Where Have All The Theists Gone?

[Jonga]

-- (imagine this is my expression while you read the ff., it will help LOL)

Maybe you just hate people who don't give a shıt about God. (typical Christian.)

no, i hate people who give shıt to people who believe in a god
and, i hate people who force their god into my mouth
(typical normal person)

"A law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior." While such laws may be observed and formulated based on such observations, they are not man-made. You mean to say that someone who got hit by lightning was killed by "man's laws"? We know how lightning works, but that doesn't mean it's man-made!

So, to correct your "graph" above - we are all bound by laws:

atheist - natural law
theist - natural law, religious dictate

atheists don't "worship" natural laws, they don't "worship" themselves, we don't "worship" anything, period.

so WHO did these observations? WHO made these laws? WHO said that the world was flat? and then WHO said later that the world was round after all, and then WHO said its oblong or something... MAN

everything HUMAN, MAN MADE, and boy we always make mistake dont you think, to be human is to err yes?

so, these natural laws we submit to, in MY opinion (which i dont require you to agree with), to submit is to worship

atheist DO submit to natural laws, they DO submit to themselves and their laws, THEY DO submit strongly to this particular thing called human laws

i just want to share that the things we perceive are not always absolute and final (now this is typical skeptic/agnostic), so we still need to grow and learn, and we can only do this if we will at least work together even with different ideas.

Um, weren't you the one who was making such a "big thing" about it in the first place? Complete with condescending statements as to what "atheists worship"?

Now, who was the first one to make sweeping statements on this thread? Sweeping statements na hindi nya mapanindigan?

maybe, maybe not (agnostic)
do i have to always do this 'panindigan' thing, instead of 'intindihin'....hmmm...i'd rather do the latter

and im not trying to make you believe on what i believe because i do respect atheists and theists alike...(goes for everyone)...you dont want to accept me as an agnostic...ok...doesn't really matter at all LOL

[Jonga]

The real essence of Christ's teachings do not bound itself with the laws of the OT, although Paul had his own version of binding them back again (be slaves to Christ), contrary to Christ's teachings that the truth shall set one free.

I believe that evolution may have reached a certain level when, in split-moment, it ceased to bound itself from the laws of nature, as it may have triggered a certain degree of 'awareness' within the entity's biological system.

the problem with christians (again in my opinion only), is that they know that there is something out there that is inexplainable and yet tried to explain it in a natural way/human way...thus religions formed, and so the crusades, and so the money-making sects....which actually made the idea of God tainted and dirtied...a christian should understand that to have faith doesn't require to understand or to explain...to be a christian is to submit all of himself especially his motives to his God's plan

[micketymoc]

i hate people who give **** to people who believe in a god

Akala ko ba agnostic ka. Someone who really felt ambivalent about the existence of God probably wouldn't give a shıt.

i hate people who force their god into my mouth

Considering the rather rash statements you’ve made about what atheists “worship”, doesn’t your own statement describe you rather perfectly?

so WHO did these observations? WHO made these laws? WHO said that the world was flat? and then WHO said later that the world was round after all, and then WHO said its oblong or something... MAN
...
so, these natural laws we submit to, in MY opinion (which i dont require you to agree with), to submit is to worship

atheist DO submit to natural laws, they DO submit to themselves and their laws, THEY DO submit strongly to this particular thing called human laws

Yes, I totally get your point! But you’re still wrong!

We didn’t make the world round; we didn’t give light a velocity of 186,000 mph; we didn’t invent gravity out of whole cloth.

We are subject to nature (whose whims we call “laws”, even though they’re not the same kind of laws we teach in law school!); because nature made these laws (not man), we are not by any means subject to man-made rules! That is why your idea of only atheists “submitting” to nature doesn’t fly at all – it applies to all of us equally!

And what of “man-made” scientific discoveries? Atheists don’t “worship” or “submit” to those either. ("Holding something as more important than all other things does not constitute 'worship' by any meaningful definition of the word.")

Much less do we use them as a “substitute” for what you perceive as God. Any science-literate atheist will tell you that any scientific discovery is provisional – it’s temporarily correct until better evidence comes along.

The science writer Isaac Asimov might say, “[Jonga], living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

“What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.”

Scientists win Nobel Prizes for trashing established theories. The ethologist Richard Dawkins once wrote, “Far from being over-confident, many scientists believe that science advances only by disproof of its hypotheses. Konrad Lorenz said he hoped to disprove at least one of his own hypotheses every day before breakfast.”

Huling hirit ni Austin Cline: “[There are] reasons to think highly of science and to try to protect it from possible threats. None, however, are reasons to think that people in any way "worship" science or treat it as a religion. It is even arguable that science is less a belief system than a methodology: a method and means for understanding what reality is rather than a set of doctrines and dogmas which we are morally obligated to believe upon threat of punishment.”

i just want to share that the things we perceive are not always absolute and final (now this is typical skeptic/agnostic), so we still need to grow and learn, and we can only do this if we will at least work together even with different ideas.

Yes, I and many scientists like Dawkins and Asimov agree with you on this! But first of all, practice what you preach, man. “We need to grow and learn” tapos ang offensive pa ng assumptions mo about atheists. (“worship”? Not the first time we've heard it, though!) Moral of the story: Don’t be a fụcking hypocrite, dude.

in MY opinion (which i dont require you to agree with)...

I don’t require you to agree with me, either, but the more you insist your wrongheaded ideas are correct, the more I’ll be forced to show you why you’re WRONG. “Force” has nothing to do with it.

[Jonga]

Akala ko ba agnostic ka. Someone who really felt ambivalent about the existence of God probably wouldn't give a shıt.

i was referring to the people who believe (that it really exist and not the people who are not sure that it exist) and not the belief itself, read again, it doesn't have to do about my anxiety about god LOL

Considering the rather rash statements you’ve made about what atheists “worship”, doesn’t your own statement describe you rather perfectly?

so "worship" is rash, ok, sorry then
oh! that's why im using "submit now", ryt?
i dont intend to be rash, please...

hmmm. so when a person say that "dude, you are worshipping something" means that that person is perfect already? so i guess to you (i cant say atheists) that atheist are perfect because you think you dont worship something

ok, got it.

but hey, i was trying to make theist and atheist equal yes? "both bounded by laws" yes?

keep it cool LOL

Yes, I totally get your point! But you’re still wrong!

We didn’t make the world round; we didn’t give light a velocity of 186,000 mph; we didn’t invent gravity out of whole cloth.

We are subject to nature (whose whims we call “laws”, even though they’re not the same kind of laws we teach in law school!); because nature made these laws (not man), we are not by any means subject to man-made rules! That is why your idea of only atheists “submitting” to nature doesn’t fly at all – it applies to all of us equally!

And what of “man-made” scientific discoveries? Atheists don’t “worship” or “submit” to those either. ("Holding something as more important than all other things does not constitute 'worship' by any meaningful definition of the word.")

Much less do we use them as a “substitute” for what you perceive as God. Any science-literate atheist will tell you that any scientific discovery is provisional – it’s temporarily correct until better evidence comes along.

The science writer Isaac Asimov might say, “[Jonga], living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

“What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.”

Scientists win Nobel Prizes for trashing established theories. The ethologist Richard Dawkins once wrote, “Far from being over-confident, many scientists believe that science advances only by disproof of its hypotheses. Konrad Lorenz said he hoped to disprove at least one of his own hypotheses every day before breakfast.”

Huling hirit ni Austin Cline: “[There are] reasons to think highly of science and to try to protect it from possible threats. None, however, are reasons to think that people in any way "worship" science or treat it as a religion. It is even arguable that science is less a belief system than a methodology: a method and means for understanding what reality is rather than a set of doctrines and dogmas which we are morally obligated to believe upon threat of punishment.”

ok,
worship, submit = BAD

so i guess i'll use the word "follow"

but to me its all the same LOL

and thnx for telling me that to some people, what i think is wrong, i know that already, and i respect your rights and dont intend to argue with it really...so can we just buy each other a beer or something and be merry about life LOL

dont get so agitated dude, im not a priest or something LOL

Yes, I and many scientists like Dawkins and Asimov agree with you on this! But first of all, practice what you preach, man. “We need to grow and learn” tapos ang offensive pa ng assumptions mo about atheists. (“worship”? Not the first time we've heard it, though!) Moral of the story: Don’t be a fụcking hypocrite, dude.

wow! you take it as preaching....you've been talking to religionists lately? LOL
dont mind them dude...it'll give you a headache...whew

oh and i like fukcing, but im not hyprocrite

I don’t require you to agree with me, either, but the more you insist your wrongheaded ideas are correct, the more I’ll be forced to show you why you’re WRONG. “Force” has nothing to do with it.

[/QUOTE]

so i guess you think that i am insisting... once again, i am not insisting, im just thinking aloud, and i know you will agree its my right

just like shouting "i do believe in fairies!"
LOL