[Note: This is my debate against an atheist Nick Austria in a discussion thread in Facebook which is up to now is still ongoing reaching more than 1,500 comments. Actually, he is not the only atheist I'm debating in the thread. For the link: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=233474353338938&set=o.202641033110937&type=1&ref=nf]
Idinagdag sa ganap na Hunyo 25
· Gustuhin · · Unsubscribe
Franz Luigi Lugena
Akusa ng akusa na mamatay tao daw ang Simbahang Katoliko eh silang mga atheista
pala ang ganun. Eto malinaw na may murderous intent na etong Joshuang eto. Kaya
kawawa ang mundo kapag majority ang atheista.
Hunyo 26 nang 12:23 PM · Gustuhin
Franz Luigi Lugena
Eto ang link nyan: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_202641033110937&id=212269555481418#!/home.php?sk=group_202641033110937&view=permalink&id=210491398992567
Hunyo 26 nang 12:24 PM · Gustuhin
Franz Luigi Lugena
Kaya malabong ihayag ni Joshua real identity niya. Pwedeng kasuhan eto ng grave
threats eh.
Hunyo 26 nang 12:30 PM · Gustuhin
I don't care about your opinions.
The point is, Joshua is exhibiting qualities similar to atheists in russia whom
Solzhenitsyn attributed the 60 million deaths of his people. The fact that you
don't blame Joshua is a proof that you are condoning his acts. I'm not surprise
because atheists have no objective moral values. Whether you rape someone or
you dedicate your life to goodness, all will end up the same. That's atheism.
Nick Austria
while i was on the side of defending joshua from the ad hominem committed
against him (photo of his family publicized), i was online during this dispute
and have to say that i did not like how joshua behaved himself here. he let his
temper/emotions get the best of him and inadvertently became guilty of ad
hominem himself. he should've known better.
now having said that, please eschew stereotyping. namaste.
"I'm not surprise because
atheists have no objective moral values. Whether you rape someone or you
dedicate your life to goodness, all will end up the same. That's atheism."
now again please stop making such sweeping statements. i find this offensive.
there is a vast number of atheists globally who practice humanitarianism.
you wouldn't appreciate it if i notioned that 9/11 was committed by theists
therefore theists are terrorists/murderers (which i do not). you have a broader
mind than that. don't degrade it's integrity by making such irrational not to
mention insulting statements as i have quoted above.
Franz Luigi Lugena
FYI, the 9/11 attack is committed by islamic terrorist not catholics. I have no
obligation to defend the acts of unbelievers. Like what I said, atheists have
no objective moral values. Thus, everything in this world has no real sense and
value. Everything is empty. Thank God it is not true.
Hunyo 26 nang 1:02 PM · Gustuhin
Franz Luigi Lugena, there you go again. you keep making these sweeping statements
about atheism which you clearly do not understand. as i have said, there is a
vast number of atheists who in fact adhere to humanitarianism and altruism.
there are even atheists who adhere to some of jesus' teachings of benevolence
and kindness (in the theory that jesus did exist but was not divine but
preached goodness), and there are atheists who use secular ethics. this is
undeniable.
i'm an atheist. and i'm insulted by your degrading claims. you may just as well
have accused me of condoning rape etc. which is out of line to say the least.
i cited the 9/11 as an example because it was committed by theists. as you seem
to use stereotyping mentality to atheists. i can provide a different one if you
like, cases of priest pedophilia in the catholic church institution. would it
be acceptable to you if i then concluded that theists (catholics in particular)
are pedophiles? no because you know that is not so and it is unfair and
illogical to claim so.
the purpose of this is not to insult but to illustrate the fallacy of
excessively generalizing/stereotyping.
Hunyo 26 nang 1:22 PM ·
Gustuhin
@ Nick Austria, I just imitated
your atheist cohort’s way of reasoning in the hope that we understand each
other more. Where are you when Joshua and Nathaniel are lambasting the church
because some of its members committed rape and other sexual immorality as if
the church teaches these persons to commit said acts? You are silent in those
times. Now when I returned the favor, you are crying foul. I’m sorry to tell
you this but you don’t have the moral ascendancy to criticize me. You can’t
even police your own side now you want me to stop? If you were insulted by my
claims, do you think we are ok with the accusations of your atheist cohorts?
What do you want us to do? Agree with the accusations of your atheist cohorts?
Fat chance.
I don’t question the fact that there are atheists who adhere in humanitarianism
but it doesn’t change the reality that atheists have no objective moral values.
Humanitarianism and altruism for atheists are subjective choices. It is not the
official teachings or banner of atheism. Atheists can also resort to racism,
genocide, and rape and it doesn’t make any difference because in the final
analysis [in atheistic view], all will end up the same. The godless belief will
likely make a person commit unspeakable evil acts because there is no reason to
be good anyway. You do not have the concept of God and the concept of sin.
Unlike atheism, the Catholic Church is very clear on where it stands. Its
official teachings are compiled in the Catechism for everyone to scrutinize.
That’s why it is unfair to implicate the church as an institution to the crime
of its individual member, since the erring member violates church’s teachings
in the first place. It’s the person that is to blame not the church as an
institution. On the case of atheism, we are not sure because it has no official
teachings. Some advocated humanitarianism, while others advocated racism.
That’s why I find it funny that you are making a fuss when I said that atheists
are murderers. Why? Can you cite an official atheist teaching to disprove my
statement? All your talk on supposedly humanitarian atheist doesn’t change the
fact that there are atheist like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Kim who advocated
purging, mass killing, genocide, and religious persecution. They are all
murderers. Even the young atheist Joshua is showing some potential. And I’m not
even sure what kind of atheist are you.
Hunyo 26 nang 2:55 PM · Gustuhin
Franz Luigi Lugena, did you not read my first comment on this thread explaining how i
disaproved of joshua's behaviour in your previous dispute? did you not notice
during the very day of your dispute me advising joshua to be civil?
not once have i posted/commented anything here throughout the history of this
page that can be considered sacrilegeous in nature. because i'm not like that.
and i do not support the blasphemous manner with which excessively militant
atheists such as joshua express themselves.
as a freethinker, i believe we must be able to think beyond the prejudices of
our beliefs and always try and see the larger perspective.
there, an idea of what kind of atheist i am.
