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.
@ Storm

Oh okay. Ayaw ko magpaliwanag ng mahaba but anyway, ngayon ko lang nauunawaan kung bakit malaki ang disagreement ng mga Deists sa Atheists.

Ang Deists kase ay kahit papaano, they believe about natural God o natural religion daw sapagkat naniniwala sila na ang God is matagal na nag-eexists at naniniwala sila na meron ipinagmulan. Ang nirereject lang nila is religion dahil based on reason sila at meron halo science or ano pa man.

Ang Atheists ay kahit same sila ng Deists about science and nirereject ang religion, well, ang Atheists talaga ay wala God o wala talaga ipinag-mulan.

Na-realize ko lang.

Siguro kapag nagdebate ang Atheists at Deists ay same sila maggagamitan ng reasons, science and history.
 
Last edited:
@ Storm

Oh okay. Ayaw ko magpaliwanag ng mahaba but anyway, ngayon ko lang nauunawaan kung bakit malaki ang disagreement ng mga Deists sa Atheists.

Ang Deists kase ay kahit papaano, they believe about natural God o natural religion daw sapagkat naniniwala sila na ang God is matagal na nag-eexists at naniniwala sila na meron ipinagmulan. Ang nirereject lang nila is religion dahil based on reason sila at meron halo science or ano pa man.

Ang Atheists ay kahit same sila ng Deists about science and nirereject ang religion, well, ang Atheists talaga ay wala God o wala talaga ipinag-mulan.

Na-realize ko lang.

Siguro kapag nagdebate ang Atheists at Deists ay same sila maggagamitan ng reasons, science and history.

Thanks, Mama Meow. I have been trying to tell you that but I guess I haven't been that successful putting it in a better statement.
 
are you atheist @storm?

Atheist through and through.

I just don't see any point anymore in believing any supernatural god. If you check my siggy, I have delineated topics that make the strongest reasons that really rule out any concept of god, from archaeological point of view, astrophysical point of view, biogenetic point of view, etc. Just that Sumerian thing has thrown all major religions in a limbo, just fortunate that scientists seem to have assented to the major religions that publishing the findings widely would upset so many people. So many civilizations.
 
I grew up in a traditionalists and religious family. I have a feeling na some Atheists grew up in a religious and/or traditionalists family, well, hindi ko alam. Nabasa ko, online, most Atheists are from religious family. I am not sure sa iba Atheists.

Habang umaandar ang araw ay realize ko na Deists pala ako. Fascination ko ay different religions, afterlife at saka science and technology. Ang akala ko nga noon una ay Atheists ako.

Hindi pala pero mahilig ako sa socio anthropological view lalo na kapag nagpapaliwanag sila tungkol sa cross culture at different religions.

Hindi ko kase kaya maging Atheists e hahahaha.
 
Last edited:
I grew up in a traditionalists and religious family. I have a feeling na some Atheists grew up in a religious and/or traditionalists family, well, hindi ko alam. Nabasa ko, online, most Atheists are from religious family. I am not sure sa iba Atheists.

Habang umaandar ang araw ay realize ko na Deists pala ako. Fascination ko ay different religions, afterlife at saka science and technology. Ang akala ko nga noon una ay Atheists ako.

Hindi pala pero mahilig ako sa socio anthropological view lalo na kapag nagpapaliwanag sila tungkol sa cross culture at different religions.

Hindi ko kase kaya maging Atheists e hahahaha.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Deism, especially the one favored by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, even the relatively young Einstein, Aristotle, or most especially the one so articulated by Spinoza.

If I would be a Deist, I would be a Spinozan, haha. What's wrong in honestly believing that there is some superior undefined power behind everything, though not the type who takes one side and bends the rules of physics, the universe for his "favored people." :lol:
 
If I would be a Deist, I would be a Spinozan, haha. What's wrong in honestly believing that there is some superior undefined power behind everything, though not the type who takes one side and bends the rules of physics, the universe for his "favored people." :lol:

sarcastic maxado lol... :lol:
 
sarcastic maxado lol... :lol:

Di naman :lol:

I'm just stating things as they are. The root of the problem when considering the existence of god is we imbue it with human characteristics—anthropomorphism. Why do humans delude themselves that they can influence such superior being, who is supposedly perfect, lacking nothing, with their smoky sacrifices so that the being would rule in favor of humans' petty peeves, pedestrian concerns, and break the laws of the whole physics and the laws of the universe so he would solve their little problems, dispose of enemies, make them beautiful, attractive, win the important games, etc., etc.. That is the most insulting thing we could lay at the feet of such an indifferent god, hehe.
 
