Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Browse Groups

• Oh my, we never heard anything original from creationists since they were given the name, haven t we? Mendelian genetics works only on a very limited number of
Message 1 of 25 , Aug 31, 2007
View Source
Oh my, we never heard anything original from creationists since they
were given the name, haven't we?

Mendelian genetics works only on a very limited number of species, one
of them are flies and the peas Mendel studied with.

I don't find respectful any thermodynamical challenge to evolution
that does not quote the mathematical principle of the theories of
thermodynamics. To understand thermodynamics, that is, to be able to
use it correctly and forcibly in order to solve real time problems,
like attacking evolution, one first needs to study calculus,
differential equations, and the physical interpretation of mathematics
behind the math. The simplistic phrases like, "Energy cannot be
created nor destroyed" are not as powerful as equations like dS =
dQ/T, the mathematical definition of infinitesimal change in entropy
at constant temperature (I am a physics major so, sorry if I had to
throw that in). Show you calculations, creationists, show to us in
elegant, rigorous mathematical language the ergonomic contradictions
of evolution, and perhaps we would start considering you.

And, another note on thermodynamics - matter spontaneously creates
itself. Try googeling "virual particles". Those are real particles,
pardon of physicists had to name it that way. They are
matter-antimatter pairs simply popping out of practical nothingness,
as accorded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which implies that
nothingness is the most unstable entity in nature. Nothingness cannot
last for very long, PROBABILITY commands it that way. That's why the
big bang was NECESSARY. 0 can be written in infinite ways, you see,
like 1-1 or 7-(4+3) and so on and so forth, and the probability that 0
would stay 0 is really, really small compared to it being SOMETHING else.

By the way, using CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS against evolution, then
WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE! Why, the energy and information contained in
Adam and Eve where just for two people, wouldn't it violet the law of
thermodynamics that we are no pushing the 7 billion limit? And to
note, not all of us look like Adam and Eve, so we have to violate
CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS! (I so love the word "creationist
thermodynamics, just thought about it right now).

If only Pasteur known about the spontaneous synthesis of organic
molecules from non-organic solutions.

And, hey guys, today the jeep I rode to school had the plate number
XBR 342. What small probability in the world is there for me to ride
in a jeep with that specific plate number! Bless my soul!

Haha. Let us also make a new field of pseudomathematics called
CREATIONIST PROBABILITY. This field includes the calculation of
probability of already derived finished products and show from the
slimness of this probability that there must be a Creator!

Whew! Just noticed now I was ranting. I have so much things to rant
about, but now my rage has subsided, and I can't rant with the same
vitriol anymore. And I have figured such shallow reasoning are a waste
of time to argue with. Anyways......

Guys, people who write articles such as these kill science right on
the spot. Blasphemers of science, that's how I find them. Believers
and non-believers alike who have come to the love of science should
fight these evil people with all the might of their intellect and all
the loudness of their eloquence.

Truth and love above all else.

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "cityspiker" <cityspiker@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> Can you comment on this article:
>
> "What Darwin did not know
>
> We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming scientific
> developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned that his
> theory might one day be proved wrong.
>
> In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and published his
> work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the
> characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents according to
> precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance random
> processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.
>
> James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just
> developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of which
> states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so the
> present universe could not have created itself), and the second law of
> which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward degenerating
> direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do not of
> themselves become more organized with time).
>
> Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which showed
> that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-life.
>
> The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the odds of
> life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet been
> applied to the theory of evolution.
>
> Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so enormously
> complex that it could not possibly have been formed by chance, had not
> yet commenced.
>
> The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently for
> palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that chains of
> intermediate 'links' do not exist.
>
> Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles Darwin at the
> time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have been enough to
> torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the theory of
> evolution stone dead!"
>
> Appreciate it..Thanks Guys!
>
> City
>
• pecierpoldo, the scientific and mathematical arguments you have below are truly powerful. but my problem is in the last paragraphs. you see, if we
Message 2 of 25 , Sep 1, 2007
View Source
pecierpoldo,

the scientific and mathematical arguments you have below are truly
powerful. but my problem is in the last paragraphs. you see, if we
atheists/agnostics are fighting for equality in consideration of
beliefs (i hope you are), then we should start with ourselves. i think
what you said in the last paragraphs is a bit too harsh, although i do
agree with you. we shouldnt discriminate people just because we think
their beliefs are misleading or even stupid. cityspiker gave his
insight in a very mannerly way. i think you should have done the same.

oh, and guys, i am now an agnostic. haha. not that im "religiously
confused" or anything. im just considering the probability of god's
existence. what if, diba? but, of course, im still seeking answers and
truths.

~an answer a day keeps the priest away~

dyeisi

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo" <pecierpoldo@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Oh my, we never heard anything original from creationists since they
> were given the name, haven't we?
>
> Mendelian genetics works only on a very limited number of species, one
> of them are flies and the peas Mendel studied with.
>
> I don't find respectful any thermodynamical challenge to evolution
> that does not quote the mathematical principle of the theories of
> thermodynamics. To understand thermodynamics, that is, to be able to
> use it correctly and forcibly in order to solve real time problems,
> like attacking evolution, one first needs to study calculus,
> differential equations, and the physical interpretation of mathematics
> behind the math. The simplistic phrases like, "Energy cannot be
> created nor destroyed" are not as powerful as equations like dS =
> dQ/T, the mathematical definition of infinitesimal change in entropy
> at constant temperature (I am a physics major so, sorry if I had to
> throw that in). Show you calculations, creationists, show to us in
> elegant, rigorous mathematical language the ergonomic contradictions
> of evolution, and perhaps we would start considering you.
>
> And, another note on thermodynamics - matter spontaneously creates
> itself. Try googeling "virual particles". Those are real particles,
> pardon of physicists had to name it that way. They are
> matter-antimatter pairs simply popping out of practical nothingness,
> as accorded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which implies that
> nothingness is the most unstable entity in nature. Nothingness cannot
> last for very long, PROBABILITY commands it that way. That's why the
> big bang was NECESSARY. 0 can be written in infinite ways, you see,
> like 1-1 or 7-(4+3) and so on and so forth, and the probability that 0
> would stay 0 is really, really small compared to it being SOMETHING
else.
>
> By the way, using CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS against evolution, then
> WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE! Why, the energy and information contained in
> Adam and Eve where just for two people, wouldn't it violet the law of
> thermodynamics that we are no pushing the 7 billion limit? And to
> note, not all of us look like Adam and Eve, so we have to violate
> CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS! (I so love the word "creationist
> thermodynamics, just thought about it right now).
>
> If only Pasteur known about the spontaneous synthesis of organic
> molecules from non-organic solutions.
>
> And, hey guys, today the jeep I rode to school had the plate number
> XBR 342. What small probability in the world is there for me to ride
> in a jeep with that specific plate number! Bless my soul!
>
> Haha. Let us also make a new field of pseudomathematics called
> CREATIONIST PROBABILITY. This field includes the calculation of
> probability of already derived finished products and show from the
> slimness of this probability that there must be a Creator!
>
> Whew! Just noticed now I was ranting. I have so much things to rant
> about, but now my rage has subsided, and I can't rant with the same
> vitriol anymore. And I have figured such shallow reasoning are a waste
> of time to argue with. Anyways......
>
> Guys, people who write articles such as these kill science right on
> the spot. Blasphemers of science, that's how I find them. Believers
> and non-believers alike who have come to the love of science should
> fight these evil people with all the might of their intellect and all
> the loudness of their eloquence.
>
> Truth and love above all else.
>
>
> --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "cityspiker" <cityspiker@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > Can you comment on this article:
> >
> > "What Darwin did not know
> >
> > We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming scientific
> > developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned that his
> > theory might one day be proved wrong.
> >
> > In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and published his
> > work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the
> > characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents according to
> > precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance random
> > processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.
> >
> > James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just
> > developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of which
> > states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so the
> > present universe could not have created itself), and the second law of
> > which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward degenerating
> > direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do not of
> > themselves become more organized with time).
> >
> > Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which showed
> > that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-life.
> >
> > The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the odds of
> > life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet been
> > applied to the theory of evolution.
> >
> > Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so enormously
> > complex that it could not possibly have been formed by chance, had not
> > yet commenced.
> >
> > The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently for
> > palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that chains of
> > intermediate 'links' do not exist.
> >
> > Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles Darwin at the
> > time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have been enough to
> > torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the theory of
> > evolution stone dead!"
> >
> > Appreciate it..Thanks Guys!
> >
> > City
> >
>
• You are right, extremedeath666. That was very irrational of me. Not very fitting for someone who prides himself of being an atheist. A but. Not an excuse,
Message 3 of 25 , Sep 8, 2007
View Source
You are right, extremedeath666. That was very irrational of me. Not
very fitting for someone who prides himself of being an atheist.

A but. Not an excuse, simply a "but". I also believe that harshenss
in words and arguments does not share the same squalor with
intolerance. If one finds the beliefs of another to be revolting or
evil, then one has, with all the rights and liberties one can muster,
the freedom to call what wrong there is by its proper names, acidic
they may be. One does not become intolerant of other people by
placing oneself in fierce opposition to them.

Anyways, extremedeath666, lately I have lost the philosophical
sensitivity to distinguish the agnostic and the atheist. When one is
an agnostic, one postpones belief due to lack of evidence - but does
not the postponement of belief imply the absence of belief, in short,
atheism? I was once called my self an agnostic too, but I have later
decided that agnosticism is just another flavor of atheism just like,
on my opinion, pantheism.

The words of the 'Encyclopedia of Unbelief' once struck me as an
agnostic when it said, "Agnostic are timid atheists-- timid to
declare positively what they know negatively."

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "extremedeath666"
<extremedeath666@...> wrote:
>
> pecierpoldo,
>
> the scientific and mathematical arguments you have below are truly
> powerful. but my problem is in the last paragraphs. you see, if we
> atheists/agnostics are fighting for equality in consideration of
> beliefs (i hope you are), then we should start with ourselves. i
think
> what you said in the last paragraphs is a bit too harsh, although i
do
> agree with you. we shouldnt discriminate people just because we
think
> their beliefs are misleading or even stupid. cityspiker gave his
> insight in a very mannerly way. i think you should have done the
same.
>
> oh, and guys, i am now an agnostic. haha. not that im "religiously
> confused" or anything. im just considering the probability of god's
> existence. what if, diba? but, of course, im still seeking answers
and
> truths.
>
>
> ~an answer a day keeps the priest away~
>
> dyeisi
>
>
> --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo" <pecierpoldo@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oh my, we never heard anything original from creationists since
they
> > were given the name, haven't we?
> >
> > Mendelian genetics works only on a very limited number of
species, one
> > of them are flies and the peas Mendel studied with.
> >
> > I don't find respectful any thermodynamical challenge to evolution
> > that does not quote the mathematical principle of the theories of
> > thermodynamics. To understand thermodynamics, that is, to be able
to
> > use it correctly and forcibly in order to solve real time
problems,
> > like attacking evolution, one first needs to study calculus,
> > differential equations, and the physical interpretation of
mathematics
> > behind the math. The simplistic phrases like, "Energy cannot be
> > created nor destroyed" are not as powerful as equations like dS =
> > dQ/T, the mathematical definition of infinitesimal change in
entropy
> > at constant temperature (I am a physics major so, sorry if I had
to
> > throw that in). Show you calculations, creationists, show to us in
> > elegant, rigorous mathematical language the ergonomic
> > of evolution, and perhaps we would start considering you.
> >
> > And, another note on thermodynamics - matter spontaneously creates
> > itself. Try googeling "virual particles". Those are real
particles,
> > pardon of physicists had to name it that way. They are
> > matter-antimatter pairs simply popping out of practical
nothingness,
> > as accorded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which implies
that
> > nothingness is the most unstable entity in nature. Nothingness
cannot
> > last for very long, PROBABILITY commands it that way. That's why
the
> > big bang was NECESSARY. 0 can be written in infinite ways, you
see,
> > like 1-1 or 7-(4+3) and so on and so forth, and the probability
that 0
> > would stay 0 is really, really small compared to it being
SOMETHING
> else.
> >
> > By the way, using CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS against evolution,
then
> > WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE! Why, the energy and information contained in
> > Adam and Eve where just for two people, wouldn't it violet the
law of
> > thermodynamics that we are no pushing the 7 billion limit? And to
> > note, not all of us look like Adam and Eve, so we have to violate
> > CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS! (I so love the word "creationist
> > thermodynamics, just thought about it right now).
> >
> > If only Pasteur known about the spontaneous synthesis of organic
> > molecules from non-organic solutions.
> >
> > And, hey guys, today the jeep I rode to school had the plate
number
> > XBR 342. What small probability in the world is there for me to
ride
> > in a jeep with that specific plate number! Bless my soul!
> >
> > Haha. Let us also make a new field of pseudomathematics called
> > CREATIONIST PROBABILITY. This field includes the calculation of
> > probability of already derived finished products and show from the
> > slimness of this probability that there must be a Creator!
> >
> > Whew! Just noticed now I was ranting. I have so much things to
rant
> > about, but now my rage has subsided, and I can't rant with the
same
> > vitriol anymore. And I have figured such shallow reasoning are a
waste
> > of time to argue with. Anyways......
> >
> > Guys, people who write articles such as these kill science right
on
> > the spot. Blasphemers of science, that's how I find them.
Believers
> > and non-believers alike who have come to the love of science
should
> > fight these evil people with all the might of their intellect and
all
> > the loudness of their eloquence.
> >
> > Truth and love above all else.
> >
> >
> > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "cityspiker" <cityspiker@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Guys,
> > >
> > > Can you comment on this article:
> > >
> > > "What Darwin did not know
> > >
> > > We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming scientific
> > > developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned
that his
> > > theory might one day be proved wrong.
> > >
> > > In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and
published his
> > > work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the
> > > characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents
according to
> > > precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance random
> > > processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.
> > >
> > > James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just
> > > developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of
which
> > > states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so the
> > > present universe could not have created itself), and the second
law of
> > > which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward
degenerating
> > > direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do
not of
> > > themselves become more organized with time).
> > >
> > > Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which
showed
> > > that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-
life.
> > >
> > > The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the odds
of
> > > life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet
been
> > > applied to the theory of evolution.
> > >
> > > Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so
enormously
> > > complex that it could not possibly have been formed by chance,
> > > yet commenced.
> > >
> > > The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently for
> > > palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that chains
of
> > > intermediate 'links' do not exist.
> > >
> > > Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles Darwin
at the
> > > time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have been
enough to
> > > torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the theory of
> > > evolution stone dead!"
> > >
> > > Appreciate it..Thanks Guys!
> > >
> > > City
> > >
> >
>
• Interesting you raised the issue of intolerance. I had a debate with a friend who called me intolerant. And I had to think hard - - -was I being intolerant by
Message 4 of 25 , Sep 9, 2007
View Source
Interesting you raised the issue of intolerance.

I had a debate with a friend who called me intolerant. And I had to
think hard - - -was I being intolerant by espousing a view different
from someone's view.

Here was my reply to him:

The clash is with ideas - not with people. Critical thinking
shouldn't decrease with age, it should increase.

To point out that prayer does not change the weather by showing an
example is not intolerance. As I said, there will be a natural clash
of ideas between one that is fact/scientific based and one that is
metaphysical. To express a contrarian view, totally not in accord
with what many people have been used to thinking, will definitely rock
the boat. Imagine how Galileo felt when he adopted the Copernican
view that the earth is not the center of the universe and shook a
widely-held belief then. The Church, for theological purposes, held
that the earth was the center of the universe. It would be
incomprehensible to think now that Galileo was intolerant by espousing
a different, earth-shaking view.

While my statement is not Galilean in terms of impact, it is a
statement that can be tested (yes, I did not do a scientific test with
a control environment). Does prayer in fact affect the weather. To
say that this is not a matter of scientific inquiry is to think that
one's idea is untouchable. Empirically, it can be shown weather
prayer's effect on the weather is 50-50 (and therefore really a matter
of chance). I am not one who thinks everything should be proven to be
believed. But on this matter - yes, we can put prayer to the test, so
to speak.

Think of how the Christians won the "idea" debate in the 2nd and 3rd
centuries. They challenged the status quo and in the process, rocked
the boat. Imagine how many "gods" and belief system they offended.
Obviously, you probably wouldn't consider the Christians "intolerant."

That's what we're doing now. So enjoy the ride. We may be early
adopters but we are seeing the curve and demographics moving towards
reason/less superstition and metaphysics. Maybe not in my lifetime
but there is a steady march towards that.

Lastly, atheism is not a system of beliefs. All I am asserting is
that there is no deity in the sky the way Christians, Muslims, and
Jews would perceive their god. Atheism is not the foundation for my
ethics because atheism again is not a religion or system of beliefs.
My personal code of ethics is something I built and continue to build
based on my experiences, dialog, research etc. of various disciplines
(including the religious point of view - - I still subscribe to
certain moral teachings in the bible).

Know that I've been to both sides. I was very religious in the past,
opened myself up, and am where i am now. So I cannot be accused of
sticking to one belief and defending it like a zealot. I am where I
am now because of much reflection and thought. And yes, I have been
on both sides of the spectrum and in between.

*********************************************************

*********************************************************

My final thoughts on this intolerance topic:

Maybe we can learn something from Neil Degrasse Tyson (who is also an
atheist) who rebuked Richard Dawkins in last year's Beyond Belief
conference:

Cheers,

Ggmac

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo" <pecierpoldo@...>
wrote:
>
> You are right, extremedeath666. That was very irrational of me. Not
> very fitting for someone who prides himself of being an atheist.
>
> A but. Not an excuse, simply a "but". I also believe that harshenss
> in words and arguments does not share the same squalor with
> intolerance. If one finds the beliefs of another to be revolting or
> evil, then one has, with all the rights and liberties one can muster,
> the freedom to call what wrong there is by its proper names, acidic
> they may be. One does not become intolerant of other people by
> placing oneself in fierce opposition to them.
>
> Anyways, extremedeath666, lately I have lost the philosophical
> sensitivity to distinguish the agnostic and the atheist. When one is
> an agnostic, one postpones belief due to lack of evidence - but does
> not the postponement of belief imply the absence of belief, in short,
> atheism? I was once called my self an agnostic too, but I have later
> decided that agnosticism is just another flavor of atheism just like,
> on my opinion, pantheism.
>
> The words of the 'Encyclopedia of Unbelief' once struck me as an
> agnostic when it said, "Agnostic are timid atheists-- timid to
> declare positively what they know negatively."
• Theism is the belief in the existence of god. Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of god. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is independent of
Message 5 of 25 , Sep 9, 2007
View Source
Theism is the belief in the existence of god. Atheism is the absence
of belief in the existence of god. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is
independent of belief. The word comes from the Greek word gnosis which
means knowledge, therefore, being agnostic means without knowledge (of
god). Agnosticism is not the middle ground between theism and atheism.

Both theists and atheists can be agnostics. For example, I am an
agnostic-atheist which means that I lack belief in the existence of
god but have no knowledge on whether he really exists or not. This can
also apply to theists who believe in the existence of god but are
taking it on faith, therefore, have no knowledge on god's existence.

The reason why some people say they are agnostics (but aren't theists)
and reject the atheism label is because there is a pervading opinion
among religious people that "agnosticism" is a more respectable
position than that of atheism.

With that said (as I have posted in this group weeks or months
earlier), non-theists who call themselves agnostics and reject the
atheist label are really atheists without balls.

On 9/9/07, pecierpoldo <pecierpoldo@...> wrote:
> The words of the 'Encyclopedia of Unbelief' once struck me as an
> agnostic when it said, "Agnostic are timid atheists-- timid to
> declare positively what they know negatively."
• One more thing, agnostics may argue that the definition of agnosticism is the suspension of belief on the existence of god. But is there really such a thing
Message 6 of 25 , Sep 9, 2007
View Source
One more thing, agnostics may argue that the definition of agnosticism
is the suspension of belief on the existence of god. But is there
really such a thing as, "suspension of belief"?

Belief is manifested through actions. If I am hungry and I see a
fruit, I can either eat it or not eat it. If I believe this fruit is
poisonous, I will not eat it. If I believe this fruit it not
poisonous, I will eat it. There are only two options. Now, what will a
person who supends belief (on whether the fruit is poisonous or not)
do? Will he eat the fruit or not? He does not because it is the safer
choice. By doing so, he is betting his ass that the fruit is
poisonous.

Now, lets translate this analogy in the theism-atheism context. How
does the "agnostic" live his life? Does the agnostic live his life as
if there is a god? Does he go to church every Sunday? Does he pray? Or
does he do the exact opposite?

JP
• I want to share my opinion here. Agnosticism is a logical position. It does not exist in practice. Agnosticism is a critic on the system of beliefs of atheism
Message 7 of 25 , Sep 9, 2007
View Source
I want to share my opinion here.

Agnosticism is a logical position. It does not exist in practice.
Agnosticism is a critic on the system of beliefs of atheism and
theism. This agnostic criticism exists in logic but not in practice.
This logical existence of agnosticism is the result of the atheism-
theism systems of beliefs. The anti-thesis nature of atheism vis-a-
vis theism logically necessitates the existence of agnostic belief.
An agnostic (being atheism-theism as his point of departure) sees the
problems or nuances of these two beliefs thereby creating his own
criticisms. Take note that criticisms means critical thinking on the
issue beyond the basic belief either as an theist or atheist.

If anyone else here able to capture some unclear statements above,
i'm glad to take elaboration later.

regards,

spiritual truth

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
<pecierpoldo@...> wrote:
>
> You are right, extremedeath666. That was very irrational of me. Not
> very fitting for someone who prides himself of being an atheist.
>
> A but. Not an excuse, simply a "but". I also believe that harshenss
> in words and arguments does not share the same squalor with
> intolerance. If one finds the beliefs of another to be revolting or
> evil, then one has, with all the rights and liberties one can
muster,
> the freedom to call what wrong there is by its proper names, acidic
> they may be. One does not become intolerant of other people by
> placing oneself in fierce opposition to them.
>
> Anyways, extremedeath666, lately I have lost the philosophical
> sensitivity to distinguish the agnostic and the atheist. When one
is
> an agnostic, one postpones belief due to lack of evidence - but
does
> not the postponement of belief imply the absence of belief, in
short,
> atheism? I was once called my self an agnostic too, but I have
later
> decided that agnosticism is just another flavor of atheism just
like,
> on my opinion, pantheism.
>
> The words of the 'Encyclopedia of Unbelief' once struck me as an
> agnostic when it said, "Agnostic are timid atheists-- timid to
> declare positively what they know negatively."
>
>
> --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "extremedeath666"
> <extremedeath666@> wrote:
> >
> > pecierpoldo,
> >
> > the scientific and mathematical arguments you have below are truly
> > powerful. but my problem is in the last paragraphs. you see, if we
> > atheists/agnostics are fighting for equality in consideration of
> > beliefs (i hope you are), then we should start with ourselves. i
> think
> > what you said in the last paragraphs is a bit too harsh, although
i
> do
> > agree with you. we shouldnt discriminate people just because we
> think
> > their beliefs are misleading or even stupid. cityspiker gave his
> > insight in a very mannerly way. i think you should have done the
> same.
> >
> > oh, and guys, i am now an agnostic. haha. not that im "religiously
> > confused" or anything. im just considering the probability of
god's
> > existence. what if, diba? but, of course, im still seeking
> and
> > truths.
> >
> >
> > ~an answer a day keeps the priest away~
> >
> > dyeisi
> >
> >
> > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
<pecierpoldo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh my, we never heard anything original from creationists since
> they
> > > were given the name, haven't we?
> > >
> > > Mendelian genetics works only on a very limited number of
> species, one
> > > of them are flies and the peas Mendel studied with.
> > >
> > > I don't find respectful any thermodynamical challenge to
evolution
> > > that does not quote the mathematical principle of the theories
of
> > > thermodynamics. To understand thermodynamics, that is, to be
able
> to
> > > use it correctly and forcibly in order to solve real time
> problems,
> > > like attacking evolution, one first needs to study calculus,
> > > differential equations, and the physical interpretation of
> mathematics
> > > behind the math. The simplistic phrases like, "Energy cannot be
> > > created nor destroyed" are not as powerful as equations like dS
=
> > > dQ/T, the mathematical definition of infinitesimal change in
> entropy
> > > at constant temperature (I am a physics major so, sorry if I
> to
> > > throw that in). Show you calculations, creationists, show to us
in
> > > elegant, rigorous mathematical language the ergonomic
> > > of evolution, and perhaps we would start considering you.
> > >
> > > And, another note on thermodynamics - matter spontaneously
creates
> > > itself. Try googeling "virual particles". Those are real
> particles,
> > > pardon of physicists had to name it that way. They are
> > > matter-antimatter pairs simply popping out of practical
> nothingness,
> > > as accorded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which
implies
> that
> > > nothingness is the most unstable entity in nature. Nothingness
> cannot
> > > last for very long, PROBABILITY commands it that way. That's
why
> the
> > > big bang was NECESSARY. 0 can be written in infinite ways, you
> see,
> > > like 1-1 or 7-(4+3) and so on and so forth, and the probability
> that 0
> > > would stay 0 is really, really small compared to it being
> SOMETHING
> > else.
> > >
> > > By the way, using CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS against evolution,
> then
> > > WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE! Why, the energy and information contained
in
> > > Adam and Eve where just for two people, wouldn't it violet the
> law of
> > > thermodynamics that we are no pushing the 7 billion limit? And
to
> > > note, not all of us look like Adam and Eve, so we have to
violate
> > > CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS! (I so love the word "creationist
> > > thermodynamics, just thought about it right now).
> > >
> > > If only Pasteur known about the spontaneous synthesis of organic
> > > molecules from non-organic solutions.
> > >
> > > And, hey guys, today the jeep I rode to school had the plate
> number
> > > XBR 342. What small probability in the world is there for me to
> ride
> > > in a jeep with that specific plate number! Bless my soul!
> > >
> > > Haha. Let us also make a new field of pseudomathematics called
> > > CREATIONIST PROBABILITY. This field includes the calculation of
> > > probability of already derived finished products and show from
the
> > > slimness of this probability that there must be a Creator!
> > >
> > > Whew! Just noticed now I was ranting. I have so much things to
> rant
> > > about, but now my rage has subsided, and I can't rant with the
> same
> > > vitriol anymore. And I have figured such shallow reasoning are
a
> waste
> > > of time to argue with. Anyways......
> > >
> > > Guys, people who write articles such as these kill science
right
> on
> > > the spot. Blasphemers of science, that's how I find them.
> Believers
> > > and non-believers alike who have come to the love of science
> should
> > > fight these evil people with all the might of their intellect
and
> all
> > > the loudness of their eloquence.
> > >
> > > Truth and love above all else.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "cityspiker"
<cityspiker@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Guys,
> > > >
> > > > Can you comment on this article:
> > > >
> > > > "What Darwin did not know
> > > >
> > > > We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming
scientific
> > > > developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned
> that his
> > > > theory might one day be proved wrong.
> > > >
> > > > In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and
> published his
> > > > work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the
> > > > characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents
> according to
> > > > precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance
random
> > > > processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.
> > > >
> > > > James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just
> > > > developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of
> which
> > > > states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so
the
> > > > present universe could not have created itself), and the
second
> law of
> > > > which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward
> degenerating
> > > > direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do
> not of
> > > > themselves become more organized with time).
> > > >
> > > > Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which
> showed
> > > > that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-
> life.
> > > >
> > > > The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the
odds
> of
> > > > life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet
> been
> > > > applied to the theory of evolution.
> > > >
> > > > Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so
> enormously
> > > > complex that it could not possibly have been formed by
chance,
> > > > yet commenced.
> > > >
> > > > The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently
for
> > > > palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that
chains
> of
> > > > intermediate 'links' do not exist.
> > > >
> > > > Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles Darwin
> at the
> > > > time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have been
> enough to
> > > > torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the theory of
> > > > evolution stone dead!"
> > > >
> > > > Appreciate it..Thanks Guys!
> > > >
> > > > City
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
• For many years I called myself an agnostic because I felt that one s personal beliefs are irrelevant. My reasoning went this way: 1. The most valid purpose
Message 8 of 25 , Sep 10, 2007
View Source
For many years I called myself an agnostic because I felt that one's
personal beliefs are irrelevant. My reasoning went this way:
1. The most valid purpose toward which any human can direct his life
is the betterment of the human race. That ideal is the basis for any
true morality or ethical system.
2. It is only through one's actions in life that any human can either
contribute or detract from that ideal.
3. History has shown time and again that any human being's religious
belief, or rather, what he claims to believe, has little or no effect
on how well he contributes to that ideal.
4. Therefore, a person's beliefs are, realistically speaking,
entirely irrelevant.
To me, then, the issue of belief in the existence or non-existence of
a deity or deities, having little or no effect on the actions of men,
is of no significance to the real world. The question being of no
significance, and myself not being inclined to dwell on matters of no
significance, I simply refused to ask myself that question.
Of course, after a few years, I took the one tiny step further to say
that all things considered, I could no longer see how any logical,
responsible and ethical human could adopt a belief in a supernatural
being. But before that, I did consider myself an agnostic. Is that
consistent with your definition?
Butch

wrote:
>
> One more thing, agnostics may argue that the definition of
agnosticism
> is the suspension of belief on the existence of god. But is there
> really such a thing as, "suspension of belief"?
>
> Belief is manifested through actions. If I am hungry and I see a
> fruit, I can either eat it or not eat it. If I believe this fruit is
> poisonous, I will not eat it. If I believe this fruit it not
> poisonous, I will eat it. There are only two options. Now, what
will a
> person who supends belief (on whether the fruit is poisonous or not)
> do? Will he eat the fruit or not? He does not because it is the
safer
> choice. By doing so, he is betting his ass that the fruit is
> poisonous.
>
> Now, lets translate this analogy in the theism-atheism context. How
> does the "agnostic" live his life? Does the agnostic live his life
as
> if there is a god? Does he go to church every Sunday? Does he pray?
Or
> does he do the exact opposite?
>
> JP
>
• Butch, The purportedly official definition of agnosticism is what I have adopted. This is also what (I think) T.H. Huxley has originally defined it. Since
Message 9 of 25 , Sep 11, 2007
View Source
Butch,

The purportedly "official" definition of agnosticism is what I have adopted.
This is also what (I think) T.H. Huxley has originally defined it. Since
both of us do not know for sure whether this (god's existence) is true or
not, I would call both of us, even now, agnostics (but at the same time
atheists).

However, if the "my definition" you are referring to is that of "suspension
of belief" then this post might just be the beginning of a long discussion.
From what I gather, the message you are trying to convey is that you do
think that there is a "suspension of belief" as you have experienced and
whether you have demonstrated a "suspension of belief" in the past or not, I
do not know and cannot answer that after reading your post. Frankly, it made
me question my assertions on the "suspension of belief" topic.

I'll think and do some research. I'll get back to you when I have an answer.

JP
On 9/11/07, butchsilverio <masilver@...> wrote:
>
> For many years I called myself an agnostic because I felt that one's
> personal beliefs are irrelevant. My reasoning went this way:
> 1. The most valid purpose toward which any human can direct his life
> is the betterment of the human race. That ideal is the basis for any
> true morality or ethical system.
> 2. It is only through one's actions in life that any human can either
> contribute or detract from that ideal.
> 3. History has shown time and again that any human being's religious
> belief, or rather, what he claims to believe, has little or no effect
> on how well he contributes to that ideal.
> 4. Therefore, a person's beliefs are, realistically speaking,
> entirely irrelevant.
> To me, then, the issue of belief in the existence or non-existence of
> a deity or deities, having little or no effect on the actions of men,
> is of no significance to the real world. The question being of no
> significance, and myself not being inclined to dwell on matters of no
> significance, I simply refused to ask myself that question.
> Of course, after a few years, I took the one tiny step further to say
> that all things considered, I could no longer see how any logical,
> responsible and ethical human could adopt a belief in a supernatural
> being. But before that, I did consider myself an agnostic. Is that
> consistent with your definition?
> Butch
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Can a theist (say, Christian or Muslim) be an atheist? butchsilverio wrote: For many years I called myself an agnostic because
Message 10 of 25 , Sep 11, 2007
View Source
Can a theist (say, Christian or Muslim) be an atheist?

butchsilverio <masilver@...> wrote: For many years I called myself an agnostic because I felt that one's
personal beliefs are irrelevant. My reasoning went this way:
1. The most valid purpose toward which any human can direct his life
is the betterment of the human race. That ideal is the basis for any
true morality or ethical system.
2. It is only through one's actions in life that any human can either
contribute or detract from that ideal.
3. History has shown time and again that any human being's religious
belief, or rather, what he claims to believe, has little or no effect
on how well he contributes to that ideal.
4. Therefore, a person's beliefs are, realistically speaking,
entirely irrelevant.
To me, then, the issue of belief in the existence or non-existence of
a deity or deities, having little or no effect on the actions of men,
is of no significance to the real world. The question being of no
significance, and myself not being inclined to dwell on matters of no
significance, I simply refused to ask myself that question.
Of course, after a few years, I took the one tiny step further to say
that all things considered, I could no longer see how any logical,
responsible and ethical human could adopt a belief in a supernatural
being. But before that, I did consider myself an agnostic. Is that
consistent with your definition?
Butch

wrote:
>
> One more thing, agnostics may argue that the definition of
agnosticism
> is the suspension of belief on the existence of god. But is there
> really such a thing as, "suspension of belief"?
>
> Belief is manifested through actions. If I am hungry and I see a
> fruit, I can either eat it or not eat it. If I believe this fruit is
> poisonous, I will not eat it. If I believe this fruit it not
> poisonous, I will eat it. There are only two options. Now, what
will a
> person who supends belief (on whether the fruit is poisonous or not)
> do? Will he eat the fruit or not? He does not because it is the
safer
> choice. By doing so, he is betting his ass that the fruit is
> poisonous.
>
> Now, lets translate this analogy in the theism-atheism context. How
> does the "agnostic" live his life? Does the agnostic live his life
as
> if there is a god? Does he go to church every Sunday? Does he pray?
Or
> does he do the exact opposite?
>
> JP
>

---------------------------------
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• I have just remembered that in the middle ages, the word atheist was a derogatory term to a person who is deemed by the orthodoxy as godless . Atheist was
Message 11 of 25 , Sep 11, 2007
View Source
I have just remembered that in the middle ages, the word atheist was a
derogatory term to a person who is deemed by the orthodoxy as
'godless'. 'Atheist' was therefore synonymous with 'infidel'. The
Muslim was an atheist for the Christian, the Christian was an atheist
for the Muslim. Both were atheists for the Romans.

Prof. Richard Dawkins seems to be particularly fond of the idea. I
frequently read or hear him stating that we modern people (except any
Hellenist still alive)are in fact atheists to a million different
deities. Modern monotheists, Dr. Dawkins often says, are atheists to a
gazillion of other gods, atheists only go one god further.

But if an atheist is someone who denies the existence of any deity,
and if a monotheist (for the sake of convenience) holds that there
exists one and only one god, then I believe the two positions are
mutually exclusive, by this definition. So I think a Muslim, a
Christian or a Jew cannot be atheists. (Its interesting to note,
though, that the Hindu can be. The term 'polytheistic' doesn't even
apply to Hinduism much.)

What I find difficult to reconcile in my mind about agnosticism is
that the position of negative atheism, the lack of a belief in any
deity due to the lack of evidence for any of them, seems to be more
stable. With 'stable' I mean that the negative atheist is more nominal
than the agnostic.

What I have found as the most desirable definitions of agnosticism was
by one of my heroes, Dr. Carl Sagan. His definition of agnosticism
seems to imply that agnosticism is the lack of belief in any deity,
and the leaving of a space for the possibility that one is wrong. If
this is agnosticism, then I am an agnostic. Any thinking person must,
theist or atheist, by this definition, be an agnostic. It is the worst
of dogmatisms not to leave even but a space for the possibility that
one is wrong. I detest any one, theist or atheist, who thinks she is
entirely correct, who never leaves open the possibility of her being
wrong.

But there is a definition of agnosticism that I cannot agree with. And
this is that agnosticism is the positive belief that matters with
regards to deities are inaccessible to the human mind, and thus no
human could and should make conclusion regarding this subject. I hold
that the monotheistic hypothesis that there is a god is a testable
hypothesis. For example, the 'existence' of the Christian God can be
tested by verifying the claims of the Bible, testing its predictions,
and comparing its description of the world (both natural and
metaphysical) with the world we comprehend. I am an atheist with
respect to the Judeo-Christian God because it is my opinion that the
facts support the position that this God does not exist.

To the positions of pantheism (like Einstein's) and deism (like
Paine's), I find more difficulty to inventing tests. I yet don't have
any opinions whether these positions are indeed testable, or whether
they as well might join solipsism and the flying spaghetti monster in
the gang of untestable hypotheses.

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, jose mario sison
<joma_sison@...> wrote:
>
> Can a theist (say, Christian or Muslim) be an atheist?
>
> butchsilverio <masilver@...> wrote: For many years I called
myself an agnostic because I felt that one's
> personal beliefs are irrelevant. My reasoning went this way:
> 1. The most valid purpose toward which any human can direct his life
> is the betterment of the human race. That ideal is the basis for any
> true morality or ethical system.
> 2. It is only through one's actions in life that any human can either
> contribute or detract from that ideal.
> 3. History has shown time and again that any human being's religious
> belief, or rather, what he claims to believe, has little or no effect
> on how well he contributes to that ideal.
> 4. Therefore, a person's beliefs are, realistically speaking,
> entirely irrelevant.
> To me, then, the issue of belief in the existence or non-existence of
> a deity or deities, having little or no effect on the actions of men,
> is of no significance to the real world. The question being of no
> significance, and myself not being inclined to dwell on matters of no
> significance, I simply refused to ask myself that question.
> Of course, after a few years, I took the one tiny step further to say
> that all things considered, I could no longer see how any logical,
> responsible and ethical human could adopt a belief in a supernatural
> being. But before that, I did consider myself an agnostic. Is that
> consistent with your definition?
> Butch
>
> wrote:
> >
> > One more thing, agnostics may argue that the definition of
> agnosticism
> > is the suspension of belief on the existence of god. But is there
> > really such a thing as, "suspension of belief"?
> >
> > Belief is manifested through actions. If I am hungry and I see a
> > fruit, I can either eat it or not eat it. If I believe this fruit is
> > poisonous, I will not eat it. If I believe this fruit it not
> > poisonous, I will eat it. There are only two options. Now, what
> will a
> > person who supends belief (on whether the fruit is poisonous or not)
> > do? Will he eat the fruit or not? He does not because it is the
> safer
> > choice. By doing so, he is betting his ass that the fruit is
> > poisonous.
> >
> > Now, lets translate this analogy in the theism-atheism context. How
> > does the "agnostic" live his life? Does the agnostic live his life
> as
> > if there is a god? Does he go to church every Sunday? Does he pray?
> Or
> > does he do the exact opposite?
> >
> > JP
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the
hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
• Dear Pecierpoldo, To the positions of pantheism (like Einstein s) and deism (like Paine s), I find more difficulty to inventing tests. I yet don t have any
Message 12 of 25 , Sep 11, 2007
View Source
Dear Pecierpoldo,

"To the positions of pantheism (like Einstein's) and deism (like
Paine's), I find more difficulty to inventing tests. I yet don't have
any opinions whether these positions are indeed testable, or whether
they as well might join solipsism and the flying spaghetti monster in
the gang of untestable hypotheses."

Your above thoughts captured my interest. I like the philosophical
issue on solipsism. The solipsistic claim is actually a try in the
elimination of the ego or the non-existence of the I (indebted to
Wittgenstein). How then could the ego or the I identifies itself if
everything is itself? Since, whatever beyond itself is nothing but
itself and only itself, it can't be logical for the existence of the
ego. The existence of the ego or I requires an outside world..beyond
itself.

If God is a solipsistic truth, thence, this God itself has no self-
identity or ego-less.

regards,

spiritual truth

-- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo" <pecierpoldo@...>
wrote:
>
>
> I have just remembered that in the middle ages, the word atheist
was a
> derogatory term to a person who is deemed by the orthodoxy as
> 'godless'. 'Atheist' was therefore synonymous with 'infidel'. The
> Muslim was an atheist for the Christian, the Christian was an
atheist
> for the Muslim. Both were atheists for the Romans.
>
> Prof. Richard Dawkins seems to be particularly fond of the idea. I
> frequently read or hear him stating that we modern people (except
any
> Hellenist still alive)are in fact atheists to a million different
> deities. Modern monotheists, Dr. Dawkins often says, are atheists
to a
> gazillion of other gods, atheists only go one god further.
>
> But if an atheist is someone who denies the existence of any deity,
> and if a monotheist (for the sake of convenience) holds that there
> exists one and only one god, then I believe the two positions are
> mutually exclusive, by this definition. So I think a Muslim, a
> Christian or a Jew cannot be atheists. (Its interesting to note,
> though, that the Hindu can be. The term 'polytheistic' doesn't even
> apply to Hinduism much.)
>
> What I find difficult to reconcile in my mind about agnosticism is
> that the position of negative atheism, the lack of a belief in any
> deity due to the lack of evidence for any of them, seems to be more
> stable. With 'stable' I mean that the negative atheist is more
nominal
> than the agnostic.
>
> What I have found as the most desirable definitions of agnosticism
was
> by one of my heroes, Dr. Carl Sagan. His definition of agnosticism
> seems to imply that agnosticism is the lack of belief in any deity,
> and the leaving of a space for the possibility that one is wrong. If
> this is agnosticism, then I am an agnostic. Any thinking person
must,
> theist or atheist, by this definition, be an agnostic. It is the
worst
> of dogmatisms not to leave even but a space for the possibility that
> one is wrong. I detest any one, theist or atheist, who thinks she is
> entirely correct, who never leaves open the possibility of her being
> wrong.
>
> But there is a definition of agnosticism that I cannot agree with.
And
> this is that agnosticism is the positive belief that matters with
> regards to deities are inaccessible to the human mind, and thus no
> human could and should make conclusion regarding this subject. I
hold
> that the monotheistic hypothesis that there is a god is a testable
> hypothesis. For example, the 'existence' of the Christian God can be
> tested by verifying the claims of the Bible, testing its
predictions,
> and comparing its description of the world (both natural and
> metaphysical) with the world we comprehend. I am an atheist with
> respect to the Judeo-Christian God because it is my opinion that the
> facts support the position that this God does not exist.
>
> To the positions of pantheism (like Einstein's) and deism (like
> Paine's), I find more difficulty to inventing tests. I yet don't
have
> any opinions whether these positions are indeed testable, or whether
> they as well might join solipsism and the flying spaghetti monster
in
> the gang of untestable hypotheses.
>
> --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, jose mario sison
> <joma_sison@> wrote:
> >
> > Can a theist (say, Christian or Muslim) be an atheist?
> >
> > butchsilverio <masilver@> wrote: For many years I called
> myself an agnostic because I felt that one's
> > personal beliefs are irrelevant. My reasoning went this way:
> > 1. The most valid purpose toward which any human can direct his
life
> > is the betterment of the human race. That ideal is the basis for
any
> > true morality or ethical system.
> > 2. It is only through one's actions in life that any human can
either
> > contribute or detract from that ideal.
> > 3. History has shown time and again that any human being's
religious
> > belief, or rather, what he claims to believe, has little or no
effect
> > on how well he contributes to that ideal.
> > 4. Therefore, a person's beliefs are, realistically speaking,
> > entirely irrelevant.
> > To me, then, the issue of belief in the existence or non-
existence of
> > a deity or deities, having little or no effect on the actions of
men,
> > is of no significance to the real world. The question being of no
> > significance, and myself not being inclined to dwell on matters
of no
> > significance, I simply refused to ask myself that question.
> > Of course, after a few years, I took the one tiny step further to
say
> > that all things considered, I could no longer see how any
logical,
> > responsible and ethical human could adopt a belief in a
supernatural
> > being. But before that, I did consider myself an agnostic. Is
that
> > consistent with your definition?
> > Butch
> >
> > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, badboylamok <badboylamok@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > One more thing, agnostics may argue that the definition of
> > agnosticism
> > > is the suspension of belief on the existence of god. But is
there
> > > really such a thing as, "suspension of belief"?
> > >
> > > Belief is manifested through actions. If I am hungry and I see a
> > > fruit, I can either eat it or not eat it. If I believe this
fruit is
> > > poisonous, I will not eat it. If I believe this fruit it not
> > > poisonous, I will eat it. There are only two options. Now, what
> > will a
> > > person who supends belief (on whether the fruit is poisonous or
not)
> > > do? Will he eat the fruit or not? He does not because it is the
> > safer
> > > choice. By doing so, he is betting his ass that the fruit is
> > > poisonous.
> > >
> > > Now, lets translate this analogy in the theism-atheism context.
How
> > > does the "agnostic" live his life? Does the agnostic live his
life
> > as
> > > if there is a god? Does he go to church every Sunday? Does he
pray?
> > Or
> > > does he do the exact opposite?
> > >
> > > JP
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the
> hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
• singit lang. imo, there are 4 types of persons according to one s belief 1. theist 2. atheist 3. any synonyms for undecided 4. agnostic - infants, mentally
Message 13 of 25 , Sep 12, 2007
View Source
singit lang.

imo, there are 4 types of persons according to one's belief
1. theist
2. atheist
3. any synonyms for undecided
4. agnostic - infants, mentally ill, isolated caveman (if there is one)

spiritual_truth07 <spiritual_truth07@...> wrote:

I want to share my opinion here.

Agnosticism is a logical position. It does not exist in practice.
Agnosticism is a critic on the system of beliefs of atheism and
theism. This agnostic criticism exists in logic but not in practice.
This logical existence of agnosticism is the result of the atheism-
theism systems of beliefs. The anti-thesis nature of atheism vis-a-
vis theism logically necessitates the existence of agnostic belief.
An agnostic (being atheism-theism as his point of departure) sees the
problems or nuances of these two beliefs thereby creating his own
criticisms. Take note that criticisms means critical thinking on the
issue beyond the basic belief either as an theist or atheist.

If anyone else here able to capture some unclear statements above,
i'm glad to take elaboration later.

regards,

spiritual truth

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
<pecierpoldo@...> wrote:
>
> You are right, extremedeath666. That was very irrational of me. Not
> very fitting for someone who prides himself of being an atheist.
>
> A but. Not an excuse, simply a "but". I also believe that harshenss
> in words and arguments does not share the same squalor with
> intolerance. If one finds the beliefs of another to be revolting or
> evil, then one has, with all the rights and liberties one can
muster,
> the freedom to call what wrong there is by its proper names, acidic
> they may be. One does not become intolerant of other people by
> placing oneself in fierce opposition to them.
>
> Anyways, extremedeath666, lately I have lost the philosophical
> sensitivity to distinguish the agnostic and the atheist. When one
is
> an agnostic, one postpones belief due to lack of evidence - but
does
> not the postponement of belief imply the absence of belief, in
short,
> atheism? I was once called my self an agnostic too, but I have
later
> decided that agnosticism is just another flavor of atheism just
like,
> on my opinion, pantheism.
>
> The words of the 'Encyclopedia of Unbelief' once struck me as an
> agnostic when it said, "Agnostic are timid atheists-- timid to
> declare positively what they know negatively."
>
>
> --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "extremedeath666"
> <extremedeath666@> wrote:
> >
> > pecierpoldo,
> >
> > the scientific and mathematical arguments you have below are truly
> > powerful. but my problem is in the last paragraphs. you see, if we
> > atheists/agnostics are fighting for equality in consideration of
> > beliefs (i hope you are), then we should start with ourselves. i
> think
> > what you said in the last paragraphs is a bit too harsh, although
i
> do
> > agree with you. we shouldnt discriminate people just because we
> think
> > their beliefs are misleading or even stupid. cityspiker gave his
> > insight in a very mannerly way. i think you should have done the
> same.
> >
> > oh, and guys, i am now an agnostic. haha. not that im "religiously
> > confused" or anything. im just considering the probability of
god's
> > existence. what if, diba? but, of course, im still seeking
> and
> > truths.
> >
> >
> > ~an answer a day keeps the priest away~
> >
> > dyeisi
> >
> >
> > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
<pecierpoldo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh my, we never heard anything original from creationists since
> they
> > > were given the name, haven't we?
> > >
> > > Mendelian genetics works only on a very limited number of
> species, one
> > > of them are flies and the peas Mendel studied with.
> > >
> > > I don't find respectful any thermodynamical challenge to
evolution
> > > that does not quote the mathematical principle of the theories
of
> > > thermodynamics. To understand thermodynamics, that is, to be
able
> to
> > > use it correctly and forcibly in order to solve real time
> problems,
> > > like attacking evolution, one first needs to study calculus,
> > > differential equations, and the physical interpretation of
> mathematics
> > > behind the math. The simplistic phrases like, "Energy cannot be
> > > created nor destroyed" are not as powerful as equations like dS
=
> > > dQ/T, the mathematical definition of infinitesimal change in
> entropy
> > > at constant temperature (I am a physics major so, sorry if I
> to
> > > throw that in). Show you calculations, creationists, show to us
in
> > > elegant, rigorous mathematical language the ergonomic
> > > of evolution, and perhaps we would start considering you.
> > >
> > > And, another note on thermodynamics - matter spontaneously
creates
> > > itself. Try googeling "virual particles". Those are real
> particles,
> > > pardon of physicists had to name it that way. They are
> > > matter-antimatter pairs simply popping out of practical
> nothingness,
> > > as accorded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which
implies
> that
> > > nothingness is the most unstable entity in nature. Nothingness
> cannot
> > > last for very long, PROBABILITY commands it that way. That's
why
> the
> > > big bang was NECESSARY. 0 can be written in infinite ways, you
> see,
> > > like 1-1 or 7-(4+3) and so on and so forth, and the probability
> that 0
> > > would stay 0 is really, really small compared to it being
> SOMETHING
> > else.
> > >
> > > By the way, using CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS against evolution,
> then
> > > WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE! Why, the energy and information contained
in
> > > Adam and Eve where just for two people, wouldn't it violet the
> law of
> > > thermodynamics that we are no pushing the 7 billion limit? And
to
> > > note, not all of us look like Adam and Eve, so we have to
violate
> > > CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS! (I so love the word "creationist
> > > thermodynamics, just thought about it right now).
> > >
> > > If only Pasteur known about the spontaneous synthesis of organic
> > > molecules from non-organic solutions.
> > >
> > > And, hey guys, today the jeep I rode to school had the plate
> number
> > > XBR 342. What small probability in the world is there for me to
> ride
> > > in a jeep with that specific plate number! Bless my soul!
> > >
> > > Haha. Let us also make a new field of pseudomathematics called
> > > CREATIONIST PROBABILITY. This field includes the calculation of
> > > probability of already derived finished products and show from
the
> > > slimness of this probability that there must be a Creator!
> > >
> > > Whew! Just noticed now I was ranting. I have so much things to
> rant
> > > about, but now my rage has subsided, and I can't rant with the
> same
> > > vitriol anymore. And I have figured such shallow reasoning are
a
> waste
> > > of time to argue with. Anyways......
> > >
> > > Guys, people who write articles such as these kill science
right
> on
> > > the spot. Blasphemers of science, that's how I find them.
> Believers
> > > and non-believers alike who have come to the love of science
> should
> > > fight these evil people with all the might of their intellect
and
> all
> > > the loudness of their eloquence.
> > >
> > > Truth and love above all else.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "cityspiker"
<cityspiker@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Guys,
> > > >
> > > > Can you comment on this article:
> > > >
> > > > "What Darwin did not know
> > > >
> > > > We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming
scientific
> > > > developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned
> that his
> > > > theory might one day be proved wrong.
> > > >
> > > > In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and
> published his
> > > > work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the
> > > > characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents
> according to
> > > > precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance
random
> > > > processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.
> > > >
> > > > James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just
> > > > developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of
> which
> > > > states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so
the
> > > > present universe could not have created itself), and the
second
> law of
> > > > which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward
> degenerating
> > > > direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do
> not of
> > > > themselves become more organized with time).
> > > >
> > > > Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which
> showed
> > > > that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-
> life.
> > > >
> > > > The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the
odds
> of
> > > > life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet
> been
> > > > applied to the theory of evolution.
> > > >
> > > > Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so
> enormously
> > > > complex that it could not possibly have been formed by
chance,
> > > > yet commenced.
> > > >
> > > > The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently
for
> > > > palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that
chains
> of
> > > > intermediate 'links' do not exist.
> > > >
> > > > Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles Darwin
> at the
> > > > time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have been
> enough to
> > > > torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the theory of
> > > > evolution stone dead!"
> > > >
> > > > Appreciate it..Thanks Guys!
> > > >
> > > > City
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Surely we could agree on at least this group s working definition of agnostic . After all, we often talk about subject matters which has something to do with
Message 14 of 25 , Sep 12, 2007
View Source
Surely we could agree on at least this group's working definition of
'agnostic'. After all, we often talk about subject matters which has
something to do with it.

Here are three people whom I commonly hear calling themselves
agnostics;(1)the person who is either an atheist or theist but is open
to the possibility of being wrong; (2)the person who thinks that a
firm conclusion regarding the existence of deities cannot be made,
mainly on the grounds that the human mind is limited and that the
topic is too lofty; (3)the person who is yet undecided on the matter
of the existence of a god. Person 3 may be more theist or more
atheist, but generally, she is genuinely ambivalent on the contesting
positions.

It is my opinion that Person 1 should stop calling herself an
agnostic. It is not in sync with the source Greek word, which can be
approximated as 'lack of knowledge'. I think Person 2 comes closest to
the idea of 'lack of knowledge' or 'absence of knowledge', but I do
not agree with her. Still I think that Person 2 is truly the agnostic.
I think Person 3 could do better by going with the name 'Undecided' or
'Unsure'.

Basically, parang inulit ko lang ang sinabi ni freethinker_72, I just
added the idea of Person 2 and removed the mentally incapable (for the
lack of a better word).

<freethinker_72@...> wrote:
>
> singit lang.
>
> imo, there are 4 types of persons according to one's belief
> 1. theist
> 2. atheist
> 3. any synonyms for undecided
> 4. agnostic - infants, mentally ill, isolated caveman (if there is
one)
>
>
>
>
> spiritual_truth07 <spiritual_truth07@...> wrote:
>
>
> I want to share my opinion here.
>
> Agnosticism is a logical position. It does not exist in practice.
> Agnosticism is a critic on the system of beliefs of atheism and
> theism. This agnostic criticism exists in logic but not in practice.
> This logical existence of agnosticism is the result of the atheism-
> theism systems of beliefs. The anti-thesis nature of atheism vis-a-
> vis theism logically necessitates the existence of agnostic belief.
> An agnostic (being atheism-theism as his point of departure) sees the
> problems or nuances of these two beliefs thereby creating his own
> criticisms. Take note that criticisms means critical thinking on the
> issue beyond the basic belief either as an theist or atheist.
>
> If anyone else here able to capture some unclear statements above,
> i'm glad to take elaboration later.
>
> regards,
>
> spiritual truth
>
> --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
> <pecierpoldo@> wrote:
> >
> > You are right, extremedeath666. That was very irrational of me. Not
> > very fitting for someone who prides himself of being an atheist.
> >
> > A but. Not an excuse, simply a "but". I also believe that harshenss
> > in words and arguments does not share the same squalor with
> > intolerance. If one finds the beliefs of another to be revolting or
> > evil, then one has, with all the rights and liberties one can
> muster,
> > the freedom to call what wrong there is by its proper names, acidic
> > they may be. One does not become intolerant of other people by
> > placing oneself in fierce opposition to them.
> >
> > Anyways, extremedeath666, lately I have lost the philosophical
> > sensitivity to distinguish the agnostic and the atheist. When one
> is
> > an agnostic, one postpones belief due to lack of evidence - but
> does
> > not the postponement of belief imply the absence of belief, in
> short,
> > atheism? I was once called my self an agnostic too, but I have
> later
> > decided that agnosticism is just another flavor of atheism just
> like,
> > on my opinion, pantheism.
> >
> > The words of the 'Encyclopedia of Unbelief' once struck me as an
> > agnostic when it said, "Agnostic are timid atheists-- timid to
> > declare positively what they know negatively."
> >
> >
> > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "extremedeath666"
> > <extremedeath666@> wrote:
> > >
> > > pecierpoldo,
> > >
> > > the scientific and mathematical arguments you have below are truly
> > > powerful. but my problem is in the last paragraphs. you see, if we
> > > atheists/agnostics are fighting for equality in consideration of
> > > beliefs (i hope you are), then we should start with ourselves. i
> > think
> > > what you said in the last paragraphs is a bit too harsh, although
> i
> > do
> > > agree with you. we shouldnt discriminate people just because we
> > think
> > > their beliefs are misleading or even stupid. cityspiker gave his
> > > insight in a very mannerly way. i think you should have done the
> > same.
> > >
> > > oh, and guys, i am now an agnostic. haha. not that im "religiously
> > > confused" or anything. im just considering the probability of
> god's
> > > existence. what if, diba? but, of course, im still seeking
> > and
> > > truths.
> > >
> > >
> > > ~an answer a day keeps the priest away~
> > >
> > > dyeisi
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
> <pecierpoldo@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh my, we never heard anything original from creationists since
> > they
> > > > were given the name, haven't we?
> > > >
> > > > Mendelian genetics works only on a very limited number of
> > species, one
> > > > of them are flies and the peas Mendel studied with.
> > > >
> > > > I don't find respectful any thermodynamical challenge to
> evolution
> > > > that does not quote the mathematical principle of the theories
> of
> > > > thermodynamics. To understand thermodynamics, that is, to be
> able
> > to
> > > > use it correctly and forcibly in order to solve real time
> > problems,
> > > > like attacking evolution, one first needs to study calculus,
> > > > differential equations, and the physical interpretation of
> > mathematics
> > > > behind the math. The simplistic phrases like, "Energy cannot be
> > > > created nor destroyed" are not as powerful as equations like dS
> =
> > > > dQ/T, the mathematical definition of infinitesimal change in
> > entropy
> > > > at constant temperature (I am a physics major so, sorry if I
> > to
> > > > throw that in). Show you calculations, creationists, show to us
> in
> > > > elegant, rigorous mathematical language the ergonomic
> > > > of evolution, and perhaps we would start considering you.
> > > >
> > > > And, another note on thermodynamics - matter spontaneously
> creates
> > > > itself. Try googeling "virual particles". Those are real
> > particles,
> > > > pardon of physicists had to name it that way. They are
> > > > matter-antimatter pairs simply popping out of practical
> > nothingness,
> > > > as accorded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which
> implies
> > that
> > > > nothingness is the most unstable entity in nature. Nothingness
> > cannot
> > > > last for very long, PROBABILITY commands it that way. That's
> why
> > the
> > > > big bang was NECESSARY. 0 can be written in infinite ways, you
> > see,
> > > > like 1-1 or 7-(4+3) and so on and so forth, and the probability
> > that 0
> > > > would stay 0 is really, really small compared to it being
> > SOMETHING
> > > else.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, using CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS against evolution,
> > then
> > > > WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE! Why, the energy and information contained
> in
> > > > Adam and Eve where just for two people, wouldn't it violet the
> > law of
> > > > thermodynamics that we are no pushing the 7 billion limit? And
> to
> > > > note, not all of us look like Adam and Eve, so we have to
> violate
> > > > CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS! (I so love the word "creationist
> > > > thermodynamics, just thought about it right now).
> > > >
> > > > If only Pasteur known about the spontaneous synthesis of organic
> > > > molecules from non-organic solutions.
> > > >
> > > > And, hey guys, today the jeep I rode to school had the plate
> > number
> > > > XBR 342. What small probability in the world is there for me to
> > ride
> > > > in a jeep with that specific plate number! Bless my soul!
> > > >
> > > > Haha. Let us also make a new field of pseudomathematics called
> > > > CREATIONIST PROBABILITY. This field includes the calculation of
> > > > probability of already derived finished products and show from
> the
> > > > slimness of this probability that there must be a Creator!
> > > >
> > > > Whew! Just noticed now I was ranting. I have so much things to
> > rant
> > > > about, but now my rage has subsided, and I can't rant with the
> > same
> > > > vitriol anymore. And I have figured such shallow reasoning are
> a
> > waste
> > > > of time to argue with. Anyways......
> > > >
> > > > Guys, people who write articles such as these kill science
> right
> > on
> > > > the spot. Blasphemers of science, that's how I find them.
> > Believers
> > > > and non-believers alike who have come to the love of science
> > should
> > > > fight these evil people with all the might of their intellect
> and
> > all
> > > > the loudness of their eloquence.
> > > >
> > > > Truth and love above all else.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "cityspiker"
> <cityspiker@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you comment on this article:
> > > > >
> > > > > "What Darwin did not know
> > > > >
> > > > > We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming
> scientific
> > > > > developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned
> > that his
> > > > > theory might one day be proved wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and
> > published his
> > > > > work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the
> > > > > characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents
> > according to
> > > > > precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance
> random
> > > > > processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.
> > > > >
> > > > > James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just
> > > > > developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of
> > which
> > > > > states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so
> the
> > > > > present universe could not have created itself), and the
> second
> > law of
> > > > > which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward
> > degenerating
> > > > > direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do
> > not of
> > > > > themselves become more organized with time).
> > > > >
> > > > > Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which
> > showed
> > > > > that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-
> > life.
> > > > >
> > > > > The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the
> odds
> > of
> > > > > life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet
> > been
> > > > > applied to the theory of evolution.
> > > > >
> > > > > Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so
> > enormously
> > > > > complex that it could not possibly have been formed by
> chance,
> > had not
> > > > > yet commenced.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently
> for
> > > > > palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that
> chains
> > of
> > > > > intermediate 'links' do not exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles Darwin
> > at the
> > > > > time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have been
> > enough to
> > > > > torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the theory of
> > > > > evolution stone dead!"
> > > > >
> > > > > Appreciate it..Thanks Guys!
> > > > >
> > > > > City
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s
user panel and lay it on us.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
• i see your point, freethinker_72, but i think (im not really sure if this is your view, though) masyado atang mababa ang tingin mo sa agnostics. as pecierpoldo
Message 15 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
View Source
i see your point, freethinker_72, but i think (im not really sure if
this is your view, though) masyado atang mababa ang tingin mo sa
agnostics. as pecierpoldo had said, the greek etymology of "agnostic"
is "gnosis" or knowledge with a prefix "a-", meaning "not". ergo,
agnostics are the "not knowing" or "knowing nothing". although it may
be true that an agnostic, taking its meaning from its etymology, seems
to be a fool, i think that being an agnostic is simply an initial step
to accepting unbiased knowledge. i became an agnostic simply because i
decided to accept that i do not know anything. but, as socrates had
said, "wise is he who knows nothing," (not sure of the actual
quotation), my being agnostic is simply to seek for the bigger truths.
being agnostic is not being "mentally incapable", but being "mentally
prepared" for truths. after all, if we are already too bounded by what
we already know, how do we realize some truths that might shake our
own "truths" or beliefs?

in relation to what pecierpoldo mentioned about calling opinions by
their proper names, i still dont think that the "proper name" for
cityspiker's beliefs is "evil". maybe revolting or ignorant (in your
opinion, i think), but definitely not "evil".

dyeisi

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo" <pecierpoldo@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Surely we could agree on at least this group's working definition of
> 'agnostic'. After all, we often talk about subject matters which has
> something to do with it.
>
> Here are three people whom I commonly hear calling themselves
> agnostics;(1)the person who is either an atheist or theist but is open
> to the possibility of being wrong; (2)the person who thinks that a
> firm conclusion regarding the existence of deities cannot be made,
> mainly on the grounds that the human mind is limited and that the
> topic is too lofty; (3)the person who is yet undecided on the matter
> of the existence of a god. Person 3 may be more theist or more
> atheist, but generally, she is genuinely ambivalent on the contesting
> positions.
>
> It is my opinion that Person 1 should stop calling herself an
> agnostic. It is not in sync with the source Greek word, which can be
> approximated as 'lack of knowledge'. I think Person 2 comes closest to
> the idea of 'lack of knowledge' or 'absence of knowledge', but I do
> not agree with her. Still I think that Person 2 is truly the agnostic.
> I think Person 3 could do better by going with the name 'Undecided' or
> 'Unsure'.
>
> Basically, parang inulit ko lang ang sinabi ni freethinker_72, I just
> added the idea of Person 2 and removed the mentally incapable (for the
> lack of a better word).
>
>
>
> <freethinker_72@> wrote:
> >
> > singit lang.
> >
> > imo, there are 4 types of persons according to one's belief
> > 1. theist
> > 2. atheist
> > 3. any synonyms for undecided
> > 4. agnostic - infants, mentally ill, isolated caveman (if there is
> one)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > spiritual_truth07 <spiritual_truth07@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I want to share my opinion here.
> >
> > Agnosticism is a logical position. It does not exist in practice.
> > Agnosticism is a critic on the system of beliefs of atheism and
> > theism. This agnostic criticism exists in logic but not in practice.
> > This logical existence of agnosticism is the result of the atheism-
> > theism systems of beliefs. The anti-thesis nature of atheism vis-a-
> > vis theism logically necessitates the existence of agnostic belief.
> > An agnostic (being atheism-theism as his point of departure) sees the
> > problems or nuances of these two beliefs thereby creating his own
> > criticisms. Take note that criticisms means critical thinking on the
> > issue beyond the basic belief either as an theist or atheist.
> >
> > If anyone else here able to capture some unclear statements above,
> > i'm glad to take elaboration later.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > spiritual truth
> >
> > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
> > <pecierpoldo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You are right, extremedeath666. That was very irrational of me. Not
> > > very fitting for someone who prides himself of being an atheist.
> > >
> > > A but. Not an excuse, simply a "but". I also believe that harshenss
> > > in words and arguments does not share the same squalor with
> > > intolerance. If one finds the beliefs of another to be revolting or
> > > evil, then one has, with all the rights and liberties one can
> > muster,
> > > the freedom to call what wrong there is by its proper names, acidic
> > > they may be. One does not become intolerant of other people by
> > > placing oneself in fierce opposition to them.
> > >
> > > Anyways, extremedeath666, lately I have lost the philosophical
> > > sensitivity to distinguish the agnostic and the atheist. When one
> > is
> > > an agnostic, one postpones belief due to lack of evidence - but
> > does
> > > not the postponement of belief imply the absence of belief, in
> > short,
> > > atheism? I was once called my self an agnostic too, but I have
> > later
> > > decided that agnosticism is just another flavor of atheism just
> > like,
> > > on my opinion, pantheism.
> > >
> > > The words of the 'Encyclopedia of Unbelief' once struck me as an
> > > agnostic when it said, "Agnostic are timid atheists-- timid to
> > > declare positively what they know negatively."
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "extremedeath666"
> > > <extremedeath666@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > pecierpoldo,
> > > >
> > > > the scientific and mathematical arguments you have below are truly
> > > > powerful. but my problem is in the last paragraphs. you see, if we
> > > > atheists/agnostics are fighting for equality in consideration of
> > > > beliefs (i hope you are), then we should start with ourselves. i
> > > think
> > > > what you said in the last paragraphs is a bit too harsh, although
> > i
> > > do
> > > > agree with you. we shouldnt discriminate people just because we
> > > think
> > > > their beliefs are misleading or even stupid. cityspiker gave his
> > > > insight in a very mannerly way. i think you should have done the
> > > same.
> > > >
> > > > oh, and guys, i am now an agnostic. haha. not that im "religiously
> > > > confused" or anything. im just considering the probability of
> > god's
> > > > existence. what if, diba? but, of course, im still seeking
> > > and
> > > > truths.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ~an answer a day keeps the priest away~
> > > >
> > > > dyeisi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
> > <pecierpoldo@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh my, we never heard anything original from creationists since
> > > they
> > > > > were given the name, haven't we?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mendelian genetics works only on a very limited number of
> > > species, one
> > > > > of them are flies and the peas Mendel studied with.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't find respectful any thermodynamical challenge to
> > evolution
> > > > > that does not quote the mathematical principle of the theories
> > of
> > > > > thermodynamics. To understand thermodynamics, that is, to be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > > use it correctly and forcibly in order to solve real time
> > > problems,
> > > > > like attacking evolution, one first needs to study calculus,
> > > > > differential equations, and the physical interpretation of
> > > mathematics
> > > > > behind the math. The simplistic phrases like, "Energy cannot be
> > > > > created nor destroyed" are not as powerful as equations like dS
> > =
> > > > > dQ/T, the mathematical definition of infinitesimal change in
> > > entropy
> > > > > at constant temperature (I am a physics major so, sorry if I
> > > to
> > > > > throw that in). Show you calculations, creationists, show to us
> > in
> > > > > elegant, rigorous mathematical language the ergonomic
> > > contradictions
> > > > > of evolution, and perhaps we would start considering you.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, another note on thermodynamics - matter spontaneously
> > creates
> > > > > itself. Try googeling "virual particles". Those are real
> > > particles,
> > > > > pardon of physicists had to name it that way. They are
> > > > > matter-antimatter pairs simply popping out of practical
> > > nothingness,
> > > > > as accorded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which
> > implies
> > > that
> > > > > nothingness is the most unstable entity in nature. Nothingness
> > > cannot
> > > > > last for very long, PROBABILITY commands it that way. That's
> > why
> > > the
> > > > > big bang was NECESSARY. 0 can be written in infinite ways, you
> > > see,
> > > > > like 1-1 or 7-(4+3) and so on and so forth, and the probability
> > > that 0
> > > > > would stay 0 is really, really small compared to it being
> > > SOMETHING
> > > > else.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, using CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS against evolution,
> > > then
> > > > > WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE! Why, the energy and information contained
> > in
> > > > > Adam and Eve where just for two people, wouldn't it violet the
> > > law of
> > > > > thermodynamics that we are no pushing the 7 billion limit? And
> > to
> > > > > note, not all of us look like Adam and Eve, so we have to
> > violate
> > > > > CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS! (I so love the word "creationist
> > > > > thermodynamics, just thought about it right now).
> > > > >
> > > > > If only Pasteur known about the spontaneous synthesis of organic
> > > > > molecules from non-organic solutions.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, hey guys, today the jeep I rode to school had the plate
> > > number
> > > > > XBR 342. What small probability in the world is there for me to
> > > ride
> > > > > in a jeep with that specific plate number! Bless my soul!
> > > > >
> > > > > Haha. Let us also make a new field of pseudomathematics called
> > > > > CREATIONIST PROBABILITY. This field includes the calculation of
> > > > > probability of already derived finished products and show from
> > the
> > > > > slimness of this probability that there must be a Creator!
> > > > >
> > > > > Whew! Just noticed now I was ranting. I have so much things to
> > > rant
> > > > > about, but now my rage has subsided, and I can't rant with the
> > > same
> > > > > vitriol anymore. And I have figured such shallow reasoning are
> > a
> > > waste
> > > > > of time to argue with. Anyways......
> > > > >
> > > > > Guys, people who write articles such as these kill science
> > right
> > > on
> > > > > the spot. Blasphemers of science, that's how I find them.
> > > Believers
> > > > > and non-believers alike who have come to the love of science
> > > should
> > > > > fight these evil people with all the might of their intellect
> > and
> > > all
> > > > > the loudness of their eloquence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Truth and love above all else.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "cityspiker"
> > <cityspiker@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you comment on this article:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "What Darwin did not know
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming
> > scientific
> > > > > > developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned
> > > that his
> > > > > > theory might one day be proved wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and
> > > published his
> > > > > > work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the
> > > > > > characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents
> > > according to
> > > > > > precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance
> > random
> > > > > > processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just
> > > > > > developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of
> > > which
> > > > > > states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so
> > the
> > > > > > present universe could not have created itself), and the
> > second
> > > law of
> > > > > > which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward
> > > degenerating
> > > > > > direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do
> > > not of
> > > > > > themselves become more organized with time).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which
> > > showed
> > > > > > that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-
> > > life.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the
> > odds
> > > of
> > > > > > life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet
> > > been
> > > > > > applied to the theory of evolution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so
> > > enormously
> > > > > > complex that it could not possibly have been formed by
> > chance,
> > > had not
> > > > > > yet commenced.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently
> > for
> > > > > > palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that
> > chains
> > > of
> > > > > > intermediate 'links' do not exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles Darwin
> > > at the
> > > > > > time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have been
> > > enough to
> > > > > > torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the theory of
> > > > > > evolution stone dead!"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Appreciate it..Thanks Guys!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > City
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s
> user panel and lay it on us.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
• ... Hmmm there seems to be something wrong with the quote. It is self-refuting. Tony
Message 16 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
View Source
<extremedeath666@...> wrote:
>
> as socrates had said, "wise is he who knows nothing,"

Hmmm there seems to be something wrong with the quote. It is
self-refuting.

Tony
• If we re all being perfectly philosophical, then we have to admit to being agnostics about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. But what good is that? Do we really
Message 17 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
View Source
If we're all being perfectly philosophical, then we have to admit to
being agnostics about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. But what good
is that? Do we really go around telling everyone that we just don't
know whether Santa Claus will visit on Christmas Eve? Of course not.
We don't believe in Santa Claus, even though we can all write an essay
in Philosophy 101 about not being able to prove a negative.
• Right on!
Message 18 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
View Source
Right on!

On 9/14/07, Lito Lampitoc <ralampitoc@...> wrote:
>
> If we're all being perfectly philosophical, then we have to admit to
> being agnostics about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. But what good
> is that? Do we really go around telling everyone that we just don't
> know whether Santa Claus will visit on Christmas Eve? Of course not.
> We don't believe in Santa Claus, even though we can all write an essay
> in Philosophy 101 about not being able to prove a negative.
• yo extremedeath666, mataas ang tingin ko sa mga agnostics . most of the agnostics (e.g. darwin) are more knowlegable than theists and atheists alike. the
Message 19 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
View Source
yo extremedeath666, mataas ang tingin ko sa mga "agnostics". most of the agnostics (e.g. darwin) are more knowlegable than theists and atheists alike. the reason why i do not subscribe to the term agnostics, because the word agnostic is based on knowledge. i prefer calling them reservist/undecided because the issue about belief is taking sides. suspending judgment does not make a person agnostic or absence of knowledge. if you are familiar with the pdof list, there is a topic regarding "knowing and believing". they are totally different. in algebra, we can classify a belief as positive, negative, zero or non-numeric. but then again, this is only my opinion bro.

extremedeath666 <extremedeath666@...> wrote:
i see your point, freethinker_72, but i think (im not really sure if
this is your view, though) masyado atang mababa ang tingin mo sa
agnostics. as pecierpoldo had said, the greek etymology of "agnostic"
is "gnosis" or knowledge with a prefix "a-", meaning "not". ergo,
agnostics are the "not knowing" or "knowing nothing". although it may
be true that an agnostic, taking its meaning from its etymology, seems
to be a fool, i think that being an agnostic is simply an initial step
to accepting unbiased knowledge. i became an agnostic simply because i
decided to accept that i do not know anything. but, as socrates had
said, "wise is he who knows nothing," (not sure of the actual
quotation), my being agnostic is simply to seek for the bigger truths.
being agnostic is not being "mentally incapable", but being "mentally
prepared" for truths. after all, if we are already too bounded by what
we already know, how do we realize some truths that might shake our
own "truths" or beliefs?

in relation to what pecierpoldo mentioned about calling opinions by
their proper names, i still dont think that the "proper name" for
cityspiker's beliefs is "evil". maybe revolting or ignorant (in your
opinion, i think), but definitely not "evil".

dyeisi

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo" <pecierpoldo@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Surely we could agree on at least this group's working definition of
> 'agnostic'. After all, we often talk about subject matters which has
> something to do with it.
>
> Here are three people whom I commonly hear calling themselves
> agnostics;(1)the person who is either an atheist or theist but is open
> to the possibility of being wrong; (2)the person who thinks that a
> firm conclusion regarding the existence of deities cannot be made,
> mainly on the grounds that the human mind is limited and that the
> topic is too lofty; (3)the person who is yet undecided on the matter
> of the existence of a god. Person 3 may be more theist or more
> atheist, but generally, she is genuinely ambivalent on the contesting
> positions.
>
> It is my opinion that Person 1 should stop calling herself an
> agnostic. It is not in sync with the source Greek word, which can be
> approximated as 'lack of knowledge'. I think Person 2 comes closest to
> the idea of 'lack of knowledge' or 'absence of knowledge', but I do
> not agree with her. Still I think that Person 2 is truly the agnostic.
> I think Person 3 could do better by going with the name 'Undecided' or
> 'Unsure'.
>
> Basically, parang inulit ko lang ang sinabi ni freethinker_72, I just
> added the idea of Person 2 and removed the mentally incapable (for the
> lack of a better word).
>
>
>
> <freethinker_72@> wrote:
> >
> > singit lang.
> >
> > imo, there are 4 types of persons according to one's belief
> > 1. theist
> > 2. atheist
> > 3. any synonyms for undecided
> > 4. agnostic - infants, mentally ill, isolated caveman (if there is
> one)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > spiritual_truth07 <spiritual_truth07@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I want to share my opinion here.
> >
> > Agnosticism is a logical position. It does not exist in practice.
> > Agnosticism is a critic on the system of beliefs of atheism and
> > theism. This agnostic criticism exists in logic but not in practice.
> > This logical existence of agnosticism is the result of the atheism-
> > theism systems of beliefs. The anti-thesis nature of atheism vis-a-
> > vis theism logically necessitates the existence of agnostic belief.
> > An agnostic (being atheism-theism as his point of departure) sees the
> > problems or nuances of these two beliefs thereby creating his own
> > criticisms. Take note that criticisms means critical thinking on the
> > issue beyond the basic belief either as an theist or atheist.
> >
> > If anyone else here able to capture some unclear statements above,
> > i'm glad to take elaboration later.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > spiritual truth
> >
> > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
> > <pecierpoldo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You are right, extremedeath666. That was very irrational of me. Not
> > > very fitting for someone who prides himself of being an atheist.
> > >
> > > A but. Not an excuse, simply a "but". I also believe that harshenss
> > > in words and arguments does not share the same squalor with
> > > intolerance. If one finds the beliefs of another to be revolting or
> > > evil, then one has, with all the rights and liberties one can
> > muster,
> > > the freedom to call what wrong there is by its proper names, acidic
> > > they may be. One does not become intolerant of other people by
> > > placing oneself in fierce opposition to them.
> > >
> > > Anyways, extremedeath666, lately I have lost the philosophical
> > > sensitivity to distinguish the agnostic and the atheist. When one
> > is
> > > an agnostic, one postpones belief due to lack of evidence - but
> > does
> > > not the postponement of belief imply the absence of belief, in
> > short,
> > > atheism? I was once called my self an agnostic too, but I have
> > later
> > > decided that agnosticism is just another flavor of atheism just
> > like,
> > > on my opinion, pantheism.
> > >
> > > The words of the 'Encyclopedia of Unbelief' once struck me as an
> > > agnostic when it said, "Agnostic are timid atheists-- timid to
> > > declare positively what they know negatively."
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "extremedeath666"
> > > <extremedeath666@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > pecierpoldo,
> > > >
> > > > the scientific and mathematical arguments you have below are truly
> > > > powerful. but my problem is in the last paragraphs. you see, if we
> > > > atheists/agnostics are fighting for equality in consideration of
> > > > beliefs (i hope you are), then we should start with ourselves. i
> > > think
> > > > what you said in the last paragraphs is a bit too harsh, although
> > i
> > > do
> > > > agree with you. we shouldnt discriminate people just because we
> > > think
> > > > their beliefs are misleading or even stupid. cityspiker gave his
> > > > insight in a very mannerly way. i think you should have done the
> > > same.
> > > >
> > > > oh, and guys, i am now an agnostic. haha. not that im "religiously
> > > > confused" or anything. im just considering the probability of
> > god's
> > > > existence. what if, diba? but, of course, im still seeking
> > > and
> > > > truths.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ~an answer a day keeps the priest away~
> > > >
> > > > dyeisi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
> > <pecierpoldo@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh my, we never heard anything original from creationists since
> > > they
> > > > > were given the name, haven't we?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mendelian genetics works only on a very limited number of
> > > species, one
> > > > > of them are flies and the peas Mendel studied with.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't find respectful any thermodynamical challenge to
> > evolution
> > > > > that does not quote the mathematical principle of the theories
> > of
> > > > > thermodynamics. To understand thermodynamics, that is, to be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > > use it correctly and forcibly in order to solve real time
> > > problems,
> > > > > like attacking evolution, one first needs to study calculus,
> > > > > differential equations, and the physical interpretation of
> > > mathematics
> > > > > behind the math. The simplistic phrases like, "Energy cannot be
> > > > > created nor destroyed" are not as powerful as equations like dS
> > =
> > > > > dQ/T, the mathematical definition of infinitesimal change in
> > > entropy
> > > > > at constant temperature (I am a physics major so, sorry if I
> > > to
> > > > > throw that in). Show you calculations, creationists, show to us
> > in
> > > > > elegant, rigorous mathematical language the ergonomic
> > > contradictions
> > > > > of evolution, and perhaps we would start considering you.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, another note on thermodynamics - matter spontaneously
> > creates
> > > > > itself. Try googeling "virual particles". Those are real
> > > particles,
> > > > > pardon of physicists had to name it that way. They are
> > > > > matter-antimatter pairs simply popping out of practical
> > > nothingness,
> > > > > as accorded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which
> > implies
> > > that
> > > > > nothingness is the most unstable entity in nature. Nothingness
> > > cannot
> > > > > last for very long, PROBABILITY commands it that way. That's
> > why
> > > the
> > > > > big bang was NECESSARY. 0 can be written in infinite ways, you
> > > see,
> > > > > like 1-1 or 7-(4+3) and so on and so forth, and the probability
> > > that 0
> > > > > would stay 0 is really, really small compared to it being
> > > SOMETHING
> > > > else.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, using CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS against evolution,
> > > then
> > > > > WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE! Why, the energy and information contained
> > in
> > > > > Adam and Eve where just for two people, wouldn't it violet the
> > > law of
> > > > > thermodynamics that we are no pushing the 7 billion limit? And
> > to
> > > > > note, not all of us look like Adam and Eve, so we have to
> > violate
> > > > > CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS! (I so love the word "creationist
> > > > > thermodynamics, just thought about it right now).
> > > > >
> > > > > If only Pasteur known about the spontaneous synthesis of organic
> > > > > molecules from non-organic solutions.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, hey guys, today the jeep I rode to school had the plate
> > > number
> > > > > XBR 342. What small probability in the world is there for me to
> > > ride
> > > > > in a jeep with that specific plate number! Bless my soul!
> > > > >
> > > > > Haha. Let us also make a new field of pseudomathematics called
> > > > > CREATIONIST PROBABILITY. This field includes the calculation of
> > > > > probability of already derived finished products and show from
> > the
> > > > > slimness of this probability that there must be a Creator!
> > > > >
> > > > > Whew! Just noticed now I was ranting. I have so much things to
> > > rant
> > > > > about, but now my rage has subsided, and I can't rant with the
> > > same
> > > > > vitriol anymore. And I have figured such shallow reasoning are
> > a
> > > waste
> > > > > of time to argue with. Anyways......
> > > > >
> > > > > Guys, people who write articles such as these kill science
> > right
> > > on
> > > > > the spot. Blasphemers of science, that's how I find them.
> > > Believers
> > > > > and non-believers alike who have come to the love of science
> > > should
> > > > > fight these evil people with all the might of their intellect
> > and
> > > all
> > > > > the loudness of their eloquence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Truth and love above all else.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "cityspiker"
> > <cityspiker@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you comment on this article:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "What Darwin did not know
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming
> > scientific
> > > > > > developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned
> > > that his
> > > > > > theory might one day be proved wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and
> > > published his
> > > > > > work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the
> > > > > > characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents
> > > according to
> > > > > > precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance
> > random
> > > > > > processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just
> > > > > > developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of
> > > which
> > > > > > states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so
> > the
> > > > > > present universe could not have created itself), and the
> > second
> > > law of
> > > > > > which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward
> > > degenerating
> > > > > > direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do
> > > not of
> > > > > > themselves become more organized with time).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which
> > > showed
> > > > > > that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-
> > > life.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the
> > odds
> > > of
> > > > > > life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet
> > > been
> > > > > > applied to the theory of evolution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so
> > > enormously
> > > > > > complex that it could not possibly have been formed by
> > chance,
> > > had not
> > > > > > yet commenced.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently
> > for
> > > > > > palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that
> > chains
> > > of
> > > > > > intermediate 'links' do not exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles Darwin
> > > at the
> > > > > > time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have been
> > > enough to
> > > > > > torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the theory of
> > > > > > evolution stone dead!"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Appreciate it..Thanks Guys!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > City
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s
> user panel and lay it on us.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• The agnostic attitude can not exist in practice. It is a logical position. In to the very depths of our ego, we re either theists or atheists. I mean that
Message 20 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
View Source
The agnostic attitude can not exist in practice. It is a logical
position. In to the very depths of our ego, we're either theists or
atheists. I mean that agnostic attitude can not exist in our human
space-time aspect of our existence. Only theism and atheism can
possibly exist in practice. If agnosticism is a suspension or
reservation, it is a logical position but not a practical position. A
positional logical criticism of the atheism-theism issue or of our
own very knowledge of reality.

This is my philosophical stand on agnosticism. You may put criticism
on my idea above, but please avoid disgusting comments.

thanks...

regards,

spiritual truth

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, eric sandy fernando
<freethinker_72@...> wrote:
>
> yo extremedeath666, mataas ang tingin ko sa mga "agnostics". most
of the agnostics (e.g. darwin) are more knowlegable than theists and
atheists alike. the reason why i do not subscribe to the term
agnostics, because the word agnostic is based on knowledge. i prefer
calling them reservist/undecided because the issue about belief is
taking sides. suspending judgment does not make a person agnostic or
absence of knowledge. if you are familiar with the pdof list, there
is a topic regarding "knowing and believing". they are totally
different. in algebra, we can classify a belief as positive,
negative, zero or non-numeric. but then again, this is only my
opinion bro.
>
>
>
> extremedeath666 <extremedeath666@...> wrote:
> i see your point, freethinker_72, but i think (im not
really sure if
> this is your view, though) masyado atang mababa ang tingin mo sa
> agnostics. as pecierpoldo had said, the greek etymology
of "agnostic"
> is "gnosis" or knowledge with a prefix "a-", meaning "not". ergo,
> agnostics are the "not knowing" or "knowing nothing". although it
may
> be true that an agnostic, taking its meaning from its etymology,
seems
> to be a fool, i think that being an agnostic is simply an initial
step
> to accepting unbiased knowledge. i became an agnostic simply
because i
> decided to accept that i do not know anything. but, as socrates had
> said, "wise is he who knows nothing," (not sure of the actual
> quotation), my being agnostic is simply to seek for the bigger
truths.
> being agnostic is not being "mentally incapable", but
being "mentally
> prepared" for truths. after all, if we are already too bounded by
what
> we already know, how do we realize some truths that might shake our
> own "truths" or beliefs?
>
> in relation to what pecierpoldo mentioned about calling opinions by
> their proper names, i still dont think that the "proper name" for
> cityspiker's beliefs is "evil". maybe revolting or ignorant (in your
> opinion, i think), but definitely not "evil".
>
> dyeisi
>
> --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo" <pecierpoldo@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Surely we could agree on at least this group's working definition
of
> > 'agnostic'. After all, we often talk about subject matters which
has
> > something to do with it.
> >
> > Here are three people whom I commonly hear calling themselves
> > agnostics;(1)the person who is either an atheist or theist but is
open
> > to the possibility of being wrong; (2)the person who thinks that a
> > firm conclusion regarding the existence of deities cannot be made,
> > mainly on the grounds that the human mind is limited and that the
> > topic is too lofty; (3)the person who is yet undecided on the
matter
> > of the existence of a god. Person 3 may be more theist or more
> > atheist, but generally, she is genuinely ambivalent on the
contesting
> > positions.
> >
> > It is my opinion that Person 1 should stop calling herself an
> > agnostic. It is not in sync with the source Greek word, which can
be
> > approximated as 'lack of knowledge'. I think Person 2 comes
closest to
> > the idea of 'lack of knowledge' or 'absence of knowledge', but I
do
> > not agree with her. Still I think that Person 2 is truly the
agnostic.
> > I think Person 3 could do better by going with the
name 'Undecided' or
> > 'Unsure'.
> >
> > Basically, parang inulit ko lang ang sinabi ni freethinker_72, I
just
> > added the idea of Person 2 and removed the mentally incapable
(for the
> > lack of a better word).
> >
> >
> >
> > <freethinker_72@> wrote:
> > >
> > > singit lang.
> > >
> > > imo, there are 4 types of persons according to one's belief
> > > 1. theist
> > > 2. atheist
> > > 3. any synonyms for undecided
> > > 4. agnostic - infants, mentally ill, isolated caveman (if there
is
> > one)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > spiritual_truth07 <spiritual_truth07@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I want to share my opinion here.
> > >
> > > Agnosticism is a logical position. It does not exist in
practice.
> > > Agnosticism is a critic on the system of beliefs of atheism and
> > > theism. This agnostic criticism exists in logic but not in
practice.
> > > This logical existence of agnosticism is the result of the
atheism-
> > > theism systems of beliefs. The anti-thesis nature of atheism
vis-a-
> > > vis theism logically necessitates the existence of agnostic
belief.
> > > An agnostic (being atheism-theism as his point of departure)
sees the
> > > problems or nuances of these two beliefs thereby creating his
own
> > > criticisms. Take note that criticisms means critical thinking
on the
> > > issue beyond the basic belief either as an theist or atheist.
> > >
> > > If anyone else here able to capture some unclear statements
above,
> > > i'm glad to take elaboration later.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > spiritual truth
> > >
> > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
> > > <pecierpoldo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You are right, extremedeath666. That was very irrational of
me. Not
> > > > very fitting for someone who prides himself of being an
atheist.
> > > >
> > > > A but. Not an excuse, simply a "but". I also believe that
harshenss
> > > > in words and arguments does not share the same squalor with
> > > > intolerance. If one finds the beliefs of another to be
revolting or
> > > > evil, then one has, with all the rights and liberties one can
> > > muster,
> > > > the freedom to call what wrong there is by its proper names,
acidic
> > > > they may be. One does not become intolerant of other people
by
> > > > placing oneself in fierce opposition to them.
> > > >
> > > > Anyways, extremedeath666, lately I have lost the
philosophical
> > > > sensitivity to distinguish the agnostic and the atheist. When
one
> > > is
> > > > an agnostic, one postpones belief due to lack of evidence -
but
> > > does
> > > > not the postponement of belief imply the absence of belief,
in
> > > short,
> > > > atheism? I was once called my self an agnostic too, but I
have
> > > later
> > > > decided that agnosticism is just another flavor of atheism
just
> > > like,
> > > > on my opinion, pantheism.
> > > >
> > > > The words of the 'Encyclopedia of Unbelief' once struck me as
an
> > > > agnostic when it said, "Agnostic are timid atheists-- timid
to
> > > > declare positively what they know negatively."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "extremedeath666"
> > > > <extremedeath666@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > pecierpoldo,
> > > > >
> > > > > the scientific and mathematical arguments you have below
are truly
> > > > > powerful. but my problem is in the last paragraphs. you
see, if we
> > > > > atheists/agnostics are fighting for equality in
consideration of
> > > > > beliefs (i hope you are), then we should start with
ourselves. i
> > > > think
> > > > > what you said in the last paragraphs is a bit too harsh,
although
> > > i
> > > > do
> > > > > agree with you. we shouldnt discriminate people just
because we
> > > > think
> > > > > their beliefs are misleading or even stupid. cityspiker
gave his
> > > > > insight in a very mannerly way. i think you should have
done the
> > > > same.
> > > > >
> > > > > oh, and guys, i am now an agnostic. haha. not that
im "religiously
> > > > > confused" or anything. im just considering the probability
of
> > > god's
> > > > > existence. what if, diba? but, of course, im still seeking
> > > answers
> > > > and
> > > > > truths.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ~an answer a day keeps the priest away~
> > > > >
> > > > > dyeisi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
> > > <pecierpoldo@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh my, we never heard anything original from creationists
since
> > > > they
> > > > > > were given the name, haven't we?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mendelian genetics works only on a very limited number of
> > > > species, one
> > > > > > of them are flies and the peas Mendel studied with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't find respectful any thermodynamical challenge to
> > > evolution
> > > > > > that does not quote the mathematical principle of the
theories
> > > of
> > > > > > thermodynamics. To understand thermodynamics, that is, to
be
> > > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > use it correctly and forcibly in order to solve real time
> > > > problems,
> > > > > > like attacking evolution, one first needs to study
calculus,
> > > > > > differential equations, and the physical interpretation
of
> > > > mathematics
> > > > > > behind the math. The simplistic phrases like, "Energy
cannot be
> > > > > > created nor destroyed" are not as powerful as equations
like dS
> > > =
> > > > > > dQ/T, the mathematical definition of infinitesimal change
in
> > > > entropy
> > > > > > at constant temperature (I am a physics major so, sorry
if I
> > > had
> > > > to
> > > > > > throw that in). Show you calculations, creationists, show
to us
> > > in
> > > > > > elegant, rigorous mathematical language the ergonomic
> > > > contradictions
> > > > > > of evolution, and perhaps we would start considering you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And, another note on thermodynamics - matter
spontaneously
> > > creates
> > > > > > itself. Try googeling "virual particles". Those are real
> > > > particles,
> > > > > > pardon of physicists had to name it that way. They are
> > > > > > matter-antimatter pairs simply popping out of practical
> > > > nothingness,
> > > > > > as accorded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which
> > > implies
> > > > that
> > > > > > nothingness is the most unstable entity in nature.
Nothingness
> > > > cannot
> > > > > > last for very long, PROBABILITY commands it that way.
That's
> > > why
> > > > the
> > > > > > big bang was NECESSARY. 0 can be written in infinite
ways, you
> > > > see,
> > > > > > like 1-1 or 7-(4+3) and so on and so forth, and the
probability
> > > > that 0
> > > > > > would stay 0 is really, really small compared to it being
> > > > SOMETHING
> > > > > else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, using CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS against
evolution,
> > > > then
> > > > > > WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE! Why, the energy and information
contained
> > > in
> > > > > > Adam and Eve where just for two people, wouldn't it
violet the
> > > > law of
> > > > > > thermodynamics that we are no pushing the 7 billion
limit? And
> > > to
> > > > > > note, not all of us look like Adam and Eve, so we have to
> > > violate
> > > > > > CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS! (I so love the
word "creationist
> > > > > > thermodynamics, just thought about it right now).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If only Pasteur known about the spontaneous synthesis of
organic
> > > > > > molecules from non-organic solutions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And, hey guys, today the jeep I rode to school had the
plate
> > > > number
> > > > > > XBR 342. What small probability in the world is there for
me to
> > > > ride
> > > > > > in a jeep with that specific plate number! Bless my soul!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Haha. Let us also make a new field of pseudomathematics
called
> > > > > > CREATIONIST PROBABILITY. This field includes the
calculation of
> > > > > > probability of already derived finished products and show
from
> > > the
> > > > > > slimness of this probability that there must be a
Creator!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whew! Just noticed now I was ranting. I have so much
things to
> > > > rant
> > > > > > about, but now my rage has subsided, and I can't rant
with the
> > > > same
> > > > > > vitriol anymore. And I have figured such shallow
reasoning are
> > > a
> > > > waste
> > > > > > of time to argue with. Anyways......
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guys, people who write articles such as these kill
science
> > > right
> > > > on
> > > > > > the spot. Blasphemers of science, that's how I find them.
> > > > Believers
> > > > > > and non-believers alike who have come to the love of
science
> > > > should
> > > > > > fight these evil people with all the might of their
intellect
> > > and
> > > > all
> > > > > > the loudness of their eloquence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Truth and love above all else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "cityspiker"
> > > <cityspiker@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you comment on this article:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "What Darwin did not know
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming
> > > scientific
> > > > > > > developments, he would have had good reason to be
concerned
> > > > that his
> > > > > > > theory might one day be proved wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established
and
> > > > published his
> > > > > > > work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said
that the
> > > > > > > characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents
> > > > according to
> > > > > > > precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from
chance
> > > random
> > > > > > > processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only
just
> > > > > > > developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first
law of
> > > > which
> > > > > > > states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed
(so
> > > the
> > > > > > > present universe could not have created itself), and
the
> > > second
> > > > law of
> > > > > > > which says that the universe is proceeding in a
downward
> > > > degenerating
> > > > > > > direction of increasing disorganization (so things
overall do
> > > > not of
> > > > > > > themselves become more organized with time).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments
which
> > > > showed
> > > > > > > that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not
from non-
> > > > life.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The mathematical laws of probability, which show that
the
> > > odds
> > > > of
> > > > > > > life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had
not yet
> > > > been
> > > > > > > applied to the theory of evolution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is
so
> > > > enormously
> > > > > > > complex that it could not possibly have been formed by
> > > chance,
> > > > had not
> > > > > > > yet commenced.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The fossil record had not yet been investigated
sufficiently
> > > for
> > > > > > > palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do,
that
> > > chains
> > > > of
> > > > > > > intermediate 'links' do not exist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles
Darwin
> > > > at the
> > > > > > > time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have
been
> > > > enough to
> > > > > > > torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the
theory of
> > > > > > > evolution stone dead!"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Appreciate it..Thanks Guys!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > City
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s
> > user panel and lay it on us.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Got a little couch potato?
> Check out fun summer activities for kids.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
• oh, sorry, freethinker_72! haha. ngayon gets ko na point mo. akala ko kasi by saying that only babies and cavemen are agnostics, you meant to say that
Message 21 of 25 , Sep 14, 2007
View Source
oh, sorry, freethinker_72! haha. ngayon gets ko na point mo. akala ko
kasi by saying that only babies and cavemen are agnostics, you meant
to say that agnostics are the mentally incapable. i guess all you
meant to say is that agnostics are the completely not knowing, and
instead of categorizing the undecided into the agnostics, you simply
put them in another group. yeah. im sorry for the misunderstanding :D

dyeisi tejano

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "spiritual_truth07"
<spiritual_truth07@...> wrote:
>
>
> The agnostic attitude can not exist in practice. It is a logical
> position. In to the very depths of our ego, we're either theists or
> atheists. I mean that agnostic attitude can not exist in our human
> space-time aspect of our existence. Only theism and atheism can
> possibly exist in practice. If agnosticism is a suspension or
> reservation, it is a logical position but not a practical position. A
> positional logical criticism of the atheism-theism issue or of our
> own very knowledge of reality.
>
> This is my philosophical stand on agnosticism. You may put criticism
> on my idea above, but please avoid disgusting comments.
>
> thanks...
>
>
> regards,
>
> spiritual truth
>
>
>
>
> --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, eric sandy fernando
> <freethinker_72@> wrote:
> >
> > yo extremedeath666, mataas ang tingin ko sa mga "agnostics". most
> of the agnostics (e.g. darwin) are more knowlegable than theists and
> atheists alike. the reason why i do not subscribe to the term
> agnostics, because the word agnostic is based on knowledge. i prefer
> calling them reservist/undecided because the issue about belief is
> taking sides. suspending judgment does not make a person agnostic or
> absence of knowledge. if you are familiar with the pdof list, there
> is a topic regarding "knowing and believing". they are totally
> different. in algebra, we can classify a belief as positive,
> negative, zero or non-numeric. but then again, this is only my
> opinion bro.
> >
> >
> >
> > extremedeath666 <extremedeath666@> wrote:
> > i see your point, freethinker_72, but i think (im not
> really sure if
> > this is your view, though) masyado atang mababa ang tingin mo sa
> > agnostics. as pecierpoldo had said, the greek etymology
> of "agnostic"
> > is "gnosis" or knowledge with a prefix "a-", meaning "not". ergo,
> > agnostics are the "not knowing" or "knowing nothing". although it
> may
> > be true that an agnostic, taking its meaning from its etymology,
> seems
> > to be a fool, i think that being an agnostic is simply an initial
> step
> > to accepting unbiased knowledge. i became an agnostic simply
> because i
> > decided to accept that i do not know anything. but, as socrates had
> > said, "wise is he who knows nothing," (not sure of the actual
> > quotation), my being agnostic is simply to seek for the bigger
> truths.
> > being agnostic is not being "mentally incapable", but
> being "mentally
> > prepared" for truths. after all, if we are already too bounded by
> what
> > we already know, how do we realize some truths that might shake our
> > own "truths" or beliefs?
> >
> > in relation to what pecierpoldo mentioned about calling opinions by
> > their proper names, i still dont think that the "proper name" for
> > cityspiker's beliefs is "evil". maybe revolting or ignorant (in your
> > opinion, i think), but definitely not "evil".
> >
> > dyeisi
> >
> > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo" <pecierpoldo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Surely we could agree on at least this group's working definition
> of
> > > 'agnostic'. After all, we often talk about subject matters which
> has
> > > something to do with it.
> > >
> > > Here are three people whom I commonly hear calling themselves
> > > agnostics;(1)the person who is either an atheist or theist but is
> open
> > > to the possibility of being wrong; (2)the person who thinks that a
> > > firm conclusion regarding the existence of deities cannot be made,
> > > mainly on the grounds that the human mind is limited and that the
> > > topic is too lofty; (3)the person who is yet undecided on the
> matter
> > > of the existence of a god. Person 3 may be more theist or more
> > > atheist, but generally, she is genuinely ambivalent on the
> contesting
> > > positions.
> > >
> > > It is my opinion that Person 1 should stop calling herself an
> > > agnostic. It is not in sync with the source Greek word, which can
> be
> > > approximated as 'lack of knowledge'. I think Person 2 comes
> closest to
> > > the idea of 'lack of knowledge' or 'absence of knowledge', but I
> do
> > > not agree with her. Still I think that Person 2 is truly the
> agnostic.
> > > I think Person 3 could do better by going with the
> name 'Undecided' or
> > > 'Unsure'.
> > >
> > > Basically, parang inulit ko lang ang sinabi ni freethinker_72, I
> just
> > > added the idea of Person 2 and removed the mentally incapable
> (for the
> > > lack of a better word).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <freethinker_72@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > singit lang.
> > > >
> > > > imo, there are 4 types of persons according to one's belief
> > > > 1. theist
> > > > 2. atheist
> > > > 3. any synonyms for undecided
> > > > 4. agnostic - infants, mentally ill, isolated caveman (if there
> is
> > > one)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > spiritual_truth07 <spiritual_truth07@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I want to share my opinion here.
> > > >
> > > > Agnosticism is a logical position. It does not exist in
> practice.
> > > > Agnosticism is a critic on the system of beliefs of atheism and
> > > > theism. This agnostic criticism exists in logic but not in
> practice.
> > > > This logical existence of agnosticism is the result of the
> atheism-
> > > > theism systems of beliefs. The anti-thesis nature of atheism
> vis-a-
> > > > vis theism logically necessitates the existence of agnostic
> belief.
> > > > An agnostic (being atheism-theism as his point of departure)
> sees the
> > > > problems or nuances of these two beliefs thereby creating his
> own
> > > > criticisms. Take note that criticisms means critical thinking
> on the
> > > > issue beyond the basic belief either as an theist or atheist.
> > > >
> > > > If anyone else here able to capture some unclear statements
> above,
> > > > i'm glad to take elaboration later.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > spiritual truth
> > > >
> > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
> > > > <pecierpoldo@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right, extremedeath666. That was very irrational of
> me. Not
> > > > > very fitting for someone who prides himself of being an
> atheist.
> > > > >
> > > > > A but. Not an excuse, simply a "but". I also believe that
> harshenss
> > > > > in words and arguments does not share the same squalor with
> > > > > intolerance. If one finds the beliefs of another to be
> revolting or
> > > > > evil, then one has, with all the rights and liberties one can
> > > > muster,
> > > > > the freedom to call what wrong there is by its proper names,
> acidic
> > > > > they may be. One does not become intolerant of other people
> by
> > > > > placing oneself in fierce opposition to them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyways, extremedeath666, lately I have lost the
> philosophical
> > > > > sensitivity to distinguish the agnostic and the atheist. When
> one
> > > > is
> > > > > an agnostic, one postpones belief due to lack of evidence -
> but
> > > > does
> > > > > not the postponement of belief imply the absence of belief,
> in
> > > > short,
> > > > > atheism? I was once called my self an agnostic too, but I
> have
> > > > later
> > > > > decided that agnosticism is just another flavor of atheism
> just
> > > > like,
> > > > > on my opinion, pantheism.
> > > > >
> > > > > The words of the 'Encyclopedia of Unbelief' once struck me as
> an
> > > > > agnostic when it said, "Agnostic are timid atheists-- timid
> to
> > > > > declare positively what they know negatively."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "extremedeath666"
> > > > > <extremedeath666@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pecierpoldo,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the scientific and mathematical arguments you have below
> are truly
> > > > > > powerful. but my problem is in the last paragraphs. you
> see, if we
> > > > > > atheists/agnostics are fighting for equality in
> consideration of
> > > > > > beliefs (i hope you are), then we should start with
> ourselves. i
> > > > > think
> > > > > > what you said in the last paragraphs is a bit too harsh,
> although
> > > > i
> > > > > do
> > > > > > agree with you. we shouldnt discriminate people just
> because we
> > > > > think
> > > > > > their beliefs are misleading or even stupid. cityspiker
> gave his
> > > > > > insight in a very mannerly way. i think you should have
> done the
> > > > > same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > oh, and guys, i am now an agnostic. haha. not that
> im "religiously
> > > > > > confused" or anything. im just considering the probability
> of
> > > > god's
> > > > > > existence. what if, diba? but, of course, im still seeking
> > > > answers
> > > > > and
> > > > > > truths.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~an answer a day keeps the priest away~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dyeisi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "pecierpoldo"
> > > > <pecierpoldo@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh my, we never heard anything original from creationists
> since
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > were given the name, haven't we?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mendelian genetics works only on a very limited number of
> > > > > species, one
> > > > > > > of them are flies and the peas Mendel studied with.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't find respectful any thermodynamical challenge to
> > > > evolution
> > > > > > > that does not quote the mathematical principle of the
> theories
> > > > of
> > > > > > > thermodynamics. To understand thermodynamics, that is, to
> be
> > > > able
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > use it correctly and forcibly in order to solve real time
> > > > > problems,
> > > > > > > like attacking evolution, one first needs to study
> calculus,
> > > > > > > differential equations, and the physical interpretation
> of
> > > > > mathematics
> > > > > > > behind the math. The simplistic phrases like, "Energy
> cannot be
> > > > > > > created nor destroyed" are not as powerful as equations
> like dS
> > > > =
> > > > > > > dQ/T, the mathematical definition of infinitesimal change
> in
> > > > > entropy
> > > > > > > at constant temperature (I am a physics major so, sorry
> if I
> > > > had
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > throw that in). Show you calculations, creationists, show
> to us
> > > > in
> > > > > > > elegant, rigorous mathematical language the ergonomic
> > > > > contradictions
> > > > > > > of evolution, and perhaps we would start considering you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And, another note on thermodynamics - matter
> spontaneously
> > > > creates
> > > > > > > itself. Try googeling "virual particles". Those are real
> > > > > particles,
> > > > > > > pardon of physicists had to name it that way. They are
> > > > > > > matter-antimatter pairs simply popping out of practical
> > > > > nothingness,
> > > > > > > as accorded by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which
> > > > implies
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > nothingness is the most unstable entity in nature.
> Nothingness
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > last for very long, PROBABILITY commands it that way.
> That's
> > > > why
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > big bang was NECESSARY. 0 can be written in infinite
> ways, you
> > > > > see,
> > > > > > > like 1-1 or 7-(4+3) and so on and so forth, and the
> probability
> > > > > that 0
> > > > > > > would stay 0 is really, really small compared to it being
> > > > > SOMETHING
> > > > > > else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, using CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS against
> evolution,
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE! Why, the energy and information
> contained
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Adam and Eve where just for two people, wouldn't it
> violet the
> > > > > law of
> > > > > > > thermodynamics that we are no pushing the 7 billion
> limit? And
> > > > to
> > > > > > > note, not all of us look like Adam and Eve, so we have to
> > > > violate
> > > > > > > CREATIONIST THERMODYNAMICS! (I so love the
> word "creationist
> > > > > > > thermodynamics, just thought about it right now).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If only Pasteur known about the spontaneous synthesis of
> organic
> > > > > > > molecules from non-organic solutions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And, hey guys, today the jeep I rode to school had the
> plate
> > > > > number
> > > > > > > XBR 342. What small probability in the world is there for
> me to
> > > > > ride
> > > > > > > in a jeep with that specific plate number! Bless my soul!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Haha. Let us also make a new field of pseudomathematics
> called
> > > > > > > CREATIONIST PROBABILITY. This field includes the
> calculation of
> > > > > > > probability of already derived finished products and show
> from
> > > > the
> > > > > > > slimness of this probability that there must be a
> Creator!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Whew! Just noticed now I was ranting. I have so much
> things to
> > > > > rant
> > > > > > > about, but now my rage has subsided, and I can't rant
> with the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > > vitriol anymore. And I have figured such shallow
> reasoning are
> > > > a
> > > > > waste
> > > > > > > of time to argue with. Anyways......
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guys, people who write articles such as these kill
> science
> > > > right
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the spot. Blasphemers of science, that's how I find them.
> > > > > Believers
> > > > > > > and non-believers alike who have come to the love of
> science
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > fight these evil people with all the might of their
> intellect
> > > > and
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > the loudness of their eloquence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Truth and love above all else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "cityspiker"
> > > > <cityspiker@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you comment on this article:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "What Darwin did not know
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming
> > > > scientific
> > > > > > > > developments, he would have had good reason to be
> concerned
> > > > > that his
> > > > > > > > theory might one day be proved wrong.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established
> and
> > > > > published his
> > > > > > > > work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said
> that the
> > > > > > > > characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents
> > > > > according to
> > > > > > > > precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from
> chance
> > > > random
> > > > > > > > processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only
> just
> > > > > > > > developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first
> law of
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed
> (so
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > present universe could not have created itself), and
> the
> > > > second
> > > > > law of
> > > > > > > > which says that the universe is proceeding in a
> downward
> > > > > degenerating
> > > > > > > > direction of increasing disorganization (so things
> overall do
> > > > > not of
> > > > > > > > themselves become more organized with time).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments
> which
> > > > > showed
> > > > > > > > that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not
> from non-
> > > > > life.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The mathematical laws of probability, which show that
> the
> > > > odds
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had
> not yet
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > > applied to the theory of evolution.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is
> so
> > > > > enormously
> > > > > > > > complex that it could not possibly have been formed by
> > > > chance,
> > > > > had not
> > > > > > > > yet commenced.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The fossil record had not yet been investigated
> sufficiently
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do,
> that
> > > > chains
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > intermediate 'links' do not exist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles
> Darwin
> > > > > at the
> > > > > > > > time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have
> been
> > > > > enough to
> > > > > > > > torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the
> theory of
> > > > > > > > evolution stone dead!"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Appreciate it..Thanks Guys!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > City
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s
> > > user panel and lay it on us.
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Got a little couch potato?
> > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.