vheRR

God is not some kind of superman, like us but with superlative moral virtue. No. Many atheists, as well as theists, make this mistake -- that of thinking of God as someone comparable to us humans, only without limitations. He is not like that at all. God does not have goodness. God is THE Good -- He is goodness itself. God's goodness is His power, which is His knowledge, which is His essence, which is His existence. "I AM WHAT I AM", He reveals to Moses. Pure Being.

 

So can man be good without God? Can man be good without goodness itself?

... ah,

... ok,

... hmmm,

... ang kaso,

... "PAANO" MO NALAMAN?

... "NATITIYAK" MO ba?

... MAY "PATUNAY" KA? :lol:

DB,

 

Thank you for sharing your insight. A little backgrounder, if I may. What prompted me to start this thread is when I stumbled upon on youtube a little debate between atheists and theists (yes, even there, sometimes I just have to blast the sheer ignorance of these so called "enlightened" atheists). So there was this video of one teenage girl who was supposed to be an atheist. One of the reasons she says, was that the church does not allow gay marriages. Someone should have told her, why would an atheist insist/want to enter an INSTITUTION built by the church in the first place?

 

And that right there was a little eureka moment of sorts. Why do atheists want to be "good" (when goodness is a "God concept"). God is a cruel God therefore God does not exist -- goes one popular (and fallacious) atheist argument.

 

So ok, let us remove God from the equation. Without God, what moral code would man create for himself. What would be the foundation of its truth?

 

Strange twist to this thread so far, no godless moral code has been offered by the atheists, only the argument that the "God moral code" came from man and not God. So there ends the debate, and the need for this thread (if they are continue with this tact). The debate shall once again go back to whether God exists or not. And that is subject for almost all the other threads here.

 

My conclusion? Man still needs "God's moral code" -- even the atheists adhere to it. And that is really something to lol about.

Ang TAO...

... na LIKAS na MAKASARILI,

... ay isang "SOCIAL" ANIMAL,

... ang LAKAS ng "GRUPO", NAKA-DEPENDE sa LAKAS ng "BAWAT MIYEMBRO",

... ang LAKAS ng "BAWAT MIYEMBRO", NAKA-DEPENDE sa LAKAS ng "GRUPO",

... ANO ngayon ang SILBI ng "MABUTI / MASAMA" sa isang GRUPO ng SOCIAL ANIMAL?

... ANO nga ba ang SILBI ng "TAMA / MALI" sa isang GRUPO ng SOCIAL ANIMAL?

... ANO ang MANGYAYARI sa isang GRUPO na HINDI NAGTUTULUNGAN?

... ANO ang MANGYAYARI sa isang GRUPO na NAGPAPATAYAN?

From the Heavens or From Nature: The Origins of Morality by Andy Thomson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

Other parts of your post has been snipped out as I will respond to it later (if I find the time).

 

Brief explanantion. God's moral code (as I believe them to be) is prescriptive. Meaning, it is just a suggestion. The punitive part, was man-made. The universe itself was created by God to "punish" those who sin. DO bad things and bad things will happen to you. So God "suggested" that you do not sin. Parang tatay mo lang yan na sinasabihan ka na wag magpa-ulan. Ngayon kung magkasakit ka, yun ang punishment mo.

Ang "LAHAT" ba ng GUMAGAWA ng MASAMA sa "UNIVERSE" ay NAPAPARUSAHAN rin sa "UNIVERSE"?

Ang "LAHAT" ba ng GUMAGAWA ng MABUTI sa "UNIVERSE" ay NAGAGANTIMPALAAN rin sa "UNIVERSE"?

Kung MASAMA ang "CAUSE"…

… sa "LAHAT" ba ng PAGKAKATAON ay MASAMA rin ang "EFFECT"?

Kung MABUTI ang "CAUSE"…

… sa "LAHAT" ba ng PAGKAKATAON ay MABUTI rin ang "EFFECT"?

… hindi ba't kaya nga "INIMBENTO" ng THEIST ang "PARUSA na PAGKA-IMPIYERNO" at ang "GANTIMPALA na WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY",

… upang PAPANIWALAIN ang THEIST na ang "LAHAT" ng GUMAGAWA ng MASAMA ay "NAPARURUSAHAN",

… at ang "LAHAT" ng GUMAGAWA ng MABUTI ay "NAGAGANTIMPALAAN". :lol:

 

And my initial regret is justified. Still can not answer a simple direct question. That's atheism vherr version for you! lol. Master the art of non-responsiveness and there you go. The perfect atheist.

