Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines

[alistair]

there still a disagreement between atheist...

Sir, with all due respect, do you think all atheists belong to a single group and all think the same way?

[indie boi]

nope... still... not clear answer...

there still a disagreement between atheist...

In much the same way that there are still disagreements between theists, and even between Christians. I'm beginning to smell a cop out here.

[alistair]

i'm saying that evolution should be a continuing process, and the start and end points should vary from species to species.  the fact that we have no conclusive evidence of an observed evolution in the recent past means that macro evolution is non-existent.

It is a continuing process, sir. And it has been observed, recorded, and can be replayed, sir:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

but they're not a different species.  they're still dogs.  to be a different species, they should be biologically distinct from previous dogs.

Would you care to define 'biologically distinct', sir? It's hard to argue that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua aren't 'biologically distinct'. Or that the modern, domestic dog isn't distinct from previous dogs, namely, their ancestors/cousins the wolves.

From what I know, the common definition of species is they have to be able to interbreed. With domestic dogs, a lot of them can't interbreed anymore. They also can't interbreed with wolves, their closest relative in the family Canidae. Hence, I contend that we're actually witnessing speciation happening, although it'll take more time before full speciation occurs.

[oweidah]

Bible. never change through time.


i dont based my morality on what the church says. its always the bible. every church leader has their own conviction which may be differnt from others... but the Bible standard never change through time.



how about atheist... i assume some of them may be still confuse where to base their morality.

neither do the Holy Quran nor the Torah 

the Holy Bible just gets edited and revised 

[choy]

choy,

Firstly, I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only son our Lord.

Secondly, all you said are nice and I fully agree.

But proof, there is none.

bumblebee, there are plenty of proof.  but the problem is people are looking at things the wrong way.  again, its a matter of believing the proof that has been given.

[sardaukar]

God either requires faith or there is no proof. If there is proof then faith is not necessary. Which is it?

[choy]

faith doesn't need no proof

a lot of people has the wrong impression that where proof and evidence ends, faith begins

faith actually relies on knowing.  there is of course blind faith, but real faith means you know what you are believing in

[alistair]

bumblebee, there are plenty of proof.  but the problem is people are looking at things the wrong way.  again, its a matter of believing the proof that has been given.

If there's (formal) proof, why do we require belief in the proof?

Or do you mean to say evidence, not proof?

faith doesn't need no proof

Sir, are you saying that faith is justified even in the absence of proof?

[bumblebee]

bumblebee, there are plenty of proof.  but the problem is people are looking at things the wrong way.  again, its a matter of believing the proof that has been given.

I'm not aware of any proof. Show me.

[oweidah]

quote from SSM thread

imho also, i think the most insensitive person here in earth is the atheist if your concept of disrespect is by saying that ones belief is wrong.

how can a person be insensitive and disrespectful by just not believing in the other's religion?

i wont be offended by a person who doensnt believe in God or who doest share my beliefs and religion. we may differ, even argue but i will respect his views and not ram down his throat what i believe in. The last thing i will ever tell him is "he wont be saved or go to heaven" because he doesnt share my belief.

the issue of salvation is sensitive. by stating that ONLY you will be saved because what you believe in is the only right belief alienates and disrespects others who dont share your belief.

[indie boi]

A-men.

[dpogs]

i am just want a clear answer

how atheist draw a line between moral and imoral?

paano nila masasabi na ang ganitong gawain ay imoral o hindi?

do they have some set of standards? or kung ano lang din ang sinasabi ng gobyerno susundin lang nila.






then why not respect my believe regarding salvation. i just share my believe who will be save. every church has their own belief of salvation, does it mean that they disrespect each belief???

didnt you consider that by just saying there is no God is simply saying that our belief is wrong.

[alistair]

how atheist draw a line between moral and imoral?

Sir, was my answer regarding normative ethics unclear to you?

Are you aware that, Theists and atheists alike both use some form of normative ethics to arrive at moral decisions?

do they have some set of standards?