Hunyo 26 nang 3:28 PM ·
Gustuhin
Franz Luigi Lugena
@Nick, where are you here?http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_202641033110937&view=permalink&id=209792275729146
Hunyo 26 nang 3:31 PM · Gustuhin
Nick Austria
again, i do not support blasphemous/insulting manners of debating theism it
does not contribute good to discussions. but i'm not in any authority to forbid
my militant comrades from choosing their actions i can only provide my personal
opinion to them. which i have on my comment prior to this.
Franz Luigi Lugena: "Atheists
can also resort to racism, genocide, and rape.."
-true. just as much as people of religious beliefs.
"atheist like Stalin, Pol Pot,
Mao, and Kim who advocated purging, mass killing, genocide, and religious
persecution. They are all murderers."
-true. they were indeed all murderers and i despise there actions. i would just
like to point out something about this cliche that these bastards did not
commit their attrocities in the name of atheism but rather of their own
personal, sick, twisted ideologies.
Hunyo 26 nang 3:51 PM ·
Gustuhin
@Nick Austria, if you cannot police
your atheist cohorts, then you cannot stop me to return the favor unto them.
What do you want us to do? Smile and agree with your atheist friends? We don't
initiate war but we also don't back down if the situation calls for it. The
bible states that there are time for everything. [Ecclesiastes 3:1] And surely,
there is a time where we are obliged to contend for the faith against those
that deny our Lord Jesus Christ. [Jude1:3] If they are dignified in their
statements in the first place, we will not end up like this. We are just
reacting to what was being thrown at us. Why blame us? Blame your atheist
comrades who started maligning our faith.
Hunyo 26 nang 4:00 PM · Gustuhin
and going back on
stereotyping, if you say some atheists here are guilty of such and that reasons
for your use of it as well, then wouldn't that be like adhering to the
mentality that is "a tooth for a tooth" which not very moral now is
it?
"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
religion does not hold the monopoly on morality. please do not discredit us
atheists of morality just because of your doctrine-based perspective. another
thing we must eschew, bigotry.
Hunyo 26 nang 4:06 PM ·
Gustuhin
Franz Luigi Lugena, let me clarify that you of course understandably will defend your
faith/belief just as i am now defending atheism from your misinformed and
diminishing claims regarding it.
we're discussing the act of stereotyping here. if you feel you should only
return the favor thereby generalizing every single one of atheists with your
negative, distasteful remarks then no i can't stop you. i can only again
provide my opinion which i have.
all i'm saying is, you may still refute without having to adhere to
stereotyping which you yourself know to be improper and fallacious.
Hunyo 26 nang 4:22 PM ·
Gustuhin
[Nick
Austria: -true. just as much as people of religious beliefs.]
But church members committing rape and murders are violating the church’s
teachings. So there is no reason to implicate the Church as an institution to
the acts of erring members. Doctrinally speaking, the church is against rape
and murder. In the case of atheism, we are not sure since atheism has no unified
values and beliefs. The fact that many atheists do these acts in grand scale
continually means that we can’t dissociate atheism with murder. You can’t speak
on behalf of atheism and say atheists are not like this or that, because you
have no moral authority on which you will based your objection.
[Nick Austria: -true. they were indeed all murderers
and i despise there actions. i would just like to point out something about
this cliche that these bastards did not commit their attrocities in the name of
atheism but rather of their own personal, sick, twisted ideologies.]
On the contrary, their godless beliefs enable them to commit unspeakable acts
of murder and oppression against their fellow human beings. There is no reason
that prevents them to do so because there is no God or Church that prohibits
them.
Franz Luigi Lugena,
"we can’t dissociate atheism with murder" do
you understand the gravity of this statement you've just made? this is
equivalent to saying that every murder ever commited and will be committed in
this world is due to atheism. how erroneous a claim.
i urge you to find out the statistics in prisons. there are far more
theists/god believing people imprisoned for having comitted acts such as
murder, rape, etc.
having a doctrine to base your morals upon does not make you a moral person
(and don't get me started on scripture as a moral code).
i can accept your pondering on the existence of morality from an atheistic
worldview, what i cannot accept is you generalizing all atheists to be immoral
and even go so far as to calling them rapists, murderers etc. thereby degrading
our human integrity. that's bigotry. try and be more open-minded like some of
your fellow theists here.
Hunyo 26 nang 4:50 PM · Gustuhin
[Nick Austria: "we
can’t dissociate atheism with murder" do you understand the gravity of
this statement you've just made? this is equivalent to saying that every murder
ever commited and will be committed in this world is due to atheism. how
erroneous a claim.]
Why not? Do you have an official teaching of atheism to disprove my point? The
fact that many atheists are committing countless murders against fellow men as
demonstrated in the case of Pol Pot, Mao, Kim, and Stalin shows that atheism
and murder are correlated. Solzhenitsyn can vouch for this:
But if I were asked today to formulate as
concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed
up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to
repeat: “MEN HAVE FORGOTTEN GOD;
THAT’S WHY ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn]
He attributed the death of 60million of his people to atheism. If you have
doubts as to what he said, I would like you to know that the above statement is
supported by first-hand experience and 50 years of research.
The act of murder is contrary to God. So a person committing murder is sinning
not only against his victim but against God. In the act of murder, the
perpetrator is forgetting God. A person who believes in God will not kill his
brother.
1John 5:18
We are sure that God's children do not
keep on sinning. God's own Son protects them, and the devil cannot harm them.
[Nick Austria: i urge you to find out the statistics in
prisons. there are far more theists/god believing people imprisoned for having
comitted acts such as murder, rape, etc.
having a doctrine to base your morals upon does not make you a moral person
(and don't get me started on scripture as a moral code).]
These people forgot God that’s why they committed crimes against their
fellowmen. These are people who claimed that they knew God but their actions
shows otherwise.
Titus 1:16
They profess to know God, but they deny
him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.
These people are not true believers when they committed their crime. So your
arguments have no basis.
[Nick Austria] i can accept your pondering on the
existence of morality from an atheistic worldview, what i cannot accept is you
generalizing all atheists to be immoral and even go so far as to calling them
rapists, murderers etc. thereby degrading our human integrity. that's bigotry.
try and be more open-minded like some of your fellow theists here.]
Why not? Atheism has no objective moral values. Whether you spend your life in
sexual immorality or chastity, in committing murders or in doing charitable
acts, it doesn’t make any difference. There is no God in atheistic point of
view. There is no concept of objective good. All good are subjective centered
on the appeasement of one’s appetite. That’s atheism.
Franz Luigi Lugena, [Nick Austria: "we can’t dissociate atheism with murder"
do you understand the gravity of this statement you've just made? this is
equivalent to saying that every murder ever commited and will be committed in
this world is due to atheism. ...how erroneous a claim.]
- Franz Luigi Lugena: "Why not?.."
you have just shown me how your doctrine-based beliefs
have corrupted your mind with prejudice and bigotry. seriously? you're
suggesting that EVERY murder EVER committed and WILL BE committed in this world
is due to atheism? seriously? then you are irrational beyond repair. even your
fellow theists i doubt would back you on such a jaundiced, discriminant, not to
mention highly erroneous notion. i mean how biased can a judgement get?
you look away from the undeniable countless deaths/attrocities that have been
committed in the name of god/s all throughout the history of humanity.
you shut your eyes to the vast majority of NON-ATHEIST/god believing convicted
felons guilty of murder in prisons and say atheism is the absolute cause of all
murder.
and here's the bone chilling one, even the murders that are yet to be committed
you tie to atheism.
it is unbelievable how clouded with prejudice your mind is it is disturbing to
say the least.
i'm beginning to realize the pointlessness of having this discussion with you
because you are truly a bigot who's lost his intellectual integrity.
but then again i got into this in defense of your self-righteous, misinforming,
discriminant, hubris claims on atheism.
Hunyo 26 nang 11:50 PM · Gustuhin
[Nick Austria: you have
just shown me how your doctrine-based beliefs have corrupted your mind with
prejudice and bigotry. seriously? ]
Does atheism officially stated that it rejects murder? No. What do atheists in
power usually do? They mounted religious persecution, genocide, and mass
killings on innocent people. Now ask yourself, where are the atheists when
Hitler is massacring jews? When innocent Russians are being killed by Stalin’s
men? Atheists actually aided these depots to kill innocent lives. Only the
Catholic Church opposed Hitler. As Einstein recounted in an interview in Time
Magazine:
“Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the
universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their
devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were
silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming
editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like
the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...
ONLY
THE CHURCH STOOD SQUARELY ACROSS THE PATH OF HITLER’S CAMPAIGN FOR SUPPRESSING
THE TRUTH. I never had any
special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and
admiration BECAUSE THE CHURCH ALONE
HAS HAD THE COURAGE AND PERSISTENCE TO STAND FOR INTELLECTUAL TRUTH AND MORAL
FREEDOM. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now
praise unreservedly. “
[http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html]
Atheists were nowhere when the jews were being killed by Nazis. Einstein
testified that it is ONLY THE CHURCH that opposed Hitler. Atheists were silent.
Qui Tacet Consentit. In Russia, atheists are not only silent but actually aided
Stalin in the promotion of state-sanctioned atheism by persecuting christians
resulting to 60million deaths.
But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause
of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I
could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “MEN HAVE FORGOTTEN GOD;
THAT’S WHY ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn]
Now you tell me that atheism doesn’t support murder? Tell that to the marines.
[Nick Austria: you're suggesting that EVERY murder EVER
committed and WILL BE committed in this world is due to atheism? seriously?
then you are irrational beyond repair. even your fellow theists i doubt would
back you on such a jaundiced, discriminant, not to mention highly erroneous
notion. i mean how biased can a judgement get?]
A person who can mount murder on a grand scale is a person who doesn’t believe
in God. Look at Pol Pot, Mao, Kim, and Stalin. What do they have in common? The
fact that these people were able to kill millions of people without remorse or
hesitation is because they do not believe in God. A true Christian will never
murder an innocent person. [Mat19:18] The Church is officially against murder.
How about atheism? Where is the official stand of atheism that it is against
murder? None. The fact that it is not officially against murder means that it
is for murder. You can’t be neutral in the face of injustice. As Desmond Tutu
once said:
“If you are neutral in a situation of injustice, you have chosen the side of
the oppressor. If an elephant has his foot on the tail of the mouse, and you
say you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
The fact that atheists are silent during holocaust, and aided Stalin and Kim in
persecuting christians as part of the promotion of state-sanctioned atheism
means that atheism supports murder.
[Nick Austria: you look away from the undeniable
countless deaths/attrocities that have been committed in the name of god/s all
throughout the history of humanity.
you shut your eyes to the vast majority of NON-ATHEIST/god believing convicted
felons guilty of murder in prisons and say atheism is the absolute cause of all
murder.]
FYI, catholics who killed other people have forgotten God that’s why they were
able to commit said acts. They may claim that they believed in God but I doubt.
Their actions deny God’s existence:
Titus 1:16
SILA’Y
NANGAGPAPANGGAP NA NAKIKILALA NILA ANG DIOS; NGUNIT IKINAKAILA NG KANILANG
GAWA, palibhasa'y mga
malulupit, at mga masuwayin, at mga itinakuwil sa bawa't gawang mabuti.
A true christian will never murder millions of innocent lives just like what
Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim and Mao did. [Mat19:18]
[Nick Austria: and here's the bone chilling one, even
the murders that are yet to be committed you tie to atheism.]
