Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[sirfrancisdrake]

---

The Bible is a literary and historical book. Genesis is purely literary.

[Breakeven]

The Bible is a literary and historical book. Genesis is purely literary.

maybe to the lost and the blind but to the believers, it is the only means of knowing God's purpose to humanity.

[Peenut]

aw. relax lng diha boss.mahimoot man sad ko nimu. hahaha. nangutana ra gni kog kita ba mog laminin . i may enjoy learning about basic biomedical sciences, yet my faith still resides in the Lord-- that He's the Kreator. aw creator.

nangutana rman sad ko boss... wala manay exclamation points akong reply... ^^,
pero dili tanan cross oi related ni Jesus dayon... zzz

[noy]

There you go. You just said so yourself, there is a lack of viable, observable and verifiable evidence to presuppose the existence of a god. And then you said that the claims for god's non-existence has not been proven either. That is a logical fallacy right there. You see, the burden of proof doesn't lie on the negative side of the argument for the existence of god. It lies on the positive side. If you assert the existence of a god, you have to provide sufficient evidence for your claim. Then and only then, can you expect the opposition to provide evidence to the contrary. And clearly, as you said before, there is no such evidence for the positive argument that god exists so why expect evidence debunking such argument? You're the one making the positive claim, not us. We don't have to prove anything.

Long before Aetheism came in the picture in the many belief systems bai,
people already believed in a Creator, a deity or God..not talking about a certain belief system ha..but generally the belief of a deity.
This existing POV must be proven wrong first before accepting a new POV
(basing on how a scientific theory is replaced/modified with a more accurate theory).
as per records,aetheism started in 16th century and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century
source:History of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
correct me if i am wrong, but any scientific theory can only be debunked if a new theory is proven to be more efficient and reasonable after several tests.
--A search for potential improvements to the theory then begins. Solutions may require minor or major changes to the theory, or none at all if a satisfactory explanation is found within the theory's existing framework. Over time, as successive modifications build on top of each other, theories consistently improve and greater predictive accuracy is achieved. Since each new version of a theory (or a completely new theory) must have more predictive and explanatory power than the last.
source:Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are you really sure that the burden of proof lies to those who believe?

basin mu ingun ka nga a belief of a Creator is Not a scientific theory,
well IT WAS at least before Aetheism and IT STILL IS(generally not personally) that's why Aetheism has to be PROVEN first before we trash theism( being the initial accepted theory).
so has it been proven already that God does not Exist?till then your belief that God does not exist would unfortunately still based on FAITH

You don't need faith for the non-belief of god any more than you need faith to say "I don't believe I'm a goat.", since there is no evidence to say otherwise. IT IS the case that I'm not a goat. If it were flipped around and there was evidence that I'm a goat and I genuinely believed I'm not, then that would mean I exercise faith to believe I am not a goat since there is no evidence to suppose that I am indeed, not a goat.

unless it has NOT been proven and accepted that we are indeed HUMANS and NOT goats..then there is a chance and probability that we might be goats and saying "i am not a goat" is a statement of FAITH.

of course bai, FAITH is NOT required to say you are not a goat... you are just stating a fact and the obvious..
and you cannot equate the statement "i believe i am not a goat" with "i believe there is no God" 'cause they are just not equal..the difference between them is eternity!
let me put it this way...
*We are Humans not Goats..(PROVEN, unless you wanna dispute it..)
therefore whoever believes it does NOT require FAITH anymore..
*There is NO God( Has it been proven already? i don't think so ) it has been believed BUT NOT an absolute truth..(obviously you would see that there are many aetheist scientists coverted to Theism and vice versa..'cause IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN YET!
therefore whoever believes God does not Exist requires FAITH.

Why would I wanna settle down with someone I don't entirely know? lol I don't think this argument serves any purpose towards your position but I'll humor you:

Do you perchance misrepresent trust as faith? Do you know there are two types of trust. Trust with sufficient basis and trust without any basis. The latter is called faith.

why would you settle down with someone you don't entirely know? why not? well 'cause you simply cannot and will not entirely know somebody, not even your parents,siblings and closest friends esp your Fiancée...though you may know a LOT about them but NEVER entirely..if your principle about marriage is that you have to know the person entirely then if you are still single i have a feeling that you will be single for the rest of your life...Lol
and if you're married...clearly you violated your own pronciple...

i think i get the difference between trust and faith...
by what you said trust is based in something SOLID..therefore it is earned..
Faith however is based in nothing(i partially agree with the idea except that it doesn't necessarilly based from nothing, though it can at some curcumstance)therefore faith is a gift.

