For some, faith is the ultimate display of humility and submissiveness to a higher power whose existence has never been objectively substantiated. The phenomenon is utterly bizarre due to the fact that educated, intelligent and thinking individuals also have the predilection towards such surrender to a random force. Despite the way they process information and empirical data, even the smartest seem to voluntarily give up their skepticism and inquisitiveness all in the name of convenience and blindly submitting to an unsubstantiated claim.
On the assumption that a god exists, the humility is only directed towards that being. Isn’t it supposedly ironic that a being so powerful and omnipresent would require absolute submission despite little to no evidence of his existence. Sure, christians always use the retarded Oh, look at how pretty the blue sky is! Look at the birds, the other animals and the trees! We live in a world of beauty… ERGO, god exists argument as if it holds water as a point. Even if a god created everything, it says nothing about the christian god being the one who created it. That christian god is more of a human construct that only happens to be prominent now because of the war-mongering Romans and the colonizing Europeans.
This is were the faith is stretched. Faith is already a big stretch in itself. It’s akin to believing an egomaniac of a god who requires constant adoration, praise and prayers from his loyal subjects. He requires it despite not even proving his existence in a form that can be appreciated by everyone. In the end, faith is simply a crutch for arrogance used by many to brandish around as fake armor of morality and decency. Faith is nothing but an excuse - and yes, surrender — to further inquiry. It is a feel-good option that is laced with intellectual laziness and haughtiness that fails to deliver on empirical standards.
The faithful, despite their claims of humility, are just as arrogant as everybody else that they tag as arrogant. They wield their faith as an unquestionable concept despite its obvious logical flaws and use it to rebut the better argued points that are grounded on grammar and common sense but are not imbued with the mystic abilities of faith. The concept of god was created by man and faith is the absolute manifestation of that arrogance.
Man doesn’t want to be alone, thus, he created god in many images. He refused to believe the more gloomy yet more likely reality that his god may not really be extant at all. Man is arrogant in not conceding to the depression of a lonely existence - and as we see now, faith is being used as an excuse for patronage for the ideal and exaltation for the divine. In the end, man is simply worshiping his own model - his own paradigm. And of course, he will never accept that reality.
Bookmark at:
StumbleUpon | Digg | Del.icio.us | Dzone | Newsvine | Spurl | Simpy | Furl | Reddit | Yahoo! MyWeb
Viewed 3278 times by 1164 viewers
Browse Timeline
- « Gian Karlo Dapul Wins ESU International Speaking Tourney
- » Gian Dapul’s Winning Speech - Fish Mucus and Foot Fungus
Comments ( 206 )
Teen AtheistDude, yeah. One of my main arguments whenever I get into debates with theists. I think they use the concept of faith as a device to keep their followers reeled in. And of course, throughout my life I’ve constantly gotten the “You’re a person of very little faith” insult from my father.
Guess what, Dad? That’s not an accident!
added these pithy words on
May 11 08 at
4:23 pm
vjack added these pithy words on May 11 08 at 11:05 pmAnd those who do not question their faith but simply assume that it has to be true are far more arrogant than the rest of us. This can be highlighted by getting them to admit that there is actually no evidence with which they could be presented that would make them discard their faith. This is the height of arrogance.
EugeneHmmm, would you hold it against me if I still subscribe to a Christian faith regardless of what you say?
added these pithy words on
May 11 08 at
11:13 pm
aajaofaith is like sex. you will not actually feel its benefit unless you fully submit to it.
added these pithy words on
May 11 08 at
11:28 pm
EugeneWell, one man’s pride is another man’s arrogance.
added these pithy words on
May 11 08 at
11:30 pm
aajaowhere did my sex, err, i mean FAITH comment go? >:(
added these pithy words on
May 11 08 at
11:39 pm
FritzI don’t have a high maintenance God. I do not see myself as someone eminent because of my faith. When I made the statement that nothing can make me turn my back from my belief, I did so as a matter of factly and without reference to even a hint of malice or me imposing superiority over others who do not have my predisposition.
My arrogance, I draw them from more tangible sources and never from something personal or intangible.
added these pithy words on
May 13 08 at
11:41 am
RyanI’ve also been troubled by the fact that the catholic/christian/muslim god is a being that needs to be adulated on a weekly basis. I suppose there is a very basic, human part of me that still feels that there must be something greater than us out there, something larger than what we are. But I feel if there is a being that great, that omnipotent, that powerful, it would be above such petty things as ritual worship.
added these pithy words on
May 13 08 at
9:04 pm
benign0I’ve always thought, if God is so infinitely powerful, then why is he so sensitive about how much (or how little) he is being worshipped by us?
added these pithy words on
May 14 08 at
10:54 am
RyanThe flippant answer would be that HE isn’t, and that it’s the church that needs the power and attention that worship brings.
added these pithy words on
May 15 08 at
5:00 pm
Ronaldwhy man doesn’t want to be alone?Why do Jesus, Mohammad, Lord Khrisna, Ziddharta Gautama exist and proclaim a reality which human logic cannot grasp?What is existence?If God does exist, does it make a difference?if God doesnt exist, does it make a difference?Why do we know such concept as perfection, eternity, and infinity when in fact we are imperfect,temporal, and finite?
added these pithy words on
May 15 08 at
8:25 pm
von fenel larenis it even possible to have a common gound between the atheists and the people of faith?? i’m just curious, if atheists don’t believe that there exist a SUPReme being, creator of everything.. then where do all their praises go when something good happens to them? =) if not to God, then where/to whom??? to themselves?? to the circumstance?? it seems to me that atheism exists only as a clamour of not recognizing the existence of God, a religion of ” lack of faith “… which ultimately leads to self-gorification and self-centeredness… atheists an the people of faith are like two parallel lines.. they will not meet..there is no common ground… simply becoz, atheism is the lack of faith on God (ryt?),which is, for a fact,an insult to the people of faith.. and i think from there.. even from that simplest difference… both worlds will not meet.
added these pithy words on
May 16 08 at
2:04 pm
benjAnd who told you that praises should be even necessary?
added these pithy words on
May 16 08 at
2:58 pm
Hazel Chuasometimes, we have to look at what is beyond equation, facts, evidence and theories to appreciate the life we are fortunate enough to be given with a more sound and profound reason…
yes, there is no solid proof to back up claims that God exists, but that is only because we refuse to see the many miracles in our lives and to acknowledge that without God, these miracles will not happen.
man likes to exercise his supreme intelligence to prove t o himself that he is far above all creations, that’s okay I guess, but man tends to overdo it as well because in his hunger for power, he goes as far as challenging not just the creations here on earth, but even his very own Creator. How sad.
it is human nature to bite the hands that feed it, we are no different from the scorpion who stung the turtle, or the snake that bit the old lady who nursed it back to health. that is us, our sinful nature at its best.
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
10:51 am
benjOh, look!
CLOUDS exist.
THEREFORE….
god MADE IT!
Class dismissed.
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
11:23 am
vangie sorianoyou speak with words that you do not understand. you are wise in your own eyes, thus you have become a fool
” The fool has said in his heart,’There is no God,’” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice”
‘Where is the wise man? …where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.”
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.”
