Questions for the Atheists

[kajrot1]

---

the reason we can't do that it's because we humans have our limitations ^_^ and that we have to deal with it^_^...

[silent-kill]

sir balik sa question. it asked HOW, imo tobag is about behavior. imo pa gani gisulti nga "you can't really say free thought" mag boot na hinoon ka sa question? wa nimo directly gitubag ang question but instead imo gidala ang question sa imong personal interpretation of what free thought is. sayop na sir. kabalo ko sir kong onsa akong gipang storya,hehe.

wa ko mag boot ako kang gi ingnan nga imong "free thought" is not really free

ah okay so naa nakay tobag. that's good, mao ni akong gihowat sir kay imo first nga tobag wa man matobag ang how. ingon ra man ka nga ma observed ra sa human behavior.

uu ako kang gi tubag og mas detailed, kai hinay ka ka gets

so basically what you are saying is we cannot really think for ourself. wala ta'y independent thinking. so mora diay ta og Robot/computer og mga animals? so how can you determine what is right and wrong? and how would you know nga kanang so called "right" nga na inculcated sa imong brain is really right? what if you were only brainwashed to believe nga mao na ang right when in fact it is not?

so first i define na imong "independent thinking"(is it independent from prior, or previous experience, and free from any influence?) kong onsa imong pasabot ana kai pwede na ma liko2x nga topic. Robot? no because a robot is a mechanical device. Computer -- the brain is a computer putting it in a very simplistic way (like you want it to be). animals? yes humans are animals read (Answers.com - Are humans animals). again ako nanang gi explain how we come up what is right and what is wrong.. it is BASED on our Experience or Pass down knowledge not coming from you since birth that is why there is what we called the BRIAN DEVELOPMENT stage of an Infant.

what if you were only brainwashed to believe nga mao na ang right when in fact it is not?

then you wouldn't know the difference! that is why "free thought" is not free, ang brain mo himo rana og decision base sa imong na hibaw-an, og sa imong experiences.

mora ra gud ka og computer imo ra e assimilate ang mga infos nga imong masogatan. imong gikuha ang rationale sa tao sir. imo gi level siya sa mga robot og mga animals. when the fact is we are higher than them for we can think for ourselves. ang labas nato ani sir is A.I ra ni atong gi possess diay.

imo na noong gi bali, ang computer ang ni sundog sa brain ayaw baliha. ang robot ang gi sundog is ang tao. ang tao kai animal na siya!, ang A.I kai gi sundug na sa tao mao gi tawag na og ARTIFICIAL Intelligence, kai ang tao biological Intelligence na!, ayaw bali ha bai pataka rakag sturya.

rationale , product na siya sa imong na hibaw-an, og pass experience. mato to akong gi ingon nimo nga ang FREE THOUGHT dili FREE kai influenced na siya og daghan factors.

karon sir what if you say nga sayop ko, how would you know nga sayop ko nga na forced ra man ka og tobag ana "nga sayop ko" tungod sa neuro-chemical wiring sa imong brain.

kong maka ingon man gali ko og sayop ka, tungod na kai naka agi nako dira, mas daghan nakog na experience nimo, ikaw wala paka ka abot sa akong stage simple rana.

so kana di ay imong atheism sir or whatever belief nimo sir is nothing more than just a product of chemical states. so ayaw lang padala sigoro ana sir kay na high ra ka sa chemicals mao ng you think atheism or impersonalism tinood but in fact produkto sa chemical firing ra diay na siya.

bisan imong otok ingon ana ra gihapon ang pag huna-huna ang naka apan lang 1 ra ka klasi nga stimulus ang ning sud sa imong ulo, wala pud kaau ka sigi og gamit ana critically mao na.

no offesne sir ha. mora ba kanang na boang ka sa drugs bisan onsa na lang imong makita prodokto sa Chemicals pero katong imong mga nakita dili diay to tinood.

mas grabi pana imonghang pagka boang sa drugz bai, kai every sunday ka mo take, pwede pa on weekdays...hhheeheh

by the way kanang example nimo is sakto na siya gamay but we cannot really say nga mao jud na ang mahitabo kay wa pa man na mahitabo jud. in other words di na conclusive, no solid basis.

proven nana bai gi news na naai bata nga gi abuse sa iyang parents gi sudlod og tangkal sa manok for 5 years (5 years ra gali na ha!), na rescue siya sa mga pulis. ang behavior sa bata parihas sa MANOK, no reasoning skills or what so ever nga parihas sa normal nga tao.

mas dali sigoro masabtan ang term nga freethought kong ato pod gamiton ang term nga freewill.

i define na kong onsa na imong "freewill" nga pasabot kai pwede na likoon og sturya.

another question, ang boang nga tao naa na siya "free thought"/freewill or wala? kai you say man nga ang tao mas higher sa animal tungod sa iyang "free thought"/freewill tubaga ni ha. heheh

[pinoy_09]

If one must use FAITH to believe in something like the believers do, then the likelihood of their "belief" having any truth or value is drastically diminished.

[silent-kill]

If one must use FAITH to believe in something like the believers do, then the likelihood of their "belief" having any truth or value is drastically diminished.

sakto jud ka bai! how can FAITH be TRUTH when faith is just to believe.

[pinoy_09]

ang laws of logic are related to each other. but the idea that it brings us to the law of exclude middle That brings us to the third law, Excluded middle, which states that statements can only be either true or false can't be a valid argument that it is constant.

