Closed athiest teaching invading schools all over the word sending hate to religious people

[jayendecastro]

Bzzzttt, kzzzttt, tooot-tooot <robot speech> Lets-All-Love-Lain needs serious re-wiring, reprogramming is imperative. Logic getting out of control, self-destruct imminent.

Bzzzttt, kzzzttt, tooot-tooot <robot speech>
....
Mental capacity limit reached...
...
..
System overload...
...


Hahahahahaha

 

[Delta India Charlie Kilo]

Na trap si TS sa internet rabbit hole... it's not too late, you can still get out.

 

[aceger]

Sana hindi dumami atheist dito, baka maputol spiritual connection natin.

 

[jayendecastro]

Sana hindi dumami atheist dito, baka maputol spiritual connection natin.

By spiritual ba u mean god? Or anything na supernatural...

And ano sa tingin mo magbabago sayo kung "maputol ang spiritual connection" mo?

 

[homer_simpson]

Sana hindi dumami atheist dito, baka maputol spiritual connection natin.

I'm not an atheist per se I'll chime in anyway. Rough estimate, 90-95% ng pinoys may religion/religious belief. Looking at the sad state of our country, does it looks na may "spiritual connection" tayo kung ano man ang ibig sabihin nun?

 

[jayendecastro]

I'm not an atheist per se I'll chime in anyway. Rough estimate, 90-95% ng pinoys may religion/religious belief. Looking at the sad state of our country, does it looks na may "spiritual connection" tayo kung ano man ang ibig sabihin nun?

What do u mean na "not an atheist per se"? Is there anything about atheism na u dont wanna ma-attach sayo?

 

[homer_simpson]

What do u mean na "not an atheist per se"? Is there anything about atheism na u dont wanna ma-attach sayo?

When we say 'atheist', it means one is outright rejecting the idea/existence of a higher being. For me and because I acknowledge the limitation of human understanding, the infiniteness of the cosmos I think it is quite preposterous and arrogant to claim with absolute certainty that man is all there is to it, that we are the ultimate sentient and intellectual being. Sorry, I still prefer humility and acknowledging the deficiency and limitation of human mind.

In saying that, it does not mean that we should believe in everything. But rather use logic and reasoning to scrutinize things.

So to answer your question, it's not about me liking/disliking the term atheism being attached to me. It's about me not wanting to claim things with absolute certainty knowing that our ultimate tool (the mind) is still limited in some ways.

 

[jayendecastro]

When we say 'atheist', it means one is outright rejecting the idea/existence of a higher being. For me and because I acknowledge the limitation of human understanding, the infiniteness of the cosmos I think it is quite preposterous and arrogant to claim with absolute certainty that man is all there is to it, that we are the ultimate sentient and intellectual being. Sorry, I still prefer humility and acknowledging the deficiency and limitation of human mind.

In saying that, it does not mean that we should believe in everything. But rather use logic and reasoning to scrutinize things.

So to answer your question, it's not about me liking/disliking the term atheism being attached to me. It's about me not wanting to claim things with absolute certainty knowing that our ultimate tool (the mind) is still limited in some ways.

I think we have a few different points here about atheism... For me its just the simple rejection of the god claim. Which for me is logical and reasonable given the fact that, that said claim have not been proven up to this point.

Atheism as far as i know does not make a, but simply rejecting, a claim.

And ur touching on agnosticism which is about what we dont know.. and yes..there are still many things we dont know..and yes our understanding is limited but at the same time we have learned so much about our body, our planet, the cosmos and all that...maybe not everything but still a lot. And based on what we know so far despite our limited understanding...we can choose to believe or not believe a claim.

Though what u said is also true, that there are some atheists that goes a step further than just rejecting the god claim and claiming that there isnt one..which i dont totally agree with.

I have to disagree with u again that its arrogant and preposterous to claim that man is all there is to it...when logic and reasoning, despite its limitations , points to that. Im not saying na that really is the case.. im just saying na its also humbling and logical to accept what are limited minds are capable of...

Based on what we can observe now in the cosmos, theres only us... We can speculate, we can assume, but our limited minds points to this simplicity now...
But i understand ur thinking,...its just that for me i have no problem with the thought of that man and other creatures hir are all there is to it since thats all we can observe for now.