Wag mong sabihin na HINDI MO NAUNAWAAN ang SAGOT KO?

At "OBLIGADO" ba AKO na SUMAGOT sa "PARAAN" na GUSTO MO?

Ang MORALIDAD, NAGMULA sa UTAK ng TAO…

… HINDI GALING sa DIOS MO, SAPAGKAT HINDI TOTOO ang DIOS MO,

Ang BUKOD TANGING NAITULONG ng "PANINIWALA sa DIOS" ay…

… ay ang PAPANIWALAIN ang mga NANINIWALA na "MAY GANTIMPALA ang LAHAT ng SUSUNOD",

… at "MAY PARUSA ang LAHAT ng SUSUWAY".

Ang MORALIDAD...

... NAG-MULA nga bang talaga sa DIOS?

Afghanistan's dirty little secret

Joel Brinkley

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Pasted from <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/28/INF21F2Q9H.DTL>

[excerpt]

In Kandahar, population about 500,000, and other towns, dance parties are a popular, often weekly, pastime. Young boys dress up as girls, wearing makeup and bells on their feet, and dance for a dozen or more leering middle-aged men who throw money at them and then take them home. A recent State Department report called "dancing boys" a "widespread, culturally sanctioned form of male rape."

So, why are American and NATO forces fighting and dying to defend tens of thousands of proud pedophiles, certainly more per capita than any other place on Earth? And how did Afghanistan become the pedophilia capital of Asia?

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

"How can you fall in love if you can't see her face," 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. "We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful."

Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life at home. A favored Afghan expression goes: "Women are for children, boys are for pleasure." Fundamentalist imams, exaggerating a biblical passage on menstruation, teach that women are "unclean" and therefore distasteful. One married man even asked Cardinalli's team "how his wife could become pregnant," her report said. When that was explained, he "reacted with disgust" and asked, "How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean?"

That helps explain why women are hidden away - and stoned to death if they are perceived to have misbehaved. Islamic law also forbids homosexuality. But the pedophiles explain that away. It's not homosexuality, they aver, because they aren't in love with their boys.

--------------------------------------------------------

Be Like Others

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Like_Others>

Be Like Others (also known as Transsexual in Iran) is a 2008 documentary film written and directed by Tanaz Eshaghian about transsexuals in Iran. It explores issues of gender and sexuality while following the personal stories of some of the patients at a Tehran clinic. The film played at the Sundance Film Festival and the Berlin International Film Festival, winning three awards.

Overview

Although homosexual relationships are illegal (punishable by death) in Iran, sex reassignment operations are permitted. In 1983, spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini passed a fatwa allowing sex-change operations as a cure for "diagnosed transsexuals".[3] Be Like Others shows the experiences of male and female patients at Dr. Bahram Mir-Jalali's Mirdamad Surgical Centre, a sex-reassignment clinic in Tehran.[4] One of them is Ali Askar, a 24 year-old man who faces harassment from other men due to his feminine appearance and behaviour. He does not want to become a woman but sees no other options for him in Iranian society. He decides to go ahead with the surgery despite death threats from his father and finds support from Vida, a post-operative transsexual he meets at the clinic. By the end of the film, Ali has become a woman named Negar. She has been disowned by her family, experienced depression and has had to work as a prostitute. 20 year-old Anoosh is another young man who has been ostracised due to his femininity. His boyfriend feels more comfortable when Anoosh dresses as a woman, and in contrast to Ali, Anoosh's mother is supportive of his desire to change sex. The end of the film shows Anoosh — now Anahita — happy and engaged to her boyfriend. However, her boyfriend has become increasingly distant since Anahita had her surgery.[3][5]

Throughout the film, the patients of the sex-reassignment clinic assert that they are not homosexual, seeing homosexuality as something that is shameful and immoral.[6] Eshaghian's opinion is that this shame is the driving force behind so many Iranians deciding to change their sex. She says that identifying as transsexual rather than homosexual allows them to live free from harassment.[3]

vherr,

 

I know I am going to regret this but...

 

So nasa utak ang morality. Ayon na rin yan sa post mo. Pag nasa utak, ito ba ay totoo o hindi?

Ang TAO ba, maging ang HAYOP, kapag GUTOM…

… LIKAS na INAALAM muna kung sila'y TOTOOng GUTOM o HINDI?

Ang TAO ba, maging ang HAYOP, kapag GALIT…

… LIKAS na INAALAM muna kung sila'y TOTOOng GALIT o HINDI?

If I can use a math/geometry analogy, if one is able to debunk/destroy the definition of a point or a line (by Euclid), then there is no more point in using/following Euclidean geometry. One has to develop an entirely different brand of math. God is the "point" of the "God moral codes", Without God, none of it will be true. And as an atheist, you should revisit ALL these moral codes that theists claim came from God. Is killing another human being bad, TRUE? Then why? Based on what? Theists say it is bad because God commanded so. IF it so happens that atheists are able to develop a similar moral code then well and good. But it has to based on something. You've removed God from the equation. All "truth" in the "God moral code" is now up reexamination.

Alright, let me attempt to clarify my point with a specific example.

 

To THEISTS, it's easy. Given a question whether abortion is right or wrong, we simply have to look at scripture and find out what God's commandment is on the matter is. For atheists, your decision making process should be based on something else other than God's commandment (since He does not exist). What is that? Economics? Politics? Pragmatism? Etc. Etc. So what atheists? On what do you base your moral code on?

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na MAYROON ang TAO…

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na nasa UTAK na ng TAO…

Reposting,

(1)

 

ANO nga ba ang PUMIPIGIL sa isang HAYOP na PATAYIN ang KANYANG ANAK?

 

Ano nga ba ang pumipigil sa isang "MAKASARILING" hayop na patayin ang kanyang "SARILIng" anak?

 

 

ANO nga ba ang NAG-UUDYOK sa isang HAYOP na IPAGTANGGOL ang KANYANG ANAK?

 

Ano nga ba ang nag-uudyok sa isang "MAKASARILING" hayop na ipagtanggol ang kanyang "SARILIng" anak?

Moral Judgments Can Be Altered: Neuroscientists Influence People's Moral Judgments by Disrupting Specific Brain Region

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329152516.htm>

"Previous studies have shown that a brain region known as the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) is highly active when we think about other people's intentions, thoughts and beliefs. In the new study, the researchers disrupted activity in the right TPJ by inducing a current in the brain using a magnetic field applied to the scalp. They found that the subjects' ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people's intentions -- for example, a failed murder attempt -- was impaired."

Emotions Key to Judging Others: New Piece to Puzzle of How Human Brain Constructs Morality from Study of Harmful Intent

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324121008.htm>

"Patients with damage to this brain area, known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), are unable to conjure a normal emotional response to hypothetical situations in which a person tries, but fails, to k*ll another person. Therefore, they judge the situation based only on the outcome, and do not hold the attempted murderer morally responsible."

Moral Judgment Fails Without Feelings

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070321181940.htm>

The subjects with VMPC damage stood out in their stated willingness to harm an individual -- a prospect that usually generates strong aversion.

"Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in real life. They lack empathy and compassion," said Ralph Adolphs, Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Caltech.

"In those circumstances most people without this specific brain damage will be torn. But these particular subjects seem to lack that conflict," said co-senior author Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute and holder of the David Dornsife Chair in Neuroscience at USC.

Sleep Deprivation Affects Moral Judgment, Study Finds

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070301081831.htm>

"The findings suggest that continuous wakefulness has a particularly debilitating effect on judgment and decision making processes that depend heavily upon the integration of emotion with cognition, said Killgore, adding that the results provide further support to the hypothesis that sleep loss is particularly disruptive to the ventromedial prefrontal regions of the brain, which are important for the integration of affect and cognition in the service of judgment and decision making."

Is Morality Innate and Universal?

Pasted from

<http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?searchterm=morality&b_start:int=0>

<http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?searchterm=morality&b_start:int=1>

<http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?searchterm=morality&b_start:int=2>

What is the evidence that we draw upon unconscious principles when making moral decisions?

Let's take two examples. A trolley is coming down a track, and it's going to run over and k*ll five people if it continues. A person standing next to the track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will k*ll one but save the five. Most people think that's morally permissible—to harm one person when five are saved. Another case is when a nurse comes up to a doctor and says, "Doctor, we've got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a healthy person just walked into the hospital—we can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?" No one says yes to that one. Now, in both cases your action can save five while harming one, so they're identical in that sense. So why the flip-flop? People of different ages, people of different religious backgrounds, people even with different educations typically cannot explain why they think those cases differ. There appears to be some kind of unconscious process driving moral judgments without its being accessible to conscious reflection.

What is the evidence that infants already have a moral code ingrained in their brains?

