Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines

[dpogs]

Sir, a birth certificate is not a proof of a person's existence.

It's just a document that supposedly records a person's birth, their parents, and so on.

Like other documents, it can be faked.

The chain of causality goes, "a person is born" -> "a birth certificate is made for that event".

It's not, "a birth certificate is written" -> "a person is born".

The following is not to attack you personally. Just a conversation...

Sir,

I choose not to believe that you not exist. You want me to prove that you not exist? Do i need to prove the negative?

or puwede ko ring sabihin na....

You are not your parents true child. Kahit anong proof ang ibigay mo sa akin di ako maniniwala... you even dont witness how you were born. When you are a newborn child, you have no idea of your parents. Paano mo nalman na anak ka nga nila... baka naman nabrainwash ka lang na anak ka nila... your parents does not exist. you just came from nowhere.

[alistair]

I choose not to believe that you not exist.

You can choose to believe in whatever you want. Unicorns, flying pink elephants. You are a free-thinking person, and are therefore entitled to that.

Kahit anong proof ang ibigay mo sa akin di ako maniniwala...

Then there's no use having a 'conversation' with you, is there?

Kahit sabihin sayo nang doktor, may cancer ka, heto x-ray, heto biopsy report. Kung ayaw mong maniwala na may cancer ka, at na ang tanging gamot ay chemo/radio... well, that's your prerogative. After all, medical science is full of holes.

How do you know the doctor didn't just make up the x-ray? Did you actually witness the lab technician looking into the microscope and writing the biopsy report? I guess if you choose not to believe in them, well, that's your choice.

Read up on epistemology.

How do you know you're not just a brain in a vat?

[Clondalkin]

Most likely, anyone here can "still" find a valid witness to your own birth, the authenticity of your birth certificate, your actual existence right now, your legitimacy or otherwise, and even that of your parents.  As for the truthfulness of what the Bible states, that is a matter of faith.

This feels like comparing the Theory Of Everything (which scientists are still trying to figure out) to the idea that if you cross the Pacific from the east coast of the Philippines, you would eventually reach the American continents.

[alistair]

In labs, yes.  clearly pointing to the fact behind every living thing, there's deliberate conscious design, a creator and cannot happen by mere chance.

In the wild, too, sir.

Also, there are three things you conclude from speciation, which are orthogonal and can be addressed independently.

deliberate concious design: I don't see the connection, sir. Speciation can happen simply when a population is isolated, say, in an island. No need to invoke 'design'.

a creator: Again, sir, I don't see the need to jump to conclusions. If organic, self-replicating compounds can be created in a lab, does that constitute proof of a Creator?

The genetic code could not be sequenced not until the advent of supercomupters. And took them nearly a decade to get it done.  Clearly shows how immensely staggering the complexity of the code is in its design no mere mortal could make. Much less leaving it to happen by chance.   Something as complex as the quadrinaric genetic code cannot happen by chance.  It was designed.  Not a spontaneous chance.

Sir, complexity can emerge from systems with relatively simple rules. See emergence.

Also, I think it's inaccurate to characterize macro-evolution as happening "by random chance." You can think of a 'fitness function' that basically describes how a population is likely to survive given its environment and other species.

In fact, I'm even willing to believe the anthropic principle and the Clockwork Universe Theory, where a Creator could have simply created the Universe with its existing properties and physical laws, setting in motion everything that eventually led to galactic, solar system, planetary formation, abiogenesis, then evolution, then you and me posting on this thread.

But it doesn't have be "conscious, deliberate design."

[RU9]

how about... iyong mga author ng books of the Bible naranasan nila na may diyos or sila mismo ang witness na may diyos kaya sinulat nila ang tungkol sa Diyos para malaman ng iba na may Diyos.

The books of the bible were written 50 to 75 years after Christ’s death. It was communicated verbally before that. Imagine the errors built into the  these books when relayed through the word of mouth. Can we really trust the contents of the bible?

http://www.allabouttruth.org/when-was-the-bible-written-faq.htm

It is generally agreed that the Book of Matthew was the first Gospel written and that it was written between A.D. 50 and 75. Of the four Gospel's, John's is considered to have been the last one written, around A.D. 85. The Book of Acts, a historical account of the establishment of the early Christian church, is believed to have been written by one of the Apostle Paul's associates, around A.D. 62 (near the end of Paul's imprisonment in Rome).

See also:

http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it

[dpogs]

The point of this whole things is everything we do is a matter of faith.

Whether we like it or not we just believe that we are our parents child. We came to believe that because our parents told us, our lolos lolas told us, there is a written testimony that we were born, whatever they say we just believe it. they present a proof you believe that what they got is true. the doctor said to our parents that we are their child and our parents just believe that on the first place they experienced it.

and how come that when a theist tell a story of how he/she experienced god in him/herself no one believe him/her. and when somebody came out to support his/her story and tell that he/she witness how this theist known god, no one believe him.

