Atheist here. I'm curious if it's a sin not believing in God?

[jayendecastro]

I haven't , but because namention mo yan I look it up sa internet and it's a contrary sa sinabi nya dyan ,also Einstein don't want himself be labeled as Atheist coz he said that “fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”. ano ba meron bat pinopoint out mo pa yan what are you trying to prove ba Ma'am/Sir can you please enlighten me nagsshare lang naman ako ng alam ko at opinyon ko hahaha anyways don't spread hate nalang tayo kanya kanya naman paniniwala yan "it doesn’t matter what our religious or our philosophical commitments are. The only thing that matters is how we treat one another. "

Yup.. contrary yang sinabi nea sa god letter nea to what u mentioned na sinabi din nea, and mas direct pa sya in fact in his description kay god..

What does his view on atheism have to do with what im asking??

I mentioned it to you na kung ano inaask ko…ung claim nung isang nag post na :

“When Albert Einstein in 1916 discovered General Relativity, in-admit nya na may immovable-mover or intelligent creator talaga”

…i was very specific nman sa tanong ko for him which u happen to answered but as i’ve said eh ang hinahanap ko eh ung sagot na based dun sa unang nagclaim nean…

Dont take it personal paps… we are just discussing here… no need to mention “no hate” to me kasi twice mo na nasabi…wala nmang aggression… usap lang

pinabasa lang tayo ng written literature about sa life niya, still not enough

how can I be sure sa kanya iyon?

literature is not enough

far as i know din, theories and laws belong to the same method with one a precursor of the other

they both try to explain things and they differ by proof and acceptance

Understandable ung doubts mo about kay rizal… i guess pd itest ung remains nea ryt??

So again, ask kita ulit kung wat evidence of rizal’s existence do u need?? Pede paki specify??

Okay so which is the precursor of which??

Which is accepted more??

Can u give examples of a law that “explains” any particular phenomena?

 

[plhbg1]

Understandable ung doubts mo about kay rizal… i guess pd itest ung remains nea ryt??

di na ata possible yun ngayon wala ng biological relatives na alive

So again, ask kita ulit kung wat evidence of rizal’s existence do u need?? Pede paki specify??

yung test sana pero di na possible

Okay so which is the precursor of which??

mali ata ako sa word na precursor, mas appropriate yung laws are more established/solid than theories
kasi a hypothesis can become a law or theory depending on proof and acceptance

Which is accepted more??

i go for laws since they are stiff and resist change although can be challenged still

Can u give examples of a law that “explains” any particular phenomena?

yun na nga, Newton's Gravity Law at yung Einstein's Gravity Theory

let me quote "The key difference between Einstein and Newton gravity is that Einstein gravity describes that gravity is a curvature in a 4-dimensional space-time fabric proportional to object masses, whereas Newton gravity describes gravity as a force expressed mutually between two objects in relation to their masses"

 

[jayendecastro]

di na ata possible yun ngayon wala ng biological relatives na alive

yung test sana pero di na possible

mali ata ako sa word na precursor, mas appropriate yung laws are more established/solid than theories
kasi a hypothesis can become a law or theory depending on proof and acceptance

i go for laws since they are stiff and resist change although can be challenged still

yun na nga, Newton's Gravity Law at yung Einstein's Gravity Theory

let me quote "The key difference between Einstein and Newton gravity is that Einstein gravity describes that gravity is a curvature in a 4-dimensional space-time fabric proportional to object masses, whereas Newton gravity describes gravity as a force expressed mutually between two objects in relation to their masses"

I have to disagree with u again… scientific laws are not accepted more or more established or solid than scientific theories.. they are both accepted and important sa science.. sa example na binigay mo na newtonian law of gravity and einstein’s general relativity theory eh ang main difference ng dalawa eh babalik sa sinabi ko kung ano ang law at theory sa science… law describes “what” sa isang phenomenon while theory describes the “why” or “how”…

Newton describes what happens sa bagay bagay due to that force…but ne never explained how and why or atleast incomplete ang formulation nea kaya ung things like the orbit of mercury is not solved by his gravitational law.. pero sa theory of general relativity ni einstein eh nasolve un accurately and many other things.

Does that mean na dahil mas madami nasagot ang theory ni einstein eh it can replace newton’s law?? NO IT DOESNT. since both are still equally important sa physics and science.

Yun kasi ang misconception about scientific theory na “its just a theory” , which of course is wrong..

