Look at the Inquisitions during the Middle Ages.
They were advocated by the Church and implemented
by Priests. They tortured People and burned them
on the Stakes.

No one is Holier than Thou…

ang mahalaga…meron ng ibang opcion ang pinoy…pinoy na nasusuka na sa kakahalal ng mga lintek, hinayupak at kurakot na mga politiko…

de castro? escudero? villar? teodoro?, roxas? pangilinan? erap? jinggoy?

susmaryosep!!!!!!!!!

nakakasuka na!!!!!!

Meaning to say now we have a choice? Before we are reduced to de castro, escudero, villar and estrada. All of which are representations of the same old corrupt politics.

But hey, look, someone came out aside from Puno. A priest. a man of god to venture into the hellish Philippine politics. Clean as he may be, may he remain true once in power for if not there will be no mercy for the likes of him both in this world and the next.

Mas malaki responsibility nya compared to the 4 aspirants. the dark horse dressed in white we’ve been looking for perhaps.

Moving the goalposts. When you extend the definition of god to include even the imaginary ones in people’s heads, you can’t lose.

As for “extraordinary evidence,” do reasonable people automatically assume the existence of something pending evidence to the contrary? Is non-belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster simply a case of faith on your part?

Until someone provides real, falsifiable evidence of god’s existence we will continue to exercise reason and refuse to believe.

@jeg
I agree. Problema ng simbahan iyan.

methinks it was the all consuming guilt that catholics cannot shrug that forced her back to theism…but yeah, ok maybe you are right, this is ‘evolutionary fitness’ of some sort (whatever that means in this context)

First God does exist
Second God is something that is an epiphenomenon a product of Darwinian evolution.
Third God doesn’t exist

Now what is most parsimonious? and has a higher probability?

Perhaps the third one. But you have to find extraordinary evidence to prove it with little chance of falsifiability. Not even the Right Reverend Richard Dawkins has it.

Philosophy can prove the first quite elegantly,no need for empirical evidence. In fact it is harder to prove the converse. But that ain’t science!

Science can validate the second when the problem of consciousness is ventually understood. In that case, God does exist! even in the mind! Voltaire is right here

It is a red herring to use the Copernican argument for or against the existence of God. After all Bellarmine’s foil against Galileo is that he did not have enough evidence to prove the Copernican hypothesis beyond what a mathematical model can predict. This is an instance of mathematical fun as the Rev Fr Daniel McNamara SJ ( a beloved Ateneo priest-physicist) has pointed out in a lecture. It is possible to prove that the Ptolemaic system is true given another coordinate system.

But this is beyong my argument. It is interesting to observe in atheists is whether their faith does confer some sort of evolutionary fitness let’s say when atheists are in foxholes or as the subject of Air Crash Investigation episodes!

Evolutionary fitness is the reason why Anne Rice became theist (once more!)

I would hypothesize that atheism being a faith confers evolutionary fitness in certain situations (like when you are in the common room with Richard Dawkins)

This is the question that makes the Most Reverend Richard Dawkins fume!

But Dawkins can have the comfort that there is a possibility that God is an Integer!

A society where all the wrong arguments win

- ;)