Di naman :lol:

I'm just stating things as they are. The root of the problem when considering the existence of god is we imbue it with human characteristics—anthropomorphism. Why do humans delude themselves that they can influence such superior being, who is supposedly perfect, lacking nothing, with their smoky sacrifices so that the being would rule in favor of humans' petty peeves, pedestrian concerns, and break the laws of the whole physics and the laws of the universe so he would solve their little problems, dispose of enemies, make them beautiful, attractive, win the important games, etc., etc.. That is the most insulting thing we could lay at the feet of such an indifferent god, hehe.

it does not take a genius to figure what you've just said here. I so much agree with you.
everything bout religion contradicts their own teachings and belief about their god.

you might have explain on one of your replies but i really do not have the patience to back read a thousand page of the thread, so may i ask you please what do you believe in when it comes to the origin of life / universe? i am really interested on what's your point of view.

I find it hard to be an atheist cause i do not want to pretend that i have it all figured out already. this debate about god has been there ever since. but for me to prove or disproved god is currently impossible. there is some evidence to prove or to disprove him (and when i say god i do not mean jesus or the personal kind who is flawed by jealousy and vengeance) . like proving there is an alien or there is unicorn outside of this planet is currently impossible.
 
Last edited:
it does not take a genius to figure what you've just said here. I so much agree with you.
everything bout religion contradicts their own teachings and belief about their god.

you might have explain on one of your replies but i really do not have the patience to back read a thousand page of the thread, so may i ask you please what do you believe in when it comes to the origin of life / universe? i am really interested on what's your point of view.

I find it hard to be an atheist cause i do not want to pretend that i have it all figured out already. this debate about god has been there ever since. but for me to prove or disproved god is currently impossible. there is some evidence to prove or to disprove him (and when i say god i do not mean jesus or the personal kind who is flawed by jealousy and vengeance) . like proving there is an alien or there is unicorn outside of this planet is currently impossible.
When our instruments can now allow us to peek within the first trillionth of a second of the emergence of the universe and see nothing but quantum fluctuations and basically see those very same quantum fluctuations grow over time to be the structures of the universe—superclusters, intergalactic filaments, galaxies, solar systems, planetary systems—and conclude that there is nothing beyond those quantum fluctuations, then at least for me the question of cosmogenesis is pretty much settled, no matter if we would still find later on that the multiverse is really out there. The physics would still be the same, though in a much expanded form. Let's just say that quantum fluctuations are the irreducible primaries, the immovable mover of Aristotle, hehe.

As for biogenesis, I would be very surprised if we don't come up with the complete abiogenesis picture later on. Perhaps it may not come in our lifetime or the immediate generation, but the science is pretty sound, even if still a bit sketchy and fragmented with the so-called RNA world, protein world, etc., competing for primacy. Let us not forget that our knowledge of the genome and DNA is to such point that we could now presumably manipulate our own genes for whatever ends we have in mind—cure all diseases, live for eternity, reengineer human and other living things' genome to make living in other worlds possible, etc.

Just now we have added letters to the DNA, not just the usual AT-CG pairing and it's just right that many are curious to ask: where will it stop? We have created artificial living things in the lab: how soon before we learn such creations are unleashed in our midst? We have eliminated genetic disorder in a human embryo, freeing a baby from diseases inherited from the family tree, we have resurrected an embryo frozen for 24 years to be mothered by a woman who is only two years older. What else awaits us? We could now reconstruct DNA of people long lost just by looking at the ground that they used to walk on. Our human understanding of the DNA and complete genomic information is becoming relentless, and fast, and add to that the promise—horror to some—of AI integration, to make immortality really within the call of humanity.

All of which seem to render the question of biogenesis superfluous suddenly: if we could now manipulate the whole genome, DNA, we have suddenly arrived at the role of the creator that we previously ascribed to a supernatural being.

There is even talk that we are nearing the point where we could create whole universes, totally mind-boggling as it sounds, but the physics is solid, even if no scientist in his right mind would come out in public in support of that—though I understand a few did some years back.