Therefore if one trusts a person, then He must have faith in that person too..
'cause after having to trust someone fully we do not really know 100% that the other person would remain trustworthy till death(in the case of till death do us part) otherwise we woundn't have failed marraiges and broken trusts..
knowing these possiblities...when you settle down, it does require a great deal of FAITH.

Again, your idea for the formulation of scientific theories is severely deteriorated by your own personal opinion of what it is. I'm not gonna go through all the trouble of explaining it to you because frankly, it is your job to do that and educate yourself, not mine. I strongly suggest reading up on this topic before making presumptions.

of course i'm not a scienctist. are you? if you are..for sure you know that scienctific theories are still based in the basic steps in solving a scientific problem which starts with a problem then followed by a hypothesis...
if you are the scientist would you create a hypothesis that you think wouldn't make sense? clearly you would go with the ones which are more probable.
by that faith is required. otherwise you woudn't be working through getting the datas to get a possible conclusion...
faith in the sense that it would lead you to a conclusion, otherwise you wound't have considered the hypothesis probable in the first place. i hope you see the point

What makes you think I need to feel warm and fuzzy inside? Again with the presumptions man. Your conclusion that faith is needed for non-belief is an easily debatable, easily refutable conclusion to your argument, so why use it as a premise to your argument here? I'm sorry man but that tactic is widely frowned upon in the ethics of discourse.

it was just a YES/NO question Lol
again, unless you can prove that there's no God.until then,you are still a FAITHful Aetheist ..
(remember your belief(Aetheism) came in the later part.. so to disprove the already existing beliefs about God you must prove yours first..)
sorry but that's just how the process works...
well it's like
some made claims about God's existence..proofs were presented many or most believed..
some disputed the claim and proofs later...so it is just right for the disputing parties to state their case, reason why they made such claims and of course, their PROOF..
otherwise the already existing claim will not be overthrown...

if you are to disprove Newon's Law of cause and effect...what do you think you should do? obviously show your PROOF that the said Law is no longer accurate or applicable.

Your argument presupposes the existence of an entity called god inhibiting omniscience. That premise has not been proven and using it in your argument will not warrant your conclusion any merit.

i think we can both agree that one must be ALL KNOWING to know everything right? i believe that there is God because of many reasons but one of them is that nature and everything else esp the ones that people cannot yet explain never cease to WOW me..
you on the other hand bai, claiming that there is NO God...MUST possess a great deal of knowledge about uncertainties and unknown
cause if God who created the universe,earth and us with all its/our complexities while being very specific is for REAL, i think it is just right for Him to be anfathomable and unpridictable..
so i am going to ask you again with some modifications if you don't mind...
are you 100% sure about whatever you believed in? not on a personal level, 'cause obviously you would be
but in every aspect ABOUT it and esp with yout POV in the CONTRADICTING IDEAS(Theism )....

Your question says a lot about your uncertainty when it comes to the search for meaning and purpose in life. I could engage you into a long discussion about this but for now let me ask you this. If there is a gap to be bridged, why does it have to be faith that fills it? If there are unanswered questions, why does it have to be god that fills it? If there is a meaning and purpose to life, why does it have to come from an antiquated textbook full of moral atrocities? Why do you need to reconcile reality with your own personal delusions? Reality seems to be doing just fine without it. Why do we have to diminish it with cheap man made myths and constructs?

i would never deny the uncertainties in this life bai..so YES if you say so...i am uncertain with most things(Life, Afterlife and Truth) ...personally with my Faith obviously i wouldn't be uncertain anymore about purpose...
But these are some of the things that i am certain of..
*the teachings of Jesus about Loving my enemies and praying for those who persecute me, and Loving my neighbors as myself..even if God and afterlife are not for real...His teachings will be enough for me to LIVE a Good Life with Good relationship towards others...
*if God was not real, then my Faith in Him would only serve as my guide while i walk this earth...trust me bai, with what i 've been through...it made me a better person
*If God,afterlife,heaven and hell, faith and salvation were real...
Only God could say if i am saved..but at least i get the chance to struggle and believe..chance of heaven as they say

i'll try to answer your questions bai
*If there is a gap to be bridged, why does it have to be faith that fills it?
-for whatever our beliefs would be, with Life's uncertainties...it is impossible to bridge gaps without faith, plus with our nature...we're not really good with gaps are we?...that's why we continue our search,questions and discover..

