Atheism

[n`gel]

---

Dili ta magsugod ug debate diri kay wala na sad tay padulngan. To Atheists... I'm just really curious. And, diri sa Istorya mura walay atheist nga babae, pulos lalake.

[simple_me]

yeah no debate please... yup i agree with n'gel too...

[MrBiddle]

I don't think this topic is specific MrBiddle, you can re-read the opening post coz I'm asking within the confines of the topic's relevance. MrBiddle, what would you do? Asa man kutob imong prinsipyo and pagtuo nga walay Ginoo in your everday life? What if you'll have kids one day, wouldn't you put up a Xmas tree in your house? Or not believe in Santa Claus?

I see, so ok ra diay akong post dili diay simang per se.

Hmmm... I'd break it to my kids at a young age that there is a God but Santa is made-up...

[pitsay]

Here's another piece of an atheist . . .


In an editorial, Life magazine argued that the nation's founding fathers had wanted the leathen of religion in public life and spoke against the outlawing Bible reading and prayer in school. The title of this piece was "The Bible: Better in School Than in Court." Madalyn Murray O'Hair (America's most famous atheist - won the landmark lawsuit, effectively banning prayer in public schools in 1963) wrote a letter to the magazine denouncing it's stand. It read in part:

. . . The atheist's position is one arrived at after considerable study, cogitation and inner search. It is a position which is founded in science, in reason and in a love for fellow man rather than in a love for God.

We find the Bible to be nauseating, historically inaccurate, replete with the ravings of madmen. We find God to be sadistic, brutal, and a representation of hatred, vengeance. We find the Lord's Prayer to be that muttered by worms groveling for meager existence in a traumatic, paranoid world.

This is not appropriate untouchable dicta to be forced on adult or child. The business of the public schools, where attendance is compulsory, is to prepare children to face the problems on earth, not to prepare for heaven, which is a delusional dream of the unsophisticated mind of the ill-educated clergy . . .

[gareb]

(question and answer na itoh!!!! )

What is the difference between belief and disbelief?

belief is the categorical acceptance of an assertion or a statement. it establishes a positive truth value on the said statement/assertion, with or without valid argument.. disbelief, of course, is the opposite of it. it gives such statements/assertions a negative truth value also with or without argument.

Is atheism anti-religion?

if by "religion" we mean a set of beliefs/dogma that is founded on the assumption of the existence of the divine, then yes, it is anti-religion. but we know for sure that "religion" is more than this. besides, there are those who believe in the existence of a divine entity(ties) but do not subscribe to any religion. they too can be regarded as "anti-religion" as they shun the organized structure and latent bureaucracy that modern religions have.

Who has the burden of proof in debates?

the burden of proof always lies on those who is on the affirmative side of the argument. of course, we can phrase a statement to make the negative side bear the burden, but to do so would appear quite absurd. generally, statements are phrased so that those that insist that a divine entity exists provides the burden of proof for such an existence. it is actually logically easier to prove the existence of something by presenting that something, rather than prove the non-existence of something by showing it's non-existence (i.e. search the whole wide universe for a place where divine beings must be.)

Is atheism morally and intellectually significant?

i believe it is so. atheism does not place humanity's existence secondary to that of the divine, so much so that humans are urged to take responsibility for his actions and not entrust everything to the whim of the divine. 'bahala na ang ginoo ana' or 'ginoo na lay makahibalo' absolves humans from the responsibility that is suppose to be his at the first place, since admittedly it was his actions that make things happen, and not any other being's.

lifting the divine out from the picture clears things up. science could not have developed the way it does now if during the middle ages everyone thought that tampering with 'creation' and knowing exactly how things work would be an act against the divine's will. critical mindedness shielded from fear of excommunication, ostracism, brimstone and hellfire (not to mention burning at the stakes, etc. etc.) was the cradle of modern day science and phi***phy; not religious dogma of static, and yet dissimilar creation myths.

If you marry the girl you love, would you marry her in a Christian church because it's important to her and her family? Would you kneel down and pray beside her during the wedding ceremony in the Church? Would you swear "I do" to the God she believes in?

yes, this is quite the trick question, but a practical one. i believe that what makes the bond of marriage strong is not the ceremony/ritual of marriage but the mutual respect, affection and love for one another. marriage is a mere formalization of vows; a social institution that officially acknowledges the existence and validity of the bond between two people. the ritual(form) should not dictate the bond(essence) that exists between two people. anyway, we do not marry and estanlish a bond but the reverse.

with love, affection and respect present, trying to 'win over' your partner to your beliefs would be absurd. of course you can talk about your differences, and perhaps the both of you can see where one's view is missing some points, but i see it as a dominating and disrespectful act when one insists on his/her belief on the other.

when we go to strange places we 'do as the Romans do'. we remove our shoes when we enter a Moslem house or we make sure not to touch anybody's head when we are at Thailand. we adapt to the customs of wherever we are, not to lose our identity, but to show respect. this does not necessarily mean that we believe in the filth of the feet that extends beyond the physical plane or the sacredness of heads. disbelief does not give one the authority to mock, unless of course such custom/tradition/dogma/belief is the very one who does the act of mockery.

in the same manner i would kneel inside the church, listen to the wisdom of the priest's words, and go through the ritual; we meet halfway, respecting each other's convictions. i do my bit of concession and my partner does too. i will not pray beside her, but will listen to the prayers of the people around us; i think it is better to listen to the people's wishes for us, than to make my own wishes. i will not swear to a god whose existence i do not subscribe to, but i would swear on the minister, in his capacity as a human being with authority and most especially everybody present.

i am sure that Christian couples who vow to "magpakasal sa tanang simbahan' do not actually convert themselves to Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Shinto, etc. when they perform the vows following the rituals of those religions...

nothing really different from a civil wedding except for the pomp and regalia. Filipinos being religious, we put prime importance on the spiritual side of weddings, hence church weddings rather than civil ones, when in fact the couple's lives afterwads are more often than not dictated by socio-civic functions in the community and in the family rather than the spiritual.

[gareb]

God is Love
Gareb doesn't beleive in God
So.....

of course, the first premise cannot hold.
ergo, i know (and feel) what love is.

[n`gel]

very nice gareb.

[Galadriel]

@ gareb
lucky the girl who holds your heart these days my friend

[gareb]

lucky the girl who holds your heart these days my friend

on the contrary, i'm the lucky one.

[kim071316]

i do believe in Him all the time.. though sometimes, i tend to argue myself.