I don't think we're ready to say. Studies have shown that infants as young as 15 months are*sensitive to the beliefs of others—true versus false beliefs. That's crucial to the moral domain.*

There's also this from the work of Elliot Turiel [a cognitive scientist at the University of California at Berkeley]. He said, Look, there's a very important distinction between a social convention and a moral rule. Children by at least the age of 3 or 4 understand that distinction. Here is a simple way of putting it. If a teacher comes into a classroom and says, "Today, class, instead of raising your hand when you want to ask a question, just ask your question. Don't raise your hand." If you ask kids, "Is that OK?" kids will say, "OK, fine." If you tell them, "In our class, we raise our hands to ask questions, but in France they never raise their hands. Is that OK?" "OK." So it's basically open to authority; it's culturally variable.*

So that's a social dimension. But now imagine the following situation. The teacher comes into the class and says, "If you're annoyed by a child sitting next to you, just punch him!" You're going to have moral outrage. You can't say that! If you say, "But in France they do," they'd say, "Well, the French are weird; the French can't say that." So it's completely not open to authoritarian override, in a sense, and it's not culturally variable. So you get this kind of fundamental distinction that's coming on fairly early. But first the question is: How does the kid know that it's in the moral zone as opposed to merely the social zone? We don't know.

Do you mean that people give the same answers to objective tests of moral reasoning regardless of religious background?

One hundred percent. So far, exactly the same. Here's an example that comes from MIT philosopher Judy Thomson. She was interested in a question of whether the fetus has an obligatory right to the mother's body. So she gives an incredibly apocryphal, crazy example: A woman is lying in bed one morning, and she wakes up to find a man lying in bed unconscious next to her. Another gentleman walks up to her and says: "I'm terribly sorry, but this man right next to you is a world-famous violinist, and he's unconscious and in terrible health. He's in kidney failure, and I hope you don't mind, but we've plugged him into your kidney. And if he stays plugged in for the next nine months, you will save him."*

You ask people, "Is that morally permissible?" They're like: "No, it's insane. Of course not." Well, that makes [Thomson's] point exquisitely. It would be nice if she said, "Sure, I love this guy's playing; plug him in." But she's not obligated to do so. Now let me make it like the abortion case. She says, "Yes, I love this guy's violin playing!" Two months into it, she goes: "You know what? This really is a drag," and she unplugs. Now people all of a sudden have a sense that's less permissible than the first case. But here, people who are pro-choice or pro-life do not differ. So the point is, if you take people away from the familiar and you capture some of the critical underlying psychological issues that play into the real-world cases, then you find that the religious effects are minimal.

Do other species have any form of moral faculty?

Certainly sympathy, caretaking, cooperation;*those things*are there in some animals. The crucial questions are, "Do animals have any sense of what they ought to do?" and "To what extent will animals judge transgressions of others as being wrong in some way?" How we'd ever understand that, I don't know.*

Whose Life Would You Save?

Scientists say morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Pasted from <http://forums.mukamo.com/grey-areas/12006-can-morality-exist-without-religion-8.html>

So, SAAN naka-BASE ang MORALITY ng ATHEIST…

… naka-BASE ito sa "UTAK",

… sa "UTAK", sa "ISIPAN" ng BAWAT TAO.

Let me get this, ATHEISTS are not questioning the moral code which theists believe God gave man. In fact, they are owning it? Under the qualification that it is man-made (of course). I think this thread has turned a strange corner.

 

(still busy at the moment, will make more detailed posts at a later date)

Kung sa DIOS NYO NAGMULA ang MORALITY…

… at WALA KAYONG PATUNAY na TOTOO ang DIOS NYO,

… so WALA rin KAYONG PATUNAY na NAGMULA nga sa DIOS NYO ang MORALITY.

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na MAYROON ang TAO…

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na nasa UTAK na ng TAO…

… at ang ATHEIST, GAYA ng THEIST, ay "TAO" rin,

… so, KANINO ba, SINO nga ba ang "NAG-MA-MAY-ARI" sa MORALITY?

The question is WHY? Why should I follow this moral code? What appears "logical" to you may not be logical to me -- a naturalist (not really, just for the sake of argument). Being a naturalist, I believe that the strong should destroy the weak. Improve the genetic pool. Not let the inferior genes of the retards and half-wits infect the next generation. I say k*ll (or at the very least, sterilize) everyone whose IQ falls below 100. This is more logical. It is NATURAL. This is SERVICE TO OUR SPECIES. (I believe the NAZIs actually implemented such a program in reality). I am NOT saying that atheists THINK THIS WAY. NO. NOT AT ALL. My point is, debunk that argument from your ATHEISTS standpoint. Why is that "code", immoral?

 

And oh, do not bother throwing the problem back at the theists. KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING IS BAD BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO.

