recycled for the umpteenth time while wishing there would be no thinking viewer to refute it again and again. The catchy video would easily convince the naive and gullible, but not those who know exactly what's going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8TGtBrGb8

Ito nanaman? Pinakita to sakin nang kaibigan ko. Let me sum it it up in one sentence. New movie with outdated redundant arguments.

 

[Stormer0628]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8TGtBrGb8

Ito nanaman? Pinakita to sakin nang kaibigan ko. Let me sum it it up in one sentence. New movie with outdated redundant arguments.

Hahaha!

I posted my comment at the youtube source para sa iba.

Btw, I'm about to post for the Philippine Cultural Heritage thread and a closely related one for the Genetics thread. Have to sort out which part goes where. Hehe. Will work things up until we get back to that point in our history related to your material we discussed last night—which took me to a bout of mild depression until early today, hehe.

 

[taolaba]

Hahaha!

I posted my comment at the youtube source para sa iba.

Btw, I'm about to post for the Philippine Cultural Heritage thread and a closely related one for the Genetics thread. Have to sort out which part goes where. Hehe. Will work things up until we get back to that point in our history related to your material we discussed last night—which took me to a bout of mild depression until early today, hehe.

Hahaha I'm happy when I knew what really went down at that time. However Gritty, dark or nauseating it was.

 

[vincee]

if you read the reference of Stormer the article is talking about ways of how we changed our conditions throughout the century the "evolution" here is talking about how breakthrough discoveries and inventions that changed the way we live, made our species more resilient to various conditions because of the breakthroughs in science, like for example rabies vaccination now we have immunity to rabies, and other viruses we now have vaccines, we eliminated food shortages, we made our transportation better, we invented the internet!! isn't that great? hence the title = "Humans are still evolving - but in ways that might surprise you"

Bale po sir mas appropriate title nun is evolution of science and technology since naman po nasa science and technology po yung tinacle ng article,
It's not good concrete for the human evolution na human evolve. just my opinion po sir!

 

[epicmorsix]

Bale po sir mas appropriate title nun is evolution of science and technology since naman po nasa science and technology po yung tinacle ng article,
It's not good concrete for the human evolution na human evolve. just my opinion po sir!

this is your first post right:

this reference good sample of evolution? hmmm
"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."
just asking sir.

Bale po sir mas appropriate title nun is evolution of science and technology since naman po nasa science and technology po yung tinacle ng article

you are correct, i woudn't be suprised sa mga title ng mga ibang articles sa internet kung ibahin nila yung article title depende na sa kanila yun probably to get more visitors in their website kasi catchy yung title ng article nila, i don't know what is your point here, since alam mo naman pala yung nilalaman ng article

It's not good concrete for the human evolution na human evolve. just my opinion po sir!

of course it's not, if you really want a concrete material for human evolution why don't you study about Darwinism.

 

[vincee]

this is your first post right:






you are correct, i woudn't be suprised sa mga title ng mga ibang articles sa internet kung ibahin nila yung article title depende na sa kanila yun probably to get more visitors in their website kasi catchy yung title ng article nila, i don't know what is your point here, since alam mo naman pala yung nilalaman ng article



of course it's not, if you really want a concrete material for human evolution why don't you study about Darwinism.

yes sir familiar po ako sa Darwinism that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. kaya medyo naguluhan po ako yung first post ko po kasi about dun sa evolution na related dun then you give me the articles po na yun kaya prang medyo parang hindi sya support based sa definition darwinism is natural selection po. medyo nalilito po kasi ako based reference na binigay nyo po. thanks po.

 

[epicmorsix]

yes sir familiar po ako sa Darwinism that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. kaya medyo naguluhan po ako yung first post ko po kasi about dun sa evolution na related dun then you give me the articles po na yun kaya prang medyo parang hindi sya support based sa definition darwinism is natural selection po. medyo nalilito po kasi ako based reference na binigay nyo po. thanks po.

good for you! follow this thread more im sure Stormer has a lot of topics we can digest

 

[Stormer0628]

^ Err, thanks for that, but in fact all of us are making quite good contributions to this thread. Just covering for the time being and happy to be contributing on many topics, but I know many active and lurking around have good ideas they could share here given the right timing and circumstances.