When you consider all of these, humans are actually bestowing themselves with the kind of knowledge and power they previously ascribed to their gods. Perhaps it's the point of history—our religious ideals being the end of our human endeavors all along? :lol:
 
When our instruments can now allow us to peek within the first trillionth of a second of the emergence of the universe and see nothing but quantum fluctuations and basically see those very same quantum fluctuations grow over time to be the structures of the universe—superclusters, intergalactic filaments, galaxies, solar systems, planetary systems—and conclude that there is nothing beyond those quantum fluctuations, then at least for me the question of cosmogenesis is pretty much settled, no matter if we would still find later on that the multiverse is really out there. The physics would still be the same, though in a much expanded form. Let's just say that quantum fluctuations are the irreducible primaries, the immovable mover of Aristotle, hehe.

As for biogenesis, I would be very surprised if we don't come up with the complete abiogenesis picture later on. Perhaps it may not come in our lifetime or the immediate generation, but the science is pretty sound, even if still a bit sketchy and fragmented with the so-called RNA world, protein world, etc., competing for primacy. Let us not forget that our knowledge of the genome and DNA is to such point that we could now presumably manipulate our own genes for whatever ends we have in mind—cure all diseases, live for eternity, reengineer human and other living things' genome to make living in other worlds possible, etc.

Just now we have added letters to the DNA, not just the usual AT-CG pairing and it's just right that many are curious to ask: where will it stop? We have created artificial living things in the lab: how soon before we learn such creations are unleashed in our midst? We have eliminated genetic disorder in a human embryo, freeing a baby from diseases inherited from the family tree, we have resurrected an embryo frozen for 24 years to be mothered by a woman who is only two years older. What else awaits us? We could now reconstruct DNA of people long lost just by looking at the ground that they used to walk on. Our human understanding of the DNA and complete genomic information is becoming relentless, and fast, and add to that the promise—horror to some—of AI integration, to make immortality really within the call of humanity.

All of which seem to render the question of biogenesis superfluous suddenly: if we could now manipulate the whole genome, DNA, we have suddenly arrived at the role of the creator that we previously ascribed to a supernatural being.

There is even talk that we are nearing the point where we could create whole universes, totally mind-boggling as it sounds, but the physics is solid, even if no scientist in his right mind would come out in public in support of that—though I understand a few did some years back.

When you consider all of these, humans are actually bestowing themselves with the kind of knowledge and power they previously ascribed to their gods. Perhaps it's the point of history—our religious ideals being the end of our human endeavors all along? :lol:

kaya para sa akin kung magiging deist ako or kung maniniwala ako sa creation , ,mas papanigan ko pa yung may mga nakarating dito sa Earth na mga Beaing na may taglay na Highest technology , , ,

diba dati nga hindi kayang isalin ang egg cell at sperm sa ibang babae,,ngayon kaya na , , , palagay ko papalapit na ang tao sa earth na maka pag create narin ng human , , , ;)

kaya maraming rumor na mababasa ka na may gagawing Fake alien attack , , ,

maraming magandang aral sa bible at marami ding hindi maganda , ,kaya makikita mo at masusuri mo ,,para lang itong Komiks , ,promise , ,pansinin nyo ang pag kakasulat , ,walang iniwan sa mga gumagawa ng Komiks , ,:lmao:
 
Last edited:
kaya para sa akin kung magiging deist ako or kung maniniwala ako sa creation , ,mas papanigan ko pa yung may mga nakarating dito sa Earth na mga Beaing na may taglay na Highest technology , , ,

diba dati nga hindi kayang isalin ang egg cell at sperm sa ibang babae,,ngayon kaya na , , , palagay ko papalapit na ang tao sa earth na maka pag create narin ng human , , , ;)

kaya maraming rumor na mababasa ka na may gagawing Fake alien attack , , ,

maraming magandang aral sa bible at marami ding hindi maganda , ,kaya makikita mo at masusuri mo ,,para lang itong Komiks , ,promise , ,pansinin nyo ang pag kakasulat , ,walang iniwan sa mga gumagawa ng Komiks , ,:lmao:

Yes, kahit nga yung games. Yung origins story ng Diablo, wow, amazing and more entertaining sa bible, hahahaha.

Aliens, yeah. Interdimensional beings. If they're there, it just makes sense. The earth is their gameworld and each one of us is just some bored god or alien avatar passing the time. hahaha.

Yung sa comics naman, DC/Marvel, masyado na sophisticated ang storytelling nila. Each writer will prob earn something of a PhD equivalent to ever make a story that is consistent with the heroic character world, mas sophisticated sa mythmakers and scribes ng College of Pontiffs (established: 300-plus BC) ng ancient Rome, an institution put to good use by the Vatican to forge their great Christian mythos, otherwise the many inconsistencies of the bible wouldn't have been there in the first place, di papasa sa editorial counterparts nila sa DC/Marvel. :lol:
 
There is even talk that we are nearing the point where we could create whole universes, totally mind-boggling as it sounds, but the physics is solid, even if no scientist in his right mind would come out in public in support of that—though I understand a few did some years back.