 

So atheists, why is killing another human being bad? Is it bad even? How about stealing? How about cheating?

(1)

ANO nga ba ang PUMIPIGIL sa isang HAYOP na PATAYIN ang KANYANG ANAK?

Ano nga ba ang pumipigil sa isang "MAKASARILING" hayop na patayin ang kanyang "SARILIng" anak?

ANO nga ba ang NAG-UUDYOK sa isang HAYOP na IPAGTANGGOL ang KANYANG ANAK?

Ano nga ba ang nag-uudyok sa isang "MAKASARILING" hayop na ipagtanggol ang kanyang "SARILIng" anak?

(2)

MAKASARILING TAO 1: "AYAW KO na MANAKAWAN!"

MAKASARILING TAO 2: "AKO rin. AYAW KO rin na MANAKAWAN!"

MAKASARILING TAO 3: "Lalo na AKO. SINO bang MAY GUSTO na MANAKAWAN?!"

NAG-USAP ang 3 at NAGKASUNDO:

"BAWAL ang MAGNAKAW!"

"MASAMA ang MAGNAKAW!"

(Pero siyempre, MASAMA at BAWAL kapag IKAW ang NINANAKAWAN…

… ngunit kung IKAW na ang NAGNANAKAW, NAG-IIBA ang USAPAN. )

to vheRR

 

hi. i have 5 simple questions, actually assignment ko ito. i need your point of view since you're

good in answering religious topics. thank you.

ATHEIST po ako.

Kaya ang magiging sagot, ay ayon sa POINT-OF-VIEW ko bilang isang Atheist.

question 1.) Do you believe the Bible is the word of God and is therefore without errors ?

Hindi. Atheist po ako.

Ngunit, kung ang biblia nga ay "ang salita ng dios", DAPAT lang na walang itong mga KAMALIAN.

Ang kaso, PUNO ito ng KAMALIAN, therefore, either hindi ito ang salita ng dios o...

... WALA talagang "SALITA NG DIOS".

... dahil HINDI TOTOO ang DIOS.

question 2.) Is Jesus God or mere man ?

Kung TOTOOng NABUHAY si Jesus, Isa lang siyang Tao.

question 3.) Do you believe in God being one yet in 3 persons, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit ?

Hindi. Atheist po ako.

Ngunit, ang idea ng 3 Persona ay ginawa upang mapagtugma ang idea na isang dios si Jesus at ang paniniwala sa iisang dios.

Kunsabagay, aling dios nga ba ang katanggap-tanggap...

... si Jesus at ang kanyang "mahalin mo ang iyong kaaway"

... o ang dios ng Lumang Tipan at ang kanyang "mata-sa-mata. ngipin-sa-ngipin"

question 4.) What is your understanding of salvation ? How can a person go to heaven ?

Isang mabisang paraan ng PANG-UUTO.

Sino nga ba naman ang AAYAW sa GANTIMPALA ng WALANG-HANGGANG-BUHAY?

Sino nga ba naman ang GUGUSTO sa PARUSA ng PAGKA-IMPIYERNO?

Ang GUMAWA ng MABUTI DAHIL MAY GANTIMPALA.

AT ang UMIWAS sa MASAMA DAHIL MAY PARUSA.

Isang MAKAPANGYARIHANG DIOS na KAILANGAN pang MANGAKO ng GANTIMPALA at MANAKOT ng PARUSA PARA LANG SUNDIN ng TAO na KANYANG GINAWA LAMANG.

question 5.) Is the church relevent to you ? Why or why not ?

Hindi. Atheist po ako.

akala lang nila yun. they dont know what its like to be like me.

At papayag naman kaya ang iba kung sasabihin mong Hindi Totoo ang Dios na Pinaniniwalaan Nila?

Kasi kapag nag-she-share si X ng views sinasalungat kaagad ni Y yung religious views niya. So instead na mabigyan ng pagkakataon si Y na mag-share din ng views niya, dini-defend ni X yung views niya at si Y naman ay panay ang attack at patutsada instead na mag-share ng views niya.

Hmm.

Papayag ka ba sa pagsasabi ng ibang Hindi Totoo ang Dios na Pinaniniwalaan mo?

"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them."

— Dave Barry

well.. a religion is merely an association having the same beliefs and practices..

 

What really important is.. You believe in only God.. Who create everything..

Aling god?

Nakatitiyak kang ang God mo?

Hindi pwedeng ang God ng ibang Tao?

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Most people will disagree on this.

 

If you were born by parents believing in God (Muslims, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Hindu, etc.), you were taught how to live your life to follow rules, to respect others as what God or Gods hath wrought. This is religion.

