Questions for the Atheists

[Ramini]

---

Political weakness

whatever you call it..you can talk around it pero kng si kinsai naai alas..sya jd ang mu prevail..so whatever you call it political weakness or whatever.

That's where the danger is, a person in power who controls a country or the world, who doesn't believe in the absolute could just make his/her own moral guidelines e. g. it is morally right to impregnate your daughters and grand daughters..

That's what Lot did in the bible..maskn nag gtagaan syag specific instructions sa angel na muadto syag lain na city..didto jd sya sa cave with his daughters nya ang mga daughters pai nagpa buntis sa ilang kaugalingon papa..cguro dli jd ni literal..i think what happened to Lot was out of family or clan traditions na dapat dli masagulan ang bloodline nila..and that tradition overrides everything even morality..so even if lain ang incest tan-awon sa silingan ni Lot..pero tradition mana na kinahanglan ma maintain ang bloodline so bahalag anak pa na nya mapugos jd sya..so i guess morality is SUBJECTIVE..kng si kinsa lang ang nag wield sa power..kana imong giingon na danger bro..dugay nman kaayo na kapila nana na happen sa history and many people have allowed it or stopped it depende ra jd sa tao, group of people, tradition, etc. and the power for it to happen..so i guess whether we like it or not..ana na jd na.

[pinoy_09]

so i guess morality is SUBJECTIVE

Actually bai, in the scientific sense, we can argue that morality is objective.

[tokidoki]

hmm... yah, i agree that morality is subjective that's why most people here bring that up time and again. ngano daw if naai rapist... or kawatan... or mopatay tao.... bla bla bla...

[miyay]

Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but not hi/her own facts.

No I don't really want God to exist. I don't want him to exist as a matter of fact. I just couldn't find a reason why he couldn't.

why wouldn't you want god to exist? what is it that you fear about god?

[miyay]

Sometimes, dependence is really not good...even morals and values are based on a book...

Religion should not be a definitive basis of morals...and atheism should not be branded as lack of the latter....moreso, labeled as anti-christs....

i see. interesting

[tokidoki]

Sometimes, dependence is really not good...even morals and values are based on a book...

Religion should not be a definitive basis of morals...and atheism should not be branded as lack of the latter....moreso, labeled as anti-christs....

Because Christians were lead to believe that the godless were evil. Mao na ang flaw sa ilang scripture. In fact, whole societies thrived long before the concept of theism.

Wala man gani na ginoo ang mga Lions and yet you see them holding a colony in harmony.

Ants don't have a god (at least as far as we know for the moment) and yet millions of them live for the purpose of their colony.

These are one of the basic functions any complex organism, to connect with its kind.

If some of you have read Born to Run by Chris McDougall there was the question how men were able to develop concepts of abstract thinking, forward thinking, creative thinking and other reasoning and logic from our earlier ancestors.

How were we able to outlive the Neanderthals who we currently speculate had more muscle AND brains than homo sapiens?

They were able to study this in primitive tribes in Africa.

They speculate that one of the things they do to hunt they have to study how the prey reacts (abstract thinking. thinking like the animals), where it's heading (forward thinking/creative thinking/logic/reasoning, analyzing where and when the prey would go), what time and season types of prey would be efficient to hunt (forward thinking again).

Ancient man was an expert in speculating. This of course obviously doesn't follow the concepts of evolution. In fact, it was environment and skill that he developed these chains of thought over time. The brain was already there, he only needed to use it.

He then was able to apply that brain of his to other things like his inventions and so on.

Ang problema pud ana ron kai sa sobraan sa abstract thinking naabot naman hinuon sa ginoo or the thought of a higher being that created him.

It would have been enough to acknowledge a "creator" but to document and brand him? That was a little overkill for us.

[treize]

whatever you call it..you can talk around it pero kng si kinsai naai alas..sya jd ang mu prevail..so whatever you call it political weakness or whatever.





That's what Lot did in the bible..maskn nag gtagaan syag specific instructions sa angel na muadto syag lain na city..didto jd sya sa cave with his daughters nya ang mga daughters pai nagpa buntis sa ilang kaugalingon papa..cguro dli jd ni literal..i think what happened to Lot was out of family or clan traditions na dapat dli masagulan ang bloodline nila..and that tradition overrides everything even morality..so even if lain ang incest tan-awon sa silingan ni Lot..pero tradition mana na kinahanglan ma maintain ang bloodline so bahalag anak pa na nya mapugos jd sya..so i guess morality is SUBJECTIVE..kng si kinsa lang ang nag wield sa power..kana imong giingon na danger bro..dugay nman kaayo na kapila nana na happen sa history and many people have allowed it or stopped it depende ra jd sa tao, group of people, tradition, etc. and the power for it to happen..so i guess whether we like it or not..ana na jd na.

I was under the impression that you don't believe in the bible.

why wouldn't you want god to exist? what is it that you fear about god?

Let's just say that I'm pretty damn sure that he doesn't wanna see the big bad wolf. And I don't like being judged..

@silent-kill yes I'm taking to the extreme so allow me to quote this:

First I need to clarify that atheists can be morally good. They can even be people of integrity. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s isn’t.

Objective morals are those that are based outside of yourself. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview.

Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't”. Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.

In an atheistic worldview, lying, cheating, and stealing are neither right or wrong. They are phenomena to which, if the atheist so decides, moral values can be assigned. Sure, the atheist might say that we all should want to help society function properly and it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, and steal. But, this is weak intellectual reasoning.

Let me put some flesh and blood on this and show you why. What if there were a global economic meltdown and social turmoil ensued so that robbing people at gunpoint to get food became common place. Robbery would then be a social norm. Would such a norm be wrong? If it is not wrong, then you affirm situational ethics and can’t complain when the situation suits somebody else’s fancy and you get robbed at gunpoint. Of course, this would lead to anarchy.

If you say such theft is wrong, then why is it wrong? If it is your opinion that it is wrong, that is nice, but opinions don’t make ethical standards. If you said it is wrong because it is wrong, you are just begging the question. Besides, that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer and that would imply a Moral Law Giver.

Anyway, some atheists maintain that the best moral system is that which brings the greatest happiness, the least amount of suffering, and the greatest freedom for as many people as possible. That is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t work. Take a look at slavery, for example. The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people means that a minority of people should suffer in bondage. This way, the greatest amount of freedom for the majority is ensured. But if the atheist says that it is wrong to enslave a minority to benefit the majority, then why is it wrong? Because he said so? If he says it’s wrong because the minority is suffering, so what? Why is suffering wrong? It may be unpleasant. It may not be nice. But, from an atheistic worldview, why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the majority? Atheism can’t help us here. It just isn’t up to the task of providing solid answers.

Let me reiterate by saying that atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience, human conditions, and human reason. By its very nature, such moral evaluation is relativistic, dangerous, can change, can become self contradictory, and can lead to anarchy.
True morality is not merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it helps stop the guy with the gun from taking your food. There is something more, and the Bible offers us more.

It offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. Therefore, it is always wrong to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, and to bear false witness, but not so in atheism’s empty moral vacuum because morality is formed in a subjective manner.

No matter which way I look, it seems that the bible is very much accountable for objective morality...

[tuffie09]

All man and women are made from the image and lightness of God.

Now, explain to me.



Treant diay si bro, damn! Nice naai invi powers.

[kajrot1]

A bible is a compilation of teachings of jesus' disciples...not jesus himself...even if jesus did write it himself, he was merely a man...

And I think it's a really good basis for values education and moral guideline....but not SOLELY....

It's not a hoax....maybe some stories are exaggerated and "superimposed" for the purpose of solidifying the claim...

haha nice BIBLE is not a HoaX
therefore God exists.

[kajrot1]

All man and women are made from the image and lightness of God.

Now, explain to me.



Treant diay si bro, damn! Nice naai invi powers.

When God said he will create Man into his image and likeness he's talking about his first Man creation which is ADAM ^_^ since adam and eve deceived by the snake and so Sin and curse came upon them mao to naay mamatay and different plaques and diseases covers the entire planet because of man's sins mao nag ka ing ani.. But Adam as his First Creation Was indeed An exact image and likeness (God)