When you consider all of these, humans are actually bestowing themselves with the kind of knowledge and power they previously ascribed to their gods. Perhaps it's the point of history—our religious ideals being the end of our human endeavors all along? :lol:

As i have mention, we are god ;):lol:

but how did life become life?

I would sound like most theist if i say that "lahat may pinagmulan" . but where? we can only assume.

While i am in awe on all of these mind-boggling breakthrough of our science, we still cannot properly explain what happen before the big bang, or where did matter came from.
 
Last edited:
As i have mention, we are god ;):lol:

but how did life become life?

I would sound like most theist if i say that "lahat may pinagmulan" . but where? we can only assume.
The honest answer is we don't have the complete picture right now. The RNA world and protein world hyptheses, although making spectacular advances in understanding how life could arise from nonbiological systems, are still perhaps a few steps away in fully knowing what really happened during those initial conditions that are key to the emergence of life as we know it.

While i am in awe on all of these mind-boggling breakthrough of our science, we still cannot properly explain what happen before the big bang, or where did matter came from.
WE do have a better model than the Big Bang: the Inflation Model, which, as I said, has allowed us to literally picture the emergence of the universe a mere trillionth of a second at the start of all things, versus the 300,000 years of our initial capabilities while addressing other issues that the Big Bang could not explain.

In a purely symmetric world, where each quantum fluctuation produces both matter and antimatter in equal amount, there shouldn't be any extra matter and hence no universe and no us humans talking about this, just pure radiation everywhere. The greatest mystery is how did this asymmetry come about in the beginning. Asymmetry gave us matter. Quantum fluctuations gave us both matter and antimatter, quantum fluctuations at zero just the balance of both positive and negative in equal amount.

Right now this asymmetry thing is one of the hottest, if not the hottest, field of research in fundamental physics/astrophysics.
 
Let me just answer this...

@ lebrante001
Ako, tipo tao na medio meron pagkasensitive. Hindi lahat sa oras at pagkakataon. Ayaw ko tao na meron naiinis sa akin na wala pumapasok sa isip ko kung ano ang nasabi at nagawa ko pero tinatanggap ko if meron tao mainis. That is life.

Good for you then.

@ lebrante001
Ikaw lang ang nag-iisip nun. Hindi ako. Ikaw ang nag-iisip na nag-aassume ako. Hindi ako sapagkat wala pumapasok o hindi pumapasok sa COGNITIVE FUNCTION ng akin brain na nag-assume ako na ganito at ganyan ang Atheists. Wala nga ako nauunawaan.

Let me give you an example of one of your assumption. Below is an example of an assupmtion.

@ lebrante001
At saka ang facts is based sa faith ng tao dahil meron naman din facts ang mga theists at meron din evidence ang mga iyan. Same lang din sa Atheists na meron facts at evidence ang mga iyan. It is based on faith.

Facts is not based on faith. You don't need faith to prove that the air is real. You don't need faith to prove that the Sun is real. Facts are real whether you have faith or not. Again assumption na naman.

If something is already proven it becomes a fact. Meron na bang matibay na ebidensya na totoo ang Diyos? Wala, so it's not a fact.

Ang pinaniniwalaa ng mga theists which is God is not yet an established fact that's why it is based on faith.

@ lebrante001
Tinanong ko kung ang mga tao sa Atheists country ba ay Apatheist o Atheists dahil ang mga bata doon ay tinuruan na wala God. Hindi mo rin sinagot ang tanong ko. Kinukuha ko kase ang definition ng Atheists at iniintindi ko dahil bigla sumulpot ang Apatheists.

I already gave you the definition of atheism. You can go back and read it if you'd like.

@ lebrante001
Baka ang gusto lang ata ng Atheists ay information na fit in sa mga Atheists lang talaga. Nauunawaan ko kung ganun, pero bago mangyari iyon ay maging Atheists muna ako.

Again another assumption na naman about atheists in general. If the said information is already proven hindi mo need maging atheist or theist para tanggapin ang information na yon.

For example the Sun being real is a form of information. Kailangan mo ba maging atheist muna bago tanggapin ang information na 'to?