Sir, do you think all atheists are the same?

Do all Theists have some set of standards?

or kung ano lang din ang sinasabi ng gobyerno susundin lang nila.

Doesn't everybody have to follow the law?

[sardaukar]

i am just want a clear answer

how atheist draw a line between moral and imoral?

paano nila masasabi na ang ganitong gawain ay imoral o hindi?

do they have some set of standards? or kung ano lang din ang sinasabi ng gobyerno susundin lang nila.


then why not respect my believe regarding salvation. i just share my believe who will be save. every church has their own belief of salvation, does it mean that they disrespect each belief???

didnt you consider that by just saying there is no God is simply saying that our belief is wrong.

What do you do when the bible contradicts itself? How do you decide what is right and wrong?

[dpogs]

for example?

[sardaukar]

What I asked previously. It's talking about killing your brother, sister, etc.

[dorian_gray]

I have to say though that I am not a Bible expert or an expert of any religion (eventhough I grew up in a highly religious environment and family).

Here is one example of inconsistencies in the Bible:

Exodus 20:14 (King James Version)
 14Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Hosea 1:2 (King James Version)
 2The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.

[dpogs]

I have to say though that I am not a Bible expert or an expert of any religion (eventhough I grew up in a highly religious environment and family).

Here is one example of inconsistencies in the Bible:

Exodus 20:14 (King James Version)
 14Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Hosea 1:2 (King James Version)
 2The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.

First of all: HOsea has no existing wife when God commanded him to choose a wife. So there is no adultery at all.

[alistair]

First of all: HOsea has no existing wife when God commanded him to choose a wife. So there is no adultery at all.

Sir, are you saying it's not adultery when you're single?

[dorian_gray]

First of all: HOsea has no existing wife when God commanded him to choose a wife. So there is no adultery at all.

Another one:

1 Peter 3:15
15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

2 Timothy 2:14-16
14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

[alistair]

(Coming from here...)

since atheist never view their belief as a religion, their ideas of morality will not be include.

Sir, do you think that since atheists don't believe in God they have no ethics and have no sense of morality?

Or, are you again going to say, atheists can't agree on a single standard of morality, therefore they have no ethics?

Do all Theists agree on their standard of morality? Can you follow your own train of thought to its logical conclusion?

[choy]

It is a continuing process, sir. And it has been observed, recorded, and can be replayed, sir:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

the bacteria acquired a new ability, but is still bacteria.  micro-organisms mutate and adopt all the time.  but they're still micro-organisms.  that still doesn't explain how bacteria eventually became larger organisms

Would you care to define 'biologically distinct', sir? It's hard to argue that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua aren't 'biologically distinct'. Or that the modern, domestic dog isn't distinct from previous dogs, namely, their ancestors/cousins the wolves.

biological distinctness is more than the physical attribute.  i have never seen you in person, but i'm pretty sure your physical appearance is distinct from Mahal.  does that mean you and Mahal are different species?

From what I know, the common definition of species is they have to be able to interbreed. With domestic dogs, a lot of them can't interbreed anymore. They also can't interbreed with wolves, their closest relative in the family Canidae. Hence, I contend that we're actually witnessing speciation happening, although it'll take more time before full speciation occurs.

nope, inter-species can breed, although its not natural.  no animal will do it by instinct but its possible.  and that is not a criteria to say they are distinct species

[alistair]

the bacteria acquired a new ability, but is still bacteria.  micro-organisms mutate and adopt all the time.  but they're still micro-organisms.  that still doesn't explain how bacteria eventually became larger organisms

Are you asking about how single-celled organisms possibly became multi-cellular?

Some organisms formed colonies. Chloroplasts in eukaryotes are thought to have evolved from an asymbiotic relationship with Cyanobacteria.

biological distinctness is more than the physical attribute...
inter-species can breed, although its not natural. and that is not a criteria to say they are distinct species

This is where a lot of confusion arises.

So, sir, respectfully, in your biology, may I ask what comprises a 'species'?