The Bible does not begin by proving God, it simply says ‘In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.”
May God have mercy upon your soul. Because whether you believe or not, GOD will be GOD, and one day, you will face Him and be judged.
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
11:25 am
benjWow. RHETORIC?
Man created god.
And yes, thank you for proving that faith is arrogant.
Faith = I’m with god motherfuckers and everything that I do and say is right just because god said said so! I don’t even need to make logical statements!
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
11:36 am
vangie sorianoyou know, whatever you say, God will be glorified
“For it is written, “as i live says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God” So then, each one of us will give an account of himself to God.”
Where would you want to be?
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
12:18 pm
vangie sorianoIndeed, ” a fool is arrogant and careless”
“For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption;”
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
12:24 pm
benjHazel, you don’t know the first thing in logic. try constructing a logical statement with substantiation and then maybe I’ll take your comments more seriously. You don’t get it. In fact, I don’t think you’re intellectually sophisticated enough to get it.
Yes, Lauren, atheists can be arrogant too, but at least nobody’s using “faith” as a euphemism.
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
12:38 pm
benjAnd yes, your god needs to be glorified? Wow.
He supposedly controls everything and YET he still needs glorification?! That’s one stark raving arrogant egomananiac if I ever saw one!
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
12:39 pm
Hazel ChuaWell, I admit, I am not, as you say, intellectually sophisticated. But who needs intellectual sophistication when I know it will prove useless anyway when I die?
I am not basing my arguments on logic, I am basing it all on faith. That is the thing, faith isn’t based on facts or evidence, therefore it has no logic and it is useless to point logical facts to discredit faith. It’s the same thing with God’s existence. I believe in God. He exists, it is what the Scriptures say and my faith says that I believe in that. To a human mind as intellectually sophisticated as yours, you won’t get it because there is no logic to my faith. But again, that is precisely what faith in God is all about. God never asked for mankind to be logical about things, or be intellectually sophisticated. He merely wanted obedience to His commandments, but because of Adam’s fall, it became impossible for man to obey so Jesus Christ was sent, to redeem man from sin, to act as mediator between man and God, to save those who are repentant and want salvation.
I know, this all sounds superfluous, but that’s just what the Bible says, and my faith says that what the Bible says is Truth. Who cares about logic? It’s faith. And you can never argue with faith, my friend.
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
1:07 pm
vangie soriano“But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you;
And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you.
8 “Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you;
And let the fish of the sea declare to you.
9 “Who among all these does not know
That the hand of the Lord has done this,
10 In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?
11 “Does not the ear test words,
As the palate tastes its food?
12 “Wisdom is with aged men,
With long life is understanding.
Job Speaks of the Power of God
13 “With Him are wisdom and might;
To Him belong counsel and understanding.
14 “Behold, He tears down, and it cannot be rebuilt;
He imprisons a man, and there can be no release.
15 “Behold, He restrains the waters, and they dry up;
And He sends them out, and they inundate the earth.
16 “With Him are strength and sound wisdom,
The misled and the misleader belong to Him.
17 “He makes counselors walk barefoot
And makes fools of judges.
18 “He loosens the bond of kings
And binds their loins with a girdle.
19 “He makes priests walk barefoot
And overthrows the secure ones.
20 “He deprives the trusted ones of speech
And takes away the discernment of the elders.
21 “He pours contempt on nobles
And loosens the belt of the strong.
22 “He reveals mysteries from the darkness
And brings the deep darkness into light.
23 “He makes the nations great, then destroys them;
He enlarges the nations, then leads them away.
24 “He deprives of intelligence the chiefs of the earth’s people
And makes them wander in a pathless waste.
25 “They grope in darkness with no light,
And He makes them stagger like a drunken man.POnder upon these words…
New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Job 12:7-25
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
1:10 pm
maxarrogance absolutely.
only a person of faith would say - we are the chosen people. we are the only ones going to be taken to heaven. the rest of you are going to hell. those people who died in the tsunami deserved to suffer because they have not accept jesus as their personal saviour.
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
1:50 pm
joyfulchickenVangie Soriano… any relation to Eli? Basa
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
7:59 pm
missingpoints@Hazel Chua #27
And that’s exactly what’s so despicable about your god. Man’s downfall is eating from the tree of KNOWLEDGE. Your god wants us to become ignorant, stupid sheep and he got angry when they aspired to become more. He got angry when people wanted to reach the heavens. He wants people to just be mindless drones who praise him all the time. Your god created people who can think yet asks them to disregard this faculty and take him on faith.
If your god does, indeed, exist, he doesn’t deserve any praise. He’s an insecure maniac who spends his time worrying about whether some creatures in a tiny planet orbiting one of the trillions of stars he made believes in his existence.
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
10:03 pm
benj*makes the sign of the cross*
Hush, missingpoints! You will go to hell!
OHNOES
added these pithy words on
May 17 08 at
10:08 pm
the jester-in-exile(you’ll bear this out, benj, won’t you?)
vangie and hazel — ponder this: did the bible arrive via fax from heaven?
do make the effort to study the origin of the book. the book that is known now as the bible was a collation of writings sourced from the torah, other hebraic texts, and writings by other people considered pillars of the church. the collation was done by athanasius, post-council of nicaea, commissioned by constantine.
note that writings not included in the collation were by and large burned.
if the bible does contain divinely-inspired texts, did that mean that similarly-themed texts contemporary to them but were rejected from inclusion were not inspired? what about the scrolls of nag hammadi? the gospel of thomas? the gnostic gospels?
note that the bible was collated in such a manner so that constantine’s political power would be consolidated. the bible as we know it today is a political construct.
(don’t even get me started on other religious texts.)
that said, i’m inclined to disagree with those who say atheists and theists have no common ground. secular humanism is no different from most theistic belief systems (bar the belief in a deity, of course). jesus the christ, muhammad, et al all preached humanist philosophies, albeit with a deity at center; lao tze, siddharta gautama, et al did likewise, without the deity element.
to say that to have faith is arrogant because it is used as an unquestionable argument is rather unfair — or at least, from my perspective, having questioned my personal belief systems (and continuing to do so every day). perhaps what is arrogant is the use of faith as an argument to end all others, not the one’s faith in a higher being per se. perhaps you should have attacked organized religion (of which your arguments are relevant), not personal belief systems.
the existence of a being beyond our ken cannot be proven empirically, that much is true. however, the nonexistence of said being cannot be proven either. empiricism does not immediately conclude the nonexistence of a thing because of the absence of proof the thing exists. science has yet to progress that far — we are as far away from that as paleolithic man was from understanding quantum mechanics (perhaps even farther).
i agree with lauren — even atheists can be arrogant. i’ll take that one step further and say this, lifting from the words of your post: for atheists to claim that for one choose to have faith is arrogance is tantamount for atheists to claim that humans already have sufficient knowledge and capability to empirically prove the nonexistence of a higher being.
michelson and morley empirically proved that aether did not exist. has anyone done an experiment to likewise disprove the existence of deity/ deities?
until someone does, and the result of the experiment is repeatable and demonstrable, it would be arrogance to claim that faith is an excuse to avoid further inquiry, for atheism — or at least the atheism of your argumentation above — has the same avoidance of further inquiry, putting a period where there should be an ellipsis or a question mark.
added these pithy words on
May 18 08 at
2:43 am
missingpoints@jester-in-exile
Never leave your mind so open that your brains fall out. The fact that religions contradict each other in their creation stories should be reason enough to think that they’re all just bullshitting.
Anyhoo, Science is provisional knowledge, always subject to improvement / correction when new evidence comes up. When we say “god does not exist” we mean there is no evidence that points to his existence. (And no, Christians, the universe’s order and beauty is NOT evidence, neither is the bible) We cannot prove empirically that something does not exist, but that doesn’t mean we should treat everything, including the idea of god, as a serious possibility.
It’s not up to us to prove that god exists, it’s up to the theists, who up to now arrogantly exist that we should take it on faith.
added these pithy words on
May 18 08 at
8:51 am
WildcideTo the jester, Amen… ^_^
Well, for me the main issue between theist and atheist would have to be their stubbornness to be open-minded… Whatever your belief is, respect will make things more coherent. Anyway whichever fence you’re in, the common ground would have to be to do the RIGHT THING! You don’t need religion to dictate you on what the right thing to do is. As evident to some religions that encourage violence to settle things… which is for me is illogical… I think it’s much better, if you belong to a religion, that you have an initiative to do good than to cling to the belief of salvation that doing good is going to bring you to heaven which is more of one being obliged to do good because one wants something in return… So as with non-theist, one doesn’t need to have a god to do good as our intelligence is more than enough to let us see what is right and wrong. And we all know that doing the right thing makes life more peaceful. And best of all being open-minded gives way to cooperation with all beliefs, and it’s nice to have a friendly debate on ones’ belief as it proves that you are not just standing idly and not learning anything….
added these pithy words on
May 18 08 at
9:00 am
missingpoints@Wildcide:
^ Oh yeah? How do you debate someone like #27?
1. You assume that atheists are not open-minded when it is, in fact, our open-mindedness that led most of us to question the religions we were raised in and come to the conclusion that there is no god. Don’t paint us with the same brush
2. I cannot respect anyone who believes that “because the bible says so” is a decent argument.
@ jester:
“michelson and morley empirically proved that aether did not exist. has anyone done an experiment to likewise disprove the existence of deity/ deities?”
Yes. How many idiots in the US refused treatment for their kids because they believed god would save them? The fact that god didn’t despite their faith should prove that god is either nonexistent or a asshole.
But seriously, you cannot design an experiment to disprove god’s existence because no faith-head would abide by its results. Unlike the scientific community who would accept the michelson-morley experiment, religious nuts would just claim the devil was messing with the results or that “you just don’t have enough faith.”
added these pithy words on
May 18 08 at
11:07 am
the jester-in-exile@missingpoints - your “refusing treatment” argument, if i may point out, is bereft of standing, given scientificially inexplicable phenomena such as the lourdes healings and whatnot, but that’s more in keeping with disproving of the christian paradigm rather than of all deities in general.
but on your argument of “you cannot design an experiment to disprove god’s existence because no faith-head would abide by its results. Unlike the scientific community who would accept the michelson-morley experiment, religious nuts would just claim the devil was messing with the results or that ‘you just don’t have enough faith’ — does that statement not mean that you consider theists as unable to think for themselves? i agree with the “religious nuts” bit, but not with the idea that a theist would not be openminded enough to consider the possibility that perhaps a deity or deities do not exist. we are not all zealots.
on the matter of being too openminded to let brains fall out — a statement rather unbecoming of discussion and debate. note that your contention following it was on “religion” and not “faith”. these are two different concepts; the first is a system of belief, the second is belief that is numinous in nature.
on your idea that because we cannot prove/ disprove everything empirically ergo not need to consider an idea a distinct possibility — is that not intellectual laziness? it is tantamount to carrying on the faith that gods do not exist
the argument “because there is no/ insufficient evidence” is more clearly an argument of agnosticism.
added these pithy words on
May 18 08 at
2:35 pm
Wildcide• Yeah, bout #27… I think she’s one example of an individual with a “Just-Accept-What-It-Says” attitude… Which is I’m afraid we can’t converse intellectually…..
• Regarding the subject on open-mindedness… I understand that most of us free thinkers don’t just accept things as it is coz we try to look at the broader scope of it… But what I’m trying to point out is if both sides don’t just meddle with around with their difference but instead work on more critical things like how we can promote better relations knowing we have different set of beliefs. I think thing will turn out for better this way. Really it isn’t impossible for us non-theist & theist to engage in debates w/o bitter criticisms… I for one debate and talk a lot bout these things with my theist friends but whatever the outcome of it we still remain as is, still good friends… Though different our set of beliefs we still respect each other as a person…
• But we can’t really avoid meeting some people on either side who resort to rambling w/o understanding each other’s stance… Take for example some of the pastors that I’m acquainted with, who seriously thinks that due to what I believe in I’m doomed to go to hell!!! Oh well, I just pointed out to them that as to how they’re trying to convince me bout this, I think they’re making their god figure worse to look at… Bottom-line is one shouldn’t be over-critical when making statements ‘coz you might not know that the portrait that your painting isn’t pretty to behold…Well this also applies to non-theist who brandish around their beliefs to everyone without thinking what the outcome will be…
• Going back to #27, you don’t need to be bitter with her proposition ’bout the bible says so argument ‘coz that’s her stand… But I hope she realizes that this type of attitude is self-defeating…
• Anyway, ’bout the non-existence of a god/ a divine being, you said it yourself, there’s no way proving his/her/it’s existence. But we can’t also prove that he/she/it doesn’t exist either due to its abstract aspect… So if indeed a god really exists he/she/it would either be just watching us leaving things as to how it is, or playing around with his constructs lives…
added these pithy words on
May 18 08 at
3:32 pm
missingpoints@jester:
There should be a prediction to test. The Michelson-Morley experiment hypothesized a difference in measured speed due to aether wind. The lack of such difference meant that for all practical purposes aether does not exist.
For all we know the aether may still be there, just undetectable and behaving erratically. Michelson and Morley may have had wrong assumptions. Or maybe they needed to test it again. But aether serves no purpose in computations and does not fit with any accepted theory of light. Therefore we can disregard its existence.
The same goes with god, the unnecessary assumption. He may exist, just like aether, but he’s irrelevant.
Philosophically we atheists of the rational/scientific kind do leave room for the existence of god. Dawkins, Myers, et al even say so explicitly in their books and websites. However, we consider the possibility as so small (like aether) that it’s pointless to seriously consider it.
That’s not “faith” in god’s nonexistence, it’s just plain philosophy of science. Evidence is king. No evidence, no existence.
As for experiments to prove god’s existence, James Randi’s 1 million dollar challenge has been open for years. Any claim to prove anything supernatural is accepted as long as the experiment is designed scientifically. No one from any church (heck not even New Agers) accepted the challenge. If anyone from any religion can empirically prove that their god exists then they should’ve accepted the challenge already (and won $1M).
It’s like FPJ refusing to debate during the 2004 elections; he can’t risk looking stupid. No church would even attempt such an experiment.
* * * *
Dismissing something on the basis of “no evidence” is materialism. Agnosticism is a position that “we cannot know.” It asserts that the human mind cannot possibly know for sure that god exists. An agnostic would doubt even if there is evidence because he is of the opinion that humans cannot even effectively evaluate the evidence. Which makes sense, too, how do you differentiate between a supreme being from mere superior beings?
added these pithy words on
May 18 08 at
4:52 pm
missingpointsWildcide: “• Anyway, ’bout the non-existence of a god/ a divine being, you said it yourself, there’s no way proving his/her/it’s existence. But we can’t also prove that he/she/it doesn’t exist either due to its abstract aspect… So if indeed a god really exists he/she/it would either be just watching us leaving things as to how it is, or playing around with his constructs lives…”
The burden of proof lies on the positive claimant. Show me your god.
added these pithy words on
May 18 08 at
5:00 pm
WildcideSorry missingpoints… but I don’t have a god either… I’m just stating my points on that paragraph that first, we can’t assume too much that there is or isn’t a god. And my second point of what that god might be doing if he/she/it existed: That god would either be leaving us with our own trouble or he’s just toying around with us…
added these pithy words on
May 18 08 at
7:06 pm
missingpointsAnd my point is that THEY are the ones assuming the existence of a god, WE are not doing anything. Russel’s celestial teapot or the pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster may exist, too, but having no evidence means we should assume they don’t. Otherwise we’d be open to the existence of everything. That’s how brains fall out.
added these pithy words on
May 18 08 at
9:04 pm
WildcidePoint taken. Meaning, we should let them assume what they want to assume… Anyway, that’s where they’re most comfortable with, having a god in their life… As for us we should just have to give an example to them that PEOPLE CAN LIVE WITHOUT A GOD… and that we don’t need to belong to any religious beliefs to live a fruitful life…This way we can eradicate the notion of some theist that without religion/faith the world will be in chaos…
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
12:47 am
R.A.L.Obviously, everything in creation points to a creator. When you see a clock on the beach, you don’t think of random events causing an object with purpose to come to being. On the contrary, you think of a designer building it to fulfill a need. That’s how all of creation is -designed for a purpose.
And about faith, faith is the substance of things not seen. It is the acknowledgment of the simple truth that we are not in control. True arrogance is thinking that we are.
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
7:18 am
missingpointsI rail against people like her because they’re idiots. The existence of something is not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of evidence. They can cite Gould’s NOMA or some other philosophical contortion to justify it if they want. If they need the thought of god to comfort them.
But to insist that they’re correct because of their faith (the topic of this post) is both stupid and arrogant. People who think like that should be called on it whenever possible. Accepting their fantasies just gives them some sort of justification. We should ridicule them whenever they present idiotic statements like #27 so that it becomes clear to others that THAT kind of thinking is wrong.
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
9:01 am
Fritzmissingpoints, your arguments could have made me want to be atheist were they not written with the very obvious intention to mock in a very distasteful and unscholarly fashion. You may want to mellow down on the name-calling. Thanks.
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
9:42 am
missingpoints@Fritz
You mean to say my arguments make sense but you won’t subscribe to them just because I’m rude? Your loss.I’m not out to convert anyone, I was merely discussing epistemology with jester and “dealing with theists” with wildcide. I feel no need to hold back when commenting on idiotic comments like #27 and the idiots who make them.
Distasteful is a matter of taste (ours obviously vary) while “unscholarly” is just irrelevant. I’m posting on a blog, not defending my thesis.
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
10:02 am
Romel R. BagaresThe arrogance of science and reason produced the Atomic bomb. The arrogance of science — at least, as the Nazis expressed it — gave way to horrid and horrible experiments by the likes of Dr. Mengele. Oh, it also paved the way for the murder of millions in the name of scientific materialism (that’s what vulgar marxism is as the Soviets practiced it, for you) A few years ago, the marxist magazine Dissent, to its credit, published a comment that more people died in the 20th century because of atheist communism than all the people who died from all the religious wars down the centuries combined (this was in reaction to recriminations in the top echelons of the French communist party over its support for the soviets, if I remember it correctly). As for reason? What is reason? What is the basis of reason? Logic? What is the basis of logic? Even science is ultimately based on faith — on the premises by which a practice is called a science. But if you look at these unstated premises — what are their bases?In other words, what makes us so cocksure that these premises are themselves not based on other unstated premises, and so on? We look deeper and we realize that there is no foundation beneath what we call a science. Is there an archimedean point for reason or for logic? There is none, but the arrogant faith on reason as the supreme measure of everything. You ought to read well the neomarxist critic Terry Eagleton’s caustic review of Mr. Dawkin’s The God Delusion in the London Times Review to see just how puny the militant atheist’s arguments are these days — the kind that you deploy in these pages. And I thought postmodernity has already banished the modernist arguments of so much of atheism. You see, reason has its own fundamentalists. Lenin was one. Stalin was another. Mao is Asia’s contribution to the list of atheist murderers. All of them firmly believed in the correctness of what they thought was a scientific ideology, unquestionable in the historical direction it was taking.
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
10:04 am
benjThe arrogance of religion gave us the inquisition and this current problem of terrorism and fundamentalism.
SO REASON SHOULDN’T BE ABOVE ALL? Great.
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
10:12 am
Fritzmissingpoints, I was just being polite. Seeing how important the topic is to you to make you visit this post as often as you do the entire Sunday, Sweet God Given, Blessed, Most Holy, and Benevolent Sunday, a rest day for the weary Creations of the Gracious Holy of Host, the Divine Creator, my words were merely there as a suggestion. Unsolicited but well meant. As a token, I will try to re-read your comments, this time, though, I will try to ignore portions in it that are maliciously crass. If my short term attention span could just let me.. oh, look! A Burning Bush! OH RAINBOW AND PINK UNICORRRRRRN!
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
10:41 am
benjThank you Fritz for continuing to remind me that people who believe in god could also be intelligent and reasonable. *hai faybs*
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
10:53 am
micketymoc“And I thought postmodernity has already banished the modernist arguments of so much of atheism.”
Romel, when you’re done cleaning up the jism left behind by your intellectually masturbatory prose, you might want to consider that postmodernist thought has done absolutely nothing to banish atheist arguments. And you might want to avoid conflating science, atheism, and communism, three very different things.
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
1:21 pm
micketymoc“Who cares about logic? It’s faith. And you can never argue with faith, my friend.”
And the title of this post happens to be “The Arrogance of Faith”. QED.
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
4:16 pm
RomelAway with the Atheists!
Oh by the way, in the old days — the days of the Roman persecutors of those poor ignorant and superstitious Christian believers who refused to deny their puny faith despite the threats of death — followers of the way of Jesus were called, yes, Atheists. Read for instance the letter of Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (a state in Asia Minor) to the Emperor Trajan, where he tells of the aged Bishop Polycarp who was asked by his tormentor to say these words in exchange for his life: “Swear by the genius [or personified deity] of Caesar, repent, and say: ‘Away with the Atheists.’” Of course, the Bishop, superstitious to the end, refused to deny his faith in Christ.
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
4:56 pm
micketymocKaren Armstrong in her book a History of God makes the same point, but comes to a different conclusion. New views of the nature of divinity are often described as “atheism” by the status quo. Christianity then undermined the polytheistic state religion of the Empire, as outspoken atheism now undermines the stilted, unscientific, laughably dated dogma of institutional religion.
I don’t think that to be an atheist is to stand against an honest quest for truth in the Universe. Personally I admire religious seekers like Bishop John Shelby Spong for his principled search of the truth in the Gospels minus the ragged trappings of theism. (That’s just me - I don’t claim to speak for all atheists.)
The problem is, much of religion stands in the way of the truth… much of religion is opposed to it, in fact. Witness the reluctance of many churches to accept the fact of evolution, the political meddling of the Catholic Church in health care issues, and the murderous behavior of institutional Islam to apostates.
The fact is, there is no evidence to support the existence of God, in fact the churches that claim to speak for him are evidence against his very existence.
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
5:22 pm
micketymocFrom the introduction of A History of God:
“Yet if we look at our three religions, it becomes clear that there is no objective view of ‘God’: each generation has to create the image of God that works for them. The same is true of atheism. The statement ‘I do not believe in God’ has always meant something slightly different at each period of history. The people who have been dubbed ‘atheists’ over the years have always been denied a particular conception of the divine. Is the ‘God’ who is rejected by atheists today, the God of the patriarchs, the God of the prophets, the God of the philosophers, the God of the mystics or the God of the eighteenth-century deists? All these deities have been venerated as the God of the Bible and the Koran by Jews, Christians and Muslims at various points of their history….
“Atheism has often been a transitional state: thus Jews, Christians and Muslims were all called ‘atheists’ by their pagan contemporaries because they had adopted a revolutionary notion of divinity and transcendence. Is modern atheism a similar denial of a God’ which is no longer adequate to the problems of our time?“
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
5:37 pm
missingpointsRAL: “When you see a clock on the beach, you don’t think of random events causing an object with purpose to come to being. On the contrary, you think of a designer building it to fulfill a need.”
But we’re not talking about the clock. We’re talking about the beach, which, as you admitted in your statement, is different from the clock which is obviously designed,.
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
7:25 pm
WildcideRAL: To add on to what missingpoints’ point, the argument of putting a designer of anything that is complex is in itself pointless… If you put it that way, then who created your god then? As I see it, that god would have to be more complex to be able to create and design everything in this world which would also bring us back to the same question, if he/she/it is complex, who designed him/her/it???
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
8:58 pm
WildcideRAL: control of what? If you are saying with our lives, then (if your a christian/ or someone related to it) whatever happened to your free-will? If you’re not in control then you’re just a puppet…
added these pithy words on
May 19 08 at
9:16 pm
issaii was condemned to hell by defending atheism, and i’m Catholic. http://www.ladygadfly.com/blog/?p=309
anyways, stop debating with religious radicals, they don’t listen. you waste your time, seriously?
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
1:20 am
micketymocissai, sorry to hear that, I read your comment earlier on Hazel Chua’s blog.
I must politely disagree with your request to stop debating with religious radicals. We’ve given them the run of the public space for far too long. The shocked reaction we’re seeing from Christian bloggers is the realization that their monopoly on ideas is over.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
6:09 am
issaiyeah, sometimes, i just don’t know how or why people think that way.
but one thing’s for sure, we have free will. and i’m happy to exercise my free will, free from religious oppression and persecution. and for the record, i believe in God, i just lack the faith in the Church. Some people forget the the church is not God.
thank you micketymoc, i never thought i’d find solace in an atheist blog
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
8:50 am
missingpoints@issai
We’re not trying to convert them, we know that’s next to impossible, too. Personally I keep writing and arguing online for the lurkers, those atheists who haven’t been so for as long as I have and who may need the “ammunition” supplied by arguments.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
8:53 am
xenoOf course, this issue started with the writer exposing a one sided view of what a faith is.. this is a mistake.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
10:05 am
aajaoi wonder if Catholicism destroys the image of Christianity or theism in general. when people posts against theism, Catholicism is always pinpointed.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
10:15 am
micketymocXeno, first you should explain what your definition of “faith” is before you can presume to say that this (this what? This thread? This blog? This existence?) is a mistake.
aajao, Catholicism offers a lot of examples of bad religion through its very longevity (it’s done more than most other religions). But there’s a lot of good things about Catholicism, too, in fact I have very fond memories of it. It’s just very hard to be a Catholic if you don’t believe in God anymore.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
10:30 am
xenothat was my style of writing. it is necessary for you to reflect of what the writer is saying about faith. it consumes us too much starting (maybe) in the wrong footing by tackling the meaning of faith. If i saw that the writer proceeded to show a one sided view of faith, i know that im oblidge to show my argument why that is the case. however, i also motivate You to look carefully of how he defines faith and then to accomplish his main thesis…the arrgoance of faith..that is what i can call ..a one sided view..
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
10:35 am
missingpointsxeno: Faith is belief in something without evidence. Arrogance happens when the faithful insist that they’re right despite having no evidence. Anything wrong with that? Should there be another definition of faith I should be aware of?
aajao: The only reason Catholicism is mentioned so often is because we’re Filipinos. Atheist boards and blogs in the US have a bigger problem with fundamentalists / protestant churches. The Catholic church, at least, has a tradition of intellectualism, something protestant churches lack sorely.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
10:51 am
micketymocXeno, you yourself haven’t shown any sign of reflecting on what the writer is saying about faith.
Maybe you should show some effort in that direction before presuming to call his thesis “one-sided” while expecting people to take your word for it.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
10:53 am
missingpoints^ So he’s asking us to take him on faith? :))
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
11:38 am
xenoXeno, you yourself haven’t shown any sign of reflecting on what the writer is saying about faith. (miketymoc)
My question is, how do you know?
You should show it otherwise.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
1:16 pm
xenoxeno: Faith is belief in something without evidence. Arrogance happens when the faithful insist that they’re right despite having no evidence. Anything wrong with that? Should there be another definition of faith I should be aware of?(from Mr/Ms Missingpoints)
Mr/ms missing points, where did you get that definition of faith? Can we have universal definition of faith? A definition that would fairly present the case of the believer?
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
1:18 pm
micketymocXeno, you are the one saying that benj’s assertions are too one-sided. Yet you haven’t done anything to support your assertion. You talk a big game about “reflecting” on benj’s statements, when you don’t seem to have done a lot of reflecting yourself.
To be honest, you’re asking us to do all of the effort of thinking about how benj might be wrong, when you either lack the intelligence or the persistence to do any thinking of your own.
I suggest you make the effort to create a definition of faith that presents your case fairly. Don’t leave it to us to define it for you, just for you to whine that we’ve got it all wrong. Barring that, please go away and come back only when you have a real point to make.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
1:41 pm
xenoTo be honest, you’re asking us to do all of the effort of thinking about how benj might be wrong, when you either lack the intelligence or the persistence to do any thinking of your own.(Mr. Micketymoc)
And what do you think I’m going to say? You are already immaturely judging me. Sounds that you are uplifting your own personal spirit of winning this argumentation (when the case is it is still to be argued who really has the objective point of view on the issue). You’re supposing that I lack intelligence. This is how i call, you’re quite unprofessional..
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
2:00 pm
xeno@ Mr. Micketymoc
what do you think i’m going to say? You already making immature judgment against me. Suppose that I lack intelliegence to clarify my thoughts, can you show it otherwise. The truth is that you are making superficial judgment against my true stand (it is yet for you to know/but the sad truth is you talk blah blah against me without knowing yet).
“Barring that, please go away and come back only when you have a real point to make.”
This is how unprofessional you are. I am not going to say anything because, I think you’re not the kind of guy I think has a keen perception.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
2:09 pm
missingpointsxeno: Mr/ms missing points, where did you get that definition of faith? Can we have universal definition of faith? A definition that would fairly present the case of the believer?
dictionary.com, which isn’t obligated to present a definition that would “fairly” present the case of the believer. Who the fuck are you to order me to do research for you? If you want to prove a point, don’t ask others to do the legwork for you.
Feeling mo sobrang galing mo at gina-guide mo kami sa reflection? Oh please… put up or shut up.
Sige lang pare, palusot ka pa. :)) Napaghahalatang wala kang alam eh. Give us your defini
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
2:39 pm
micketymocXeno, how the hell can anyone know your true stand when you haven’t explained your stand at all, despite my having asked you repeatedly to explain it?
Yun lang naman ang sinasabi ko e, dakdak ka ng dakdak na one-sided ang pag-iisip ni benj, e hindi mo man lang ipinaliwanag kung bakit sya one-sided! “it is necessary for you to reflect of what the writer is saying about faith,” wika mo, pero hindi mo pinapakita na ikaw mismo nag-reflect ka ukol sa sinasabi nya.
I’m not judging you by your character, your ethics, or your morality. I’m judging your ability to explain your side clearly and logically. Lagpak ka pare.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
2:40 pm
aajaothanks for the replies, mickeytymoc & missingpoints.
just a short break from your discussion, to xeno: Hebrews 11:1 has the definition of FAITH. can you now elaborate your stand to mickeytymoc & missingpoints using that definition of faith?
PS. benj: parang forum itong blog mo. idoL! :handsdown:ok guys, carry on.
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
4:03 pm
pilosopotasyoparang ganito lang yan eh: alin ang nauna itlog o manok? kahit ano ang isagot mo parehong logical. lahat ng sumagot ng itlog hindi na sila tatanggap ng kahit na anong balidong paliwanag mula sa mga sumagot ng manok and vice versa dahil pareho ng sarado ang mga isip nila. at ganyan kayong lahat mga tsong kaya wag na kayong magtalu-talo dahil wala namang magpapatalo sa inyo di ba? isa lang ang tinitiyak ko sa inyo…….isa sa inyo ang mali at isa sa inyo ay tama. dahil hindi pwedeng pareho kayong tama at hindi rin naman pwedeng pareho kayong mali di ba?
added these pithy words on
May 20 08 at
4:48 pm
missingpoints^
Una, pwedeng PAREHO kaming mali.
Pangalawa, ang pinagtataluhan dito ay kung nagdudulot nga ba ng arogansya ang pananampalataya. Sinasabi ni Xeno na mali ang depinisyon ng “faith,” tinanong namin siya kung ano ang “tamang” depinisyon para sa kanya. Naduduwag sumagot. Iyan ang isyu.
Pangatlo, basahin mo nga yung pang-27 na comment at sabihin mo sa akin kung “logical” yun.
Panghuli, hindi para sa amin ang pagtatalong ito. Gaya ng sinabi ko ssa #65, para sa mga ibang mambabasa ito. Maaring hindi ko makumbinsi ang katalunan ko, pero may ibang tahimik na nanonood na maaring maimpluwensiyahan.
added these pithy words on
May 21 08 at
8:25 am
micketymocTangential to that…
oo nga, why discount the possibility we could both be wrong? Benj might be wrong, I might be wrong, missingpoints might be wrong, xeno might be wrong. I think I’m wrong all the time, and I prove I’m wrong less times than that (thankfully).
I could be wrong that there’s no God. I could be wrong that the universe is billions of years old. We argue about this precisely because we want to test our ideas, because critical testing of belief is necessary to figure out where they’re wrong and where they’re right. I’m fairly sure I’m right because I’ve tested my ideas in the crucible of countless discussions. (Thank you PEX.)
How do the likes of Xeno and Ms. Hazel Chua test their ideas? Xeno seems unwilling to subject his thoughts to any sort of test, and Ms. Chua has just closed comments on an entry where her commenters threatened to have a free discussion of ideas.
If they’re unwilling to test their ideas, why should we take their ideas seriously at all?
added these pithy words on
May 21 08 at
9:48 am
WildcideA laid back attitude, and unwillingness to subject oneself to intellectual queries is really what leads the world to chaos… As evident throughout the history, we see people who do pointless things in the name of FAITH… Maybe if they thought things through, they might have done something more practical…
added these pithy words on
May 21 08 at
10:53 pm
RAL added these pithy words on May 21 08 at 11:16 pmThere’s always room for God.
Our human logic we use to describe universe is inherently boolean. Logic of the universe isn’t necessarily boolean at all. To describe it by our boolean logic, it’s enough that its logic (any kind) is merely internally consistent, thats THE common property of any logic system.
Still, whatever the universe logic is like, we can only observe its expression, but can never know the reason why it is this way. Why is logic of universe even internally consistent at all? There is no reason for that, it could be equally completely acausal without any capacity to create objects. Yes we are here, but that doesn’t answer why. At best we could describe ‘how’, but not the reason ‘why’.
The human mind simply doesn’t bend enough to come up with something. Mainly because our only tool to evaluate consistency of other logic, is our logic. We can only evaluate it in context of our logic that may be unable to see internal consistency of other, in context of other logic itself. To really construct some other internally consistent logic, you’d need to THINK in context of other logic.
And if you say Logic creates ALL that there is, it controls all that there is, it is all-pervasive and eternal. Pretty much definition of God, if you scrap all that personification attached to it.
RAL added these pithy words on May 21 08 at 11:25 pmThink about photon. Does it EXIST in yes/no and stationary form? No, it can exist only at speed of light, only via interaction, and only through probabilities. If our macro world behaved like that, our ‘foundation of logic’ would be completely different.
Logic as a tool is actually indifferent to how reality behaves, all it does it to evaluate validity of claims from given assumptions, in context of logic rules. It even handles okay claims such as photon partly exists, and partly doesn’t, that it sometimes obeys logic and sometimes doesn’t.
missingpoints*Yawn*
Argument out of incredulity / God of the gaps. Doesn’t prove (or disprove) anything, just says we do not know everything so god *could* exist.
RAL:”And if you say Logic creates ALL that there is, it controls all that there is, it is all-pervasive and eternal. Pretty much definition of God, if you scrap all that personification attached to it.”
I think you mean matter instead of logic. If so then that’s Einstein’s and Spinoza’s god, which is a far cry from the god that condemns people to eternity in hell.
added these pithy words on
May 22 08 at
8:12 am
micketymocSure, there’s a lot of stuff we don’t know. But that by itself is no evidence in favor of a God… let alone one who impregnated a virgin, fathered a son, forgives sins, and writes a book of rules that tells you if you’re good or bad.
“There’s always room for God,” you say. Yes, there’s room for God. Just as much as there’s room for leprechauns, goblins, duwende, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
You can argue till you’re blue in the face for permitting the possibility of something, but that still isn’t proof positive of the actual existence of something!
added these pithy words on
May 22 08 at
8:36 am
DoodsRomel, in #50, when you said “The arrogance of science and reason produced the Atomic bomb” do you mean all products of science and reason are harmful, and therefore we just go through our lives with faith? I wouldn’t even have this keyboard I’m typing on without science and reason.
Also, when you said “more people died…because of atheist communism than all…who died from…religious wars down the centuries combined” is it just a numbers game for the faithful, that whoever have lesser deaths means that they are more righteous? What if I tell you that, according to Vatican, there are now more Muslims than Catholics. Does that mean that Jesus is a lesser god?
added these pithy words on
May 22 08 at
9:34 am
aajaoamazing. i was taught that the existence of God is manifested in His creations. but then again, it’s my faith.
added these pithy words on
May 22 08 at
12:03 pm
roquefrtHave you ever seen an atom? Radio and TV waves? We believe in the existence of a lot of things we can’t see.
To admit that that God doesn’t exist you have to know all things in the universe. Are you even qualified? Doesn’t it take more faith for you to make that kind of assertion? Isn’t it arrogant to think you are?
added these pithy words on
May 22 08 at
1:25 pm
micketymoc“We believe in the existence of a lot of things we can’t see.”
We believe in the existence of unseen things only when we can show evidence for them. You can’t see gravity, but we owe our satellites to our ability to detect and measure gravity.
So, can you measure God in the same way we can measure brain activity, radio waves, and gravitation?
“To admit that that God doesn’t exist you have to know all things in the universe.”
Fair enough. How about saying that there’s so little probability that God exists, it’s much more convenient to live as if there was no God? How about saying that God is about as likely as the Tooth Fairy and the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
“Doesn’t it take more faith for you to make that kind of assertion?”
No, it doesn’t take a lot of faith to minimize the probability of God’s existence; after weeding out wishful thinking, ad hoc explanations, and cultural conventions, unbelief in God is the only logical answer.
“Isn’t it arrogant to think you are?”
Isn’t it more arrogant to think that the Creator of the Universe somehow cares if you avoid fucking before marriage, or worship his son? Isn’t it more humble to believe that the Universe is indifferent, you are a temporary blip of consciousness, and that there’s nothing for you to go to when you die?
added these pithy words on
May 22 08 at
2:30 pm
xenoof course, mr. missingpoints definitely misunderstood me. do i need to talk more when he thought that i’m supposing that mr benj’s ‘faith’ is wrong? is that my whole point? i think that mr missingpoint has to adjust his understanding and not me. how can i proceed when these tow guys, mr. missingpoints and micketymoc, started with their discussion with me with their presumptuous attitude? i must reserve my energy and intelligence to other people. no more to say. i need not to say more just to redeem my original point.
added these pithy words on
May 22 08 at
3:18 pm
micketymocAw, please. missingpoints and myself have been pushing you to explain what you mean by benj’s POV being “one-sided”. You keep refusing. We surmise it’s because you can’t really back up your argument.
Typical of bullshitters, you try to change the subject by putting your hurt feelings in the middle of the issue and complaining that our “attitude” is getting in the way of understanding your point. Boo fucking hoo.
Goodbye xeno. All hat, no cattle.
added these pithy words on
May 22 08 at
3:39 pm
xenoam i refusing? i’m just avoiding your bullshit presumptuous attitude! your arrogance is despicable. i am refraining myself to share my intelligence in the issue because i found out your lack of professionalism. i need not to say more just to redeem myself.ok, think of it that you won this argumentation. however, i’ve dealt with numerous people of your kind. so, what am i missing if i refrain to elaborate of what’s in my mind on the issue? speaking of ‘bullshitter’…what a bullshitter otherwise.
added these pithy words on
May 22 08 at
3:47 pm
micketymocxeno, your loud whining about our “bullshit presumptuous attitude” is only serving to distract us from three things:
a) You say that the writer has a “one sided view of what faith is”. Despite repeated requests for an explanation of this statement, you refuse to explain why.
b) You ask us to “reflect” on what benj is saying, although you haven’t done any reflecting yourself. If you had, you would have written about it already.
c) We asked you to cite a definition of faith that fairly presents your side of the story. You refuse, and instead loudly take offense at our “attitude”.
So go ahead, claim that my “lack of professionalism” (lack of what? Are you sure you’re using that word right?) is what’s keeping you from explaining your point of view. Keep making palusot, we know better.
added these pithy words on
May 22 08 at
6:04 pm
missingpointsxeno: so, what am i missing if i refrain to elaborate of what’s in my mind on the issue?
The chance to prove to everyone else reading this that you’re not full of hot air? The chance to actually comment on the blog owner’s post and, perhaps, influence his and our thinking a bit? The chance to participate in a discussion that may prove to be enlightening to both parties?
As it stands you contributed nothing to the discussion yet managed to insult two other posters. Way to go! Intelligent ka nga.
added these pithy words on
May 22 08 at
9:27 pm
xenomr. missingpoint and micketymoc, do you still not understand. i already stop elaborating myself because i need not to share my ideas with your kind. blah blah blah..speaking of presumptuous people of your kind.
added these pithy words on
May 23 08 at
5:10 pm
xenoAs it stands you contributed nothing to the discussion yet managed to insult two other posters. Way to go! Intelligent ka nga.(missingpoints)
you read little. go back and read well to know who really insulted.
added these pithy words on
May 23 08 at
5:28 pm
xenoThe chance to prove to everyone else reading this that you’re not full of hot air? The chance to actually comment on the blog owner’s post and, perhaps, influence his and our thinking a bit? The chance to participate in a discussion that may prove to be enlightening to both parties?
As it stands you contributed nothing to the discussion yet managed to insult two other posters. Way to go! Intelligent ka nga.(missingpoints)
the point here is, you talked a lot and still you can not understand my decision. pity
added these pithy words on
May 23 08 at
5:36 pm
xenoSo go ahead, claim that my “lack of professionalism” (lack of what? Are you sure you’re using that word right?) is what’s keeping you from explaining your point of view. Keep making palusot, we know better.(micketymoc)
*if you do not know what i mean, then there is something wrong with your understanding.
* maybe, ‘i’m making palusot’. then, come and get me. yes, you know better. i do not know that you know better, though.
added these pithy words on
May 23 08 at
5:44 pm
micketymocFuck, now I know who this guy reminds me of.
added these pithy words on
May 23 08 at
6:37 pm
missingpointsxeno: “mr. missingpoint and micketymoc, do you still not understand. i already stop elaborating myself because i need not to share my ideas with your kind. blah blah blah..speaking of presumptuous people of your kind.”
Yet you keep on posting here to defend yourself.
added these pithy words on
May 23 08 at
7:56 pm
WildcideWow xeno! You talk too much on insignificant things… Why don’t you just answer their queries to be more comprehensible rather than blabbering things outside the topic of this forum… >_<
added these pithy words on
May 23 08 at
10:46 pm
WildcideTo get back to the topic, I agree with what micketymoc in #93 said ’bout the humbleness of accepting that we are just temporary here in this world and there’s no place to go after that… Truly very humbling and at the same time courageous! ^_^ It’s better than living your life trying to bargain your way to a “heaven” that we’re not sure is there…
added these pithy words on
May 23 08 at
10:55 pm
ann added these pithy words on May 24 08 at 9:37 amsuppose someone told you that the only way for him to believe that you exist is to clap your hands. you know you have it in your power to clap your hands, but make a choice not to. that person then tells you that since you didn’t, your existence is as likely as the tooth fairy’s. but does that mean you don’t exist? of course not. what if God chooses not to respond to your criteria for evidence of His existence, the same way you have a choice not to believe in Him?
micketymocIf anybody here has access to Facebook, here’s something you might want to check out.
The video in this link is nothing special by itself, but the discussion that ensues is a wonderful demonstration of the arrogance of faith.
The absolute worst - splitting hairs (”no, this form of worship is not Catholic!”), passive-aggressive condemnation (”look, I don’t make the rules! But the rules say you’re a heretic!”), the works.
added these pithy words on
May 24 08 at
11:35 am
micketymocann: no atheist here makes an arbitrary assumption of God’s non-existence, the evidence is simply there: an indifferent universe, an inaccurate Bible, and no evidence of an afterlife, for starters. (I joke about my atheism stemming from God not giving me a pony for my birthday, but that’s just it: a joke.)
Besides, when was the last time you met anyone who refused to believe in your existence when the evidence of his senses overwhelmingly refuted him?
I guess before you can effectively win this ongoing game of “Stump the Atheist”, you better come up with some valid evidence of God’s existence first. Thanks for playing!
added these pithy words on
May 24 08 at
3:24 pm
missingpoints@ann
If I said “if I don’t win the lotto this week, god doesn’t exist,” then proceeded to use that as an argument against his/her existence, then you’d be correct in your “clapping” analogy. But we atheists of the rational kind are not that arbitrary. When we say evidence, we mean stuff that we can verify independently, manifestations that do not require “faith” or any form of intellectual contortion.
When I say gravity exists, anyone on earth can verify it.
Even people who do not believe in gravity are affected by it. When you say god exists, what method do we have of verifying that?Of course you can justify the lack of evidence of god as “hiding” or refusing to kowtow to us puny humans. But that can be used to justify the lack of evidence for anything: teapot, unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, Zeus, Thor, etc.
There are a lot of gods out there from various belief systems. Why do you dismiss their existence? When you understand that, you will understand why I dismiss the existence of yours.
added these pithy words on
May 24 08 at
6:53 pm
issaithis thread highlights how hard it is to be good communicators. most of the people in this post just gave up a healthy debate just because it’s hard to communicate well. i’m pretty sure, most of the arguments stemmed from miscommunications.
my piece for this thread:
i hold on to faith and i believe there is a God by faith. Not by evidence, but doesn’t mean I’m arrogant. Arrogance comes in when a believer cannot accept other people’s beliefs.i think that’s a summary, if not, pretty close to it.
added these pithy words on
May 25 08 at
1:36 am
the jester-in-exilefunny thing is that similar to issai (? sorry just scanned through the long list of comments) i’ve defended the views of atheists of whatever stripe from the likes of those who profess to have “strong faith”… especially when i hear arguments about “things exist that we cannot see” like radio waves, gravity et cetera.
that whole email joke about “the professor not having a brain because he has never seen it” seems to have pervaded the thinking of defenders of the faith.
missingpoints PWNs such arguments quite precisely by saying that they are observable phenomena — not by vision, yes, but by instrumentation. we are still able to “see” them, we just need to wear “glasses”.
i particularly like issai’s two-liner; but, on matters germane on the debate above, i have yet to see an argument defending the validity of having faith vis-a-vis the stand that faith is unnecessary.
i do have a little nit to pick — when missingpoints above said that it is not up to atheists to prove the existence of a god or gods (and he/she is absolutely right on that; not sure which gender, apologies), i think that the converse challenge would be for atheists to likewise prove that god does not exist, in a manner repeatable and demonstrable (referring back to the empirical paradigm of proof).
of course, it would be easy to do that in terms of some theists (jump off the building and pray hard that you won’t get killed or whatever); hard it would be to disprove the existence of a non-interventionist deity (ala spinoza? einstein?). unless, of course, we say that there being no way to prove nor disprove said existence, let’s just take it on faith that the being doesn’t.
added these pithy words on
May 25 08 at
5:18 am
missingpointsjester: “i think that the converse challenge would be for atheists to likewise prove that god does not exist, in a manner repeatable and demonstrable (referring back to the empirical paradigm of proof).”
And I’ll do that when Christians show proof that Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Ahura-Mazda, the FSM, and Xenu don’t exist. Christians are atheists, too, I just went one god further.
added these pithy words on
May 25 08 at
8:14 am
AmperIn science: things are deemed a fact unless it has been unproven. The atheists society has up to date has not been able to successfully disprove God as much as theists are not still able to prove God’s existence. The problem with SOME atheists is that they subscribe much the their emotions(which they mistake as their own logic) that real logic. Even a non-fanatic religious person who does not shove their belief into the throat of the atheists are easily angered just because of difference in belief.
Funny how the Filipino adage is true: Ang magnanakaw ay galit sa kapwa magnanakaw. Just replace magnanakaw with arrogante
“Ang arrogante ay galit sa kapwa arrogante”
If theists are arrogant because they have faith, atheists are equally arrogant with their existential BELIEF.
SOME atheist criticize the bible to be inaccurate and not being able to completely explain things logically. But so is science: You see, even science cannot explain where the heaven did force and energy come from! Because of the lack of evidence, they simply say “Force/Energy is neither created nor destroyed”. Science can’t fully explain force and energy that’s why they put in that belief to people.
added these pithy words on
May 25 08 at
10:19 am
AmperHey, atheists is a BELIEF that God does not exist right? Since it is a believe, then it is FAITH. And the followers are called existentialist. Just as much who believe in God are called Christians.
I have noticed that atheists seem to be attacking Christians only? Why aren’t they attacking the Muslims and Jews who, like the Christians, believe in a supernatural being that cannot they cannot prove? Scaredy cat? Or is it merely that atheism only disguise itself as ‘not believe in a God” but in reality is anti-Christian?
added these pithy words on
May 25 08 at
10:27 am
AmperTo add more: Why aren’t the atheists pwning those who still strongly believe if manananaggal, nuno sa punso, tikabalang, capre, diwata…Why are you scared that you are going to criticize the prehispanic belief of Filipinos that live up to date?
I guess the more appropriate name for atheisms is anti-Christian and not really anti-theist.
added these pithy words on
May 25 08 at
10:45 am
Amper, I don’t think you’ve read the initial post nor the comments at all. There were no reference to anything christian/catholic. It was a direct rebuke to anything that had a “god” as a central concept.
Obviously, you’re a prime example of somebody who doesn’t even care to read and just posts random comments like crazy. The appropriate name for someone like you is IDIOT.
<