I often hear religious people say that freethinkers are proud people, leaning on their own human understanding. The faithful claim to be humble, acknowledging our limited wisdom and thereby surrendering mind and will to the Almighty, the Supreme Being of the universe.
At first it seems they have a point, but if we look closely we’ll see that it’s actually the other way around. While theists may appear humble before their God, they are actually quite contemptuous towards people who do not share their beliefs. I could not explain it better than a commenter named Pecier Carpena Decierdo:
Reason is humble, faith is not. Reason is open to the possibility that its claims are wrong, faith is not. Faith is cock-sure and certain, scientific reason is not. Faith makes claims to super-human knowledge, scientific reason does not.
The only knowledge human brains can contain is human knowledge, that is, limited knowledge. Because all we have are human brains with limited human knowledge, we cannot claim to be certain about everything. Yet faith, that archenemy of reason, makes people believe that they can be certain about things they actually know nothing about.
I just watched a one-hour video on how the universe could have literally come out of nothing by accident, negating the necessary first cause or creator. The speaker remarked that this shows just how insignificant we really are. And it is a humbling thought indeed.
Which leads us to ponder, what then, is the purpose of our existence if we came out of nothing by pure chance? I guess my answer will be that the purpose of our existence is to find a purpose for our existence. Existence precedes essence, and if we indeed came out of nothingness because of pure luck instead of being created by a deity, then I guess that would be the greatest and most generous and most humbling miracle of all. And since we are lucky enough to exist at a point in time and space where conditions are suitable for life, it is wise to open our eyes to the world around and not waste our finite days haughtily holding on to some eternal “truth” that demands suspending our reason. Surely we have better things to do here.
But still, it is also meddling based on the definition I posted. 
Gab 
alvin john ballares 
Sathepine 
GabbyD 
Twin-Skies 
atheistako 
Hala! 
tradcath 
Akó si Gundam 
liquid 
g0disimaginary 
Soulgasm 
Harmless 
Digz 
If there is no truth…how can you prove to me your telling the truth?
)
http://www.christianityexplored.org/tough-questio…
“If there is no God there will be no atheists” he!he!
ok , u don't believe in the miracles performed in the scriptures. you can perform those miracles too. it is only an advance technology that any "ordinary man" can't do.
as arthur clarke says..
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke
i would like to borrow the thoughts of the J lehrer..after the result of this debate and the smoke settles… we will find which to choose..
[It's] troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that's often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean it's true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.
Jonah Lehrer via The Decline Effect and the Scientific Method
[i would like to borrow the thoughts of the J lehrer..after the result of this debate and the smoke settles... we will find which to choose..]
I , in turn would like you to read a thorough ripping apart of Jonah Lehrer's points here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/scienc…
the science of men is relative, the truth of today isn't the same truth of tomorrow.
With reason and logic, that to me is the birth of TRUE HUMILITY. Why? Because we do not force ourselves to be good or doing good just for the sake of it, or just by following what the scripture says. With reason and logic, we learn to be profound and know the true wisdom of situations and experiences that happen to us and to other people. With reason and logic, we learn to observe, analyze carefully without condemning. That to me is true humility.
If science, more on physics had never hold on the absolutism of laws and even constants, what more on judging human mind, human beliefs. How would you simplify to say, just single laws or ideas that would encompass humans of the entire planet, if as I observed, there is so much complexities in human existence. These complexities and even diversities is the one driving humans to live their lives, as if their culture and beliefs were true. There is no single, one reason, laws or beliefs that would breakdown the complexity and diversity of this world. Even the evil forces will have difficulty in breaking that system. Freethinkers are one product of this complexity and diversity.
>>wayno says:
September 15, 2010 at 8:26 pm (Edit)
If science, more on physics had never hold on the absolutism of laws and even constants, what more on judging human mind, human beliefs. How would you simplify to say, just single laws or ideas that would encompass humans of the entire planet, if as I observed, there is so much complexities in human existence. These complexities and even diversities is the one driving humans to live their lives, as if their culture and beliefs were true. There is no single, one reason, laws or beliefs that would breakdown the complexity and diversity of this world. Even the evil forces will have difficulty in breaking that system. Freethinkers are one product of this complexity and diversity.<<
Am I correct to assume that this paragraph has the underlying questions of >>How would you simplify to say, just single laws or ideas that would encompass humans of the entire planet, if as I observed, there is so much complexities in human existence.<<
and all other sentences are subtext to this key question? Or is this purely a rhetorical question?
Atheist should provide convincing evidence that God does not exist.
As what I said earlier, faith to God is a product of experience, not by reasoning, and not even by scientific findings. How can you refute human experiences? Are those experiences, not real?
To answer that, allow me to quote from http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/:
"Skepticism is a method, not a position.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can ‘provisionally’ conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis or the origins of language, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion."
And so when it comes to God, the atheist has 'provisionally' concluded that such entity does not exist. But the moment some hard evidence for God's existence comes up, I'm sure it will be published in every scientific journal and website, and skeptics everywhere will be reassessing and reformulating their conclusions to fit the new evidence.
[wayno wrote: "Atheist should provide convincing evidence that God does not exist. As what I said earlier, faith to God is a product of experience, not by reasoning, and not even by scientific findings. How can you refute human experiences? Are those experiences, not real?"]
If a native living in the forest tells you that he has experienced the presence of the Great Forest Spirit, can you refute such human experience? Can you prove to him that such experience (and such Spirit) is not real?
The problem is the religious mind set. When that native claims that the Great Forest Spirit is the only true god and all other gods are false; you have a classic case of "religious bigotry." They claim that their TRUTH has been revealed to them from an invisible spirit god. Oh, and that god left us a book and we must live by that book. Anyone who does not believe in our god and live by our book should die or be consigned to an eternity of flames.
This mindset is one of the most dangerous forces facing mankind. Organized religion is not a force for good. It does not promote brotherhood and compassion. Rather, the opposite is the case. Anyone who is willing to look at history dispassionately; can clearly see how religion fuels one war after another. Moslems and Christians have been battling each other for centuries. Fundamentalist religion is a form of fascism. Everyone must believe the same creed. Follow the same code of behavior. They must pray five times a day. At the same time. Facing the same direction. Saying the same words. Everyone…no exceptions. One may not question. One may not change or innovate. Everything is proscribed.
Fascism is the dark side of the human character. It is always waiting in the wings to make a new appearance. To try one more time to crush liberty tolerance and enlightenment: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and now Islamo-facism. They all have the same goal: turn the masses into robots who will work to support the leaders in a lavish lifestyle.
Most of the responses I have read deal with whether or not god exisits. Reason cannot converse with Faith. Respondents either trot out the tired argument proposed by St. Thomas Aquinance: The Premise of the Prime Mover or else claim that atheists should prove that a non-existant thing is non-existant…??? The very fact that believers feel that they must use some form of reason to justify their faith; reveals the weakness of their position. When the Buddha was asked whether or not God existed; he replied, "It is a question not tending to edification."
The problem is not whether god exists or not. The problem is the mindset that believes that they have the TRUTH. There is no TRUTH. there are only points of view. If we adopt a relativistic point of view, it makes the discourse open and tolerant and loving.
@wayno
The burden of proof lies in the hands of the religious.
Since they made the claim that god exists, they have the responsibility of proving it. It is not our responsibility to prove their claims for them.
To explain a bit what is Burden of Proof in laymans terms:
The Effort to Prove something is with the person who claims what we cannot plainly observe.
I don't see a God right now in this key board, Internet, Outside m window etc… God, a supernatural being that is aberrant to establish norms of the world.
So anyone who claims God, Angels, Supernatural Abilities (bread turning into flesh) etc. Must provide information or strong evidence to the fact. Insufficient, Proof or Evidence and it can be dismissed.
The Burden of Proof protects you against deception. It requires people with Outrageous claims bring up Outrageous evidence or proof for their claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_o…
How about the theist prove first that god does exist? You do not prove a negative.
Experiences are subjective. When you bang your head onto a wall and see stars spinning around your head, that does not mean there are stars spinning around your head.
What freethinkers goal was pronounced on their search for truth. But truth is not absolute, if ever there is an absolute truth. Even the well established laws of physics have been refuted and new ideas have emerged due to persistent discovery and experiments. Atheists are people who are not freethinkers. They are like religious fanatics, trying to persuade themselves and others that God does not exist, physically or even in the imagination. Science is evolving, if science is only the tool to search for truth, then let the freethinkers might as well used Science for their search. But as we know, science and even laws in science, are not absolute. So, if you are freethinkers, being abide by the laws of science, being a believer of God non-existence is such a sheer hypocrisy. Well, science no longer holds the truth. What else men should lean to, other than their faith? Faith of what? Faith to God, faith through their experience, not by reason or by science. The best thing a freethinker do is to refute science but provide tests; to refute the experiences of God believers but provide their own experiences are opposite; to refute that information lurking the world are not true but provide fresh ideas and information to hold as truth. Hopefully, they can quantify all their claims mathematically, not just by reasoning or conjectures.
[They are like religious fanatics, trying to persuade themselves and others that God does not exist, physically or even in the imagination.]
The reason most of us aren't convinced is because there has yet to be any convincing evidence of the existence of god.
[Science is evolving, if science is only the tool to search for truth, then let the freethinkers might as well used Science for their search. But as we know, science and even laws in science, are not absolute. So, if you are freethinkers, being abide by the laws of science, being a believer of God non-existence is such a sheer hypocrisy.]
Except that science has yet to prove god's existence. And as far as hypocrisy is concerned, that is a title I'd prefer to level at creationists, IDers, and apologists – they resort to distorting scientific studies and twisting data to suit their assertion that there is some divine intervention necessary for natural phenomena to work.
[Well, science no longer holds the truth. What else men should lean to, other than their faith? Faith of what? Faith to God, faith through their experience, not by reason or by science. The best thing a freethinker do is to refute science but provide tests; to refute the experiences of God believers but provide their own experiences are opposite; to refute that information lurking the world are not true but provide fresh ideas and information to hold as truth. Hopefully, they can quantify all their claims mathematically, not just by reasoning or conjectures.]