Everything is about faith... we just put our faith that there is god or no god.


Atheist and Theist alike are both close minded in their own belief.

Atheist : any proof you present to them that there is god, eventually they will just ignore it and will try to disprove creation.
Theist : any thing you said against their god will eventually lead them to defense it and prove that their god exist.

Atheist believe that everything the bible said is not true since it is written by human.
Did they just realize that all recorded history were written by human. all scientific theory were of human. if the Bible is historically correct and even a compilation of several authors every book in the bible does not contradict each other... still considered false... if it is historically correct how it become false (in terms of idea of God?)


You already experience or felt when somebody approach you and told you that you have no parents where in fact you know that you have parents. you just cant stand what they said...


if the idea of free thinking will be in the court they will 100% win the case.



A RIDDLE FOR ATHEISTS

Johnny is 11. He is being taught the principles of the american constitution and its amendments by his atheistic parents. Recent lessons given him has focused on the first amendment.

The other day, Johnny's school teacher gave him some math problems for homework. When his teacher checked his homework the next day, she was astonished that Johnny gave everyone of the problems incorrect answers.

His teacher therefore called him to her desk and asked him had he forgotten how to solve such problems. But Johnny said to his teacher, "None of my answers are incorrect." His teacher asked him why did he say such, and he said, "Because the answers are the ones I believe them to be, and I have a constitutional right to my opinion. You have the opinion that the answers should be such and such, but I say differently. You cannot say my answers are wrong. I have the right to my opinion and you have the right to yours. If you are dogmatic that my answers should be the same as yours, that makes you self-righteous and a biggot. If you say my answers are wrong, you are judging me. Judge not lest you be judged. I deserve an 'A' like everyone else."

The riddle is this: Who is right, Johnny or his teacher? Is there an atheist who can solve this riddle?

a creator: Again, sir, I don't see the need to jump to conclusions. If organic, self-replicating compounds can be created in a lab, does that constitute proof of a Creator?
Sir, complexity can emerge from systems with relatively simple rules. See emergence.

self-replicating compound: saan nanggaling ito... from nothing? if you backtrace them... saan na naman tayo mapupunta... sa single cell in the beginning... where did it came from? ... again it is faith to assume that they are just right there ... waiting for a moment na magtugtugma ang lahat to form life (faith again).

[sardaukar]

and one glaring mistake of evolution is the assumption that something they've observed for 10, 20 or 50 years will act the same over a long period of time, therefore they conclude that it will take thousands or millions of years to take place.  its seems very short sighted not to think something could accelerate a process over the years.

Firstly, evolution is commonly not observed as happening in a person's lifetime. I'm assuming when you refer to 10, 20 or 50 years, you're talking about someone observing populations of animals and seeing if/how they change. What scientists observe is the fossil record which stretches back millions of years. So they make conclusions from those data points. Not from what has happened in the last 50 years.

also, if evolution is true, we should be seeing new speicies every so often.  but we're not.  we have the same species 2000 years ago as we have today.  there should be some species that are in evolutionary transition that would have completed a cycle within the last 500 years.  but we haven't been able to find any.

Speciation happens on a time scale much longer than a few thousand years. But if you want a common example of animals heading towards speciation then you can look at domesticated animals like dogs and sheep. The speciation is not yet complete but they'll probably get there. There are dozens of other examples but in the time scale you want to look at they mostly involve insects due to their much shorter life span.

[sardaukar]

Atheist and Theist alike are both close minded in their own belief.

Atheist : any proof you present to them that there is god, eventually they will just ignore it and will try to disprove creation.

Theist : any thing you said against their god will eventually lead them to defense it and prove that their god exist.

Ah, but see, there is no proof. You said yourself, God requires faith. So there is no proof that a theist can present to the atheist.

A RIDDLE FOR ATHEISTS

Johnny is 11. He is being taught the principles of the american constitution and its amendments by his atheistic parents. Recent lessons given him has focused on the first amendment.

The other day, Johnny's school teacher gave him some math problems for homework. When his teacher checked his homework the next day, she was astonished that Johnny gave everyone of the problems incorrect answers.

His teacher therefore called him to her desk and asked him had he forgotten how to solve such problems. But Johnny said to his teacher, "None of my answers are incorrect." His teacher asked him why did he say such, and he said, "Because the answers are the ones I believe them to be, and I have a constitutional right to my opinion. You have the opinion that the answers should be such and such, but I say differently. You cannot say my answers are wrong. I have the right to my opinion and you have the right to yours. If you are dogmatic that my answers should be the same as yours, that makes you self-righteous and a biggot. If you say my answers are wrong, you are judging me. Judge not lest you be judged. I deserve an 'A' like everyone else."