 

If you were born by atheist parents, they'll still teach you how to live your life the way it should be. To me, that is also religion.

 

If you were born by insane parents and left you for dead, you'll learn to crawl by your belly, assuming you are still alive, and learn to survive by yourself. You start to believe in something. You start to believe that life is only about keeping your stomach full. That is religion.

 

If you were born by satanist parents, you were taught the dark ways of life by keeping yourself above others. That is religion.

 

Money can become religion. Most politicians worship money. To gain power.

 

But if you were born by one of these kind of parents, and then you suddenly feel that nothing that you believe in is right, that is when your faith is lost.

 

Nobody blames you for being born an atheist, a Satanist, a Muslim, or a Catholic. It was not your choice.

 

To change your "religion" once because you were "enlightened" is normal. But changing your religion more than once, or "destroy" your own religion means that you are unsure about yourself.

 

Why change sides? Because Buddha gives luck? Because this is the "TRUE" religion? Because you will be saved by Allah and your enemies will die by Jihad?

 

Why destroy your religion? Why become an atheist? You believe only in the facts of science? or you just don't want to read some stupid old scrolls compiled in what they call Bible? You don't want to go to a large house called a Church? You don't want to kneel down and pray? You want to believe only in yourself... you only want to feel the pleasures of the flesh?

 

Surely you'll say "I'm happy from shifting from Catholic to Buddhism". "I'm happy to be a Protestant".... "I'm happy for being an atheist". But in your mind you're just saying "I don't know if there's a God, and I don't care. I can profit from this religion OR I just need to satisfy my body and that's it. I need to eat, sleep, work, eat, sleep, work."

 

From an atheist side, how would you define respect? I can hurt anyone since I don't know the meaning of respect. No Almighty can punish me. I have no Soul so who cares if I die??

 

Being born by atheist parents doesn't mean you're also an atheist. You're still choosing something to believe in. It's different from choosing to be an atheist.

 

I'm not saying all atheists will resort to suicide. They just have a higher tendency.

Really?

So ang Hayop ay pinuprotektahan ang kanyang mga Anak DAHIL NANINIWALA SIYA SA DIOS?

So kung halimbawang MABABA ANG TENDENCY NG MGA HAYOP NA MAG-SUICIDE, IBIG SABIHIN NANINIWALA ANG MGA HAYOP SA DIOS?

Kawawa pala ang isang Atheist? Iisa na nga lang ang Kanyang Buhay, Wala na ngang inaasahang Walang-Hanggang-Buhay, tapos MATAAS PA ANG TENDENCY NA MAG-SUICIDE? Ganun?

Samantalang ang Theist, bagamat iisa rin ang Buhay, MERON namang inaasahang Walang-Hanggang-Buhay, KAYA ba takot ang Theist magpakamatay? Dahil MASAMA ang magpakamatay?

GUMAGAWA KAYO NG MABUTI DAHIL UMAASA KAYO SA GANTIMPALA NG WALANG-HANGGANG-BUHAY? TAKOT KAYONG GUMAWA NG MASAMA DAHIL TAKOT KAYO MA-IMPIERNO?

GUMAGAWA LANG KAYO NG MABUTI DAHIL MAY KAPALIT NA GANTIMPALA? DAHIL TAKOT SA PARUSA?

it's a way of life. it gives u direction.

 

most atheists tend to be suicidal.

Really?

"Not thinking critically, I assumed that the successful prayers were proof that God answers prayer while the failures were proof that there was something wrong with me."

-- Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist

Life itself is Selfish.

The real fact is this.

 

Everything we see, hear, feel, or smell is govern by rules. Some of these rules have already been documented by science based on empirical data. We now know that planets on our solar system are orbiting around a sun because of gravitation and inertia. The same forces are being used by atoms which are composed of a central nucleus and a few revolving electrons. Though somewhat controversial, the theory of evolution made by Darwin made a startling revelation that every living things are made through a process of evolution, also made irrefutable by empirical data. The discovery of binary numbers (0s and 1s) that some thought they've discovered the holy grail of all languages, made the backbone of modern advances.

 

The question is: Why these rules? Why can't planet Earth just travel beyond its usual orbit so that we can travel to new universes? Why does birds have different varieties like colors, behaviours, eating patterns, etc? Why can't my Mac talk to my PC without using a common communication protocol like TCP/IP?

 

Science is alive today because of its notoriety for describing these rules. But what if these rules break up? See below for some classic examples.

