The Power of Belief with James Randi

[kenites]

---

I think the TS is just responding to a post by Nowpress, anyway pwede man nato ma pangutana si orcgod ani iya thread gihimo..
James Randi is a scientific skeptic and a debunker of paranormal claims..I can say I'm one of his fans..
If pwede lang we can make this thread about skepticism and critical thinking para mas interesting..if you want to post something about theism or atheism, naa man siguro existing thread ana..

[kenites]

tuara! nilihay , nisimang, niliko, unsa pa?

Bro if you want to talk about atheism, better post it sa atheism thread..didto daghan motubag nimo..
Kana imo style bro wala gihapon na kapa ingnan kundili away lang and pagka close ani nga thread...kadaghan na na mahitabo dire
Bro I'm interested in scientific skepticism and I don't want this thread to be closed, if wala kay ma post regarding skepticism ayaw nalang ug post..pag basa2x nalang...

[yanong_banikanhon]

I think the TS is just responding to a post by Nowpress

nowpress* made his first post in this thread at 9:41 (Aug. 23). But the TS posted the comment below earlier (05:24 AM of Aug. 23)

anybody who has evidence of their GOD, there's $1,000,000 waiting for you. what are the GOD DELUSIONS waiting for?

Asa mang lugara sa atong kalibutan nga ma-UNA ang reply kaysa original post?

[yanong_banikanhon]

if wala kay ma post regarding skepticism ayaw nalang ug post..pag basa2x nalang...

You should tell that to the TS kay siya'y nag-una2x og pakita sa iyang tinuod nga baho.

Tan-awa ra gud kun skepticism ba ang tumong aning iyang post:

anybody who has evidence of their GOD, there's $1,000,000 waiting for you. what are the GOD DELUSIONS waiting for?

This thread is nothing but a hate thread. Our forum rule (rule #2) clearly says that posts should be composed in such a manner that respects religions.

[kenites]

^^ah ok my bad then...

bro I think you should post your question to the atheism thread..though I think hitch satisfactorily answered that (just my opinion)

[yanong_banikanhon]

though I think hitch satisfactorily answered that (just my opinion)

Sa akong nahinumdoman, gawas sa mga innuendos, personal attacks ug strawman arguments, ang tubag ni hitch sa akong question sa pikas nga thread mao ni:

You still have to answer them in an honest, objective and straight forward manner.

No thanks. I've had enough of your nonsense. This is a pointless exercise. From hereon in....IGNORE.

Pwede nimo i-share ang link sa post ni hitch nga nakapakita og scientific evidence sa akong question sa taas? Aron dili ta makaingon nga nagbuot2x ra ta.

[Gjhone]

Bro if you want to talk about atheism, better post it sa atheism thread..didto daghan motubag nimo..
Kana imo style bro wala gihapon na kapa ingnan kundili away lang and pagka close ani nga thread...kadaghan na na mahitabo dire
Bro I'm interested in scientific skepticism and I don't want this thread to be closed, if wala kay ma post regarding skepticism ayaw nalang ug post..pag basa2x nalang...

hehe...nagbasa2x bitaw ko..ni comment ko kay mura man gudka correct......unsa gani to imo words....."positive claimant ra ang dapat mo hatag og ebidensya" .......unya mao ni pasabot sa imo scientific skeptism?

buslot kaayo imo argument bro...maypag akoy mo ingon nimo ayaw nalang og post2x para dili ka matawag og "piti"

[yanong_banikanhon]

^^ Hehe...magkatawa man pud ta anang usa ka skeptic nga dunay bias. Di ba skeptics question everything? Bag-o na diay style sa mga skeptics karon, ang positive claimant ra ang pangitaan og ebidensya.

Kun atheist nuon, mura'g naanad na ta ana. Kay mao man gyud na'y common nga palusot sa mga atheists kun pangitaan sila og basis sa ilang belief. Maski ang ilang kaugalingong mga claim (ex. life comes from a random process without aid of any intelligence), dili gyud sila kahatag og scientific evidence maong moingon na lang nga 'ayaw ko pangayoi og ebidensya'. Double standard kaayo. Hehehe...

Pero skeptics? Makapahimuot gyud huna-hunaon nga ang usa ka skeptic mamili na daan og side nga iyang pangitaan og evidence unya molaktod na lang og tuo sa negative side.

[hitch22]

I have to respond to all these innuendos of pa-englis-englis and pa-scientific

First, I make no apologies using the English language when discussing matters that involve complicated ideas or to explain my point clearly. English is my first language; I'm sorry to have to say that. If I'm going to be hated for it, what can I do? Second, I make no apologies deploying scientific terms when scientific matters are called into question. If that is a crime, sue me.

The claim that I've dodged somebody's question is a patent lie. It's a pathetic move when somebody just picks out the stuffs that suit his point, even though the exchanges have to be considered in full. Click on the link below, read our exchanges, and see if I've avoided his questions:

https://www.istorya.net/forums/genera...in-god-17.html

If you're an objective reader, you'll notice immediately the error in this guy's line of questioning. I'll show you why, later. I even extended him the courtesy of understanding the gist of his questions. If you know what the gist of it was, you'll appreciate how I answered that question.

Here's that question, as originally worded:

My questions are very simple.

1) Do you have a verifiable scientific evidence nga gawas sa usa ka conscious mind, there is another thing that exists in nature that is capable of producing a sophisticated language?

2) Do you have a verifiable scientific evidence that the thing mentioned in point no. 1 is the origin of the genetic language ?

Fair? I didn't change any wording of questioner. You'll notice the error of his line of questioning, once I answer them directly, instead of getting to the gist of it.

1) Question no. 1 asks for ANOTHER THING THAT EXIST IN NATURE THAT IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A SOPHISTICATED LANGUAGE. That's easy. ANSWER: Yes. Dolphins.

2) Question no. 2 reveals a lack of comprehension about animal language and "language" employed as a metaphor for DNA. So, how shall we proceed with this question if we just take his wording as is? He's referring to the ORIGIN OF THE GENETIC LANGUAGE. What is this genetic language that he's referring to? What else but DNA. I already told him that answer. The best scientific hypothesis on the origin of DNA is the RNA World Hypothesis. Is it conclusive? No, but it's not a dismissed hypothesis either.

The reason the questioner couldn't accept the answer is because he's already made up his mind that DNA has a supernatural origin. The scientific method, however, is different. It will always look for naturalistic explanations. When it comes to the origin of DNA, science is essentially seeking DNA's natural pre-cursors. RNA is the best candidate, for the very reason that (like DNA) it too encodes genetic information and has a very similar structure. And if you want to push the question further and ask where RNA came from, then the scientific investigation will likewise search for simpler pre-cursors of RNA.

The above answer on DNA was already given. I'm only repeating it.

Did I dodge the question? It would be the height of arrogance for the questioner to be both the accuser and the judge. That's why I've appealed for dispassionate, objective and knowledgeable readers to judge for themselves. I leave the possibility that something's lost in translation somewhere in that allegedly "simple and straightforward" question.

[Elyu]

First there was :

i will assure you that not only will you have a proof that god exist, you will also have a bonus proof that satan do exist.

But then came :

being certain in everything is a mentality of a disillusioned retard. now, that is a complete and utter shame!

Enlighten me on this brand new type of logic, please.