Anyway, going back to that old video in this post, it struck me just now to realize that indeed many recognize the fundamental message of a universe from nothing, the Catholic Church and many other Christian persuasions included, quite elated with the start of the Big Bang cosmogeny and seeing that it gave them a scientific free ride to insert the notion of god as the one who initiated the spark of the Bang, until they lost enthusiasm with the arrival of the quantum fluctuation in the Inflation physics and what it meant for their little pet musing. A convenient platform suddenly turned into an inconvenience almost overnight, hehe.

 

[epicmorsix]

^ Err, thanks for that, but in fact all of us are making quite good contributions to this thread. Just covering for the time being and happy to be contributing on many topics, but I know many active and lurking around have good ideas they could share here given the right timing and circumstances.

Anyway, going back to that old video in this post, it struck me just now to realize that indeed many recognize the fundamental message of a universe from nothing, the Catholic Church and many other Christian persuasions included, quite elated with the start of the Big Bang cosmogeny and seeing that it gave them a scientific free ride to insert the notion of god as the one who initiated the spark of the Bang, until they lost enthusiasm with the arrival of the quantum fluctuation in the Inflation physics and what it meant for their little pet musing. A convenient platform suddenly turned into an inconvenience almost overnight, hehe.

i now surrounded myself researching about the Annunaki checkout this link bro: http://in5d.com/what-the-church-isnt-telling-you-about-nibiru-and-the-anunnaki/

 

[Stormer0628]

i now surrounded myself researching about the Annunaki checkout this link bro: http://in5d.com/what-the-church-isnt-telling-you-about-nibiru-and-the-anunnaki/

Yes, it appears even the Vatican is invested in alien conspiracy theories. Big Bang proved to be a false lover of sorts after a fleeting affair, it seems.

Here are some other sites that discuss things like this:

The 6 Alien Species Currently Fighting for Control Over Earth
Humans Slowly Being Prepared for Alien Truth
Jesus Is an Alien
Not to be outdone, even Flat-Earthers host a discussion of an Alien Jesus, which easily set off some of the craziest exchanges on the net...

 

[epicmorsix]

Yes, it appears even the Vatican is invested in alien conspiracy theories. Big Bang proved to be a false lover of sorts after a fleeting affair, it seems.

Here are some other sites that discuss things like this:

The 6 Alien Species Currently Fighting for Control Over Earth
Humans Slowly Being Prepared for Alien Truth
Jesus Is an Alien
Not to be outdone, even Flat-Earthers host a discussion of an Alien Jesus, which easily set off some of the craziest exchanges on the net...

hahaha nice find, my reading queue list has been expanded

 

[Stormer0628]

hahaha nice find, my reading queue list has been expanded

Wow, you seem to have all the time in the world these days, man. Kainggit ah.

Sige, since you seem to be enjoying this topic right now, bigay ko tong 2 links na source din ng mga previous reading ko sa subject na to. I consider these to be some of the most intriguing take on aliens: the fact that some in the US and world governments actually are aware and dealing with aliens for a long time now, but the security level of some of the higher-ups exceed even that of the US president.... Here:

Secret Underground Bases and Facilities

Area 51

- - - Updated - - -

Update on aliens:

Extraterrestrials and UFOs

 

[chikl3t]

same here been busy sa work, thinking about resigning and finding a new opportunity work getting dull and it drags me down sometimes i get dull also, so im still going to church with my girlfriend, don't want to open up about anything gusto ko lang i keep yung relationship namin setting aside the differences in belief, hey if it works out for you might also work out for me hehe.

pagdating siguro ng araw boss matatanggap din niya yan , I always telling my GF na hindi talaga ako religious simula nang palagi na akong nag iinternet at namumulat sa mga bagay bagay sa mundo palagi kame nag aaway dyan pero palagi kong sinasabi is kahit di ako katulad ng mga dream boy mo na religious at least wala akong tinatapakang tao at walang ginagawang masama kalaunan natanggap na naman niya hahaha pero pagdating ng araw na magpapakasal na kame kelangan talagang idaan sa simbahan kasi most girls pangarap na ikasal sa simbahan IMO lang naman hehehe

 

[Stormer0628]

Ano kaya nangyari sa mga pumalaot sa long read ng alien materials, hehe.