Here it is;

Ang ato gi argue is the law per se not the thing itself or subject sa ato study which is changing like scientific finding nga changeable and refutable. That is why science doesnt consider facts as absolute idea. However Whatever you will find not true or doenst invalidate the law itself that its not constant but it only addressed to the visible thing that is changing or not constant. Your tool is contants but the thing that you find not constant or not universal is the idea/realization based and result from the method being used which is laws of logic. The thing that you find not constant and not universal is your own realization or ideas based on the system but not a flaw on the system


sa mathematics pwede na nimo ingnon nga 1+1=5 kung naa kay imong standard. but I don't think comfortable ka ani. however it doesnt invalidate again the system, its just that you want to create your own. aside from that the essence of the thing that is apart or independent from your perception remains constant however can't be fully comprehensible. Anyways law of identity is a taulogy and relf referential that can't be falsify.. even though you will say 1+1=4 is still correct if you will have new standard as long as it doenst go beyond the real number (substance) of the thing that you percieved.

Naglibog nako asa padung atong discussion. I feel like our discussion is shooting up in different directions. hehehe.

Anyways, ang ako lang masulti is logic shouldn't be a set of rules to govern human behavior; it's not an ABSOLUTE LAW that governs the universe. So I still stand by my point that law of logic is not universal. When we say universal man gud, it is constant, which it is not because it can be manipulated like what religion does (and has been doing) to people. To be able to come up with something as "truth", one must undergo different processes (premise, interference, conclusion). Religion and belief in God seems to have it the other way around.

[Soul Doctor]

so gibyaan na diay ta? pointless lang diay sige pangadyi kai di man diay ta madunggan?

and why do we require advanced technologies to find him? Ngano lisud lisuron man gyud na ang pamaagi sa atong pagkita sa ginoo?

As I've said
we are far from the level of being compared to God.
This is the reason we are not able to see and understand God.

Judging from what God can do (assuming there is God) compared to what little humans can do--
it shows how far apart we are in the level of beings in this universe.

Assuming that God created the universe and what we create is limited to this world that gives us a clue on how far apart we are in the level of beings.

And what is the level of beings we are talking about?

take for example the grass and the grasshopper.
The grass is lower in level than the grasshopper because the grass is just his food.
The grass has no idea what a grasshopper is because the grass being lower does not have the means or the faculty to understand the grasshopper..

take for example the dog and his human master
the dog being in the lower level could never know everything about his master.
all he knows is that his master loves him (if his master loves him)
but the human master knows what the dog is and what are the dog's needs even without knowing the dog's language.

take for example (this time) man and God.
man could never understand God because he is lower in level with God.
humans being limited to his 5 senses, doesn't have the faculty to sense God.
All we know is God loves us, that is why he provided us all our needs.

So it is just a matter of accepting that we are not with the same level with God,( infact we are far below the level of beings since God is the highest level) that makes us unable to see or understand God.

But arrogance, more than ignorance would make us believe we are at a level close to level of God, so if we are close with God, then we should be able to see God.

Who knows, maybe the universe itself is God.

[Soul Doctor]

And to deny something mainly because you are not able to experience its presence is simply stupid.

Look around.
Is there anything you need as a human that is not present in this world?

everything you need to survive in this world is here and provided for by "someone".

If you say everything in this world is just a random formation and mere material and physicals evolution that started from the big bang theory, though it sounds pretentiously intellectual,---- it is still highly illogical.

yes we can process some things---- like turning stones to sand or cement.
maybe we collect stones and minerals to form metal to form iron rods
or maybe we can make iron rods, sand and cement into a tall building in 9 months.

but God can design a sperm cell so small (you could barely see it with your naked eye)
to become a full size human being.
complete with hair, bones, nails, nerves, eyes and brain out of a single sperm cell in 9 months.
with a million more sperms cell in male humans.
That should tell you how different we are in the level of beings.

[yanong_banikanhon]

If one must use FAITH to believe in something like the believers do, then the likelihood of their "belief" having any truth or value is drastically diminished.

Since according to atheists, immaterial concept like faith and laws of logic are nothing but chemical reaction inside one's brain, what makes atheism true and theism false? Dili kaha kaning belief sa mga atheist bunga lamang pud sa violent chemical reaction(s) sulod sa ilang utok?

[pinoy_09]

And to deny something mainly because you are not able to experience its presence is simply stupid.

Look around.
Is there anything you need as a human that is not present in this world?

everything you need to survive in this world is here and provided for by "someone".

If you say everything in this world is just a random formation and mere material and physicals evolution that started from the big bang theory is highly illogical.

yes we can process some things---- like turning stones to sand or cement.
maybe we collect stones and minerals to form metal to form iron rods
or maybe we can make iron rods, sand and cement into a tall building in 9 months.

but God can design a sperm cell so small (you could barely see it with your naked eye)
to become a full size human being.
complete with hair, bones, nails, nerves, eyes and brain out of a single sperm cell in 9 months.
That should tell you how different we are in the level of beings.

Redundant.

We've seen this sort of argument from Christians over and over again and they've been refuted so many times.

[WordofGod]

heheheh....atheism is already dead bro!

ang mga arrogant nalang nanga habilin.. but if youre truly searching for truths, then makasabot naka of the undeniable existence of GOD.

YouTube - ‪Ravi Zacharias Answers Atheists Part 1‬‏
YouTube - ‪Ravi Zacharias: Why I Am Not An Atheist 1‬‏