Let me get this straight – you were holding up the scientific method as something to abide by as far as evidence is concerned, and then you're going to tell us that it is no longer the truth, and that we should leave it to faith.
Seems to me that the one here resorting to a heap load of conjecture is you.
>>wayno says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:37 am (Edit)
What freethinkers goal was pronounced on their search for truth. But truth is not absolute, if ever there is an absolute truth.<<
This claim came out of no where and is an assumption. The claimant has yet to provide an explanation as to why: Truth is not Absolute or Absolute.
2nd, not all freethinkers are after truth. I'm for a more honest or accountable version of information. If knowledge is processed by people and derived by people, then I want the one which has the greatest markers of sincerity, transparency and the ability for me to check for myself.
>> Even the well established laws of physics have been refuted and new ideas have emerged due to persistent discovery and experiments. <<
Physics is NOT the Scientific Method. It is the Scientific Method that DEBUNKS old theories and developed new ones. You are not disproving the Scientific methods but Just pointed out how ACCOUNTABLE knowledge is under scientific method. If there is something wrong, people change it. To believe in a world that Nobody Can ever be wrong is a delusion left only to those who believe in Dogma, Religion and Infallibility.
>>Atheists are people who are not freethinkers. They are like religious fanatics, trying to persuade themselves and others that God does not exist, physically or even in the imagination. Science is evolving, if science is only the tool to search for truth, then let the freethinkers might as well used Science for their search.<<
??? You came to this conclusion based on your erroneous assumptions that have been disloged. If you work with accountable information, now that its been corrected you would change your Conclusion based on the Logic Presented.
As for the Equal to Religious Fantatics, this means you have only Cursory Glance and Religious Hearsays of Hitler, Communist Revolutionaries and Ideology You need to read the material further. This Old tactic/association is easily debunked if you learn the difference of Ideology and the Scientific Method.
An ideology is an Idea that cannot be held accountable or criticized. Those who you equate with Religious Fantatics were Ideologists, and did their killings in the name of (in the case of Hitler GOD and Nation), In the Case of Communist Revolutionaries: Communism.
>> But as we know, science and even laws in science, are not absolute. So, if you are freethinkers, being abide by the laws of science, being a believer of God non-existence is such a sheer hypocrisy. Well, science no longer holds the truth. What else men should lean to, other than their faith? Faith of what? Faith to God, faith through their experience, not by reason or by science.<<
Again Faith and Unaccountable Information. Or Ideas that Cannot be corrected by means of research, understanding, logic, observation, criticism etc.
>> The best thing a freethinker do is to refute science but provide tests; to refute the experiences of God believers but provide their own experiences are opposite; to refute that information lurking the world are not true but provide fresh ideas and information to hold as truth. Hopefully, they can quantify all their claims mathematically, not just by reasoning or conjectures.<<
As of Now I cannot see GOD, to Prove what it is Plain is on the Burden of Proof is in those who assert there is more to the world than what is plainly visible. This is what Galileo and Many scientists have done before we had equipment to experience more of their discoveries.
A free thinker is someone who doesn't let Unaccountable Information influence him in the way they live their lives. They don't take it at Face Value or find comfort in Old untested Ideas. In your case, your a free thinker if you are able to list down your assumptions and test them out, reading the science or the arguments about it. Also as a free thinker, you become more aware of the different perspectives of people and the assumptions they work with. That awareness makes you more specific in the notions you convey, and more open to the possible notions people could be meaning when they say something.
As for Mathematically NO GOD, Stephen Hawking does his worth Through Math. When He says "there is no need for God in the universe", he did so Through Math (very very complex Math).
Humility is a trait, quality of man that manifest when man recognizes that he is not the best, the most intelligent, the most righteous, the most wealthy. Humility says someone is better than me. But this is not a manifestation of inferiority complex, as inferiority is a product of culture, history, social and other factors. Humility is telling to yourself, you know self, you are intelligent, you are rich but you must understand, somewhere out there, someone is more intelligent and wealthier than you, but this does not mean, self, that your worth as a being is lower than anybody else, because you esteemed yourself, but never beyond to conduct superiority to others.
Both these FREETHINKERS and DEVOUT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are not humble individuals; they are both ARROGANT. How come? Humility, never says to try to defend your self, go fight, go argue. Humble people never argue, never flaunt their intellectual prowess or their moral aptitude to others.
Humility based on reason? Well, the only reason why atheist and clergy have humility is by acknowledging that their belief system is not the absolute truth. That is humility.
Humility based on faith? Both atheist and clergy have faith, faith that their belief system is the absolute truth, but have faith too that whichever belief system is the truth; it is their own will to conduct themselves to be good and true to others. That is humility.
If God is there or is not out there, non-existent, your intelligence never dictated your values, the quality you would want to have. Godly people, it is not your belief in God's existence that made you humble, the reason is that you never know God personally. What makes you humble is the fact that you fear God even if you did not know him personally. It is fear that drives you to be humbled before God, and ironically, it also fear that made you arrogant before men.
Atheist humbleness is not because he believed God does not exist, but sees himself as insignificant little creature. His humility is a product of his mundane existence. The fact that he try to seek the truth, it always end as endless futile search. Ironically, his searching effort turned to be a precursor of arrogance and hatred.
First of all I never claimed that freethinkers are humble; it is REASON that is humble.
[wayno wrote: "Humility based on reason? Well, the only reason why atheist and clergy have humility is by acknowledging that their belief system is not the absolute truth."]
I disagree. The clergy are quite sure that their belief system IS the absolute truth. They are not supposed to doubt their doctrines.
[wayno wrote: "Both atheist and clergy have faith, faith that their belief system is the absolute truth..."]
Atheists do not have a belief system as far as gods are concerned.
With all this "Belief System" talk. I'd rather call it Information Accountability Standard.
When people mistake Trust with Faith, it is easier to just call the way I process things Info Accountability Standard.
I only take information that is accountable, and can be further tested and checked. I will trust the information in so far as I am able to account for the level of certainty. That means I still have some reservations and doubts, but at a level that is minuscule or irrelevant given the risk and options I may be acting on.
Belief System is too confusing especially when some people Use Trust and Faith interchangeably. Information Accountability, by what I currently know is much more specific to what key difference trust is with Faith (as Trust does can depend on rational, while Faith needs no rational or basis).
I know it sounds more pedantry, but its an Assumption Speed Bump. The effect is for "whoa what the heck does that mean?" Simplified it is Trust, but underlying the act of ONLY taking information based on a rational.
A BIG hurdle in explaining the scientific process is not based on FAITH, but on Trust/Information Accountability.
As for Religious Clergy and their Faith, well I think Crusades, Inquisitions, Anti-semitic/Gay/Racial persecution, Sexual Abuse/Harassment, Torture are made with the same decision making process then and now. I don't think the information or ideas have any sort of Accountability. I mean God is supposed to make Clergy Accountable, but given what they've gotten away with and they continue to get away with, I don't think you can put them in the same league as scientists.
How many evil priests have been Struck down by God? I mean I hear stories of Mobs, citizens, and governments making clergy accountable… BUT GOD? I mean looking at Sexual Abuse statistics and rate of successful prosecution, where is God there? Heck where was the Pope?!
You're raising a strawman, wayno.
Being a freethinker is not about being "right." To my understanding, it is being about receptive to new ideas and concepts. And if need be, it means being willing to change one's word views when they're exposed to hard evidence that is contrary to their opinion.
[Well, the only reason why atheist and clergy have humility is by acknowledging that their belief system is not the absolute truth. That is humility.]
And once again another strawman. Most of the atheists I have met don't completely believe that there is no god; The problem is that theists that have tried to convince them otherwise have yet to provide any hard evidence.
I have yet to be told by an atheist that they believe that their belief is THE absolute truth, which is more than I can say for priests, pastors, and other men in silly robes that have threatened me with their own version of hellfire for not believing THEIR concept of the true path to God.
[Atheist humbleness is not because he believed God does not exist, but sees himself as insignificant little creature. His humility is a product of his mundane existence. The fact that he try to seek the truth, it always end as endless futile search. Ironically, his searching effort turned to be a precursor of arrogance and hatred.]
Sweeping generalizations are also a precursor for arrogance and hatred. What makes you think that all atheists and skeptics have such a nihilistic worldview?
wayno, i agree!
the person who claims to be humble is proud! i forgot the name of the author who wrote that humility is either the timidity of the weak or the pretention of the strong.
may isa pang humihirit dun, tampo naman agad si Sliver of Silver. of course you're a genuis too.
hey schopa, missed you at the meet up last saturday. everyone was invited you know, including trolls. what's the matter, afraid to voice out your opinions up front, to be dissected by us "geniuses"?
why u want me there badly? boring ba pag walang contra-bida? ang BOBOring kasi ng mga genuis and nerds!
"Genuis"?
"why u want me there badly?"
Coz you obviously have *sooo* much to contribute. I'm dyin' to see of there's any sense that can come out of a troll.
you're not my type, sliver, you are too sexy for me.
On the thread http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/09/07/there-…
you say, "keep attacking, i love it, especially you sliver, i’m all yours, i want to be attacked by a smart ass woman"
but now i'm not your type? Even in your insults, you backpedal. What a dumbfuck.
Keep trying, troll.
It's a troll. Asking them to be consistent with their ramblings is like asking a chimpanzee to write a Shakespeare.
yes twin, that's very true. as i see it, those who ask the chimp to write a shakespeare are actually more stupid than the chimp.
innerminds and twinskies are genuises!!!
they are the heroes of "freethinker"
they are the defenders of "freethought"(whatever they mean by that dubious term) almost like the apologetics to the catholic faith.
they are intelligent, very rational and mature (see how they argue)
they are infallible; they commit no mistakes you might mistake them for gods.
I never made claims to being infallible.