U looked into the difference ng newtonian law sa theory ni einstein.. i suggest u look into ung difference ng scientific law at theory too.. if im wrong then i’ll apologize

 

[plhbg1]

I have to disagree with u again… scientific laws are not accepted more or more established or solid than scientific theories.. they are both accepted and important sa science.. sa example na binigay mo na newtonian law of gravity and einstein’s general relativity theory eh ang main difference ng dalawa eh babalik sa sinabi ko kung ano ang law at theory sa science… law describes “what” sa isang phenomenon while theory describes the “why” or “how”…

Newton describes what happens sa bagay bagay due to that force…but ne never explained how and why or atleast incomplete ang formulation nea kaya ung things like the orbit of mercury is not solved by his gravitational law.. pero sa theory of general relativity ni einstein eh nasolve un accurately and many other things.

Does that mean na dahil mas madami nasagot ang theory ni einstein eh it can replace newton’s law?? NO IT DOESNT. since both are still equally important sa physics and science.

Yun kasi ang misconception about scientific theory na “its just a theory” , which of course is wrong..

U looked into the difference ng newtonian law sa theory ni einstein.. i suggest u look into ung difference ng scientific law at theory too.. if im wrong then i’ll apologize

still not convinced on your "what" and "how" statements, i am seeing both of them tried to explain gravity and whatever is the "what" in laws are due to the "how" of the hypotheses they came from and there are hypotheses which do not arrive on the "what" stage but instead are stucked on the '"how" stage since they cannot perfectly state the "how" especially when they go in conflict with other hypotheses which are already made into laws (Einstein insisted that gravity is not a force conflicting Newton's Law)

that's why most people say a theory is "how" and laws are "what" and they also say that laws do not care about the "how" even if both started as hypothesis which is a statement of reasons (an untested how and why statements)

 

[Fury5048]

As non-believer po, I do believe that respect is a must for all believers and non-believers. We shouldn't force any beliefs on anyone as belief is subjective. As purpose, we should do what we should do. If there is a calling, may it be to be as president of the country, floor cleaners, vendor, etc, we should heed to that calling and at least make our existence here on earth be worthwhile and valuable.

I'm agnostic, a somewhat different belief.

not believing God is not a sin because there is no such thing as sin

sin is just an idea invented by those which have gods due to their gods setting the rules

we only have the wrong word and it will only exist when we have known the right

santiago 2:19
Thou believest that ELOHIM is one; thou doest well: But the demons believe that too, and they tremble with fear.

Kaya naman sa mga walang paniniwala ay lumalabas na mas masahol pa pala dun oh ,,,

Pasensya na biblia ang nagsabi nyan binasa lang naten....

Hahahah

 

[plhbg1]

santiago 2:19
Thou believest that ELOHIM is one; thou doest well: But the demons believe that too, and they tremble with fear.

Kaya naman sa mga walang paniniwala ay lumalabas na mas masahol pa pala dun oh ,,,

Pasensya na biblia ang nagsabi nyan binasa lang naten....

Hahahah

bible does not say anything, it is just a record of what the authors expressed/said

they just say/declare things right away with no supporting observations/experiments

they automatically become true, magic sarap hehe

 

[jayendecastro]

still not convinced on your "what" and "how" statements, i am seeing both of them tried to explain gravity and whatever is the "what" in laws are due to the "how" of the hypotheses they came from and there are hypotheses which do not arrive on the "what" stage but instead are stucked on the '"how" stage since they cannot perfectly state the "how" especially when they go in conflict with other hypotheses which are already made into laws (Einstein insisted that gravity is not a force conflicting Newton's Law)

that's why most people say a theory is "how" and laws are "what" and they also say that laws do not care about the "how" even if both started as hypothesis which is a statement of reasons (an untested how and why statements)

We’re going of on a tangent hir so ill go back to wat u said and the my contention that einstein’s theory is JUST A THEORY….

Most people may say that but most scientist wouldnt… a scientific theory is just as important as scientific laws… hypotheses after rigorous testing and peer reviews if found to be true will turn into either a scientific law (observation) or a scientific theory (explanation)… no respectable scientist will say that a theory let alone eintein’s general relativity theory as JUST A THEORY or THEORY LANG…. General relativity did not disprove the newtonian gravity law… it just showed that its incomplete by solving the problems that the newton’s law cannot like the one i mentioned about the planet mercury… even einstein’s theory despite being the current most accepted explanation is speculated to be tested to its limits if not break it by the recent discoveries about the gravitational waves in blackholes… if that happens then new theories can arise until the one thAt cannot be proven false is left.. thats just how the scientific method works..

Thats why i urged u to look into it.. as far as i know between scientific laws and theories eh science does not accept one more over the other… theories does not graduate into laws….

santiago 2:19
Thou believest that ELOHIM is one; thou doest well: But the demons believe that too, and they tremble with fear.

Kaya naman sa mga walang paniniwala ay lumalabas na mas masahol pa pala dun oh ,,,

Pasensya na biblia ang nagsabi nyan binasa lang naten....

Hahahah

Anong kinalaman nung verse dun sa mga kinoute mo na non-believer and agnostic??

 

[JokeUnavailbe]

wala kang kasalanan, di naman talaga kailangan maniwala sa god nila para maging mabuting tao, no need na yang pananakot na ma empyerno at mga pangako sa langit para maging isang mabuting tao. importante respito nlng sa mga paniniwala ng iba.

 

[plhbg1]

hypotheses after rigorous testing and peer reviews if found to be true will turn into either a scientific law (observation) or a scientific theory (explanation)

still an explanation of what is observed and not the observation itself

General relativity did not disprove the newtonian gravity law… it just showed that its incomplete by solving the problems that the newton’s law cannot

it is not disproving totally but only the part where gravity is no longer a force but is now a geometric property

theories does not graduate into laws….

agree since it would take starting another hypothesis from that theorized hypothesis to graduate as law this time

the current most accepted explanation

agree since it can cover more due to the merging of time and space being a 4 dimensional spacetime this time, but still we are not perceiving those lines einstein has drawn and we still don't use theory of relativity when constructing structures like bridges etc. and we still use the classic -9.8m/s/s instead, so i would say it still lacks practicality and therefore worthy of naming it as just a theory

 

[jayendecastro]

still an explanation of what is observed and not the observation itself

it is not disproving totally but only the part where gravity is no longer a force but is now a geometric property

agree since it would take starting another hypothesis from that theorized hypothesis to graduate as law this time

agree since it can cover more due to the merging of time and space being a 4 dimensional spacetime this time, but still we are not perceiving those lines einstein has drawn and we still don't use theory of relativity when constructing structures like bridges etc. and we still use the classic -9.8m/s/s instead, so i would say it still lacks practicality and therefore worthy of naming it as just a theory

What do u mean by “theorized hypothesis”?

One can hypothesize or theorize right?

And the starting point of both laws and theories are hypotheses… false hyphotheses will be rejected while proven and tested ones will turn into a law or theory…

Please provide ur source that a theory needs to graduate into a law for it to be more valid or credible…

The merits of a scientific laws or theories does not rest on its practicality alone.. their usage does and we cant say that a scientific theory is just a theory based on that… the germ theory has very practical usage, why havent it graduated into a law?? Because thats not how the scientific method works.

Stop calling scientific theories as just a theory..

Again, ill ask u to provide ur source that scientific theory is “just a theory” or that scientific laws holds more importance than a scientific theory…and they need to be upraded to a law for them to be accepted more

 

[plhbg1]

What do u mean by “theorized hypothesis”?

i mean that hypothesis which had become a theory

Please provide ur source that a theory needs to graduate into a law for it to be more valid or credible…

already replied, i have said i agree that theory cannot become law

The merits of a scientific laws or theories does not rest on its practicality alone.. their usage does and we cant say that a scientific theory is just a theory based on that…

i can eliminate the just word for this one, no problem, but i am still not giving up what i believe that laws are more stable than theories

the germ theory has very practical usage, why havent it graduated into a law??

the germ theory also had conflict with miasma theory just like einstein conflicting newton law, kaya nga napasabi ako that laws are more stable than theories

Stop calling scientific theories as just a theory..

no problem with dropping the just word hehe

Again, ill ask u to provide ur source that scientific theory is “just a theory”

i only use the just word for my own impression of theories, that is why i can drop it anytime with no problem

or that scientific laws holds more importance than a scientific theory…

my basis is that laws have no conflicts at the time of their release, whereas theories have issues

and they need to be upraded to a law for them to be accepted more

i think what i said is to start another hypothesis from that hypothesis which had become a theory
i am not referring to same hypothesis

 

[jayendecastro]

i mean that hypothesis which had become a theory

already replied, i have said i agree that theory cannot become law

i can eliminate the just word for this one, no problem, but i am still not giving up what i believe that laws are more stable than theories

the germ theory also had conflict with miasma theory just like einstein conflicting newton law, kaya nga napasabi ako that laws are more stable than theories

no problem with dropping the just word hehe

i only use the just word for my own impression of theories, that is why i can drop it anytime with no problem

my basis is that laws have no conflicts at the time of their release, whereas theories have issues

i think what i said is to start another hypothesis from that hypothesis which had become a theory
i am not referring to same hypothesis

I get wat ur coming from… and i think we can both agree that people’s impressions on certain things can be wrong, unless proven otherwise of course… like the misconception about scientific theories… or people’s impression on the bible…

But anw, thanks for acknowledging my request.

 

[plhbg1]

I get wat ur coming from… and i think we can both agree that people’s impressions on certain things can be wrong, unless proven otherwise of course… like the misconception about scientific theories… or people’s impression on the bible…

But anw, thanks for acknowledging my request.

i cannot appreciate einstein theory like you do since i don't have a problem on mercury's orbit or about those black holes, i am only solving basic problems here on earth

i don't believe it is a misconception since i don't say einstein is wrong, i only say that einstein being right is of little importance to me and almost doesn't matter to me, it will take me to pretend being a scientist to put more respect on it

i will continue to tag it as just a theory to anybody until a request to remove the just word is executed, or when i am talking to a scientist

 

[Zhalamand3rz]

Juan 3:18 MBB
Hindi hinahatulan ng parusa ang sumasampalataya sa Anak. Ngunit hinatulan na ang hindi sumasampalataya, sapagkat hindi siya sumampalataya sa kaisa-isang Anak ng Diyos.​

 

[alist1986]

Kanino po ba kayo magkakasala in not believing God?
Diba hindi ka naman naniniwala sa Diyos?
Bakit parang may kinakatakutan pa kayo. Siguro may parte pa rin sa isip nyo na naniniwalang may Diyos.

Tama po. Yan po ang eksakto sagot sa Tanong sa thread "in general". Kung aetheist ka, Wala kang kasalanan kung di ka naniniwala sa Diyos Ng Kristiyano o kung saan Mang mga Diyos Ng iBang mga relihiyon and vice-versa. It's plain logic and common sense - end of story. Kaya nga nagkaroon Ng maraming Gera noong unang panahon dahil lang diyan sa Mundo, Dapat ay nag-rerespetuhan Ang samut-saring relihiyon atbp. maging yung mga di naniniwala sa issue Po na ito. Tanggapin na Lang natin Tayo ay nabubuhay sa kanya-kanyang paniniwala at ayon din sa mga batas ng ating kinalalagyan/tinitirhan maging Ang kalikasan.

 

[jayendecastro]

i cannot appreciate einstein theory like you do since i don't have a problem on mercury's orbit or about those black holes, i am only solving basic problems here on earth

i don't believe it is a misconception since i don't say einstein is wrong, i only say that einstein being right is of little importance to me and almost doesn't matter to me, it will take me to pretend being a scientist to put more respect on it

i will continue to tag it as just a theory to anybody until a request to remove the just word is executed, or when i am talking to a scientist

I dont need to have a problem with mercury’s orbit or blackholes and gravitational lenses to appreciate einstein’s theory.. i appreciate it because i understand what a scientific theory is. I am not a scientist so i definitely dont appreciate it on the same level that they do because thats based on practicality and necessity. Nonetheless, it does not change what it is…which is definitely not just a theory…GPS is a great example of my appreciation for einstein’s theory in terms of practicality and necessity…

Covid19 infections can be explained by the germ theory of disease (the one that replaced the “bad air” theory)..do u then have then an appreciation for the germ theory or do u “believe” its JUST A THEORY or THEORY LANG AND DI NAGING LAW?

The misconception that im pointing out is you undermining a scientific theory as “just a theory”….a common misconception among ordinary people and rampant among some theist….ur understanding of the einstein’s is not the one in question… but ur understanding of what a scientific theory is… just because its of no personal importance to you or because it lacks practicality for you does not mean that its “just” a theory…

Let me go back to a reply you posted here:

“scientific method is my standard, anything proven but not using scientific method is not true for me, everything must have scientific evidence”

Were u pretending to be a scientist jan?? Or perhaps you were talking to a scientist?

I just find it odd that you claimed to believe in the scientific method and then reply with relativity is “just a theory” on the same thread…

Well..accdg to you eh between scientific laws are more solid and accepted… next na naging reasoning mo is “its just a theory” because it lacks practicality like bldg bridges…now nman ang reason mo eh kesyo wala ka nman problema sa orbit ng mercury and its of little importance to you or it doesnt matter to you…and pag kausap lang scientist pd i drop ang just… im trying to explain a fact sayo eh bababa lang pala tayo sa personal preference mo… hahahahaa

Im done explaining… igugel mo na lang sguro para mas maintindihan mo…

Since di nman tayo scientist eh dont worry about pathogens entering your body… germ theory of disease is just a theory… gravity?? Sus… wala un.. its just a law lang…

Sige.. tnx… na lang sa time

 

[plhbg1]

I dont need to have a problem with mercury’s orbit or blackholes and gravitational lenses to appreciate einstein’s theory.. i appreciate it because i understand what a scientific theory is. I am not a scientist so i definitely dont appreciate it on the same level that they do because thats based on practicality and necessity. Nonetheless, it does not change what it is…which is definitely not just a theory…GPS is a great example of my appreciation for einstein’s theory in terms of practicality and necessity…

Just a theory does not mean i don't believe in it.
You seeing the importance does not mean ako din kaya will continue to say just a theory.

Covid19 infections can be explained by the germ theory of disease (the one that replaced the “bad air” theory)..do u then have then an appreciation for the germ theory or do u “believe” its JUST A THEORY or THEORY LANG AND DI NAGING LAW?

Still not appreciating like you do and still don't meaning i don't believe in the theory.

The misconception that im pointing out is you undermining a scientific theory as “just a theory”….a common misconception among ordinary people and rampant among some theist….ur understanding of the einstein’s is not the one in question… but ur understanding of what a scientific theory is… just because its of no personal importance to you or because it lacks practicality for you does not mean that its “just” a theory…

Still my understanding of theory is just a theory. May be i will understand it like you do if become scientist.

“scientific method is my standard, anything proven but not using scientific method is not true for me, everything must have scientific evidence”

Were u pretending to be a scientist jan?? Or perhaps you were talking to a scientist?

I just find it odd that you claimed to believe in the scientific method and then reply with relativity is “just a theory” on the same thread…

Still not meaning i don't believe in scientific method if i say just a theory.

Well..accdg to you eh between scientific laws are more solid and accepted… next na naging reasoning mo is “its just a theory” because it lacks practicality like bldg bridges…now nman ang reason mo eh kesyo wala ka nman problema sa orbit ng mercury and its of little importance to you or it doesnt matter to you…and pag kausap lang scientist pd i drop ang just… im trying to explain a fact sayo eh bababa lang pala tayo sa personal preference mo… hahahahaa

You can always let it be hehe.

Im done explaining… igugel mo na lang sguro para mas maintindihan mo…

Since di nman tayo scientist eh dont worry about pathogens entering your body… germ theory of disease is just a theory… gravity?? Sus… wala un.. its just a law lang…

Still not meaning i don't believe in the theory if i say it is just a theory.

Just a theory means the speaker does not appreciate the thing like you do hehe.

 

[jayendecastro]

Just a theory does not mean i don't believe in it.
You seeing the importance does not mean ako din kaya will continue to say just a theory.

Still not appreciating like you do and still don't meaning i don't believe in the theory.

Still my understanding of theory is just a theory. May be i will understand it like you do if become scientist.

Still not meaning i don't believe in scientific method if i say just a theory.

You can always let it be hehe.

Still not meaning i don't believe in the theory if i say it is just a theory.

Just a theory means the speaker does not appreciate the thing like you do hehe.

Wat was it u said about needing evidence?? Or about the bible authors saying things without experiments blah blah??

Maybe u shud let those things be as well…hehehe


Anw… thats JUST ur impression and belief nman… i will say ur wrong…but then again…thats JUST you..

Byers

 

[plhbg1]

Wat was it u said about needing evidence?? Or about the bible authors saying things without experiments blah blah??

Maybe u shud let those things be as well…hehehe

yes i let it be, he just quoted my post and that only serves as my reply informing him that what he said cannot be applied to me due to that blah blah, what is up to him i let it be, but if he try to get me into agreeing with him then meron talaga discussion before he enjoys my matamis na yes i do hehe

Anw… thats JUST ur impression and belief nman… i will say ur wrong…but then again…thats JUST you..

Byers

i choose to be wrong when appreciating something is unnecessary and especially if that thing does not need my appreciation at all, what is important is that i believe in it but being thankful/grateful enough (appreciation) for it is up to my decision

 

[NOUGHT]

makikita mo rin ang tamang sagot