 

[homer_simpson]

I think we have a few different points here about atheism... For me its just the simple rejection of the god claim. Which for me is logical and reasonable given the fact that, that said claim have not been proven up to this point.

Atheism as far as i know does not make a, but simply rejecting, a claim.

And ur touching on agnosticism which is about what we dont know.. and yes..there are still many things we dont know..and yes our understanding is limited but at the same time we have learned so much about our body, our planet, the cosmos and all that...maybe not everything but still a lot. And based on what we know so far despite our limited understanding...we can choose to believe or not believe a claim.

Though what u said is also true, that there are some atheists that goes a step further than just rejecting the god claim and claiming that there isnt one..which i dont totally agree with.

I have to disagree with u again that its arrogant and preposterous to claim that man is all there is to it...when logic and reasoning, despite its limitations , points to that. Im not saying na that really is the case.. im just saying na its also humbling and logical to accept what are limited minds are capable of...

Based on what we can observe now in the cosmos, theres only us... We can speculate, we can assume, but our limited minds points to this simplicity now...
But i understand ur thinking,...its just that for me i have no problem with the thought of that man and other creatures hir are all there is to it since thats all we can observe for now.

Re: Proving/disproving the existence of god
The people who outright rejected the existence of god (which is atheism as per its definition) is no different to people who claim that there is a god/supreme being/higher intellect or whatever it might be called in the sense that neither of these group can prove/disprove anything.

Their huge difference is the people who outright rejected the existence of higher being is that they are absolutely certain that there isn't one because we haven't found one. When X-ray was first discovered, no one would believe you if you tell people back then that you can actually "see" what's inside their body. And X-ray comes and sonar and EMR and countless things that people won't just believe back then.

Based on what we can observe now in the cosmos, theres only us... We can speculate, we can assume, but our limited minds points to this simplicity now...

How many times man has been proven wrong? Before, people are happy with Newton's classical physics because it worked perfectly at the earth-level. Few centuries later came Einstein's theory of relativity which supersedes Newton's. And now we're entering the realm of Quantum physics...

Yes, we can not speculate and reject things. Dont' you think when you reject, you are already making a claim - a non-existence of one. You can not escape that side-effect.

...
Atheism as far as i know does not make a, but simply rejecting, a claim.
...

So if a belief is not outright rejecting the existence of supreme being, then it is not atheism.
When you reject something, say the existence of god and say "there isn't one because we haven't found (yet)", that is still a claim on its own -- denying the existence of one without acknowledging the: a) limitation of your tool (mind); b) infiniteness of cosmos;

 

[jayendecastro]

Re: Proving/disproving the existence of god
The people who outright rejected the existence of god (which is atheism as per its definition) is no different to people who claim that there is a god/supreme being/higher intellect or whatever it might be called in the sense that neither of these group can prove/disprove anything.

Their huge difference is the people who outright rejected the existence of higher being is that they are absolutely certain that there isn't one because we haven't found one. When X-ray was first discovered, no one would believe you if you tell people back then that you can actually "see" what's inside their body. And X-ray comes and sonar and EMR and countless things that people won't just believe back then.


How many times man has been proven wrong? Before, people are happy with Newton's classical physics because it worked perfectly at the earth-level. Few centuries later came Einstein's theory of relativity which supersedes Newton's. And now we're entering the realm of Quantum physics...

Yes, we can not speculate and reject things. Dont' you think when you reject, you are already making a claim - a non-existence of one. You can not escape that side-effect.


So if a belief is not outright rejecting the existence of supreme being, then it is not atheism.
When you reject something, say the existence of god and say "there isn't one because we haven't found (yet)", that is still a claim on its own -- denying the existence of one without acknowledging the: a) limitation of your tool (mind); b) infiniteness of cosmos;

Theist: "I believe that god exists."
Atheist: "Can u prove it?"
Theist: "No."
Atheist: "Then, I dont believe you."

Thats atheism.

Its not just an "outright rejection". Its scrutinizing the claim, and rejecting it because its unsubstantiated.

A typical atheist is not "absolutely certain that there isn't one because we haven't found one". A typical atheist just rejects that idea since no evidence have been provided by those who claim otherwise.

And people atheist who says "there is no god" are justified simply because they have not seen any evidence to prove there is one.

"I know god doesnt exist" is different from "i believe god doesnt exist"

Believing’ means that you have chosen a truth, but ‘knowing’ means that you are certain about that truth.

So i guess ur referring to the gnostic atheists here..and not all atheist...

Anw..those are just labels... And i get ur point.

Like sa examples mo about xray, mri, etc....especially during those times na unlike now na we can access a lot of information easier and faster. So for those people to outright reject the idea of seeing inside the body is acceptable for they have no access yet to that technology at the time. Limitations were present there back then.

Though..im curious, do u believe that there is "something" else?? Given out limitations and what we still dont know...do u believe that there is something more?

 

[homer_simpson]

Theist: "I believe that god exists."
Atheist: "Can u prove it?"
Theist: "No."
Atheist: "Then, I dont believe you."

Thats atheism.

You asked because you are not unsure. Therefore there is tinge in you telling you that there might be one. It is not atheism, it is agnostism. And you don't believe the person, you believe/disbelieve the arguments being raised.

If you insist that not outright rejecting is indeed atheism and say "you just needed further proof" - then what do you call for people who outright rejected the existence of a supreme being? Do we need to create new term for that?

I know god doesnt exist" is different from "i believe god doesnt exist"

Sorry to say, this sounds another word circus to me.

Like sa examples mo about xray, mri, etc....especially during those times na unlike now na we can access a lot of information easier and faster. So for those people to outright reject the idea of seeing inside the body is acceptable for they have no access yet to that technology at the time. Limitations were present there back then.

And you believe that we are not succumbing to the same conclusions that our ancestors fell into and that we do not have the same limitations at this day? What do you think people 100-200 years from now will say about how we conclude things?

The problem with arguments people raise these days is they put too much sugar and less substance on the arguments. They put too much words and try to twist in whatever way they can. Arguments can be vivid and straight to the point.

And yes, I believe that there could be something more.

 

[jayendecastro]

You asked because you are not unsure. Therefore there is tinge in you telling you that there might be one. It is not atheism, it is agnostism. And you don't believe the person, you believe/disbelieve the arguments being raised.

If you insist that not outright rejecting is indeed atheism and say "you just needed further proof" - then what do you call for people who outright rejected the existence of a supreme being? Do we need to create new term for that?


Sorry to say, this sounds another word circus to me.


And you believe that we are not succumbing to the same conclusions that our ancestors fell into and that we do not have the same limitations at this day? What do you think people 100-200 years from now will say about how we conclude things?

The problem with arguments people raise these days is they put too much sugar and less substance on the arguments. They put too much words and try to twist in whatever way they can. Arguments can be vivid and straight to the point.

And yes, I believe that there could be something more.

Asking for proof is not uncertainty on the part of the person asking for it. Its just validating if the claim he was told has merit.

An agnostic whether he is a theist or an atheist in that situation will reply with "i dont know if go exists" or "no one knows if god exist"

What was emphasized in that conversation is the "belief/non belief" of the two...and not what they they know or dont know. Both of them can acknowledge what they know or dont and still hold an opposite side in terms of believing.

Again.. its not an "outright" rejection... You cannot reject something that wasnt presented to u to begin with..in this scenario, one presented the other with his belief in god..the other ask to backup that presentation with a proof. None was given. The options now are either to acccept ot reject that presenation... The factor of "rejecting" the god claim is atheism, be it oan utright or a well-thought rejection...im just emphazing thats its not always an outright one.

Sorry din paps but its not a word circus....believing is not the same as knowing.... Believing is more of an opinion...and knowing is, well, actual possession of that knowledge. Whether one claims to believe or know something, both will still requires verification.

To stress this out more, kids playing house are exercisng a "make-believe" scenario...they dont actually "know" to be parents or whatever there role maybe.

And i think nman if u get sick you will have more confident going to someone who knows he is a doctor rather than somebody who believes he is one.

For me there is nothing wrong about being proven wrong...i welcome every opportunity like that for that means that we gained more information, we stretched our limits.... People back then believed in the inability to see inside the body as that is what there limitations points to. When that belief was questioned and those limits were tested, voila, mankind discoved xray and all those things... Mankind was proven wrong, our limits then were surpassed and we here at the present are enjoying all those things.... It we simply accept that we have limits, and we settle with that thought then there will be no more room for growth and learning.

And i think that u have that mindset as well thats why "u believe there is something more".... Sorry pero i dont share the same enthusiasm with u on this one... For maybe there is something, maybe there is none at all... So my position on this nman is this:

I "believe" that there are still a lot we dont "know".

 

[homer_simpson]

I "believe" that there are still a lot we dont "know".

And the existence of a higher intellect (whatever it might be called) is part of what you believe as "a lot we don't know" despite that you can not ascertain/know it?

 

[Yamite UWU]

nakita ko palang yung harvard parang may mali na e hahhahaha

 

[alist1986]

Lets-All-Love-Lain. I understand your side bosing kahit naguluhan ako sa 1st post. Confucianism (by definition) could accept modern forms of hostility to religion such as humanism, secularism, and atheism - a fact. But there's nothing wrong with it basing on the essence of its teaching. It's the same as being an atheist, Muslim, Catholic, Communist, a mix or anything else, as long as we abide with the general principles of living, and blend with our differences.

So you can't generalize using only the justification that you gave. I hope you understand my point. People with mixed beliefs sometimes misunderstood their counterparts, especially if the other party goes over the board. Yes, most of us agree that China nowadays created a bad image because they contradict our way of thinking. Saan yon galing? Di ba sa balita? Can we actually verify if it is 100% always true? Not always. So it will only depend on how our minds were influenced by the news. But I'm not saying you're wrong.

Eka nga ng karamihan, whether he's a believer or not, "Lies often spread faster than truth". Why? Because people are always tempted to resend bad news over and over again. Yan yung sakit sa social media dahil walang control ang mga may-ari ng FB, Twitter, Google, YT atbp. sa kung ano ang totoo o mali sa balita, para sa nanonood, nagbabasa at nag-uusap sa kanilang site. Mas pabor pa nga sa kanila yon, di po ba? Nasa tao na lang siguro ang tanging pag-asa, but the risk outweighs the benefits most often if you actually review most responses nowadays - a neverending list of arguments instead of exchanging lively discussions. Our awareness and common sense will save us if we understand how we control ourselves. I'm talking in general. But who am I to judge.

 

[jayendecastro]

And the existence of a higher intellect (whatever it might be called) is part of what you believe as "a lot we don't know" despite that you can not ascertain/know it?

I dont know...u dont either.

And mankind have spent thousands and thousands of years trying to find the answer to that. Yet, all we still have are conflicting god claims, ancient myths and a load of anecdotes with no tangible proof. Given that fact, regardless of our limits, logic will dictate that perhaps there is none....be it a god, the greys or whatever ...

But that doesnt mean that mankind will stop looking for the answer....its in our nature to be curious and address that curiosity.

 

[homer_simpson]

I dont know...u dont either.

And mankind have spent thousands and thousands of years trying to find the answer to that. Yet, all we still have are conflicting god claims, ancient myths and a load of anecdotes with no tangible proof. Given that fact, regardless of our limits, logic will dictate that perhaps there is none....be it a god, the greys or whatever ...

But that doesnt mean that mankind will stop looking for the answer....its in our nature to be curious and address that curiosity.

That is correct. Nobody knows. That's the most honest response. Therefore I won't say that a higher intellect does not exist.

Ilang taon na nga nage-exist ang modern hominids around 60,000 years? But only in the past 500 years we had the ability to observe the skies. It only shows that whatever technology we have is still nothing but rudimentary. Sa earth-level aplikable ang technology natin like sa medicine, agriculture or anything that caters to our needs. But beyond that, we still come short.

 

[jayendecastro]

That is correct. Nobody knows. That's the most honest response. Therefore I won't say that a higher intellect does not exist.

Ilang taon na nga nage-exist ang modern hominids around 60,000 years? But only in the past 500 years we had the ability to observe the skies. It only shows that whatever technology we have is still nothing but rudimentary. Sa earth-level aplikable ang technology natin like sa medicine, agriculture or anything that caters to our needs. But beyond that, we still come short.

And i agree... And to add more, even nga sa earth-level eh we havent really explored majority of it... We have still many unknowns.. na we may or may not find out in our lifetime... That being the case, we can still speculate based on the things we know so far...and maybe accept it with a grain of salt like u do...

(SLR... Sobra busy now sa online business..hahahaha...)