*If there are unanswered questions, why does it have to be god that fills it?
- 'cause i believe that the way to understanding is to believe first.
and with the level of answers we are aiming to get, it makes it the more impossible for us to answer it..unless God who is everlasting is for real...
Lastly, we cannot answer infinite questions with something that is finite.

*If there is a meaning and purpose to life, why does it have to come from an antiquated textbook full of moral atrocities?
-the idea is clearly relative bai..of course from an unbeliever's POV you are mostly inclined conclude such..
regarding the "atrocities" in the bible...before you call the God of the bible a murderer..
please know what were the reasons for the tragedy(sodom and gomorah,great flood..tribal killings)..
Laws were given, Consequences were clearly laid over, chances were Given over time...but Disobedience prevailed. as what Newton said "in every action there is always an opposite reaction".
what happens to the All forgiving and Loving God then? please do not forget the Just and Righteous God as well and that Chances were given..
what about Jesus' sacrifice? that whosoever believes in Him not perish but will be saved...if the OT laws were fulfilled by the NT laws of love,and selflessness. through Jesus Christ..
basin hangtud karun magpinatyanay pa ta!!! hehehe
if we are to base our purpose and morality in the old testament..
we would clearly be Lost like what happened to extremist and fanatics..

our generation,technology,and culture is way too different with the OT times
clearly the OT punishments and way of convertion is NO LONGER applicable
esp when the fulfillment of those LAWS are fulfilled by Christ in His sacrifice...but to elaborate i guess would be out of the topic.
so to answer your question,
why would i not base my morality about a book that teaches to Love selflessly,examples led by God sending His Only Son to die in Sin in our behalf..
wouldn't you agree? if everyone would Love others as ourselves, forgive our enemies and show humility to those who persecute us...esp the leaders of our nation...this world would be a better place to Live in..

Lastly,
*Why do you need to reconcile reality with your own personal delusions? Reality seems to be doing just fine without it. Why do we have to diminish it with cheap man made myths and constructs?
-reality is not necessarily the truth..'cause our reality might project that there is no God(note: that we are using our POV to conclude...now with our limited mind and knowledge about things we can never be too sure can we?)..
all possibilities are present that the truth is in contrary with "our" reality.

personally my reality was not at all doing fine and if this "delusion" about God made me a better person...then i'd rather stay deluded..Lol apparently i have to ask you these questions...

how sure are you that what i believe in is a delusion? and that it is based from
man made myths and constructs? again...not on a personal Level...'cause obviously you would be 100% sure.

and can you also give your insights this question that i asked in my previous post
('cause you answered them with questions instead...hehehe if you don't mind)
*can you explain why people are always searching for something? it could be answers,wealth,satisfaction,fame,fortune..etc...
like we end up wanting more after we reach our highest goal...

Last question bai, if believing in God,Afterlife,heaven and Hell
is being illogical?
What do you call the act of not believing if it turns out that God,Afterlife,Heaven and Hell were True?
again reality is NOT necessarily the truth.

i would've checked the links bai but youtube links are blocked from the office...thanks for posting them though... i've always wanted to check other POVs.. i will surely check them out soon!

[crocodile]

for me science hehehehe

[mr. wizzard]

mas mu tou ko science kay dili bais ila study

[noy]

The Church contends that natural reason, being a God-given capacity, is not opposed to the Church's teachings and the church therefore holds that its role throughout history has led to progress of science and intuitive reasoning
-St.Augustine

[noy]

mas mu tou ko science kay dili bais ila study

The Vatican actually has a scientific research team

source: Pontifical Academy of Sciences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Since the Academy and its membership is not influenced by factors of a national, political, or religious character it represents a valuable source of objective scientific information which is made available to the Holy See and to the international scientific community"

which means that the reserach team is composed with both believers and non-believers of the faith.
to clear out biases.

[Chrysley]

Long before Aetheism came in the picture in the many belief systems bai,
people already believed in a Creator, a deity or God..not talking about a certain belief system ha..but generally the belief of a deity.
This existing POV must be proven wrong first before accepting a new POV
(basing on how a scientific theory is replaced/modified with a more accurate theory).
as per records,aetheism started in 16th century and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century
source:History of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
correct me if i am wrong, but any scientific theory can only be debunked if a new theory is proven to be more efficient and reasonable after several tests.
--A search for potential improvements to the theory then begins. Solutions may require minor or major changes to the theory, or none at all if a satisfactory explanation is found within the theory's existing framework. Over time, as successive modifications build on top of each other, theories consistently improve and greater predictive accuracy is achieved. Since each new version of a theory (or a completely new theory) must have more predictive and explanatory power than the last.
source:Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, since the dawn of mankind, humans believed in deities. And you're saying that this "POV", must be debunked first before any new and better belief system that provides accurate representations of the way the universe works can be accepted. What makes you think this "POV" or belief system call it whatever you wish, hasn't been debunked already, time and time again? Here's an example for you:

Greek mythology. Greeks used to believe in gods and goddesses. You still find any religion believing in Zeus?
Norse mythology. You still find people believing in Odin?
What about the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Mayans? Didn't they have deities too? What made their belief systems obsolete? What makes you think the same thing will not happen to Christianity?

What makes you think the belief of gods has not been proven as an obsolete and inaccurate belief system?

are you really sure that the burden of proof lies to those who believe?

If the believer becomes the one who asserts or the asserter, then yes, since believing does not necessarily mean asserting. And yes, I'm sure. If you're familiar with the ethics of discourse I'm sure you will know that yes, this is true.

basin mu ingun ka nga a belief of a Creator is Not a scientific theory,
well IT WAS at least before Aetheism and IT STILL IS(generally not personally) that's why Aetheism has to be PROVEN first before we trash theism( being the initial accepted theory).
so has it been proven already that God does not Exist?till then your belief that God does not exist would unfortunately still based on FAITH

Before atheism? How about before modern science and critical thinking? Funny how you like to put theism as this initially accepted world-view as if it has any scientific merit at all. In line with your argument, let me ask you this. Is it still widely accepted that the earth was created in 6 days? That the stars were created the same day as god created day and night? That we are the center of the universe? That above the clouds in the sky there is this great big kingdom where resides this old geezer who likes to watch over us? You think all of that hasn't been debunked by science yet?

Do you see the kind of word play and semantics you're using here? You like to think of theism as this proven scientific theory and atheism as this new theory to challenge the previous one. The problem with that is, to consider theism as a scientific theory, it has to have scientific credibility. And you and I both know it doesn't. To consider theism as a scientific theory in this syllogism would be detrimental to the whole foundation of science itself. And atheism, is not a scientific theory, I'm sorry. If you think so then, that's just sad.

You have this huge misunderstanding when it comes to the term atheism and what it stands for. Atheism literally means Non-belief in God. Does it assert that god does not exist? No. It just means Non-belief in God. Does it provide theories and explanations asserting the non-existence of god? No. It just means Non-belief in God. And yet you seem to think that its trying to prove something, like it's some kind of religion. lol We don't have to prove the Judeo-Christian god does not exist, science is already debunking the credibility of that claim without even trying.

Tell me, how do you propose to prove something doesn't exist, when that something hasn't even yet, been proven to exist? How do you propose atheism to prove the non-existence of a god when theism itself has yet to prove it? Apart from it not being the point of atheism, it's logically impossible. And yet, you want atheism to do just that. Are you mad?

I'm sorry, I don't wanna be condescending but if you had just veritably taken the time to think and ponder about your argument, you would realize how silly and incoherent it is, rendering your conclusion that non-belief needs faith, utterly falsified.

I tell you what atheism does assert: "It asserts that it is irrational to presuppose the existence of a god given that there is no evidence to presuppose such god exists."

unless it has NOT been proven and accepted that we are indeed HUMANS and NOT goats..then there is a chance and probability that we might be goats and saying "i am not a goat" is a statement of FAITH.

of course bai, FAITH is NOT required to say you are not a goat... you are just stating a fact and the obvious..
and you cannot equate the statements "i believe i am not a got" with "i believe there is no God" 'cause they are just not equal..the difference between them is eternity!
let me put it this way...
*We are Humans not Goats..(PROVEN, unless you wanna dispute it..)
therefore whoever believes it does NOT require FAITH anymore..
*There is NO God( Has it been proven already? i don't think so ) it has been believed BUT NOT an absolute truth..(obviously you would see that there are many aetheist scientists coverted to Theism and vice versa..'cause IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN YET!
therefore whoever believes God does not Exist requires FAITH.

Now see, this is why I think you should pay more attention to what I'm saying. Saying "There is NO God." is different from saying "I don't believe in the existence of a god." The first one is an assertion, or a claim. The second one is a statement. And yes, the assertion of the unproven would require faith but, I'm not really asserting am I? Atheism really isn't claiming god does not exist does it? What was the definition of Atheism again?

Atheism is the Non-Belief of God. Does it say god does not exist? No, it just says it lacks belief in a god. Does it claim with absolute certainty that god does not exist? No, it just says that it doesn't believe god exists.

Atheists maintain that there is currently no evidence to justify positive belief in God. Therefore, it is not necessary, logical or reasonable to believe in any of the various gods posited by world religions. When there is no sufficient evidence to support a given claim, the default position should be rational skepticism.

The definition of "Atheist" in your argument above is an overly broad straw man: an atheist is one who either lacks positive belief in a god or who believes that no gods exist, not one who claims to know absolutely that no gods exist.

It doesn't make sense to say that disbelieving "takes faith," as it doesn't require any faith not to place one's belief in unsubstantiated truth claims. It would be like saying that not-playing-sports requires athletic ability as playing football.

This is a classic case of what psychologists call “projection”. Since you have faith, you assume that everyone else must have faith as well, whether or not they share your particular brand.

Ever heard of doublespeak? How can a lack of faith require faith?
It's not that I have faith that there isn't a God, I simply lack faith in a God. Understanding this distinction will help you understand what I believe.

I’ve heard it put this way: “Atheism is a faith in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.”

why would you settle down with someone you don't entirely know? why not? well 'cause you simply cannot and will not entirely know somebody, not even your parents,siblings and closest friends esp your Fiancée...though you may know a LOT about them but NEVER entirely..if your principle about marriage is that you have to know the person entirely then if you are still single i have a feeling that you will be single for the rest of your life...Lol
and if you're married...clearly you violated your own pronciple...

i think i get the difference between trust and faith...
by what you said trust is based in something SOLID..therefore it is earned..
Faith however is based in nothing(i partially agree with the idea except that it doesn't necessarilly based from nothing, though it can at some curcumstance)therefore faith is a gift.

Therefore if one trusts a person, then He must have faith in that person too..
'cause after having to trust someone fully we do not really know 100% that the other person would remain trustworthy till death(in the case of till death do us part) otherwise we woundn't have failed marraiges and broken trusts..
knowing these possiblities...when you settle down, it does require a great deal of FAITH.

You agree that faith is based on nothing and then you take it back saying it's not necessarily from nothing? lol... Make up your mind please. Faith is a gift? -_- Wow... just, wow. Are you even aware of what you're saying?

So, you're saying that trust isn't enough to be with someone, you need to have faith as some form of greater trust? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

Kidding aside, I do get your point here. It just doesn't add up to your argument as a whole, I'm sorry.

If thinking or believing that something is true despite not being able to prove it 100% is faith, then we have faith in nearly everything we think we know and the term is meaningless. So yes, if you like, I have faith in some broad sense, but that doesn’t mean it’s on even terms with every religion. My faith is better supported than yours.

You believe despite a complete lack of evidence. I disbelieve because of that conspicuous lack of evidence. All the unambiguous evidence that should be all around us if there’s an all-powerful god who wants our belief simply isn’t there.

of course i'm not a scienctist. are you? if you are..for sure you know that scienctific theories are still based in the basic steps in solving a scientific problem which starts with a problem then followed by a hypothesis...
if you are the scientist would you create a hypothesis that you think wouldn't make sense? clearly you would go with the ones which are more probable.
by that faith is required. otherwise you woudn't be working through getting the datas to get a possible conclusion...
faith in the sense that it would lead you to a conclusion, otherwise you wound't have considered the hypothesis probable in the first place. i hope you see the point

Faith? How about educated guess? Critical deliberation? Iterative testing and observation? Experientially driven prediction? Any of these ring a bell? No? What makes you think faith is required to forego with a more probable hypothesis? One chooses to test a hypothesis not because of some arbitrary faith that it will yield results but because of logical positivity.

it was just a YES/NO question Lol

I know. Which is a cheap tactic to get a desired answer. One I'm willing to ignore but not fall into.

again, unless you can prove that there's no God.until then,you are still a FAITHful Aetheist ..
(remember your belief(Aetheism) came in the later part.. so to disprove the already existing beliefs about God you must prove yours first..)
sorry but that's just how the process works...
well it's like
some made claims about God's existence..proofs were presented many or most believed..
some disputed the claim and proofs later...so it is just right for the disputing parties to state their case, reason why they made such claims and of course, their PROOF..
otherwise the already existing claim will not be overthrown...

"that's just how the process works"? Says who? You?

You seem to have this idea that theism holds the upper hand in this argument just because it came first. It would have come off as a funny suggestion if not for it being just, downright pathetic. Again, atheism is not in any position to prove anything, more so when theism as an "existing belief" as you so highly put it, cannot even prove its own claims, let alone be entitled to a position that demands credibility to its opposition. As I mentioned above, atheism isn't about proving the non-existence of god. If you're looking for a body of knowledge that does a good job of debunking the claims of organized religion everyday, look at science.

Disbelief based on lack of evidence does not require faith. In fact, disbelief does not require evidence of any kind. Someone who has never heard of the concept of "gods" would not believe in them. Under the broader definition of atheism, they would be an atheist and yet not have faith that no gods exist. Similarly, someone who has been given evidence and simply finds it lacking (the classic narrower definition of atheist) would also not be relying on faith for their lack of belief.

if you are to disprove Newon's Law of cause and effect...what do you think you should do? obviously show your PROOF that the said Law is no longer accurate or applicable.

Uh.. is it still rational to believe nowadays that the woman was created from a man's rib? No? Or how about the claim that plants and animals were created in one single day? Or how about the entire planet created in a single week complete with the look of age and decay? Your religion believes the world was created 6 thousand years ago? That's roughly a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue. You think your religion still holds true under scientific scrutiny?

Actually, it is quite possible to obtain evidence discouraging belief in the existence of specific gods (i.e., "evidence-based atheism"). For example, if the god is defined sufficiently well, one may examine the definition for logical contradictions. If the god is not logically consistent, then disbelief is justified. If a god is invoked to explain a certain phenomenon, then that explanation can be compared to the best scientific explanation of the same phenomenon. If science leads to a better explanation or a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved, then why is belief in the god necessary?

i think we can both agree that one must be ALL KNOWING to know everything right? i believe that there is God because of many reasons but one of them is that nature and everything else esp the ones that people cannot yet explain never cease to WOW me..

"Look at all the wonderful and unexplainable things in this world! They must be from God."
Well, not to be a downer, but look at all the evil, awful, nasty things, too. Would a loving God allow attacks like the one on the World Trade Center?
Don't blame all of this on sin and Satan; imagine the countless innocent infants dead from disease and disaster.
And consider that even if Satan is responsible, I remind you that Satan is God's creation, too.
Want to try blaming it all on Free Will? Don't you think God would've known what humans would do with their Free Will? God would have to have been pretty dim not to know what Eve would do with the Forbidden Fruit, don't you think?

Here's a great quote from Richard Dawkins:

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all
decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this
sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are
running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being
devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying
of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time
of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the
population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and
genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are
going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good,
nothing but pitiless indifference."
[Richard Dawkins in "God's Utility Function,"
Scientific American, November 1995, p. 85.]

you on the other hand bai, claiming that there is NO God...MUST possess a great deal of knowledge about uncertainties and unknown

Oh, was I claiming to know for certain that there is no God? Really? I believe I only said "There is no evidence to presuppose the existence of a god therefore it is irrational to presuppose that god exists." Wherever could it possibly be found in my argument that I claimed with certainty that there is no god?

Oh that's right! In your argument. See this is the reason why you need to pay attention to what I'm saying and most importantly, what I'm not saying.

While a person would need perfect knowledge of the universe to be absolutely certain that no gods exist, such knowledge is not required for disbelief. And, in fact, individual theists disbelieve all kinds of claims (that various mythical beings exist, or that Earth is being regularly visited by aliens from space) without having complete knowledge even of the relevant subject areas.

cause if God who created the universe,earth and us with all its/our complexities while being very specific is for REAL, i think it is just right for Him to be anfathomable and unpridictable..
so i am going to ask you again with some modifications if you don't mind...
are you 100% sure about whatever you believed in? not on a personal level, 'cause obviously you would be
but in every aspect ABOUT it and esp with yout POV in the CONTRADICTING IDEAS(Theism )....

Assuming of course that all of this is true but since I don't share your beliefs, that doesn't really prove a point now does it?

But to answer your question: No, I am not absolutely sure about the things I believe in. To say so would be a complete mockery of the quest for knowledge. But my beliefs are based on observable facts, in critical thinking and of constant assessment and deliberation. Not on fictional mythical beings from an old piece of literature created by man. So there's that.

i would never deny the uncertainties in this life bai..so YES if you say so...i am uncertain with most things(Life, Afterlife and Truth) ...personally with my Faith obviously i wouldn't be uncertain anymore about purpose...
But these are some of the things that i am certain of..
*the teachings of Jesus about Loving my enemies and praying for those who persecute me, and Loving my neighbors as myself..even if God and afterlife are not for real...His teachings will be enough for me to LIVE a Good Life with Good relationship towards others...
*if God was not real, then my Faith in Him would only serve as my guide while i walk this earth...trust me bai, with what i 've been through...it made me a better person
*If God,afterlife,heaven and hell, faith and salvation were real...
Only God could say if i am saved..but at least i get the chance to struggle and believe..chance of heaven as they say

You don't think you can be a good person and have a good life without religion? So the only reason you're good is because an invisible entity tells you to? Wow, carry on then. Wouldn't want you to start doing nasty things...

[Chrysley]

i'll try to answer your questions bai
*If there is a gap to be bridged, why does it have to be faith that fills it?
-for whatever our beliefs would be, with Life's uncertainties...it is impossible to bridge gaps without faith, plus with our nature...we're not really good with gaps are we?...that's why we continue our search,questions and discover..

*If there are unanswered questions, why does it have to be god that fills it?
- 'cause i believe that the way to understanding is to believe first.
and with the level of answers we are aiming to get, it makes it the more impossible for us to answer it..unless God who is everlasting is for real...
Lastly, we cannot answer infinite questions with something that is finite.

This is why religion has so much hold over people. People will never be content with just not knowing the answers. They have to know the answer and if they can't find it, they like to slap god on it, so that they can sleep comfortably at night in their cradle of ignorance. Life is full of mysteries yes, but there are answers out there, and they won't be found if you'd just stopped and said, "oh it must be god". That doesn't really answer anything now does it?

I would rather not know the answer, than accept an inaccurate one.

“The offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can’t give way, is an offer of something not worth having; I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don’t know anything like enough yet; that I haven’t understood enough; that I can’t know enough; that I’m always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom, I wouldn’t have it any other way, and I’d urge you look at those of you who tell you, those people who tell you, at your age, that you’re dead until you believe as they do—what a terrible thing to be telling to children—and that you can only live by accepting an absolute authority. Don’t think of that as a gift, think of it as a poisoned chalice; push it aside, however tempting it is. Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way. ”
– Christopher Hitchens, from closing remarks in a debate at Prestonwood Christian Academy , November 2010

*If there is a meaning and purpose to life, why does it have to come from an antiquated textbook full of moral atrocities?
-the idea is clearly relative bai..of course from an unbeliever's POV you are mostly inclined conclude such..
regarding the "atrocities" in the bible...before you call the God of the bible a murderer..
please know what were the reasons for the tragedy(sodom and gomorah,great flood..tribal killings)..
Laws were given, Consequences were clearly laid over, chances were Given over time...but Disobedience prevailed. as what Newton said "in every action there is always an opposite reaction".
what happens to the All forgiving and Loving God then? please do not forget the Just and Righteous God as well and that Chances were given..
what about Jesus' sacrifice? that whosoever believes in Him not perish but will be saved...if the OT laws were fulfilled by the NT laws of love,and selflessness. through Jesus Christ..
basin hangtud karun magpinatyanay pa ta!!! hehehe
if we are to base our purpose and morality in the old testament..
we would clearly be Lost like what happened to extremist and fanatics..

Relative? What's relative about the harm, pain and suffering inflicted to millions of people and infants in the bible? Just and righteous? You call child sacrifice just and righteous? What about god's tolerance for slavery? Or the oppression of women's rights? You can interpret it however you want but do not try to justify human suffering based on a biased point of view. You can enumerate all the good things about your god however way you want but do not even try to ignore or justify all the bad things. That's just cheap and insincere.

our generation,technology,and culture is way too different with the OT times
clearly the OT punishments and way of convertion is NO LONGER applicable
esp when the fulfillment of those LAWS are fulfilled by Christ in His sacrifice...but to elaborate i guess would be out of the topic.
so to answer your question,
why would i not base my morality about a book that teaches to Love selflessly,examples led by God sending His Only Son to die in Sin in our behalf..
wouldn't you agree? if everyone would Love others as ourselves, forgive our enemies and show humility to those who persecute us...esp the leaders of our nation...this world would be a better place to Live in..

Yeah, send his son (which is also him? O.o) to sacrifice himself to himself? (O.o) In order to save humans from original sin, which could have been avoided completely if he'd just let everyone start with a clean slate the moment they are born. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

No, I don't think the bible is a good model on the subject of morality I'm sorry. You can only cause so much suffering only to sacrifice yourself to yourself and have it be called selfless love before you start to look like a complete diabolical maniac.

Sadly, this is one of the most ignorant (and prejudiced!) misconceptions out there, as well as the most common. Otherwise intelligent people seem to lack the imagination to understand how moral behavior doesn't necessarily have to come from the dictates of a deity. (In fact, when you think about it, it's frightening to think that the only reason you're not murdering me right now is that a Big Ghost told you not to do it.)

Here's a little insight into my moral philosophy:

My morals come from the simple fact that certain behaviors allow people to live peacefully together. We all have one shot at life, and certain codes of conduct mean that you and I can pursue happiness without treading on each other. This may be familiar to Christians as "do unto others," but they shouldn't assume this philosophy is unique to Christianity.

Lastly,
*Why do you need to reconcile reality with your own personal delusions? Reality seems to be doing just fine without it. Why do we have to diminish it with cheap man made myths and constructs?
-reality is not necessarily the truth..'cause our reality might project that there is no God(note: that we are using our POV to conclude...now with our limited mind and knowledge about things we can never be too sure can we?)..
all possibilities are present that the truth is in contrary with "our" reality.

Reality is not necessarily the truth? Where are you at? Wonderland? See now you're just bending the semantics to fit your argument.

personally my reality was not at all doing fine and if this "delusion" about God made me a better person...then i'd rather stay deluded..Lol apparently i have to ask you these questions...

how sure are you that what i believe in is a delusion? and that it is based from
man made myths and constructs? again...not on a personal Level...'cause obviously you would be 100% sure.

Who wrote the bible exactly? How many times has it been translated from its original language? With each iteration taken from and added to according to relevance from generation to generation, sect to sect? You base your beliefs on this book and build your life around it. Tell me, how should I call someone who does that?

and can you also give your insights this question that i asked in my previous post
('cause you answered them with questions instead...hehehe if you don't mind)
*can you explain why people are always searching for something? it could be answers,wealth,satisfaction,fame,fortune..etc...
like we end up wanting more after we reach our highest goal...

It is human to have desires. One would say we are wired to be that way. The yearn for more. It is in a sense, related to our genetic predisposition to be more than what we are. Drove us from being single-celled organisms to become the dominant species of the planet. But we also live in a society that is designed to compliment that, offering us a new opportunity to expand and grow at every step. I think the more appropriate question would be: "Why are humans greedy?"

I don't know man. I don't have a PhD in psychology or sociology so I don't exactly have an answer to that. But I do know one thing. It doesn't matter.

What matters is how you spend the rest of the insignificant years of your life. And religion will fvck you up real good in that department.

Last question bai, if believing in God,Afterlife,heaven and Hell
is being illogical?
What do you call the act of not believing if it turns out that God,Afterlife,Heaven and Hell were True?
again reality is NOT necessarily the truth.

i would've checked the links bai but youtube links are blocked from the office...thanks for posting them though... i've always wanted to check other POVs.. i will surely check them out soon!

Well then, given the fact that that said god has not given or done anything to prove or affirm that everything in the bible is true in an observable way that can be recorded, shared, played-back and verified, I would still say my position is logical even if god in fact were true and I would spend eternity in hell. I think that would be more exciting than spending an eternity in heaven praying anyway. How awfully boring that must be.