[choy]

Are you asking about how single-celled organisms possibly became multi-cellular?

Some organisms formed colonies. Chloroplasts in eukaryotes are thought to have evolved from an asymbiotic relationship with Cyanobacteria.
This is where a lot of confusion arises.

So, sir, respectfully, in your biology, may I ask what comprises a 'species'?

THOUGHT being the operative word there
its all in the mind

[alistair]

THOUGHT being the operative word there
its all in the mind

I agree sir.

So is Creation 'science'.

At least evolutionary science is consistent with biology, genetics, geology, archaeology, paleontology, and a whole bunch of other -ologies.

[indie boi]

I agree sir.

So is Creation 'science'.

At least evolutionary science is consistent with biology, genetics, geology, archaeology, paleontology, and a whole bunch of other -ologies.

Creation Science is consistent with one -ology... theology.    I guess for some, theology is good enough to replace all of the other -ologies.

Which is kinda funny if you think about it. They can't accept evolution because it's not in the bible but if people get sick, they suddenly go to doctors who, from what I know, never got their education from the bible.

[dpogs]

Are you asking about how single-celled organisms possibly became multi-cellular?

Some organisms formed colonies. Chloroplasts in eukaryotes are thought to have evolved from an asymbiotic relationship with Cyanobacteria.
This is where a lot of confusion arises.

So, sir, respectfully, in your biology, may I ask what comprises a 'species'?

That's how biologist explain nature... species... subspecies... etc...

but in the Bible there are only two species: human and animals.

and in nature there are only two things that exist: living and non-living, positive or negative, north pole or south pole, action and reaction, right and wrong

and in the Bible there are only two fources that exist: good and evil. God and Satan. if you are not God's then your Satan's .... as simple as that. No need to explain things in different perspective.

This is my belief as a creationist. because when we makes things complicated it only just show how foolish we are.

[indie boi]

That's how biologist explain nature... species... subspecies... etc...

but in the Bible there are only two species: human and animals.

and in nature there are only two things that exist: living and non-living, positive or negative, north pole or south pole, action and reaction, right and wrong

and in the Bible there are only two fources that exist: good and evil. God and Satan. if you are not God's then your Satan's .... as simple as that. No need to explain things in different perspective.

This is my belief as a creationist. because when we makes things complicated it only just show how foolish we are.

What a very simple view of nature and universe, it's either one or the other. Dunno what to say to this, really especially since all branches of science have been rendered moot and trivial. Makes you wonder about a lot of things, like, do you use electricity at home for example since it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. But then you use a computer to post here, which means you do use modern technology, which is, for all intents and purposes, not in the bible, and therefore, according to your absolute belief in the immutability of the bible, immoral.

[dpogs]

when it comes to moral issue... i consult the Bible.

Does homosexuality immoral: yes
Does abortioni immoral: yes
Does adultery immoral: yes
Does showing your private parts in public immoral: yes
Does kissing before marriage immora: yes
Does pre-marital sex immoral: yes
How about RH bill: i always believe a safe sex practice (natural way) between two legal couples but not abortion of course. and i disagree taking pills not on its moral issue but on its possible negative effect sa katawan ng misis ko.
Does cleavage immoral: yes

using internet: not
using internet to view pornography: yes
using electricity: not
using electricity to use for our carnal desires: yes
reading magazines: not
reading playboy: yes

but when in doubt dont do it.


universal set of moral standard. there must exist in the whole world, mapa theist man o atheist must follow universal set of moral standard.

question: where do we base our moral standard. suggestion ko: bible

if other religion disagree: why not try culmination of all moral belief ng lahat ng religion and since atheist claimed that they are not a religion... their moral view will not be included.

[alistair]

mapa theist man o atheist must follow universal set of moral standard.

since atheist claimed that they are not a religion... their moral view will not be included.

Sir, I'm still trying to take you seriously, but which one is it?

Atheists must follow a moral standard, or

Atheists do not have the capability to be moral?