In fact, if you will actually go through the trouble of checking some of my previous comments, I have had my ass handed to me on more than one time because I got careless, or I did shitty research. The other members called out shortsightedness, and did not hesitate to ream me a new asshole for it. I am thankful for that.
You're the only one who seems to think that "I" think I'm perfect, and it reflects far more on your poor reasoning and overinflated ego.
never did i say you claim to be infallible. it was i who made that claim!
so it was only the "infallible" you want to contest? how about the "inteeligent, rational and mature"?
so aminado ka na "genius" ka nga? haha
idol!!!
Oh fine, I'll play along.
Bow to my overwhelming delusions of grandeur, peon!
We're not worthy! We're not worthy!
Seriously, stop teasing the middle-aged-man-who's-acting-like-a-10-year-old. Maybe it's a midlife crisis thing.
[schopenhauer wrote: they are the defenders of “freethought”(whatever they mean by that dubious term)]
Had you used a fraction of the time you spend for trolling this site to google "freethought" you would have found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
noted, genuis! you're so smart…
-they are infallible; they commit no mistakes you might mistake them for gods.- Schopenhauer
Please Cite evidence of this. If you cannot then you are lying. Other than Innerminds and Twinskies being geniuses, I'm inclined to agree given their body of work which are available to anyone who would care to look.
But I implore you sir to please cite examples, links, and evidence to your claims. As for Claiming that they are Infallible I would like you to at least Cut and Paste where that comes from, otherwise I accuse you of spreading False and baseless accusations. If you fail to bring up evidence and reference for you exaggerated claims, consider your credibility forfeit.
If you care to add me to your baseless attacks, I am very honored to be part of it. I am very interested in sharing the juxtaposition of credibility you have so very well illustrated in this discussion, under-estimating the audience doesn't have the basic skills to follow up on any extraordinary claims.
JUSTIN: "If you care to add me to your baseless attacks, I am very honored to be part of it."
______
ah, justin, you want me to say you are genuis too? okay…
JUSTIN AQUINO IS GENIUS!
happy?
—–
about the "infallible"… duh? why so serious?
about the "credibility"… there are things i can live without. everything is relative, anyway.
>>schopenhauer says:
September 6, 2010 at 2:08 pm (Edit)
JUSTIN: “If you care to add me to your baseless attacks, I am very honored to be part of it.”
______
ah, justin, you want me to say you are genuis too? okay…
JUSTIN AQUINO IS GENIUS!
happy?
—–
about the “infallible”… duh? why so serious?
about the “credibility”… there are things i can live without. everything is relative, anyway.<<
So you admit it is an Attack. thanks.
thank you, inner.. the devil will bless you for that deed.
that's a stupid idea, inner.. you really should change your name to stupidmind
If you can't even support your ad hominem attacks with anything that resembles a logical argument – if all you can do is keep on saying 'stupid' – then you're not worth my time, stupid. And before I forget – you're a big hypocrite. Take a look at how you introduced yourself in the forum <a href="http://(http://www.filipinofreethinkers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1219):” target=”_blank”>(http://www.filipinofreethinkers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1219):
hi i'm schopenhauer, just passing by…
i'm filipino, middle-aged, male.
i like philosophy. my idol is nietzsche.
i'm neither a theist nor an atheist. nor am i an agnostic.
i think it doesn't matter whether god exist or not, and how greatly you argue for or against it…
what matters is how well you live your life.
* * * * *
So you don't care whether god exists or not because what matters to you is how well one lives his/her life. Wow! Take a look at how you're living your life right now – trolling freethought sites. Now that is really stupid, especially for a middle-aged hypocrite.
innerminds, why not change your name to stupidmind. that'd be more appropriate.
twin, i'm not taking sides between reason and faith. i just think it is useless, unhealthy, insane to praise one at the expense of scorning the other.
@schopenhauer: I think what would be more appropriate is for you to change your name to "Middle-aged-guy-who-claims-not-to-care-about-whether-or-not-god-exists-but-spends-his-time-trolling-freethought-sites". You can use "Hypocrite" as your nickname.
@schopenhauer
I'd take sound thinking over superstitious rubbish any day, thank you.
And while we're on the subject of name-change suggestions, you may want to try "Backpfeifengesicht"
inner, in the forum you asked me:
"And why is the term 'apatheism' unnecessary?"
tell the forum administrator to unblock me from posting and i shall gladly reply.
the admin seems to be a non-believer not only in god but also in due process.. how tolerant you "freethinkers" are of dissenters.
Done.
http://www.filipinofreethinkers.org/forum/viewtop…
There is no change in his status, there were no notes or actions taken by any of the admins. I don't know why its being blocked, I will alert the more tech savy admins.
@schopenhauer Were you banned or blocked. I'm the only active admin lately, and the last time I did admin action was split the Circumcision thread which can be found in forum admin history of actions. If it is being blocked, (not banned) it could be you are using a spammer compromised IP.
speaking of ad hominem… what did you just do?
and hypocrisy. how can i support, you blocked me from posting… you stupid coward!
At least I can support my ad hominem attacks with evidence, you bumbling hypocrite. Come to think of it, I remember reading somewhere that it isn't really ad hominem if it's true. And by the way, I'm not an admin in the forum so I have no authority to block anyone there. So you calling me "stupid coward" is yet another example of ad hominem based on faulty assumptions. And that gives me the right to call you stupid.
still ad hominem. still worthless.. still stupid!
and coward
Hahaha! I have another "ad hominem" word to call you: inarticulate. Are you sure you're middle aged? A lot of kids in their early 20s can give better arguments than your sorry inarticulate name calling. You're not even half the troll you think you are.
Actually, no. I do NOT think that EVERYONE else is inferior. Just you.
hahaha, intellectual arrogance! you seem to think of yourself as too "intellectual" that everyone else is inferior. a bad case of bloated ego.
You're talking about false positives http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#False_pos…
[Calling someone an idiot when you have explained the evidence five times and they still refuse to address it, or provide counterexamples, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a statement of fact.
Similarly, tacking an insult onto the end of any argument might be bad form, but it doesn't automatically make it an ad hominem. It's only an ad hominem if you say the other person must be wrong because they are an idiot - not the other way round.]
And on that note, schopenhauer,
You're a rambling gobshite.
i don't know what it is. i'm too idiot for you intellectual god!!! can you please explain?
Block you in the blog, or the forums?
Either way you're not making any sense, since you're free to comment on the forums (AFAIK).
And if you were unable to comment here on the blogs, I'd be one of the first to know since I would be the one performing said Exterminatus.
do you think it's sane to pit reason against faith? by which standard would you judge which is better? by reason's?
I never said that one is better than the other – only that one is humble while the other is proud. You really should read and understand an article before spewing out impertinent comments like that. It'll save you from looking like an idiot.
By whichever works of course. Reason has done far more to progress human society more than a belief in an imaginary friend in the sky, imho.
Tell me the last time praying got us to the moon, fought back cancer, or cured smallpox.
Perhaps we can proceed with a common topic here which I think your are more adept and really invoke critical reading– the problem of evil.
——————–
From the thread:
//May I also ask you what made you say that the Christian God is highly improbable?//
Your response: Three words: Problem of Evil.
———————
I reserve the question of how highly improbable is God's existence. But focus more on the problem of evil. Based on the quoted thread above, I think you must explain the relationship of problem of evil with God's existence.
I've written about the Problem of Evil here:
http://innerminds.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/proble… (By the way, I wrote this article back when I still considered myself a Christian.)
and here: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/01/10/purpos…
and here: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/03/07/if-the…
and here: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/04/08/the-ba…
I thought that you're ready to engage in a serious dialogue and I intentionally selected the problem of evil because I was thinking that you have keen interest of its subject matter.
I will visit your write ups later. But I rather hear your arguments here in the science vs. religion thread of yours. I would be glad if you open a dialogue here perhaps for you to see that religious people can use reason too in discussing matters of importance. I promise you that I will note use any "dogma" (whatever this term means in this forum) here. I let you open the line so that I will not be accused of "imposing" the Christian dogma here.
FYI, I too believe that when it comes to reason, there are some unresolved problematics in the discourse of god and the problem of evil.
Note: Are your opinions in the said thread about the problem of evil still hold true considering that you're now a non-deist? [In case you refused to have a respectful dialogue here, I will visit your thread].
//I thought that you’re ready to engage in a serious dialogue and I intentionally selected the problem of evil because I was thinking that you have keen interest of its subject matter. I will visit your write ups later. But I rather hear your arguments here in the science vs. religion thread of yours. I would be glad if you open a dialogue here perhaps for you to see that religious people can use reason too in discussing matters of importance. I promise you that I will note use any “dogma” (whatever this term means in this forum) here. I let you open the line so that I will not be accused of “imposing” the Christian dogma here.//
You asked me to explain the relationship of the problem of evil with God’s existence, and since I've already written them elsewhere, I don't see any point in writing my arguments all over again. I am very much ready and willing to engage in a serious dialogue – I'm just waiting for your questions. That's why I am asking you if you have specific questions and I will answer them as honestly and as directly as I can.
//Are your opinions in the said thread about the problem of evil still hold true considering that you’re now a non-deist?//
Yes.
//In case you refused to have a respectful dialogue here, I will visit your thread//.
We can have a diaglogue here, but you have to state your contentions first since I've already stated mine in those articles whose links I've posted. Otherwise, you may answer or counter my points in those articles mentioned.
I think I already make the outline, based on the comment of this thread:
//May I also ask you what made you say that the Christian God is highly improbable?//
(Your response) Three words: Problem of Evil.
Then, I ask you to explain WHY. Why does the problem of evil made you say that the Christian God is highly improbably?
And then I replied that I already wrote down my arguments about the Problem of Evil and the improbability of the omnipotent and benevolent God in a few other articles and I find no point in writing them all over again here. So if you want to comment or counter my arguments, please do so in those articles I posted. Thank you.