 

1. Dividing waters of the Red Sea.

2. Lazarus raise from the dead.

3. Lepers being healed without medicine.

4. Walking on top of water.

5. Miraculous ability to speak and/or understand a foreign language (tongue) previously unknown to the speaker.

6. Blind men being cured.

7. Feeding of 5,000 men with just a basket of bread.

8. Sun stopped moving.

9. A great flood that killed everything but a few survivors.

10. Child being conceived without going to the process of impregnation.

That is why there are words like Fantasy, Illusory, Imagination, Impossibility, etc.

Chaos comes when rules breakdown. If we are to believe the Creator Theory, one can imagine the beginning of everything: A soup of chaos.

 

Having said this, let's make a consensus that everything is a game which has a finite set of rules. Those who wants to play the game must obey the rules, otherwise, they're out. So let's play.

 

But wait! There's one catch. The game have already been started since the beginning of time! Maybe some of us know the rules but a lot of us doesn't! You might comment,"That isn't fair!".

 

Hey, buddy! Rules are rules! :hypocritesmiley:

 

And the fact is if there's a winner, is not unlikely that there more losers in this game.

 

Are u in or out?

And what's the PRIZE for the WINNERS? And for the LOSERS?

Everything is like a giant puzzle. Science made progress picking out the pieces and figuring out some of its mechanics. But the the fact remains: Who place that giant puzzle before us?

Why think that there is a WHO?

I refuse to believe that nothing comes from nothing! That's absurd!

 

Can science create something out of nothing? Yes, Science can create atomic bomb that can level whole mountain.

 

But can science create life out of nothing?

Not yet.

Religion and science need not clash. Those who claim that the Bible has all the answers for science have not read the Bible. It is a false claim. You can be a good person practicing a deeply religious life and likewise be the best scientist in your field also. The real source of the conflict isn't religion. It is the way some people disguise their attitude of trying to LORD over people and using religion as an excuse.

 

Jesus never tried to lord it over men. He did the opposite and SERVED men instead. He is Lord because despite all the testing, he remained holy and Faithful to God.

Religion & Science need not clash because this is what Theist wants. This is the reason why some Theist tries to justify and prove god thru Science.

But for an Atheist, it’s inevitable.

:hypocritesmiley:

It sure is a shame that "God" didn't provide us with a clearer, more understandable description of the world and universe that he created, isn't it? One that didn't need constant reconciliation with the findings of science... One that didn't need to be explained as metaphors... One that didn't require up to four levels of meaning in any Scriptural passage. It seems that if he made the whole place and made us, that he could clearly and unambiguously communicate his construction in a way that could not be confused, right? This version would provide scientifically testable information. There is no reason he could not have provided this nor could not provide it still. Maybe he could give us a second Bible that was a tech-guide to the universe and speak through Stephen Hawking??? Then, we could quit wasting all of our time with scientific inquiry and just refer to the Book of Hawking [392:619] to understand what happened during the big bang or if there even was one.

It is not his imagination rather it is his faith that leads him to his belief.

Faith / Belief based on imagination.

Your right, you don't need proof to know and decide what is True.

Ang sabi ko: "kung totoo ang isang bagay kahit na walang patunay na ang bagay na ito'y totoo, so wala nang hindi totoo, lahat na lang totoo."

"kung" ung ginamit kong word. "Kung".

We need proof to know and decide what is true.

TRUTH is everywhere at walang hindi totoo. You deemed yourself to be an ATHEIST and that could be your TRUTH, it is there where your faith lies. You could say and rant all the things you want, that GOD does not exist but for some of us, this is not our TRUTH, so we choose not to believe you no matter what you say.

Sa mundo ng imahinasyon, lahat po ay totoo. Yan po bang gamit nyong cell phone or computer, totoo po ba yan sa inyong palagay? O baka guni-guni rin lang po yan? :thumbsupsmiley:

It's the same thing with science, Science is a Religion. It's made up of a lot of experiments, theories and explanations the same way the Bible has parables, verses and teachings. And like the Bible, science has a lot of versions, it's up to you which version you want to believe in. Proof is just a way for most of us to substantiate our faith (it also dictates how we practice our faith). People use to say the Earth is flat, now they say that it's round... if you still believe it is flat, who are we to contradict your faith?

"..Science is a Religion.." (sabi mo) that is based on proof and evidences.

Again, from my previous post:

"Sa Science, pag sinabi ko na "umiikot ang Sun sa Earth", kailangan kong patunayan ito.

Pero sa konsepto ng diyos, pag sinabi ko na "umiikot ang Sun Sa Earth", kailangan ko pa bang patunayan ito? Sasabihin ko lang na "magagalit ang diyos kung di kayo maniniwala", solve na."

For someone who claims to have no Religion, you sure have strong beliefs . An atheist with strong beliefs and convictions, now that's a real contradiction but anyway good luck with that cheers :cool:

Sigurado kasi ako na totoo ang gamit kong cellphone at computer.

Kaso luma na tong model ng cellphone na gamit ko, gusto ko sana ng N95, kaso wala pa kong pambili. Gamitin ko muna kaya imahinasyon ko para maranasan ko ang magkaruon ng bagong bagong N95 na cellphone.

Gusto mo rin makita ang N95 ko? :thumbsupsmiley:

pare kailangan nya ng scientist na magsabi paano lumilipad ang bird at ng masabi nyang hindi magic yun. or may puso ito and stomach and other innards para malaman paano gumagana ang buhay nito.

 

funny thing is, science is always changing with new discoveries that sometimes add or revise previous defined scientific knowledge.

 

paasahin na lang natin ang paniniwala nila sa ganun. if he says maniwala tayong lahat to science and logic without thinking for ourselves beyond that basic fundamental want beyond what science tells us, ewan ko lang kung matuwa sya sa buhay nya ever.

:thumbsupsmiley:

Hindi ka ba natutuwa sa lahat ng naibigay ng Science sa iyo.

Kung magkakaruon ka (halimbawa lang po) ng malubhang karamdaman, Kaya mo bang wag magpagamot (produkto ng Science) o gumamit ng gamot (produkto ng Science), at umasa na lang sa diyos mo para ikaw ay gumaling?

can you prove the existence of atoms and other scientific crap without taking the word of scientists? i mean seriously you yourself try to prove its existence.

 

di na kailangan, scientists have provided enough evidence for their existence. pero ung god nyo? he/she/it/they exist only in your imagination.

- All that scientific crap has been proven to exist... electrons, borons, hadrons, etc... they used to exist in thought experiments and theorems, but now, yes... enough empirical data has been gathered to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that they exist.

:thumbsupsmiley:

simply even if something isnt there or appears to be unprovable through absence does not mean non existience. heck i havent ever met you save for the fact youre a blip posting in manilatonight. heck i can say you dont really exist and is merely an autoreply script.

 

if you are to use your imagination the way you use it in believing in your god, posible ngang hindi ako nag-i-exist. Kaso, sa imahinasyon mo lang po.

- heheheheheehehe... just in exactly the same way sa imahinasyon mo sir vherr, God does not exist...

:thumbsupsmiley: . Sa point of view mo, maaari nga po. Pero I do know how to distinguish imagination from reality.

and to answer your question, who do i prove the existence of God? well i say He exists for me. try disproving my own decision.

 

imahinasyon nyo lang po yan.

 

kung totoo ang isang bagay kahit na walang patunay na ang bagay na ito'y totoo, so wala nang hindi totoo, lahat na lang totoo.

 

mabuhay ang imahinasyon.

 

- TALAGANG MABUHAY ANG IMAHINASYON! Mas lalong mabuhay and freedom of speech at Manilatonight!!! maybe isnt it that in your individual world God does not exist and not the other way around? Isnt it more logical for a minority to be wrong?

:thumbsupsmiley: . I've already answered your questions in another post. Quality. Not Quantity.

bible versus science... hmmm... If based on facts alone, Im routing for science... If based on information and truth, go science go! If Ill base it on what is real, science takes the cake... case in point, science over the bible... hands down. The bible, being a book written by man, even if it was inspired by God, is STILL subject to mistakes, misinterpretations, etc etc... Not saying that science is perfect, what is right now, may not be right a couple of years from now.. More of a personal preference.

:thumbsupsmiley: , Normal po sa Science na magkaruon ng "..mistakes, misinterpretations, etc etc..", pero ang maganda sa Science, it correct itself as new evidences emerges to support it.

Sa Science, pag sinabi ko na "umiikot ang Sun sa Earth", kailangan kong patunayan ito.

Pero sa konsepto ng diyos, pag sinabi ko na "umiikot ang Sun Sa Earth", kailangan ko pa bang patunayan ito? Sasabihin ko lang na "magagalit ang diyos kung di kayo maniniwala", solve na.

With regard to God Vs. Science? comes hand in hand.. as ive said in other threads, I found God in science.. Sabagay, I think that i really believed in some sort of God but the empirical data was too heavily leaning on his not existing...

Or maybe your just using the word god to represent those questions that Science cannot yet answer. :thumbsupsmiley: