Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [pinoy_atheists] Re: What Darwin did not know

Expand Messages
  • eric sandy fernando
    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 1 of 25 , Sep 12, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    • pecierpoldo
      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 2 of 25 , Sep 12, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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]
        >
      • extremedeath666
        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 3 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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]
          > >
          >
        • pinoy_infidel
          ... Hmmm there seems to be something wrong with the quote. It is self-refuting. Tony
          Message 4 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            <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
          • Lito Lampitoc
            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 5 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              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.
            • badboylamok
              Right on!
              Message 6 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                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.
              • eric sandy fernando
                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 7 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  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]
                • spiritual_truth07
                  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 8 of 25 , Sep 13, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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]
                    >
                  • extremedeath666
                    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 9 of 25 , Sep 14, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.