@ nomadic gadfly – chill!
i suggest that you bring your contention in the forum so you can get the debate you want for yourself. 
perhaps others might also be interested and willing to participate. from there, we can all drive our points and learn from one another. by the way, i am excited to see how you use reason in defending your faith. i think you have to start the discussion in a more appropriate venue – in the FF forum. (http://filipinofreethinkers.org/forum-link/)
This thread talks about the humility of reason and the arrogance of faith. I still have to see a faith imposing itself to reason, as if reason can be totally imprisoned by any belief, religious or non-religious. If I ask the thread starter for a respectful dialogue, I am not engaging in a debate here. If you notice, I'm more concern in clarifying ideas and challenging unfounded accusations than engaging in the so-called dogma imposition. [A side note: If you're a blog reader of Christian apologetics, you will also find me there challenging their positions which I think bias and unreasonable.]
For example, the TS accusation of the bible as "full of hearsays and circular reasoning" is a clear example of name-calling. This fallacy of name-calling is a common mistake among first year college students. Instead of assessing on the basis of reason the strength and weakness of an idea/argument, they simply call the idea/argument ridiculous or absurd without any further explanation. [see Eric Reitan]
In addition, how could he critically assess the bible without using biblical exegesis which is an accepted tool of biblical studies in modern times — by both believing and non-believing biblical scholars? If ever he read this criticism from a biblical scholar, a man of science and reason will not naively accept it as certain without consulting the works of other scholars, or better still, personally verified its certainty or uncertainty.
Yes, you can cite works of the specialists but you have to reason yourself. Critical thinking demands that you do not simply accept what professor A is saying, you have to consult other experts' opinions and then make your judgment.
It is amusing to see people claiming themselves as "men of science, logic and reason" but fall short of the basic demands of science, logic and reason.
Since the TS refused the biblical exegesis as the science of biblical interpretation, than I suggest that the topic has no reason to proceed.
Instead, I suggest that we engage in a topic which for sure he is more comfortable and most problematic among believers — the problem of evil. Thinking that he will not resort to name-calling or disrespectful of an academic discipline.
This is the context where I insist that the dialogue will be held in this thread. Of course, I know well that there is a forum for certain topics, especially that the topic I selected is popular.
["For example, the TS accusation of the bible as “full of hearsays and circular reasoning” is a clear example of name-calling. This fallacy of name-calling is a common mistake among first year college students. Instead of assessing on the basis of reason the strength and weakness of an idea/argument, they simply call the idea/argument ridiculous or absurd without any further explanation."]
@ nomadic gadfly –
For the record, you are the one pointing finger here. You cannot simply assume that anyone who has issues on your claim has no knowledge of your Bible/Church considering the personal histories of freethinkers who used to be hardcore Catholics/protestants, Bible readers and preachers and listeners. One cannot contradict what one does not know of in the first place. In fact, my parent’s house has a library of Catholic/Christian works/books (from ancient history up to almanacs and geology including those commentaries of popular bible scholars) where I used to work on my Bible lectures every week. So I need not further elaborate my point that I know the Bible. 
`
So, if you insist on a dialogue, I suggest you start bringing down your issues on the Problem of Evil now. Innerminds has explained in his other articles (the links of which he posted) why the Bible is full of hearsay and circular reasoning. It is a well-settled rule that “whoever alleges that the contention of another is wrong has the burden of proof to rule otherwise.” Well, I am excited to see how you use your reason since you think we fell short on it
I might learn from you. After all, arrogance is not my cup of tea. 
I hope, a passage from John Galt's speech would help.
"Do not say that you’re afraid to trust your mind because you know so little. Are you safer in surrendering to mystics and discarding the little that you know? Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life. Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible—that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error."
On Faith
Religion is a matter of faith. Faith designates blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof. Faith refers to belief of something which you fear because you do not understand it, and outcome of man's indolence to think rationally.
This is rather a long reading thread and there are a lot of things to comment on the variety of topics in thread discussion. I focus my comment on the main idea of the thread.
The writer claims to be a man of reason but failed to sustain his own reasoning. Take note of the ff:
(1) when asked about the quotation ["(r)eason is humble… Yet faith,... makes people believe that they can be certain about things they actually know nothing about"]he said: "I must emphasize that it was Percier who wrote that and I just quoted him in my article." But that's precisely what he argued in his article, that is, reason is "humble" and faith is "proud".
(2) he defined humility as “a lack of FALSE pride. Aggressively promoting one’s position or beliefs is hardly false pride as long as one opens his or her eyes to the opponent’s point of view." Aggressive promotions of one's opinion/belief is generally acceptable. Indeed, one must be passionate! The problem lies in the mental attitude of insisting one's worldview as the only true and normative way of thinking and doing.
(3)The writer says, "(w)hile theists may appear humble before their God, they are actually quite contemptuous towards people who do not share their beliefs." We don't deny that there are believers who have extreme contempt for those who do not share on their beliefs (not necessarily limited to non-believers, but includes believers of different churches/religions having contradicting claims.), but this can be said as well to atheist freethinkers who are contemptuous to religious people. It has something to do with the intellectual arrogance of the dogmatic minds, religious or non-religious.
(1) If you look at the previous comment, you will notice that Reynor attributed the quote to me:
“Reason is humble…Yet faith, that archenemy of reason, makes people believe that they can be certain about things they actually know nothing about.” -innerminds
So I simply gave proper credits to Percier. Reynor then proceeded to ask a question about that quote:
"It is like saying that science is the enemy of philosophy because science could not come up with an algebraic expression that will help me determine the purpose of my life. The premise is wrong from the very beginning."
Which I answered in my own words:
"No it’s not. Science and philosophy do not tackle the same questions; science tries to answer the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ while philosophy tries to answer the ‘why’. And science never claimed to be able to give answers about the purpose of our lives – science acknowledges that this is already in the realm of philosophy. Religion, on the other hand, tries to impose its own answers to the same questions being asked by science such as how we all got here."
(2) Agreed. That's exactly what I was saying.
(3) Also agreed. What I described as humble, however, is reason per se, and not necessarily the rational people.
Yes, the insertion of the your name after the quote is a misplaced. While it's true that your thread embraced Percier assessment, I still think that you must defend your ground. This demarcation of faith and reason is a tragedy (more tragic when making it an either-or; x is true, therefore, y is false).
While you accepted the difference between science and philosophy, I wonder why can't you distinguish the realm of science and the realm of religion.
The issue of the origin of human beings is not a dogma in the Catholic tradition. The Genesis account (in fact, there are two accounts in the Bible) on "how we all got here" does not claim to be a purely an historical event but more of a religious explanation of man's intimate relationship with God. This is different from claim of the creationists.
If you're truly searching for the truth, I suggest that you take some lessons on biblical exegesis, or read the commentaries of biblical scholars who scientifically study this particular text. You will be surprise to know that religion is not imposing its interpretation on the origin of man.
Btw, science and religion are NOT asking the same question here. One is concern with the evolution of human life, while the other is more concern with the relatedness of human life to his creator.
The Bible tells the Christian believer that God created all living things, , plants and animals, but tells us nothing about HOW He created them. Science can help us understand this how.
//While it’s true that your thread embraced Percier assessment, I still think that you must defend your ground.//
Tell me, Nomadic Gadfly, was there a question from Reynor or any other commenter that I refused to answer or to which I simply replied that it was Percier who said that?
//While you accepted the difference between science and philosophy, I wonder why can’t you distinguish the realm of science and the realm of religion.//
Was there a comment/question where I was asked to distinguish between the realm of science and the realm of religion? Reynor's question was only about science and philosophy and I believe I answered that.
//The issue of the origin of human beings is not a dogma in the Catholic tradition. The Genesis account (in fact, there are two accounts in the Bible) on “how we all got here” does not claim to be a purely an historical event but more of a religious explanation of man’s intimate relationship with God. This is different from claim of the creationists.//
Did I specifically mention Catholic dogma in relation to creation? I merely said that "Religion, on the other hand, tries to impose its own answers to the same questions being asked by science such as how we all got here." You might want to read my previous comments again.
//If you’re truly searching for the truth, I suggest that you take some lessons on biblical exegesis, or read the commentaries of biblical scholars who scientifically study this particular text.//
I am a freethinker. I believe that truth can be found through science, logic, and reason. As such, it would be hypocritical of me to study exegeses and commentaries on a book which is full of hearsay and circular reasoning.
//You will be surprise to know that religion is not imposing its interpretation on the origin of man. Btw, science and religion are NOT asking the same question here. One is concern with the evolution of human life, while the other is more concern with the relatedness of human life to his creator.//
Evolutionary scientists say that man slowly evolved from more primitive ancestors over millions of years. Genesis 2:7, on the other hand, says, "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Aren't those two different answers to the same question on man's origin?
//The Bible tells the Christian believer that God created all living things, , plants and animals, but tells us nothing about HOW He created them. Science can help us understand this how.//
Actually, the HOW that science postulates negates the need for an Intelligent Designer.
Not because you replied to the questions you are now holding your ground reasonably. For example, if you read your reply to Reynor about the “how” of science and the “why” of philosophy, you’re now delimiting the truth statement of science – meaning, that science can only answer to questions regarding the “hows” of things; that it cannot answer the “whys” of life. The implication of this distinction is that science, while can issue truth-statement about how life come into existence, it cannot provide truth-statement about why there is life.
Now, here is the problem. In your next argument you said, “(r)eligion, on the other hand, tries to impose its own answers to the same questions being asked by science such as how we all got here.” Here you placed religion and science in the same category like student A and student B answering the same question of the origin of human life. This is an error of perspective: (a) Science is concern with the how: How does human life begin? Here you will take note of the scientific speculations of the gradual evolution of life based on chemical and physical properties of matter. Before DNA, there was an RNA speculation. And (b) Religion is concern with man’s relationship with God. Here are some of its implications: (i) God created man from the dust of the earth and to earth shall all humans return. (ii) No humans have dominion over other humans for all are equally formed from the same earth. (iii) Humans are created in the image and likeness of God. Although earth in origin, humans received God’s breathe, that is, humans are intimately related to God and so special that he is entrusted with God’s creation (in a deeper theological sense, God enters into his creation through the human beings).
You rightly quoted Gen 2.7 but interpreted it in a fundamentalistic way, that is, literal interpretation. Since you already rejected biblical exegesis as a science of biblical interpretation, then there is no need for me to explain because no productive dialogue for a closed mindset. And I see no practical reason in engaging such a useless endeavor.
My problem is not about your outright rejection, but your unfounded bias against anything religious. A real man of science, logic and reason as you claimed you are does not simply reject hypothesis without detailed examination.
Your accusation of the Bible as “full of hearsay and circular reasoning” is born out of ignorance of the Bible itself. Or maybe you heard it from other people but not personally studied and verified it. If you verified it and simply interpret the text in its literal sense, then your method is wrong. A man of logic and reason will provide in-depth analysis of the text before making his judgment. How can you effectively analyze the text without the tools of biblical exegesis? How can you easily dismiss the Bible as “full of hearsays and circular reasoning” without studying it, In so doing, you are far from being a man of science, of logic and of reason. Walk the talk.
//Since you already rejected biblical exegesis as a science of biblical interpretation, then there is no need for me to explain because no productive dialogue for a closed mindset. And I see no practical reason in engaging such a useless endeavor.//
Agreed.
//My problem is not about your outright rejection, but your unfounded bias against anything religious. A real man of science, logic and reason as you claimed you are does not simply reject hypothesis without detailed examination.
Your accusation of the Bible as “full of hearsay and circular reasoning” is born out of ignorance of the Bible itself. Or maybe you heard it from other people but not personally studied and verified it. If you verified it and simply interpret the text in its literal sense, then your method is wrong. A man of logic and reason will provide in-depth analysis of the text before making his judgment. How can you effectively analyze the text without the tools of biblical exegesis? How can you easily dismiss the Bible as “full of hearsays and circular reasoning” without studying it, In so doing, you are far from being a man of science, of logic and of reason. Walk the talk.//
It's not the Biblical text per se, but the Bible's authenticity – or lack thereof – as the true Word of God that I have a problem with. I've written about that before when I still considered myself a deist: http://innerminds.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/word-o…
and I just wrote another post today: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/07/17/a-form… (it's a rather long post but my discussion about the Bible's authenticity can be found in the 9th paragraph).
Faith is for the theists, and reason for the atheists. How about the agnostics – who always say, “I can’t prove these claims are true, but you can’t prove they are false, so the only proper conclusion is: I don’t know; no one knows; no one can know one way or the other.” You see, there are two sides of the issue; one is right and the other is false, but it is the middle that is evil.
To the agnostics, take side.
Faith is non-negotiable – where is the humbleness in that?
Humility can be the acknowledgment that one can possibly be wrong through thoughtful reasoning. Lack of humility is the acceptance of a "fact" through blind faith, and enforcing this "fact" on to others, scaring them into believing in such an idea, that to dissent is to suffer the consequences of hell.
How arrogant is that?
I've been fortunate enough to have grown up in my mother's side of the family where it's a mix of agnostics, atheists, wiccans, catholics and christians. We all got along and we were free to think for ourselves. This is rare in Filipino culture where most are indoctrinated with the idea of Jesus as the ONE. I did try out Catholicism and Christianity, and bolted out the door as soon as I could.
I do believe in some teachings of Christianity: love, generosity, turning the other cheek–you know–the good stuff. I actually consider myself "Christian" in how I treat others–more so than those who claim to be one in many cases.
But nah. I'd rather classify myself as atheistic agnostic–if one were to label one's self. To have the ability to think for one's self without following blindly, without worshiping blindly, is freeing.
"To have the ability to think for one’s self without following blindly, without worshiping blindly, is freeing."
The Catholic Church is not enforcing blind devotion. If so, then priests are not required to preach, since they do not have to express their reasons.
OK. Thanks for letting me pass by here, sir. Many things became clearer.
The pleasure is ours, Tradcath. Please visit our site as often as you can because we have other articles that are not all about religion. We sincerely appreciate your very professional comments. Just because we have a difference in beliefs doesn't mean we can't be civilized to one another.
Thanks.:)
@wildman…or jungle boy, oh you intimidate me..
"The source for whatever is being claimed by a person must be a credible source. What people must do is test a claim if it has some truth to it. Christians use the Bible as their source for the truth about God. They believe because it is in the Bible. Now we have to ask if the Bible really is the word of God or just some book written by ordinary people thousands of years ago."
I agree to your point. But it will also lead to more doubts on history. If we have to question the Bible, we should also doubt if Dr. Jose Rizal was really killed by gunfire, if Marcos really tolerated police brutality, or if Aguinaldo was really our first president, since only papers represent the evidence of these events.
"What is god doing about our lives? If there is no evidence that he is here then he is doing nothing. It’s only his Pope and the priests who act for him."
Hahaha! OK I admit it. It's really hard to convince atheists. But that doesn't change the truth that believing in God is more applicable to our living.
@innerminds
"Whose existence have yet to be proved"
Ok… I'm enough of it…
"Not so fast. Just because we can’t prove the non-existence of something does not automatically mean that it must exist. I can’t prove the non-existence of fairies but it doesn’t mean that they must exist."
I just want to point out that it's better to believe in God since there is more arguments on His existence that the contrary.
"No intellectual person denies the existence of Antarctica. Can you say the same for the existence of God?"
Oh yes you have a point. I'm convinced that reason isn't enough to prove God.
//So does that mean that there is also not enough evidence to deny God?//
"Yes."
So faith claims there is God and reason remains neutral, that is, it does not prove nor deny the existence of God. So they are NEVER contrary to each other.
@tradcath
"Re: Intimidation" – Maybe because I put the idea in your mind.
"I agree to your point. But it will also lead to more doubts on history…."
That's true. I can tell you that I am a person who doubts everything and that is not a great way to live your life. There are people who trust and people who doubt. I'm full of distrust for others. When I was younger I even thought that Jose Rizal might not even have been a good person.
"I just want to point out that it’s better to believe in God since there is more arguments on His existence that the contrary."
Your arguments do make sense.
Sometimes I just like to contradict people just to make it hard for them. Again, because of my distrust for people.
"That’s true. I can tell you that I am a person who doubts everything and that is not a great way to live your life. There are people who trust and people who doubt. I’m full of distrust for others. When I was younger I even thought that Jose Rizal might not even have been a good person."
Oh yes, that's clear. I just want to add that atheism and lack of faith is the very source of dehumanization and demoralization. Maybe it's good to doubt sometimes, but mostly it corrupts the essence of life and of course the soul.
"When I was younger I even thought that Jose Rizal might not even have been a good person."
Actually when I was younger I respected Jose Rizal. But soon I discovered that he was a Freemason. If there are people who deserve our distrust they are the Freemasons and the Illuminati, they are worst of all men.
"Your arguments do make sense."
Thanks. So I hope you change your point of view soon.
Organized Religion is not my thing.
I see myself as a free spirit
Free spirit… as well as the word 'freethinkers'… It seems not to make any sense. Both imply that liberty in the end in itself. Oh no, it's not. Yes liberty and freethinking is innate to everyone, as well as love. We apply our freethinking when we use it to love something we want to subject into. The perfection of liberty is its use as the faculty to choose the authority which we believe is right and in which we must submit.
I disagree with you there.
If anything, it's dogma that dehumanizes and destroys. Whether it's political, religious, or otherwise I think that a fanatical attachment to an ideology is what leads to ruin.
As we say in the gaming and anime community – flaming fanboys/girls ruin it for everybody
This is most evident in fundamentalists and fanatics of every belief.
On that note, I believe that any belief that orders me to irrationally hurt, kill, or discriminate against my fellow man just because of a difference in their sexual orientation or personal opinion should not be taken seriously.
"“On that note, I believe that any belief that orders me to irrationally hurt, kill, or discriminate against my fellow man just because of a difference in their sexual orientation or personal opinion should not be taken seriously.”"
*Ahem*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Report
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23…
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,151…
…among other things.
"And for the problem of the Inquisition and burning of condemned people at the stake, I think the victims are only those who were proven believing in the Supernatural Truth, but seek to deny it, e.g. believing that both a good God and the Devil exists, but rather worshiping the evil one. I’m referring to the Masons and Illuminati."
In the end, they DID endorse the killing of people who didn't agree with them, didn't they?
Let me be frank here – you do not get to wash the hands of an institution that has, among other things, jailed intellectuals, demonizes its opponents, and jails
As for my gaming fanboy resident. You missed my point. By a very large margin. My point is that fanboys ruin it for everybody, period.
And by fanboys I mean fanatics, those that honestly think that anybody who does not bow to the same brand of dogma as they do are evil, and hence must either be converted, or killed.
"It’s the other people who persecute us."
Calling out a self-righteous institution's wrongs, and exposing their long-standing traditions of hiding sex offenders is not "persecution." It's called speaking the truth and the reality of the situation. It's called calling out bullshit.
Persecution is telling gays in a loving, long-term relationship with their partners that they cannot enjoy the same benefits of a straight couple for no other reason than that they're gay.
Persecution is firing a teacher just because she's an atheist, or because she doesn't fit the church's moral ideal, and not because of a real offense at the school she teaches.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/06/10/more-teache…
In short, it's not the church that's being persecuted. The Vatican is simply invoking the WAAAmbulance because people have finally gotten tired of their dogma, and are beginning to speak up.
When
"we never promoted killing nor discrimination."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/ar…
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL3016839520071…
These are among the more recent news items I remember.
As for me it's the unity in the 'right' and 'universal' belief that makes the people grow. On your example concerning game fanatics, of course it's ruinous since it's inapplicable to everyone, e.g. old men with poor eyesight, those who cannot understand the language associated with the game, those who cannot afford miscellaneous requirements like spending for a personal computer, etc.
Civil laws are also in the form of dogma. If traffic rules doesn't exist, can you still tell me that this kind of authorization destroys?
"On that note, I believe that any belief that orders me to irrationally hurt, kill, or discriminate against my fellow man just because of a difference in their sexual orientation or personal opinion should not be taken seriously."
As for the Roman Catholic Church, we never promoted killing nor discrimination. We always wanted everyone and anyone to be part of the brotherhood. It's the other people who persecute us. And for the problem of the Inquisition and burning of condemned people at the stake, I think the victims are only those who were proven believing in the Supernatural Truth, but seek to deny it, e.g. believing that both a good God and the Devil exists, but rather worshiping the evil one. I'm referring to the Masons and Illuminati.
I'm sorry, I haven't been used to the new order of my Church. What I've studied most is the Church before the Vatican Council II. And actually, I do not speak for the bishops and priests of this order. I am a Catholic Traditionalist, ie protestant to the new order.
//I just want to point out that it’s better to believe in God since there is more arguments on His existence that the contrary.//
Care to state you arguments for God's existence?
//So faith claims there is God and reason remains neutral, that is, it does not prove nor deny the existence of God. So they are NEVER contrary to each other.//
Yes they are. Faith claims there is a God. Reason says that God (the intervening Abrahamic God), whose existence may not be outright disproved, is highly improbable.
"Care to state you arguments for God’s existence?"
Oh… just read my previous statements again..
"Yes they are. Faith claims there is a God. Reason says that God (the intervening Abrahamic God), whose existence may not be outright disproved, is highly improbable."
May I also ask you what made you say that the Christian God is highly improbable?
Scientists always suggest that as long as a theory explains the mystery of a phenomenon, it must be accepted as true. But when we propose that the universe was created by God to explain our existence, they deny it and even detest it! Are they insane? And they even postulate a more absurd theory that the universe came from nothing. Came from nothing?! Is that possible?! Did such phenomenon ever happen on earth?!
I also want to add that Galilei, who is a FREEMASON and I believe is smarter and more reliable than two atheists combined, claims that THERE IS GOD, although of different concept.
By "previous statements" arguing for the existence of God, you mean these:
"According to logic, all that exist are product of creation, so there is a Creator (God)."
"All inventions are invented because someones made them. There is no cake if there is no baker."
You are using the first cause argument, which has at least two weak points: (1) The logic we use in our daily lives may not apply to the big bang singularity in which all the known laws of physics break down. (2) You're using this logic for everything EXCEPT God. That's special pleading.
//May I also ask you what made you say that the Christian God is highly improbable?//
Three words: Problem of Evil.
//Scientists always suggest that as long as a theory explains the mystery of a phenomenon, it must be accepted as true. But when we propose that the universe was created by God to explain our existence, they deny it and even detest it! Are they insane?//
That's because the 'proposal' that the universe was created by God is very far from being a scientific theory. In science, a theory must be testable and backed up by empirical data. By the way, science still does not have a theory about the origin of the universe. The big bang theory merely states that our whole universe was in a hot, dense state (called a singularity) then nearly 14 billion years ago expansion started – wait – "Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant."
//And they even postulate a more absurd theory that the universe came from nothing. Came from nothing?! Is that possible?! Did such phenomenon ever happen on earth?!//
First of all, that is NOT a scientific theory but merely a hypothesis because it is not testable but only based on the idea that the net energy of the universe is zero and so the entire cosmos could have been the result of quantum fluctuations (I've read somewhere that in quantum mechanics the law of conservation of energy could be circumvented or something).
I thought you atheists are against superstition? But if you're telling me that the universe came from nothing–hey, are you talking about David Copperfield's magic?
First of all, we are not all atheists. Second, I'm not telling you that the universe came from nothing but simply that it 'could' come from nothing if the zero-net-energy-quantum-fluctuation hypothesis is correct, of which I have no way of knowing for sure. I am also telling you that while I do not discount the possibility that the universe was created by an intelligent and powerful being, I am not ruling out other explanations for its origin as well. One of these explanations is that the universe did NOT begin to exist but rather has existed in some form or another throughout eternity.
"First of all, that is NOT a scientific theory but merely a hypothesis because it is not testable but only based on the idea that the net energy of the universe is zero and so the entire cosmos could have been the result of quantum fluctuations…"
So it is just a hypothesis… that makes it of less sense.
I think you're talking about the Higgs Boson.
"Examples please"
I'm talking about God and His angels.
"But as for the existence of God, can you show me how we can verify it with the same accuracy that we can verify the existence of Antarctica, the earth’s revolution around the sun, and Mar and Korina’s marriage?"
What I mean is that I believe without question in something that many people already claim like the existence of Antarctica, knowing that a very least or no people deny it.
"Not my job. I never claimed that there is no God, but only that there is not enough evidence to allow for the conclusion that there is a God."
So does that mean that there is also not enough evidence to deny God? At least I have the theory with logical basis.
"We know that numbers and math always presented logic. So if an infinite number exists, how about in reality?"
May you please comment on this?
Hi I hope I don't intimidate you.
"What I mean is that I believe without question in something that many people already claim like the existence of Antarctica, knowing that a very least or no people deny it."
The source for whatever is being claimed by a person must be a credible source. What people must do is test a claim if it has some truth to it. Christians use the Bible as their source for the truth about God. They believe because it is in the Bible. Now we have to ask if the Bible really is the word of God or just some book written by ordinary people thousands of years ago.
"So does that mean that there is also not enough evidence to deny God? At least I have the theory with logical basis."
What is god doing about our lives? If there is no evidence that he is here then he is doing nothing. It's only his Pope and the priests who act for him.
“We know that numbers and math always presented logic. So if an infinite number exists, how about in reality?”
Mathematicians do mathematical modelling for Natural Sciences, Engineering and Social Sciences.
//I’m talking about God and His angels.//
Whose existence have yet to be proved.
//What I mean is that I believe without question in something that many people already claim like the existence of Antarctica, knowing that a very least or no people deny it.//
No intellectual person denies the existence of Antarctica. Can you say the same for the existence of God?
//So does that mean that there is also not enough evidence to deny God?//
Yes.
//At least I have the theory with logical basis.//
Not so fast. Just because we can't prove the non-existence of something does not automatically mean that it must exist. I can't prove the non-existence of fairies but it doesn't mean that they must exist.
//“We know that numbers and math always presented logic. So if an infinite number exists, how about in reality?”//
There are many things in math that cannot be accurately reflected in reality. For example, can you draw a line that is exactly one meter in length? Perhaps you can make it accurate by the millimeter, but not by the nanometer or other infinitely smaller subdivisions.
ok as you requested this my reply. there is no such thing as atheist . there are only persons who are playing god- omniscient, infallible, SELF SUFFICIENT- among the qualities of god. to be an atheist or to say that god DOESN'T EXIST is to pose as an all knowing personality.
posers, really.
no dark sarcasm pls.
//But there are also Who were already perfect in reality.//
Examples please.
//The existence of God is as probable as the doubt of believing whether Antarctica really exists on the other side or the wondering whether it’s the Earth that really revolves around the Sun or the other way around. I presume you also doubt on the marriage of Sen. Mar Roxas and Ms. Korina Sanchez.//
People can use Google Earth to check whether Antarctica really exists. Although people often take the 'authority' of Google Earth without question, those who doubt it can launch their own satellites or charter a plane to fly to Antarctica to check if the continent really exists. And although people don't normally go about challenging the accuracy of Google's maps, it is the willingness of Google to be challenged that's important. As for the earth revolving around the sun, this can be verified with the right instruments, and the scientific authorities who claimed this are willing to be challenged by anyone who can show proof that this is not the case. And as for Mar and Korina's marriage, we can check that at NSO, and we can even find clips of their wedding in youtube. But as for the existence of God, can you show me how we can verify it with the same accuracy that we can verify the existence of Antarctica, the earth's revolution around the sun, and Mar and Korina's marriage?
//I’m through with making the existence of God very probable.//
Hardly.
//Now could you give me some evidence on the improbability of God?//
Not my job. I never claimed that there is no God, but only that there is not enough evidence to allow for the conclusion that there is a God.
"…can you explain to me why God is exempted from your above statement?"
Of course I'm just trying to cite a common example.
"Not all creatures strive for perfection"
Yes, that's true. But there are also Who were already perfect in reality.
//Can our dignity, as you define it, accept the truth that we, thinking creatures, are subjected to a non-thinking substance?//
"Personally for me, yes."
I think this is all very absurd. The existence of God is as probable as the doubt of believing whether Antarctica really exists on the other side or the wondering whether it's the Earth that really revolves around the Sun or the other way around. I presume you also doubt on the marriage of Sen. Mar Roxas and Ms. Korina Sanchez.
I'm through with making the existence of God very probable. Now could you give me some evidence on the improbability of God? (I suppose you will shy on the attributes of God).
//All inventions are invented because someone made them. There is no cake if there is no baker.//
While your argument sounds logical enough, it does not necessarily apply to the creation of the universe particularly on how the big bang singularity came about because all the known laws of physics break down at a singularity, hence it may not be practical to employ the same logic we use in our daily lives. Also, can you explain to me why God is exempted from your above statement?
//Of course that never happened, since humans remain humans. But we can apply this evidence: a gamer wants to win it all in a game, but he never got it. One time he tried to cheat using a cheat engine. Then so in the game he became omnipotent and perfect. It may seem inapplicable to real life since a video game is different to reality. But its the numbers that make it possible. We know that numbers and math always presented logic. So if an infinite number exists, how about in reality? Got it?//
I don't get it. Even if we use your gamer analogy, not all gamers want to win it all to the point of using a cheat engine. Some gamers are quite contented in playing a friendly game just to relieve stress or escape boredom. Not all creatures strive for perfection.
"Perhaps our entire existence might as well be all nonsense after all, but for me it’s the attempt at finding a purpose that matters."
"Care to show me the ‘logic’ of how you arrived at this conclusion?"
All inventions are invented because someones made them. There is no cake if there is no baker.
"Have all the creatures especially the humans displayed an absolute degree of perfection?"
Of course that never happened, since humans remain humans. But we can apply this evidence: a gamer wants to win it all in a game, but he never got it. One time he tried to cheat using a cheat engine. Then so in the game he became omnipotent and perfect. It may seem inapplicable to real life since a video game is different to reality. But its the numbers that make it possible. We know that numbers and math always presented logic. So if an infinite number exists, how about in reality? Got it?
//Since man is not self-sufficient//
May I ask how you arrived at this conclusion?
//This reflects the dogma of rationalist men: “I think, therefore I am”. This is also similar to “I believe, therefore it is the truth”. Since he does not recognise any exterior truth, he creates his own truth. And since he himself says that man’s sense perceptions are unreliable, then his own truth is, since his truths comes from himself. If that so, then there is no real truth. If no truth exists, everything is falsehood.//
Two words: straw man.
//Then no matter how one struggles to find purpose for his existence, it is nonsense.//
Perhaps our entire existence might as well be all nonsense after all, but for me it's the attempt at finding a purpose that matters.
//According to logic, all that exist are product of creation, so there is a Creator (God).//
Care to show me the 'logic' of how you arrived at this conclusion?
//All things are subjected to degree of perfection, so in its peak it must require an absolute degree of perfection (God).//
Have all the creatures especially the humans displayed an absolute degree of perfection?
//Can our dignity, as you define it, accept the truth that we, thinking creatures, are subjected to a non-thinking substance?//
Personally for me, yes. But even if most people's dignity cannot accept that idea, it does not automatically render the idea false. A lot of people cannot accept that Noynoy, who does not have an impressive track record, is our next president. But this does not change the fact that he is our next president.
//Does it mean to become civilized is a matter of choice? I believe people, like those you cited as example, who tolerate abuse and harassment on them are simply not sure of their existence, or because they are afraid to fight. Their purpose is what their ‘bosses’ tell them because they are uncertain, or they do things merely to avoid being killed or punished. I also believe there are even few people among them, especially the revolutionary ones, who know that they are being abused. These men know and feel that justice is just.//
My point is, these warlords have no innate sense of justice. The fact that there are a few revolutionaries who do strive for justice does not change the reality that a sense of justice is not universal.
//As for me, once we assume the existence of God, His will, purpose, and the way He perform His actions should not be questioned, since He Himself is beyond human understanding.
Maybe my purpose wasn’t clear, but is it OK that we talk about God’s existence?//
By all means. Be my guest.
"By all means. Be my guest."
Thanks.
"My point is, these warlords have no innate sense of justice. The fact that there are a few revolutionaries who do strive for justice does not change the reality that a sense of justice is not universal."
I agree. Sense of justice is not universal. But its application is.
So this is my frontier:
Purpose comes after a fact, as you said it, or we can also say that purpose comes after a reason. But how can we obtain reason? I think these are the two options:
Reason by truth:
Since man is not self-sufficient, all of his reasons must come from exterior reality, from Universal Reason and Truth. A man eats because he is hungry. But more than that he eats because he need to live longer.
Reason by human will alone:
This reflects the dogma of rationalist men: "I think, therefore I am". This is also similar to "I believe, therefore it is the truth". Since he does not recognise any exterior truth, he creates his own truth. And since he himself says that man's sense perceptions are unreliable, then his own truth is, since his truths comes from himself. If that so, then there is no real truth. If no truth exists, everything is falsehood. Then no matter how one struggles to find purpose for his existence, it is nonsense.
So I agree on purpose by reason subjected to truth.
These are my arguments on God's existence:
According to logic, all that exist are product of creation, so there is a Creator (God).
All things are subjected to degree of perfection, so in its peak it must require an absolute degree of perfection (God).
Human intellect is subjected to universal laws and Truth (disregard alleged Supernatural Truths). One may consider Universal Truth has life, but still it's a non-thinking substance. Can our dignity, as you define it, accept the truth that we, thinking creatures, are subjected to a non-thinking substance? So from there we assume that there is God who is in full control of Universal Truth.
"Not so fast. I would say that justice is necessary in order to achieve a civilized society. Look at certain parts of Africa (forgive me, I’m poor in geography) where justice does not exist, where people’s hands are chopped in order to prevent them from voting and where warlords massacre entire communities with impunity. Surely justice is not necessary for such societies to exist."
Does it mean to become civilized is a matter of choice? I believe people, like those you cited as example, who tolerate abuse and harassment on them are simply not sure of their existence, or because they are afraid to fight. Their purpose is what their 'bosses' tell them because they are uncertain, or they do things merely to avoid being killed or punished. I also believe there are even few people among them, especially the revolutionary ones, who know that they are being abused. These men know and feel that justice is just.
“I think purpose comes after the fact, because we can make a purpose out of unfortunate events."
Agree.
"However, I highly doubt that an omnipotent and loving deity would lack the imagination to come up with more effective and less genocidal ways to win the hearts and souls of its beloved creation."
As for me, once we assume the existence of God, His will, purpose, and the way He perform His actions should not be questioned, since He Himself is beyond human understanding.
"That’s quite a jump you made there. I think we are digressing from the original article."
Maybe my purpose wasn't clear, but is it OK that we talk about God's existence?
I agree to the first paragraph of mr. Decierdo's statements. The rest are uncertain claims.
May I ask you a few questions, mr. innerminds?
If it is true that men are to choose their existence, what's yours?
Do you feel dignified as a human?
Do you believe that we have sense of justice in the society?
Please answer these questions so that I may know how to deal with you. =)
Can you explain a bit why you said that "the rest are uncertain claims"?
As for the purpose of my existence, I'm still trying to figure it out, and my belief that my purpose is something I choose instead of one arbitrarily imposed on me makes me feel dignified as a human. And as for our "sense of justice in the society", I believe it is not innate but rather acquired as societies evolve to become more civilized (I wrote another article on this: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/05/19/moral-…
The rest are uncertain claims because those cannot be applied to persons who hold contrary beliefs.
You said that sense of justice is something that is acquired to make progress, and not innate. But why it seems in history that justice is portrayed as crucial and indispensable. And also there is no politician that said "I will replace justice with another more applicable in the society". Doesn't that mean that justice is really innate and is not just acquired but also discovered?
//The rest are uncertain claims because those cannot be applied to persons who hold contrary beliefs.//
By "the rest" you mean this:
"The only knowledge human brains can contain is human knowledge, that is, limited knowledge. Because all we have are human brains with limited human knowledge, we cannot claim to be certain about everything. Yet faith, that archenemy of reason, makes people believe that they can be certain about things they actually know nothing about."
Can you give an example of "contrary beliefs" being held by the same person and tell us how the above paragraph does not apply?
//You said that sense of justice is something that is acquired to make progress, and not innate. But why it seems in history that justice is portrayed as crucial and indispensable.//
Are you sure? What do you make out of slavery throughout history? Are you saying that the people who bought and sold slaves had an innate sense of justice?
//And also there is no politician that said “I will replace justice with another more applicable in the society”. Doesn’t that mean that justice is really innate and is not just acquired but also discovered?//
Of all the examples you could have used you had to choose politicians – the very people whose words do not necessarily reflect their deeds. Of course politicians would say to the world (or at least to the voters) that they will do everything in their power to promote justice. But have all of them actually delivered such justice?
"Can you give an example of “contrary beliefs” being held by the same person and tell us how the above paragraph does not apply?"
I agree that the human mind can contain only limited human knowledge. But although this is true, one may say that why he claim to know about supernatural knowledge is because it is revealed to him. Now you may ask the credibility of this alleged Revelation, that requires personal research if you are to refuse faith.
"Are you sure? What do you make out of slavery throughout history? Are you saying that the people who bought and sold slaves had an innate sense of justice?"
Yes. They just either don't know about or refuse to follow it. But the sons of these white men proved them wrong. Now Americans lead the promotion of the International Declaration of Human Rights, so still they know slavery and other abuse is wrong. It's just a matter of experience to discover justice.
"Of all the examples you could have used you had to choose politicians – the very people whose words do not necessarily reflect their deeds. Of course politicians would say to the world (or at least to the voters) that they will do everything in their power to promote justice. But have all of them actually delivered such justice?"
Yeah my use of politicians may be inappropriate. But let's consider the message–that justice is a just system that cannot be replaced by anything. The politicians may don't really promote real justice, they still know that they're wrong. And if you would say that they mean it to be just, experience and results will still tell that justice must be delivered in a must way.
Now answer my questions.
May I ask you another question?
Do you believe that truth exist? Or truth is what the human mind define it?
Oh, forgive me. The word innate wasn't clear to me. =)
I thought it was something which is a natural necessity.
So we were really on the same side. =)
And it was only one question:
"Doesn’t that mean that justice is really innate and is not just acquired but also discovered?"
But it's nonsense.
So let's move on to another topic.
"I totally agree that "justice is a just system that cannot be replaced by anything.”"
So you also agree that justice is a necessary system. That means were born to submit to the right laws of the universe, whether scientific, social, or moral. And since laws were acquired to deliver us to a predetermined end, then that imply that we really have a purpose for our existence, that is, to work for the welfare of the society. And also Sartre said, "unless you assume a God, the question of your life's purpose is meaningless". Summing it all up, we assume that we really have a purpose and a God, for our end didn't come from us, but from Someone.
"Yes, there is no question that truth exists independently from the human mind. The question is, how do we determine what is true?"
Then truth is just lurking by. Then it's possible to find it. We can only distinguish it by test, for every truth came from the form of theories.
//So you also agree that justice is a necessary system.//
Not so fast. I would say that justice is necessary in order to achieve a civilized society. Look at certain parts of Africa (forgive me, I'm poor in geography) where justice does not exist, where people's hands are chopped in order to prevent them from voting and where warlords massacre entire communities with impunity. Surely justice is not necessary for such societies to exist.