The riddle is this: Who is right, Johnny or his teacher? Is there an atheist who can solve this riddle?

That's not a riddle. Johnny is correct if he can prove he is correct. If he has evidence that his answer is correct then we have a genius on our hands and everyone will pay attention. If he doesn't have proof, then, well, he's wrong.

[dpogs]

That's not a riddle. Johnny is correct if he can prove he is correct. If he has evidence that his answer is correct then we have a genius on our hands and everyone will pay attention. If he doesn't have proof, then, well, he's wrong.

Then prove that you are correct when saying that there is no Mighty Creator. As much as Johnny cannot prove that 1+1 is not equal to 2.

Ah, but see, there is no proof. You said yourself, God requires faith. So there is no proof that a theist can present to the atheist.

there is proof... atheist just ignore them. God is very evident in nature and in you heart and conscience.

samething sa isang tao na nagsasabing wala siyang nagawang pagkakamali kahit minsan. He/She just ignore the fact na may ginawang siyang mali.

[sardaukar]

i myself subscribe to the young earth belief. 

My original question for the YEC was this: How can we believe anything scientists say if they can get the age of the earth so very very very wrong?

To expound further, the age of the earth is so ingrained in practically all brances of science (from cosmology, astronomy, geology down to biology)--who pretty much all agree that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years--that if you don't accept that age as true how can you accept anything else they say?

[sardaukar]

Then prove that you are correct when saying that there is no Mighty Creator. As much as Johnny cannot prove that 1+1 is not equal to 2.

This is the point: There is proof that 1 + 1 = 2. If you say 1 + 1 = 3 then show me your proof. See where the burden lies?

there is proof... atheist just ignore them. God is very evident in nature and in you heart and conscience.

samething sa isang tao na nagsasabing wala siyang nagawang pagkakamali kahit minsan. He/She just ignore the fact na may ginawang siyang mali.

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

[RU9]

The point of this whole things is everything we do is a matter of faith.

Faith is believing without reason.

Since this is your point, then we cannot continue this discussion reasonably.

[dpogs]

The point is... whether you like it or not... there is God.

We cannot prove it or even disprove it. It requires faith to believe that there is God.

And it also requires faith to say that there is no god.



Does evolution prove that there is no god?
Does cosmology discoveries states that god does not exist?

Atheist just believe that there is no god (that is faith).

[bumblebee]

what dpogs meant was that if the Bible is not a true testament to the existence of God because it was written by man (dispute of an Atheist), then all the other man made documents should be stricken as proof of existence or factuality as well - or something to that effect.

I understand his point. But the thing is, a birth certificate is not just something people write. Me mga witnesses dyan, dumaraan sa proseso na accepted ng lahat.

[alistair]

The point of this whole things is everything we do is a matter of faith.

We can never be 100% certain of the things we experience or remember, sure. But that doesn't mean we can't be reasonably certain of certain things. Also, certain belief system are more self-coherent than others.

If you believe A, and you believe B, but B contradicts A, you have to pause and critically examine your beliefs. Otherwise, you're just... being irrational.

You can't, for example, believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but also believe that oil and diamonds take thousands of years to form under heat and pressure.

You can't just believe that God placed the stars one by one in the heavens, then believe that gravitation which can explain satellite and planetary orbits and trips to the moon but doesn't cause matter to coalesce and form stars and planets.

Otherwise—well, you'd be contradicting yourself and I'm afraid there's no cure for that.

even a compilation of several authors every book in the bible does not contradict each other... still considered false...

You honestly wouldn't want to rattle that hornet's nest. Numerous Biblical passages, taken literally and out of context, are contradictory.

[dpogs]

Then we are going back again to the same question...


Where are all these things came from?

Does matter just came from nothing? (im not talking about replicating, or evolution, its the existence of everything)

Everything that exist today, where they came from?

[dpogs]

I, as a 'theist', believe that everything are created by Mighty Creator.

As far as know, as far as i understand it to the best of my ability:

'atheist' believe that everything just came from nothing.

[alistair]

The point is... whether you like it or not... there is God.

Well, if you say so, sir!

We cannot prove it or even disprove it. It requires faith to believe that there is God.

I agree.

And it also requires faith to say that there is no god.

Not faith in the religious sense, but yes, it is a belief structure like any other.

Does evolution prove that there is no god?

No.

Does cosmology discoveries states that god does not exist?

No.

[choy]

I understand his point. But the thing is, a birth certificate is not just something people write. Me mga witnesses dyan, dumaraan sa proseso na accepted ng lahat.

may mga witnesses din naman ang bible
it wasn't written in a dark cave and no one attested to it

all the apostles attested that Jesus was real, that he in fact lived, was crucified, died, and resurrected.  and even after torture and to their last dying breath, not one of them retracted their statement.  thats a pretty powerful statement on how factual their testimony is

[choy]

Firstly, evolution is commonly not observed as happening in a person's lifetime. I'm assuming when you refer to 10, 20 or 50 years, you're talking about someone observing populations of animals and seeing if/how they change. What scientists observe is the fossil record which stretches back millions of years. So they make conclusions from those data points. Not from what has happened in the last 50 years.

the concept of evolution is that a species changes to adapt to the environment over a period of time.  yes, it takes thousands of years for each process to complete.  but that doesn't mean that something didn't start 5-10 thousand years ago and complete today.  we should have seen animals change in the last few hundred or even thousands of years as they transition from one species to the next.  especially with all the radical changes man has introduced to many environment.  and yet not one has shown any significant change that would fit what scientists theorized as macro evolution

Speciation happens on a time scale much longer than a few thousand years. But if you want a common example of animals heading towards speciation then you can look at domesticated animals like dogs and sheep. The speciation is not yet complete but they'll probably get there. There are dozens of other examples but in the time scale you want to look at they mostly involve insects due to their much shorter life span.

nothing happens to dogs and sheep, they're still dogs and sheep.  the color of their fur may change, or their height, but they're still dogs and sheep

[bumblebee]

may mga witnesses din naman ang bible
it wasn't written in a dark cave and no one attested to it

all the apostles attested that Jesus was real, that he in fact lived, was crucified, died, and resurrected.  and even after torture and to their last dying breath, not one of them retracted their statement.  thats a pretty powerful statement on how factual their testimony is

The problem with the resurrection is that only the apostles saw him after his death. If other people saw Him, wrote about Him, ok na sana.

[choy]

The problem with the resurrection is that only the apostles saw him after his death. If other people saw Him, wrote about Him, ok na sana.

ilang witnesses ba kelangan makakita?  even if there were a million present there, i bet you still would not be satisfied today

because all who witnessed will become disciples, tapos sasabihin mo puro disciples din lang niya nakakita

[dpogs]

The problem with the resurrection is that only the apostles saw him after his death. If other people saw Him, wrote about Him, ok na sana.

you cannot use this argument since wala pang nakakita ng evolution (while they are in a transitional or evolution state)... or even wala pang nakakita ng big bang theory...

all animal can adopt to their environment... but still their offspring (or they may say - replicates) still of the same kind.



Please confirm. I am still confuse... does atheist believe that everything came from nothing?

[bumblebee]

choy,

If someone in your office told you he turned water into wine, rose from the dead, would you believe the guy? Assuming he did, he would need to document the whole thing, have it approved by a governing body as proof.

The Bible is not a book of facts. If it was, then it would have been made a textbook. Then there would be no Hindus, Muslims, etc. Even us Christians can't agree amongst ourselves. We have Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox churches and a whole lot more.

The atheists need proof. That we don't have.

[bumblebee]

you cannot use this argument since wala pang nakakita ng evolution (while they are in a transitional or evolution state)... or even wala pang nakakita ng big bang theory...

We are complex organisms. We don't just evolve. But you can use viruses as samples. They are very much evolving.

[dpogs]

Does atheist believe that everything came from nothing?

[alistair]

but that doesn't mean that something didn't start 5-10 thousand years ago and complete today.  we should have seen animals change in the last few hundred or even thousands of years as they transition from one species to the next.

Correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but are you saying that evolution could've started 5 to 10 thousand years ago and completed today?

If so, then yes we should have seen animals change in the last few thousand years. The fact that full speciation takes longer is in fact an argument that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old.

nothing happens to dogs and sheep, they're still dogs and sheep.  the color of their fur may change, or their height, but they're still dogs and sheep

Have you ever tried to breed, say, a Chihuahua with a Great Dane, sir? Even just mating similar breeds, like a Shih-Tzu and a Maltese won't always produce successful or fertile offspring.

That means only a little more and we have to start calling them separate species, not just breeds.

[RU9]

may mga witnesses din naman ang bible
it wasn't written in a dark cave and no one attested to it

all the apostles attested that Jesus was real, that he in fact lived, was crucified, died, and resurrected.  and even after torture and to their last dying breath, not one of them retracted their statement.  thats a pretty powerful statement on how factual their testimony is

Please expound on this. Do you have sources outside the bible?

[bumblebee]

Does atheist believe that everything came from nothing?

You could say that. Let's wait for the atheists. Assuming they do, what do you have in mind?

[alistair]

Please expound on this. Do you have sources outside the bible?

That Jesus was a historical figure is documented outside of the Bible. Yeshua is mentioned in the Talmud, Isa al-Masiḥ is mentioned in the Qur'an, and lots of Greco-Roman sources mention the historical Jesus

Edit: Sorry, I'm only pertaining to Jesus' historicity. If you were asking about the Resurrection, then I don't know.