@ lebrante001
For me, for me lang ha? Hindi maganda na nirereject kung ang God is real ba o myth or whatever. For me, God is abstract. Hindi nakikita ng mata, hindi nalalasahan ng dila, hindi napapakinggan ng taenga, hindi naaamoy ng ilong at hindi nadadampi sa kamay. Complicated ang God para e-scientific explanation o para e-reject siya.

That is your opinion though. Complicated pala ang God at di kayang ipaliwanag scientifically pero kaya 'mong i-explain? Hindi kaya ng science pero kaya mo?

@ lebrante001
Kapag ni-rereject ko, parang ni-rereject ko na rin ang sarili ko dahil kahit ano mangyari, God is in my head, I mean the knowledge about God is I can not erase talaga at worst kung isipan ko nai-reject.

Apparently your knowledge about God is not enough proof of his existence.

@ lebrante001
God for me is Abstract. God is love. So ano man good deed ang gawin ko is bumabalik sa akin.

God is abstract then biglang God is love? If God is an abstract being he wouldn't possess any kind of emotions like love. You're contradicting yourself.
 
Last edited:
@ Lebrante

Faith nga e noh? Faith. Kapag faith ay meron belief o trust sa mismo facts na iyon.

Gusto ko malaman ang definition ng Atheists dahil bigla sumulpot ang Apatheist sapagkat halos magkaparehas ang definition. Sa sobra magkalapit ay gusto ko malaman sa countries na lumaki na wala God ay kung Atheists o Apatheists ba iyon.

What I mean na hindi kaya maexplain ng science ang God dahil abstract nga siya. Abstract. Love is abract. Essence ba. Na fe-feel ba. Nararamdaman.

Na eexplain ko ang feeling ng love pero hindi kaya escientific explaination pero na eexplain ko ang definition ng love na kakaiba at hindi maipaliwanag.

Actually, ang problema is Atheists define God as a human being and that is why gusto nila eprove ang existing ng God at ang ganyan definition is only found sa God in religion dahil some people in religion also define God as human... I mean the concept of their God acts as human. Sa akin, iyon ang nakikita ko.

Nang umalis sila sa religion at naging Atheists sila, ang knowledge of God nila na pinanggalingan nila religion ay dala-dala nila. Hindi nila mabitaw-bitawan at hirap na hirap sila hanapin ang existing ng God.

Sa loob-loob ko, I feel, feel lang na parang meron sila regret. Kung andoon pa rin at hindi nila mabitawan, that means, ang long term memory ay naandoon pa rin.

Feel ko, kapag na prove ng science na God exists talaga, saka sila maiisipan bumalik sa religion na pinanggalingan nila. Need lang naman ng Atheists ay proof ng existing ng God. Then done. Tapos na.

That means, ang puso nila, nasa religion pa rin na pinanggalingan nila.

- - - Updated - - -

Ms. Meow, I am interested to know why di mo kaya :)

Mahirap lang sabihin na wala God kung nasa mind ko siya at nararamdaman ko siya.

Awkward din kung example, meron nagtanong. Saan ako galing.

Ang sasagot ko ay wala.

Parang it is not correct. Lahat ay meron pinagmulan. Kahit atoms ay meron ipinagmulan.

Parang nag-exists lang ako like magic dahil wala ako ipinagmulan, kaya mahirap maging Atheists.
 
Last edited:
@ Lebrante
Faith nga e noh? Faith. Kapag faith ay meron belief o trust sa mismo facts na iyon.
Why do you need faith to trust facts e fact na nga iyon? Do I need faith to trust na totoo ang hangin? Facts are facts whether you have faith in it or not. Irrelevant na ang faith sa isang established fact.

@ Lebrante
Gusto ko malaman ang definition ng Atheists dahil bigla sumulpot ang Apatheist sapagkat halos magkaparehas ang definition. Sa sobra magkalapit ay gusto ko malaman sa countries na lumaki na wala God ay kung Atheists o Apatheists ba iyon.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Apatheist: is someone who is not interested in accepting or rejecting any claims that gods exist or do not exist.

So hindi sila pareho okay?
@ Lebrante
What I mean na hindi kaya maexplain ng science ang God dahil abstract nga siya. Abstract. Love is abract. Essence ba. Na fe-feel ba. Nararamdaman.

Na eexplain ko ang feeling ng love pero hindi kaya escientific explaination pero na eexplain ko ang definition ng love na kakaiba at hindi maipaliwanag.

Are you sure that love cannot be explained by science? Love is a chemical reaction that occurs in the brain that consists of neurochemicals like norepinephrine, dopamine and phenylethylamine. Again are you sure that love cannot be explain scientifically?