//That means were born to submit to the right laws of the universe, whether scientific, social, or moral. And since laws were acquired to deliver us to a predetermined end, then that imply that we really have a purpose for our existence, that is, to work for the welfare of the society. And also Sartre said, “unless you assume a God, the question of your life’s purpose is meaningless”. Summing it all up, we assume that we really have a purpose and a God, for our end didn’t come from us, but from Someone.//
That's quite a jump you made there. I think we are digressing from the original article. If you don't mind, let me direct you to a related article, just a short one: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/01/10/purpos…
This is the highlight:
"I think purpose comes after the fact, because we can make a purpose out of unfortunate events. Take a look at the typhoons and floods that killed hundreds last year, for example, or the gruesome massacre that brutally ended the lives of 57 persons. Some people would claim that they have a purpose, and part of that is to awaken the Filipinos and make them turn from their evil ways. However, I highly doubt that an omnipotent and loving deity would lack the imagination to come up with more effective and less genocidal ways to win the hearts and souls of its beloved creation. But as the most highly evolved of all creatures, we can (and we actually did) make a purpose for these tragedies so that we should not have suffered them in vain. Ondoy exposed the fatal hazards of poor (and corrupt) urban planning, reminding developers to be conscientious and citizens to be vigilant. The Maguindanao killings let the world know that there was an oppressive empire right within our country’s borders whose king and princes reigned in terror, where human rights were violated on a daily basis and everyone was too scared to talk. Now this empire is no more, and if we keep a watchful eye it will probably stay that way."
//Then truth is just lurking by. Then it’s possible to find it. We can only distinguish it by test, for every truth came from the form of theories.//
Totally agree.
//I agree that the human mind can contain only limited human knowledge. But although this is true, one may say that why he claim to know about supernatural knowledge is because it is revealed to him. Now you may ask the credibility of this alleged Revelation, that requires personal research if you are to refuse faith.//
Allow me to quote what the deists have to say about "divine revelation":
"Revelation: The act of revealing or of making known. In the religious sense, revelation usually means divine revelation. This is meaningless, since revelation can only be revelation in the first instance. For example, if God revealed something to me, that would be a divine revelation to me. If I then told someone else what God told me it would be mere hearsay to the person I tell. If that person believed what I said, they would not be putting their trust in God, but in me, believing what I told them was actually true."
//Yes. They just either don’t know about or refuse to follow it. But the sons of these white men proved them wrong. Now Americans lead the promotion of the International Declaration of Human Rights, so still they know slavery and other abuse is wrong. It’s just a matter of experience to discover justice.//
Check out this definition of 'innate' from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innate : "Of or produced by the mind rather than learned through experience." Now if you say that "it's just a matter of experience to discover justice", that's no longer innate.
As for the sons of the white men who proved their fathers wrong about slavery, look how they still discriminated against the blacks even after the emancipation.
//Yeah my use of politicians may be inappropriate. But let’s consider the message–that justice is a just system that cannot be replaced by anything. The politicians may don’t really promote real justice, they still know that they’re wrong. And if you would say that they mean it to be just, experience and results will still tell that justice must be delivered in a must way.//
I totally agree that "justice is a just system that cannot be replaced by anything." But that's beside the point. What we are arguing here is if man has an innate sense of justice.
//Now answer my questions.//
Could you please specify which questions I have not yet answered?
//Do you believe that truth exist? Or truth is what the human mind define it?//
Yes, there is no question that truth exists independently from the human mind. The question is, how do we determine what is true?
"I often hear religious people say that freethinkers are proud people, leaning on their own human understanding. The faithful claim to be humble, acknowledging our limited wisdom and thereby surrendering mind and will to the Almighty, the Supreme Being of the universe.
At first it seems they have a point, but if we look closely we’ll see that it’s actually the other way around. While theists may appear humble before their God, they are actually quite contemptuous towards people who do not share their beliefs." -innerminds
the first paragaraph, you are arguing from the reliance of understanding as the standard of humility and concluded with the "contempt" of other people as the determining factor.
what can we make of those coming from the other side then?
I think the "humility" he is referring to is the acceptance that science is fallible, that scientific discoveries will always need to be updated.
Compare that to a theist's unshaken belief that his sacred scriptures are infallible until the end of time and anyone who does not believe in them are deluded heretics. How is "contempt" shown?… every christian believes that anyone else who does not share his belief will burn in hell.
"How is “contempt” shown?… every christian believes that anyone else who does not share his belief will burn in hell." – wes
contempt is coming from the other side too. in any case, contempt is always wrong.
"I think the “humility” he is referring to is the acceptance that science is fallible, that scientific discoveries will always need to be updated. " -Wes
if that is the case, shouldnt that be a reason, a scientific reason, to not take the negative statement about the existence of God as if it has already proven itself to be scientifically and absolutely correct?
"contempt is coming from the other side too. in any case, contempt is always wrong."
- fair enough. you know contempt is wrong. but can you erase the fact that you think all other gods and belief systems are inferior to your own? will Christianity respect the beliefs and non-beliefs of non-christians? no, they will always seek to convert because of the 1st commandment and the very core of every religion is to believe that their belief is the One Truth. Its that smug certainty that innerminds was talking about.
Yes, science can't prove with 100% certainty that a god-being doesn't exist in the same way it can't prove that santa claus may not be real because of the lack of sufficient evidence either way. This is the responsible way to evaluate the situation. So a christian also can't be 100% certain that his beliefs are correct so he can't say with total conviction that he knows with all his heart that christ is the one true god. He can only say that christ "may" be god, or that the holy spirit "may" be real. That would be the humble thing to do… *admit* uncertainty just like science does.
"- fair enough. you know contempt is wrong. but can you erase the fact that you think all other gods and belief systems are inferior to your own? will Christianity respect the beliefs and non-beliefs of non-christians?
no, they will always seek to convert because of the 1st commandment and the very core of every religion is to believe that their belief is the One Truth. Its that smug certainty that innerminds was talking about." -wes
When a person chooses to believe something among many other things it is because he thinks that that thing he chose is the best among the many other things. This is true not only for believers of god but to atheists as well and to all many other things and fields whenever we exercise our freedom to choose.
Yes, there are those who seek to proselytize and your judgment upon that is spot-on. However, the mistakes of the few, being mistakes, do not represent the faith that we believe. I am a Catholic and I believe that conversion is not gained from winning a debate or argument, faith is to be lived first and foremost, to be a living example of Christ’s love among neighbors. The conversion of another is a gift that only the god that we believe can bestow upon.
"Yes, science can’t prove with 100% certainty that a god-being doesn’t exist in the same way it can’t prove that santa claus may not be real because of the lack of sufficient evidence either way. This is the responsible way to evaluate the situation. So a christian also can’t be 100% certain that his beliefs are correct so he can’t say with total conviction that he knows with all his heart that christ is the one true god. He can only say that christ “may” be god, or that the holy spirit “may” be real. That would be the humble thing to do… *admit* uncertainty just like science does." -wes
If one truly believes it in his heart who’s to say that he cant? Be it Santa Claus, if he truly believes and says so then that is just him being honest about how he feels. Is it arrogant for him to say so if he truly believe it in his heart?
I wish more people "of faith" have your temperance. Its when someone's "certainty" crashes head-on with other's "certainty" that bad things happen. As they say, good fences make good neighbors. As long as faith remains personal inasmuch as it doesn't try to impose its beliefs on others, I have no problem with that.
it is true what you said about contradicting certainties. it is only natural that we have the desire to share what we believe is true but we should always remember that we can only share it, present it and let others decide on their own.
yes, i agree, faith is personal but it does not mean that it has no place in the public square, for how can we be true to ourselves if we cannot live out in public what we personally believe and this is true be it for Christians, atheists, or agnostics, Muslims…
…and yes imposing one's belief over another is always wrong.
To Innermind:
What do you mean by "strong" and "weak" atheist? Do you mean physical strength like force?
Reason does not mean force whether strong or weak. That is contrary to faith. Faith needs force. While reason needs freedom. Reason and faith are opposite. If faith initiate the use of force, then reason has to retaliate. Usually faith initiate the use of force, see the evidenced during the middle ages or dark ages.
A strong/active/gnostic atheist believes there is no God; a weak/passive/agnostic atheist simply doesn't believe in God.
I find no difference. It's still the concept of belief or believing. Do you mean by weak atheist are those like agnostics? Agnostics are not sure of everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_athe…
"Strong atheism is a term popularly used to describe atheists who claim the statement "There is at least one god" is false. Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false."
Humility is the virtue of faith/believer, the result of unreason, irrationality. That is so easy thing to do: just stop thinking, stop questioning. and you will instantly feel humility, low, weak. and submit to God and wait for the necessary knowledge He will give you without any effort on your part. Obey and submit. But there is no such being called God.
Pride and self-esteem is the emotional reward of reason. When you discover, understand through the process of reason, your emotional reward is pride and self-esteem. It is the feeling after a long struggle in expending a mental effort to know and to understand things about reality. It is a feeling that your mind is efficient, capable to know everything slowly and step by step in hierarchical order. Your mind is you very own self. The function of our mind is know and understand the real, absolute world where we are. Why do we have to know things/reality? In order to remain alive and improve and enjoy living.
Humility, humbleness is opposite of pride and self-esteem.
but isnt it that believing that there is no god requires faith?
It's one thing to believe there's no God (strong/gnostic atheism – #7 in Dawkins' spectrum); it's totally another thing to simply not believe in God (weak/agnostic atheism – #6 in Dawkins' spectrum). There are no strong atheists in Filipino Freethinkers, or at least none had expressed being so in the forums.
Hi.
This is my answer:
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
the argument presented is based on a misunderstanding of what faith means and what we believe in in terms of religion, faith, and reason.
@ Reynor: care to tell us the "correct" understanding of faith?
The religious talk of believing in the Eternal Truth does not require the suspension of reason but in reality, as a matter of fact requires more, for reason is as essential as faith in understanding this Eternal Truth.
What I find interesting is that most of those who believe that a person has to choose between faith and reason are those who do not believe in "faith"…maybe because believing in faith requires reason.
Pope John Paull II used to say, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth….[Fides et Ratio, Pope John Paul II,