May special offer ako: I have this very good work about alien astronauts (clue: South American setting for the Earth episodes) that I would give away for those who would pm me for it. Special offer starts ... now.

- - - Updated - - -

Just saw "Take Me to Church" by Hozier and immediately thought of Stephen Fry

Some thoughts about the song

“Take me to church / I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies / I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife…” So read the lyrics to hit song “Take Me to Church” by Irish rock soul-and-blues artist Andrew Hozier-Byrne. The popular song’s large fan base undoubtedly enjoys the song thoroughly — without understanding or seeming to immediately question its meaning. However, while the obscure meaning of the song hides in subtlety within the lyrics, it’s no wonder that so many people took to the song so quickly (including myself) and became hooked to the catchy lyrics, musical arrangement and deep, broody voice of Hozier.

We can generalize music — especially today’s music — catches the ear of consumers based upon the artist, beauty of sound and repetitive musical arrangements that arouse our eardrums, reaching something within us that sparks happiness, excitement and even helps ease pain.

According to psychologytoday.com, music is often overlooked as a therapeutic intervention. Activities such as singing, listening to or creating music can provide immediate biological and psychological benefits for everyone. This pointed out, it actually makes sense that Hozier’s “Take Me to Church” could positively catch the ears of so many before the question of lyric definition arises. This is especially because the song discusses church, a sentiment many people associate with peace, happiness or forgiveness.

While “Take Me to Church” does embody a message about church, it does not highlight positive sentiments of church about which one typically thinks. During a Gigwise interview on YouTube, Hozier described the song, saying, “I would not like to think of (the song) as an indictment against religion, or an indictment against institutions. Perhaps (the song) discusses institutions that undermine some of the more natural parts of being a person, or humanity in some way, shape or form.”

With a slight opposition to peace, “Take Me to Church” focuses on the contradiction of some church institutions’ treatment of homosexual individuals and sexual orientation. Songfacts.com provides an explanation about the chorus of the song specifically, quoting an interview with Hozier from The Irish Times that read, “I found the experience of falling in love or being in love was a death of everything,” Hozier said in the interview. “You kind of watch yourself die in a wonderful way, and you experience for the brief moment — if you see yourself for a moment through their eyes — everything you believed about yourself gone.”

While the chorus is a huge metaphor comparing falling in love (no matter to which sex) to the church, many consumers listen to the song and fail to catch the obscure meaning. In an interview with The Cut, Hozier said sexuality and sexual orientation are natural parts of humanity. The soul-and-blues artist also went on to say that organizations like churches undermine natural aspects of humanity by successfully teaching shame about sexual orientation.

Although the song’s meaning is contradictory to its title, Hozier told The Cut the song is not an attack on faith.

“The song is about asserting yourself and reclaiming your humanity through an act of love. Turning your back on the theoretical thing, something that’s not tangible, and choosing to worship or love something that is tangible and real,” Hozier said.

While Hozier’s song depicts an important and, what some would probably describe as a sensitive and emotional sentiment, his metaphors and statements within the song are very relevant. After understanding the underlying definition of his lyrics, one might actually enjoy the song even more.

Leaving with this before turning in for the night...

 

[Stormer0628]

Hola guys! a very good article for you to digest spread the word

Just lovely. Kala ko nakababad ka pa sa aliens, hehe.

Would be nice to rework that link you had for SB. Resonates with the whole man-from-the-cave-has-hard time-catching up-with-scitech thought.

 

[epicmorsix]

Just lovely. Kala ko nakababad ka pa sa aliens, hehe.

Would be nice to rework that link you had for SB. Resonates with the whole man-from-the-cave-has-hard time-catching up-with-scitech thought.

hahaha stop muna ako sa aliens, annunaki na yan.. dami kasi contradiction eh so yung unified belief mo ganun din belief ko haha

Would be nice to rework that link you had for SB

ohhh which link are you referring to? hehe

 

[Stormer0628]

hahaha stop muna ako sa aliens, annunaki na yan.. dami kasi contradiction eh so yung unified belief mo ganun din belief ko haha

Would be nice to rework that link you had for SB

ohhh which link are you referring to? hehe

yung pinost mo where it says that humanity is still a primitive species galing niya.

okay din yung site ng article na yun, nakalagay sa sidebar yung visitor profile, haha.