@ Lebrante
Actually, ang problema is Atheists define God as a human being and that is why gusto nila eprove ang existing ng God at ang ganyan definition is only found sa God in religion dahil some people in religion also define God as human... I mean the concept of their God acts as human. Sa akin, iyon ang nakikita ko.

I'm not the one who defines God as human. Ikaw ang nag-define na God is love. Love is quality that can be found in humans and other mammals. So ano ibig sabihin non?

@ Lebrante
Nang umalis sila sa religion at naging Atheists sila, ang knowledge of God nila na pinanggalingan nila religion ay dala-dala nila. Hindi nila mabitaw-bitawan at hirap na hirap sila hanapin ang existing ng God.

Ano problema kung maging knowledgeable about God ang isang non-believer?

@ Lebrante
Sa loob-loob ko, I feel, feel lang na parang meron sila regret. Kung andoon pa rin at hindi nila mabitawan, that means, ang long term memory ay naandoon pa rin.

Another assumption again about atheists.

@ Lebrante
Feel ko, kapag na prove ng science na God exists talaga, saka sila maiisipan bumalik sa religion na pinanggalingan nila. Need lang naman ng Atheists ay proof ng existing ng God. Then done. Tapos na.

If mapatunayan man na may God nga, it's not necessary to come back to your past religion.

@ Lebrante
That means, ang puso nila, nasa religion pa rin na pinanggalingan nila.

Assumption na naman. Saan mo ba nakukuha mga ganitong assumptions mo? 'Tas sasabihin mo di ka nag-aasume e ayan assumption yan oh.
 
Last edited:
I said, I feel. Feeling lang. No evidence or whatever. At saka, love can not explain in science. Na eexplain siya, like sabi mo, it is because it is part of our brain. So it means, nanggaling siya sa brain, so it means we do not use our heart anymore kung ganun. Nakita ko. I mean naipaliwanag ko noon iyon, matagal na, hindi dito, kaya na iin love ang tao is because some part of our brain... i mean if you feel it, you can not explain, define science anymore dahil ramdam na, kase nga, if you explain everything, papaano niyo na ma eespread ang love sa buo mundo. Kaya love is strong. Sabi nga ng near death experiencer who went to heaven is love everything you see, love yourself, too much information will give fear sa bawat human.

Love will conquer everything. Too much information will give fear sa bawat nilalang dahil madami alam.

Kung knowledgeable about God ang isa non believer, knowledgeable din pala, why reject? Bakit hindi pa naniniwala, e knowledgeable naman din sila. Bakit hindi na lang sila magpakatotoo na there is God? Kung alam nila myth, tanggapin. Myth is stronger than facts and it is most influential dahil myth will be someday, magiging true din siya, kaya siya nag eexists.

Sabi nga, feelings and emotions. Ika nga, kung kinicriticize nila na imagination is useless, strong pa rin siya dahil kailangan din natin ng imagination like child innocent like na lagi masaya because ang bata is mataas ang imagination nila. Adult, madami alam e, kaya nga too much suffering and regret and ika nga, ego.
 
Last edited:
I said, I feel. Feeling lang. No evidence or whatever. At saka, love can not explain in science. Na eexplain siya, like sabi mo, it is because it is part of our brain. So it means, nanggaling siya sa brain, so it means we do not use our heart anymore kung ganun. Nakita ko. I mean naipaliwanag ko noon iyon, matagal na, hindi dito, kaya na iin love ang tao is because some part of our brain... i mean if you feel it, you can not explain, define science anymore dahil ramdam na, kase nga, if you explain everything, papaano niyo na ma eespread ang love sa buo mundo. Kaya love is strong. Sabi nga ng near death experiencer who went to heaven is love everything you see, love yourself, too much information will give fear sa bawat human.

Love will conquer everything. Too much information will give fear sa bawat nilalang dahil madami alam.

Love is a chemical reaction that occurs in the brain and it sends signals to different areas of the body including the heart. So what are you saying na we do not use our heart anymore porke nasa utak ang love?

Unified ang katawan when it comes to emotions. When you feel in love nagma-manifest din siya sa iba't-ibang part ng katawan like mata (pupils gets dilated), sa heart (heart rate and pulse gets elevated), sa skin(pinagpapawisan). Same goes with other emotions like anger, remorse and etc.

The fact na meron tayong neurology sa branch ng science means we can explain what's happeining inside our brain when we're in love.

Where did you get mga pinagsasabi mo? Nag-aral ka ba?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom