Questions for the Atheists

[treize]

---

yehey!yehey! i lab this one man!

taud2x naman unta ka nga member brad, karon pa man ka magpadaghan sa imong posts.. kana ra gyud imong reply sa tanang thread og kini

yatisa ani nga thread oie... akaha hahahahhaa

spamming na ning imoha tsk! tsk! tsk!...

[pinoy_09]

A thing cannot be variant and invariant at the same time. Therefore logic is not the chemical state inside one's brain.

How does your conclusion support your premise? Care to elaborate more? The more I examine this sentence, the more it doesn't make sense. LOGIC is constrained in the natural world. If you discredit this view you are discrediting reality.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Granting that the correct dichotomy is "logic transcends the material world", you still cannot provide me proof that this statement is true. Unsa lagi proof nimo nga tinuod ni?

Bro, unsa man diay ipasabot anang dichotomy, di ba 2 contradictory statements? Kung false ang una, true ang ikaduha. Kung true ang una, false ang ikaduha. Two contradictory statements cannot be false at the same time. Ikaw man mismo nag-ingon nga ang correct dichotomy is this:

The correct dichotomy should be---logic is either dependent upon human minds OR it transcends the material world.

Unya ako man gipakita sa imo nga false ang unang statement (logic is dependent upon human minds). So ang logical conclusion is: kanang ikaduha nga statement (logic transcends the material world) IS TRUE. Unsa pa man diay klaseha nga proof imong gipangita, kanang illogical?

LOGIC is constrained in the natural world. If you discredit this view you are discrediting reality.

Then why can't you prove that the statement logic is the only way to examine the truth is true without resorting to circular reasoning using your in-depth knowledge of the natural world?

[yanong_banikanhon]

Why wouldn't you share the theists' tools here? Until you share your views our debate would be futile. Since we're technically OT already, you might as well share... Again the question was this: What do theists use besides logic and reason to examine the truth?

Simple ra man na, bro. The atheists/agnostics strongly believe in this: Logic and reason is THE ONLY WAY to examine the truth. They want to convince the theists to also believe in that statement. Yet, they have not given any single proof that the statement is true. That is the reason why we don't share your position for that matter. Give us a proof that your claim is true. Then we will be convinced that it is true.

Unsa ra man diay nang inyo, maayo lang mo mangita og proof kun kamo'y makapabor? Unya ang mismong basis sa inyong pagtoo dili ninyo ma-prove? Tsk.tsk.tsk.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Your challenge to prove me that logic is the only way to get the truth relies on LOGIC itself. I hope you get this point by now.

Yeah, I got the point very clearly. That the basis of atheism/agnosticism is nothing but circular reasoning - the very same thing they don't like to hear from their theist friends.

You see, mao na ang tinuod nga dilemma sa mga atheists. Kun moingon sila nga kanang statement nga logic is the only way to examine the truth TINUOD kay it is true by logic itself, they are engaging in circular reasoning. Kusog ra ba ni silang manumangil nga mahilig daw sa circular reasoning ang mga theists.

Unya kun moingon pud sila nga the statement is proven in some other way, then they refute the statement itself, that logic is the ONLY WAY to examine the truth.

It appears that you cannot be logical and be an atheist/agnostic at the same time kay maski ang basis sa ilang faith absurd man bisan unsaon og bali-bali.

Kay absurd na man daan ilang position, kutob na lang tawon sila sa pagsupak2x ug pagbugal2x sa mga theists. Kun ato silang pangutan-on bahin sa ilang pagtoo, ingnon na lang dayon ka, 'Sayop man ng imong question, brad'. Hehe...

[nowpress*]

and that book was written by men who narrated 'so-called' experience centuries AFTER said experience without substantiating validity.

I don't need to remind you how true that is. Daghan na kaayo similar post-documentations done even by scientists and you've seen how their careers took a nosedive after that.

You can't document the past by glorifying events with exageratd testimonies. That falls into the 'creative non-fiction' genre of books.

that's an exaggeration but even if it was can you prove them wrong? Your reasoning shows lack of knowledge on the process of validating historical records.

Moses was still alive when he wrote the Pentateuch, Most prophets were still alive when their experience were written down by their scribes. John and Paul were still alive when the autographs were penned. With these facts I have proven your allegations wrong.

The bible is the true word of God og daghan ng ni attempt to put it sa fiction section but all failed.

[nowpress*]

i think its more logical to say ...

that an intelligent, conscious/life, powerful Creator created Creation than to claim that dumb,emotionless,lifeless Chemicals created Creation.

its called evolution, but you wouldnt know that cause you like the magical approach to life lol

it's magical indeed, I rather believe in magic than trust my soul on illogical assumptions such as that creation came from these dumb,lifeless,emotionless chemicals.

Imagine this...Chemicals turned into a Philosopher,speaking about magic, thats more magical, how absurd.

[pinoy_09]

Unya ako man gipakita sa imo nga false ang unang statement (logic is dependent upon human minds). So ang logical conclusion is: kanang ikaduha nga statement (logic transcends the material world) IS TRUE. Unsa pa man diay klaseha nga proof imong gipangita, kanang illogical?

Cge dawaton na lang nato, for the sake of argument, nga the statement "Logic transcends the material world" is true, does that also mean this statement is true:

"This SOURCE should not be bounded by the material universe(s). This SOURCE is called GOD."

Isn't it an assumption that just because LOGIC is not bound by the material world, that a "supernatural" is authoring them? If so, can you prove that that this is true? Until ma proven ni nga tinuod, there's no reason to work on this assumption. Is it safe to say nga nag himo-himo ra mo sa inyong Ginoo?

Yeah, I got the point very clearly. That the basis of atheism/agnosticism is nothing but circular reasoning - the very same thing they don't like to hear from their theist friends.

You see, mao na ang tinuod nga dilemma sa mga atheists. Kun moingon sila nga kanang statement nga logic is the only way to examine the truth TINUOD kay it is true by logic itself, they are engaging in circular reasoning. Kusog ra ba ni silang manumangil nga mahilig daw sa circular reasoning ang mga theists.

Unya kun moingon pud sila nga the statement is proven in some other way, then they refute the statement itself, that logic is the ONLY WAY to examine the truth.

Don't accuse me of circular reasoning.

This is not circular reasoning. I'm not saying "logic defines truth and truth defines logic" --- mao na'y circular reasoning. However, I'm saying that "Whatever TRUTH is, the only way to recognize it is through LOGIC." See the difference?

Pareha rana kung mu ingon kog "When my car tank goes empty, the only way to keep it running is by filling up the tank." Is that circular reasoning?

Simple ra man na, bro. The atheists/agnostics strongly believe in this: Logic and reason is THE ONLY WAY to examine the truth. They want to convince the theists to also believe in that statement. Yet, they have not given any single proof that the statement is true. That is the reason why we don't share your position for that matter. Give us a proof that your claim is true. Then we will be convinced that it is true.

Unsa ra man diay nang inyo, maayo lang mo mangita og proof kun kamo'y makapabor? Unya ang mismong basis sa inyong pagtoo dili ninyo ma-prove? Tsk.tsk.tsk.

I'll take that as a NO.

Why don't you just answer the question directly. Again, the question was: What do theists use besides logic and reason to examine the truth? The fact nga mu likoy ka sa pangutana, are you saying nga LOGIC ra gihapon ang basis sa tanan?

[yanong_banikanhon]

However, I'm saying that "Whatever TRUTH is, the only way to recognize it is through LOGIC." See the difference?

Unsa lagi imong proof nga tinuod ning imong giingon nga: Whatever TRUTH is, the only way to recognize it is through LOGIC. ?

Imoha man ng claim, so ang burden of proof imoha pud. It is your obligation to provide sufficient warrant for that claim. Dili kay magtuyok2x lang imong tubag. Kun dili nimo ma-establish nga tinuod ng maong claim without begging the question, nagpasabot lang na mga walay basehanan kanang maong claim. Mugna lang na sa buta nga pagtoo.

Kun mo-claim bitaw ang mga theists nga duna'y Ginoo, mangita man ka'g proof kun tinuod ba nang maong claim. Mao ra gihapon ng kasuha sa inyong position. Inyo mang gi-claim nga Whatever TRUTH is, the only way to recognize it is through LOGIC. Hain man ang proof ana? Inyo ra lugar ng gi-assumed nga tinuod bisan wala moy proof?

[silent-kill]

it's magical indeed, I rather believe in magic than trust my soul on illogical assumptions such as that creation came from these dumb,lifeless,emotionless chemicals.

Imagine this...Chemicals turned into a Philosopher,speaking about magic, thats more magical, how absurd.

so stupid pag toon sa og science before ka mu sulti ana.