Does atheism reject murder? If not, then what? The fact that atheism has no
official stand on murder, and atheist leaders like Kim, Mao and Stalin managed
to kill millions of innocent lives, and atheists are generally silent on this,
and even aided these atheist despots in religious persecution as in the case of
north korea and Russia, will only mean one thing: that atheism supports murder.
[Nick Austria: it is unbelievable how clouded with
prejudice your mind is it is disturbing to say the least.]
Actually, it is unbelievable how you are trying to deny that atheism supports
murder when you don’t have objective moral values. In the ultimate sense, being
a mass murderer and being a good person doesn’t make any difference in the
atheistic point of view right? What is this all about? Image buiding?
[Nick Austria: i'm beginning to realize the
pointlessness of having this discussion with you because you are truly a bigot
who's lost his intellectual integrity. but then again i got into this in
defense of your self-righteous, misinforming, discriminant, hubris claims on
atheism.]
And you are a charlatan foisting off atheism as good when in fact it is not.
Why dissociate atheism from murder when your proponents did countless murderous
acts while all the time you atheists are silent? Atheism doesn’t reject murder
officially. So what does it mean? Qui Tacet Consentit.
Hunyo 27 nang 12:59 AM · Gustuhin
" The fact that it is not
officially against murder means that it is for murder."
- that is how narrow-minded you are. use a little depth
in your perception of the matter. your extrapolations are illogical.
i'm an atheist (ergo i practice atheism). and i'm against murder (like most
normal, sane atheists).
your straw man argument states that i advocate killing simply because i
practice atheism (which again according to your fallacious argument supports
murder). your system of thought is illogical.
listen, i am an atheist. no i do not have a form of bronze age scripture on
which i base my morality upon. and NO I DO NOT support murder (as your premise
falsely accuses) and am rather against it and other attrocious acts.
why? i adhere to humanistic values (while at the same time reject the
supernatural). i believe in the ethic of reciprocation "the golden
rule".
i believe as a race we must preserve our species (humanity) and planet. i
believe individually our purpose is to pursue happiness in our brief time of
existence (being lucky enough to even have existed in the first place) and that
there isn't an afterlife but rather that this is it.
many atheists share such perspectives that are nonviolent/peaceful in nature.
WE ARE NOT MURDERERS. how irrationaly judgemental of a theist you are. and
narrow-minded as to constantly practice stereotyping mentality.
Hunyo 27 nang 2:03 AM · Gustuhin
"FYI, catholics who killed
other people have forgotten God that’s why they were able to commit said
acts."
-now that is just comfortable for your side isn't it? when a catholic actually
commits murder, "no he's forgotten god ergo he's an atheist ergo catholics
don't commit murder, only atheists. all murder, every single one, is due to
atheism."
so that's why so many convicted prisoners pray in their cells and draw strength
from their god and seek guidance from priests because they're atheists? there
is just something wrong with your way of thinking man.
Hunyo 27 nang 2:27 AM · Gustuhin
Nick Austria
and no this is not "image building" (please), this is image
protection/defense. you're accusing me and my kind to be murderers. thereby
degrading our human integrity. of course i would defend the name of my/our
stance (atheism). just as you do when your beliefs are attacked.
i'm done discussing with you. i'll let my comments stand for themselves.
goodbye.
Hunyo 27 nang 2:31 AM · Gustuhin
"but then again i got
into this in defense of ATHEISM FROM your self-righteous, misinforming, discriminant,
hubris claims on atheism."
- unintentionally left out two words that are critical to the statement's
context. sorry.
Hunyo 27 nang 2:54 AM · Gustuhin
[Nick Austria: that is
how narrow-minded you are. use a little depth in your perception of the matter.
your extrapolations are illogical.]
It is you who badly needs depth in your perception. You can’t even disprove
that Atheism doesn’t reject murder. What does it mean then? It permits murder.
Silence implies consent. Your leaders committed numerous acts of murder and
your cohorts never denounced them officially. Now like what I said before,
there are atheists that are engaged in humanitarian work, but that doesn’t give
a complete picture of atheism. Atheism permits murder in the same manner that
it also permits humanitarianism. Why? It is because atheism has no objective
moral values as point of reference. All things are subjective. At any rate, my
point is that atheism never rejects murder but permits it.
[Nick Austria:i'm an atheist (ergo i practice atheism).
and i'm against murder (like most normal, sane atheists).]
It’s your personal choice that you are against murder. But do not foist off
atheism as officially and completely against murder. Because it is not. Like
what I said previously, atheism doesn’t officially reject murder. On the
contrary, a godless person is more predispose to murder because of the
devaluation of human life as a natural consequence of atheism. Since man is not
created in the image of God which supposed to elevate him from the rest of
creatures, man becomes just a two-legged animal akin to monkeys and apes. This
devaluation of human life leads to arbitrary infliction of harm and death to
fellowmen since killing a person is no different from killing a dog or a cat.
That’s why atheism permits murder.
[Nick Austria:your straw man argument states that i
advocate killing simply because i practice atheism (which again according to
your fallacious argument supports murder). your system of thought is
illogical.]
It is your atheistic thinking that is illogical and bereft of any vestige of
reason. What I’m trying to point out is that an act of murder may have
something to do with atheism. A person becomes a murderer when he committed a
murderous act. Stalin, Mao, Kim and Pol Pot are all murderers because they
committed countless murders and their atheism have something to do with it. In
your case, you have yet to commit murder, so you are not yet a murderer. But if
ever you commit murder in the future, that’s primarily because of your godless
belief. Because a true Christian will never commit murder:
1 Juan 3:11:12
11Ito ang pangaral na inyong narinig
buhat pa sa pasimula, na dapat tayong mag-ibigan sa isa't isa.
12 HUWAG NATING TULARAN SI CAIN NA
GALING SA KANIYA NA MASAMA. AT MALUPIT NIYANG PINATAY ANG KANIYANG KAPATID.
Bakit malupit niyang pinatay ang kaniyang kapatid? Ito ay sapagkat masasama ang
kaniyang mga gawa at ang mga gawa ng kaniyang kapatid ay matuwid.
The bible is very clear, Christianity is against murder. In the case of members
who committed murders, their actions alone betray them that they are not true
christians.
[Nick Austria:listen, i am an atheist. no i do not have
a form of bronze age scripture on which i base my morality upon. and NO I DO
NOT support murder (as your premise falsely accuses) and am rather against it
and other attrocious acts.]
You being an atheist mean that you don’t have objective moral values. All your
talk against murder and atrocious acts are all subjective, ephemeral and has no
bearing in actual reality. Why, you are just talking about your personal
choices here. You can’t just say that what you want or what you like is true
for everyone all the time. You can’t say that your personal choice [that you
are against murder] is what atheism is all about. Are you an authority to speak
on behalf of atheism?
[Nick Austria: why? i adhere to humanistic values
(while at the same time reject the supernatural). i believe in the ethic of
reciprocation "the golden rule".]
You adhere to ethic of reciprocation? So if someone kills your sister or
brother, you will also resort to killing? So that’s murder for you.
[Nick Austria: i believe as a race we must preserve our
species (humanity) and planet. i believe individually our purpose is to pursue
happiness in our brief time of existence (being lucky enough to even have
existed in the first place) and that there isn't an afterlife but rather that
this is it.]
Then your existence is no different from animals that live and die with no
significant purpose.
Ecclesiastes 3:19
Sapagka't ang nangyayari sa mga anak ng
mga tao ay nangyayari sa mga hayop: sa makatuwid baga'y isang bagay ang
nangyari sa kanila: kung paanong namamatay ang hayop, gayon namamatay ang tao;
oo, silang lahat ay may isang hininga; AT
ANG TAO AY WALA NG KARANGALANG HIGIT SA HAYOP: SAPAGKA’T LAHAT AY WALANG
KABULUHAN.
What an empty and sad philosophy your strain of atheism is. A bit epicurean and
focused only on the ephemeral. What kind of happiness you are talking about?
Temporary happiness? That’s not true happiness. That is just an illusion in the
final analysis. That’s why I understand that death is a terrible thing for
atheists. Unlike Christians, who welcomes death with courage and hope because
they believe that it is the end but actually a transition towards unity with
God, the source of all good.
[Nick Austria: many atheists share such perspectives
that are nonviolent/peaceful in nature. WE ARE NOT MURDERERS. how irrationaly
judgemental of a theist you are. and narrow-minded as to constantly practice
stereotyping mentality.]
Granting that many atheists are nonviolent, still that doesn’t define atheism
completely. Atheism has a dark side that you purposely refuse to see: the
atheist mass murderers in the likes of Mao, Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Pol Pot, Tito,
and Castro. Atheism permits murder. Its silence on the moral depravity of the
act of murder means that it consents murder. Maybe you are not a murderer right
now. But if ever you commit one in the future, that is mainly due to your
atheistic beliefs.
[Nick Austria: -now that
is just comfortable for your side isn't it? when a catholic actually commits
murder, "no he's forgotten god ergo he's an atheist ergo catholics don't
commit murder, only atheists. all murder, every single one, is due to
atheism."]
It is your way of thinking that is wrong. Unlike Atheism, Christianity is
against murder, officially. This is clearly enunciated in the scriptures:
1 John 3:11-12
11 Sapagka't ito ang pasabing inyong
narinig buhat ng pasimula, NA
MANGAGIBIGAN TAYO SA ISA’T ISA:
12 HINDI GAYA NI CAIN NA SIYA’Y SA MASAMA, AT PINATAY ANG KANIYANG KAPATID.
At bakit niya pinatay? Sapagka't ang kaniyang mga gawa ay masasama, at ang mga
gawa ng kaniyang kapatid ay matuwid.
So a true follower of Christ will not murder his brother. Instead of killing,
Christians are admonished to love their brothers. So professing christians
committing murders are not really true christians. Their actions manifest their
unbelief to God.
Titus 1:16
SILA’Y NANGAGPAPANGGAP NA NAKIKILALA
NILA ANG DIOS; NGUNI’T IKINAKAILA SA PAMAMAGITAN NG KANILANG MGA GAWA, palibhasa'y mga malulupit, at mga
masuwayin, at mga itinakuwil sa bawa't gawang mabuti.
The bible is clear when it said that there are those who claim that they know
God but their actions speak otherwise. For you to include these people among
true Christians is a clear deception on your part just to malign our faith.
Apparently, we know better. Christians are actually taught to depart from sin
and walk into the path of righteousness in order to set themselves apart from
godless people. Proof that Christianity is not for murder.
2 Cor 15:34
GUMISING KAYO NG AYON SA KATUWIRAN, AT
HUWAG MANGAGKASALA; SAPAGKA’T MAY MGA IBANG WALANG PAGKAKILALA SA DIOS: sinasabi ko ito upang kayo'y kilusin sa
kahihiyan.
How about atheism? Does atheism rejects murder officially?
[Nick Austria: so that's why so many convicted
prisoners pray in their cells and draw strength from their god and seek
guidance from priests because they're atheists? there is just something wrong
with your way of thinking man.]
Wrong. Consider the time element, Mr. Atheist. During the time when they
committed their evil acts, they forgotten God. It is only when they are exposed
to the hardships of prison that they are clinging God. They didn’t commit their
crimes because they believe in God. Our christian faith never teaches that we
should murder our brothers. Committing a crime like murder is a sin against
God. So it is only logical that people who believe and fear God will never
commit murder:
2 Tim 2:19
Gayon ma'y ang matibay na pinagsasaligan
ng Dios ay nananatili na may tatak nito, NAKIKILALA
NG PANGINOON ANG MGA KANIYA: AT, LUMAYO SA KALIKUAN ANG BAWA’T ISA NA SUMASAMBITLA
NG PANGALAN NG PANGINOON.
God’s people depart from iniquity. Those who commit murder are not of God. So
for you to implicate Christianity with murder is a clear deception on your
part. Actually, it is Atheism that permits murder. It has no moral values nor
intrinsic principles that say otherwise.
Hulyo 01 nang 11:41 AM · Gustuhin
Franz Luigi Lugena: "You can’t even
disprove that Atheism doesn’t reject murder. What does it mean then? It permits
murder. Silence implies consent. Your leaders committed numerous acts of murder
and your cohorts never denounced them officially."
- you speak of atheism as if it were an organized movement of some sort when
really it is, in its simplest definition, the non-belief in god/s. so stop
referring to stalin etc. as our "leaders". they acted as individuals
with their tyrannic ideologies.
tying murder to atheism claiming that it permits such because of the
philosophical standpoint's absence of belief in deities is a misextrapolation
and a straw man argument. thereby a logical fallacy.
the premise that belief in god/s and having a set of doctrines that go along
with it is the only way to have morality is merely a subjective opinion as
well.
it is the assumption that the only "correct" moral values are that
which come from a theistic view (morality provided/commanded by a supernatural
force).
"You can't prove the validity of a position by assuming its validity as
part of your argument."
atheistic morality is simply that which does not assume such premise (morality
provided/commanded by a supernatural force). nonetheless morality is existent
and evident.
Hulyo 01 nang 9:01 PM · Gustuhin
Nick Austria
what ever happened to jesus christ's "love thy enemies" Franz Luigi Lugena? to think how you've been constantly arguing absolutism of
doctrine-based morality. how god-believing christians who commit acts that
violate said doctrine cannot be considered "true christians".
countless ad hominem attacks (even one involving a debate opponent's father) is
not very jesus-like is it? just saying.
Hulyo 01 nang 11:23 PM · Gustuhin
@Nick, the bible said that there is
always a time for everything. [Ecclesiastes3:1] Definitely there is a time when
you have to name a spade a spade. Your atheist cohorts are maligning our faith
so what do you want me to call them? Nathaniel for example, said that God raped
Virgin Mary. Do you want me to praise them for what they did? Actually, I just
quoted a statement of Christ in John 8:44 about liars. I just followed the
examples of Christ. I called them for what they really are. They belong to
their father the devil. You are not my judge so you have no moral authority to
tell me that I violated our doctrines. "I
am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is
the Lord who judges me." [1Cor4:4]
Hulyo 01 nang 11:40 PM · Gustuhin
[Nick Austria: - you
speak of atheism as if it were an organized movement of some sort when really
it is, in its simplest definition, the non-belief in god/s. so stop referring
to stalin etc. as our "leaders". they acted as individuals with their
tyrannic ideologies.]
Being organized or not is not the issue. The point here is that atheism,
particularly on the level of principle, doesn’t reject murder while
Christianity does.
1 John 3:11-12
11 For this is the message which you have
heard from the beginning, THAT WE
SHOULD LOVE ONE ANOTHER,
12 AND NOT BE LIKE CAIN WHO WAS OF THE EVIL ONE AND MURDERED HIS BROTHER.
And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's
righteous.
Christianity officially teaches its adherents not to commit murder. The text
says, NOT BE LIKE CAIN who murdered his brother. This is one of the obvious
differences between my faith and your godless belief. Christianity rejects
murder while atheism does not.
Now, whether those leaders acted individually or as a group, the obvious
pattern is that they are all atheist. Their godless belief is one of the
reasons that they were able to kill and slaughter millions of people. You may
ask why is that so? It is because of the devaluation of human life which is the
natural consequence of atheism. To deny God’s existence, is to deny that man is
created in the image of God, thereby denying as well that man possesses dignity
and honor which separates him from plants and animals. So in atheism, killing
man is no different from killing a cat or a dog. This devaluation of human life
as a natural consequence of atheism, is the reason why most atheist leaders
resorted to mass killings.
[Nick Austria: tying murder to atheism claiming that it
permits such because of the philosophical standpoint's absence of belief in
deities is a misextrapolation and a straw man argument. thereby a logical
fallacy.]
Atheism permits murder because it doesn’t condemn nor rejects it. Qui tacet
consentit. You can’t be neutral in the face of injustice, as Demons Tutu said.
It is either you are for or against. In the case of atheism, it is for murder.
Proponents of atheism are for murder. Look at Kim, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, and
Stalin. Furthermore, when these atheist leaders were mounting large-scale massacres,
where are the atheists? Either you aided those leaders or you are silent.
Einstein can attest to this during the holocaust. Only the Church opposed
Nazism. All others are silent. So between Christianity and atheism, it is
atheism that permits murder.
[Nick Austria: the premise that belief in god/s and
having a set of doctrines that go along with it is the only way to have
morality is merely a subjective opinion as well.]
I’m talking about objective moral values here. If there are objective moral
values, then it is logical to believe that there is God. Moral values that
remain true regardless of people’s opinions can only come from a being that is
independent and higher than man, and that we call God.
To deny God is to deny the objective moral values since there will be no
independent higher authority that will set the moral standards applicable for
all men at all times. The moral standards will then become arbitrary and all
values will be subjective. So stealing, murder and rape will no longer be considered
objectively wrong but can be right for a particular individual or culture
espousing a different moral standard that permits these acts. This is the
reason why atheism permits murder. Its denial of God prevents it to reject
murder officially since it has no objective moral ground to base upon its
objection. And a person who rapes and murders people is still an atheist so
long as he denies God.
[Nick Austria: it is the assumption that the only
"correct" moral values are that which come from a theistic view
(morality provided/commanded by a supernatural force).
"You can't prove the validity of a position by assuming its validity as
part of your argument."]
Truth can never contradict itself. If you said that there is no God and I say
there is God, we can’t be both right. One of us is definitely wrong. And all
evidences point out that you are wrong. The fact that rape is considered a
wrongful act in all cultures and in all history testifies to the fact that
there are objective moral values proving the existence of God, whose nature and
will are manifested on these values. [i.e., goodness, justice, love, etc.]
Atheism can’t claim that it has objectively correct values because it denies
God. All it has are subjective values. So who is your authority to say that
murder and rape are intrinsically wrong? You may say that rape and murder are
wrong but your belief is subjective and no better than the belief of others
holding the idea that rape and murder are good.
[Nick Austria: atheistic morality is simply that which
does not assume such premise (morality provided/commanded by a supernatural
force). nonetheless morality is existent and evident. ]
But the morality you are talking about is subjective. Since you deny the
existence of God, you have no basis to say that only your belief is correct
among the diversity of other belief systems. You can’t say that your own
morality, which holds that rape and murder are wrong, is more valid than the
morality of others espousing contrary beliefs [that rape and murder is correct].
Why? Because you have no authority who clearly defines your set of moral
values. Kaya kahit ano pwede sa atheism. Kahit murder.
That’s why I’m amused about your pathetic attempt to foist off atheism as good
by pointing to atheist engaged in humanitarianism, as if that’s the complete
picture of atheism. Actually, humanitarianism for atheists is just a subjective
choice. You must remember that there are atheists who choose murder and
genocide instead. That’s the subjectivism aspect of atheism.
Franz Luigi Lugena, "To deny God is to
deny the objective moral values since there will be no independent higher
authority that will set the moral standards applicable for all men at all
times."
- once again, this is the PRESUMPTION that human morality must be
provided/commanded by a purported supernatural deity (the judeo-christian god
in particular) and that it cannot exist otherwise.
you can't prove the validity of a position by assuming its validity as part of
your argument. which makes this notion a mere subjective opinion on your part
just as well.
freethinkers adhere to secular ethics. naturalistic moral philosophies that
require not belief in a supernatural source only human logic and reason.
through which man is able to draw moral principles from knowledge and
understanding of the consequences of their actions to society/humanity in
general.
"We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs.
There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion,
even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things." -
Dalai Lama
Hulyo 03 nang 3:48 AM · Gustuhin
Franz Luigi Lugena,
"If you said that there is no God and I say there is God, we can’t be both
right. One of us is definitely wrong. And all evidences point out that you are
wrong."
- how self-righteous and hubristic a statement. what evidence? your presumption
on moral absolutism and christianity? no i don't think so. the very core of
your entire argument is a presumption. you presume that belief in a purported
supernatural deity (christian specifically) is prerequisite to human
morality/ethics.
Hulyo 03 nang 4:31 AM · Gustuhin
[Nick Austri: - once
again, this is the PRESUMPTION that human morality must be provided/commanded
by a purported supernatural deity (the judeo-christian god in particular) and
that it cannot exist otherwise.
you can't prove the validity of a position by assuming its validity as part of
your argument. which makes this notion a mere subjective opinion on your part
just as well.]
You are not reading correctly. This is not just morality but OBJECTIVE MORALITY
which is true and valid regardless of human views and perceptions. Now if these
don’t come from God, then from whom do these come from? Up until now, you
haven’t shown any alternative.
There is no presumption in my arguments, I’m just showing you that the
existence of God is logical based from the existence of objective moral values.
The fact that there are acts considered wrong in all cultures like for example
rape, attest to the existence of objective moral values. If these values came
from man, then it can’t be considered as objective since it will be just one of
the many values generated by diversified human culture. Who is the authority
among men to say that these values are valid for all times and for all people?
Thus, objective moral values can only come from a being that is independent and
higher than man. This being is what we call God. There is no presumption here
because up until now, you can’t provide an alternative for God.
[Nick Austri: freethinkers adhere to secular ethics.
naturalistic moral philosophies that require not belief in a supernatural
source only human logic and reason.]
Actually it is you who is presumptuous. The term “free thinker” is not
exclusive of atheist. Do you mean to say that our theologians and philosophers
like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Isenkrahe, Jaki and Frank Beckwith are
not free thinkers just because they believe in God? How presumptuous of you.
You are inventing a rule that only atheists are free thinkers. FYI, our
catholic scientist and philosophers have contributed more to the advancement of
science, philosophy, and law than all atheists combine.
To believe in the existence of a supernatural being called God is not contrary
to reason. Actually, God’s existence is logical as shown by our philosophers
and theologians. Simple cause and effect will tell you that everything in this
world is caused by something, and if you will trace it back to the origins of
the universe, you will end up with the first cause, an independent and uncaused
cause. That first cause is God.
[Nick Austri: through which man is able to draw moral
principles from knowledge and understanding of the consequences of their
actions to society/humanity in general.
"We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs.
There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion,
even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things." -
Dalai Lama]
But without God, man’s moral standard will be arbitrary and subjective. You
have no basis then to say that your belief that “rape and murder is wrong” is
more valid than the belief of others which provides for the contrary. Your
opinion will just be as good as the others. To say that “rape is wrong” will
just be a subjective opinion then. Imagine that. That’s the problem of atheism.
It has no higher and independent authority to define and set its moral
standards. Everything is subjective in atheistic perspective. This is the
reason why atheism can’t objectively reject murder. It has no objective basis
to base upon its rejection. And because of subjectivism that permeates
atheistic morality, we can say that atheism permits murder.
Hulyo 03 nang 3:50 PM · Gustuhin
[Nick Austria: - how
self-righteous and hubristic a statement. what evidence? your presumption on
moral absolutism and christianity? no i don't think so. the very core of your
entire argument is a presumption. you presume that belief in a purported
supernatural deity (christian specifically) is prerequisite to human
morality/ethics.]
Existence of objective moral values is not a presumption. The fact that there
are moral absolutes testifies that there are what we call objective moral
values. Why it is that rape, stealing and murder are considered wrong in all
human cultures? Why is it that parents have to take care of their children?
That we have to respect our elders? These are some of the examples that
objective moral values exists. OBM shows that God exists. Only a higher and
independent authority [i.e. God] can come up with a moral standard that is
valid for all men at all times. If you disagree with this, then show us an
alternative. You just kept on denying without showing any basis.
Hulyo 03 nang 4:06 PM · Gustuhin
Franz Luigi Lugena:
"This is not just morality but OBJECTIVE MORALITY which is true and valid
regardless of human views and perceptions. Now if these don’t come from God,
then from whom do these come from? Up until now, you haven’t shown any
alternative."
- we seem to be somewhat going in circles with this but perhaps i need to
further clarify to you my answer. as i have said: you are simply presuming that
a supernatural outside source is prerequisite for the existence of human
morality/ethics which includes OBJECTIVE MORALITY. a misextrapolation or to put
it more subtly, a personal subjective opinion.
now on moral absolutism, mind you that this is only one among various normative
ethical theories such as deontological ethics, utilitarianism, and so on.
including moral relativism in which morality can be relativistic to
people/culture etc.
i.e. during ancient roman times men called gladiators dying in arenas was
considered a form of entertainment, slavery used to be an acceptable concept to
society, an so on. and in this sense, morality is relativistic to
culture/civilization of man as such are considered today to be savage and
unacceptable.
now, for the sake of discussion, even if say we do accept moral absolutism,
this does not equate to/prove the existence of a deity(ies) much less an
anthropomorphic one such as the judeo-christian god.
Hulyo 03 nang 9:31 PM · Gustuhin
Nick Austria
there need not be an "alternative" pertaining to god as an outside
source for morality because what i'm saying is that there is no need for such
for morality (even that which are objective in nature) to exist.
Hulyo 03 nang 9:37 PM · Gustuhin
Franz Luigi Lugena:
"To believe in the existence of a supernatural being called God is not contrary
to reason. Actually, God’s existence is logical as shown by our philosophers
and theologians. Simple cause and effect will tell you that everything in this
world is caused by something, and if you will trace it back to the origins of
the universe, you will end up with the first cause, an independent and uncaused
cause. That first cause is God."
- the cosmological argument (existence of a first uncaused cause of the
universe). while this is not entirely illogical a concept, even if there were
suppose an uncaused cause, to conclude that said uncaused cause is the
scripture-based, judeo-christian god in particular is an incoherent
extrapolation.
the clockwork universe theory's version of god (first cause) is more reasonably
applicable to the cosmological view. quite similar to the deistic as well as
spinoza's interpretaion of god (einstein's as well) in which said
god/creator/first cause is non-anthropomorphic, non-personal and
non-intervening in nature.
[Nick Austria: - we seem
to be somewhat going in circles with this but perhaps i need to further clarify
to you my answer. as i have said: you are simply presuming that a supernatural
outside source is prerequisite for the existence of human morality/ethics which
includes OBJECTIVE MORALITY. a misextrapolation or to put it more subtly, a
personal subjective opinion.]
You said I’m presuming but you haven’t given your reason. So it is you who is
clearly presuming. What I’m doing is showing you the logic of believing to God
on the basis of the existence of objective moral values. The fact that there
are acts that all cultures can’t tolerate testifies to the existence of
objective moral values. Values whose validity is independent to human views and
perception. For example, rape is objectively a wrongful act. To deny the
existence of OMV will mean that rape being wrong is just a subjective opinion.
We can’t accept that. Rape remains wrong even if it is legalized by the state.
So OMV, values that are valid for all man at all times, can’t come from a mere
man. To say so will result to the loss of its objectivity and OMV will just be
another subjective values produced by diversified culture of man. So OMV can’t
come from man. It can only come from an independent and superior being [than
man] whose authority is all encompassing, transcending time and space. That
being is God. If it is not God, then show your alternative. Up to now, you are
evading your responsibility to show an alternative. You can’t just object
without showing a more viable alternative. That’s just presuming.
[Nick Austria: now on moral absolutism, mind you that
this is only one among various normative ethical theories such as deontological
ethics, utilitarianism, and so on. including moral relativism in which morality
can be relativistic to people/culture etc.]
So what? Just like in taking examinations, it doesn’t mean that since there are
many possible choices, there is no one true correct answer. Truth can’t
contradict itself. So if you say that there are no objective moral values on
the basis of diverse theories on the matter, and I say that there are objective
moral values, we can’t be both right. Difference in belief is one thing. What
is important is the correct belief. And the fact that there are things that all
cultures in the world are unified in rejecting and accepting, testifies to the
existence of objective moral values.
[Nick Austria: i.e. during ancient roman times men
called gladiators dying in arenas was considered a form of entertainment,
slavery used to be an acceptable concept to society, an so on. and in this
sense, morality is relativistic to culture/civilization of man as such are
considered today to be savage and unacceptable.]
No, letting people kill each other for entertainment remains objectively wrong
despite the Roman Empire sanctioning it. In fact, killing is prohibited in the
Roman Empire because like other cultures, they value human life. It just that
there is a distortion in the way they perceive facts. For pagan Rome,
gladiators are slaves with no rights, and considered property of lords; therefore
they are not recognized as fellowmen so the concept of letting these gladiators
kill each other as a form of entertainment is ok with them. This is the same
with pro choice movement which advocates for the universal access to abortion.
Proponents of pro choice even pointed out quality life as the reason why women
should have access to abortion. So abortion is ok with the pro choice movement
because the fertilized egg is not considered human, just a piece of tissue, so
removing it is not murder. As you can see, it is only in the justification
[born out of the difference in the perception of facts] that people or groups
tend to differ, but human life is still objectively valued. Thus, you’re
argument doesn’t disprove in any way the existence of objective moral values.
[Nick Austria: now, for the sake of discussion, even if
say we do accept moral absolutism, this does not equate to/prove the existence
of a deity(ies) much less an anthropomorphic one such as the judeo-christian
god.]
What’s your basis? You just keep on objecting without bothering to show proofs
for your objection. On our part, we have basis. We have the Church and
Scriptures which communicates Divine Revelation and Will. Rape is objectively
bad not because I or you think it is bad or because it is prohibited by law,
but because it is, first and foremost, against the will of God. It is on this
basis that rape is considered an objectively wrong act. An independent and
superior [than man] law giver willed that rape is bad, that’s why it is bad, objectively
speaking. If there is no God, from whom do objective moral values come from?
[Nick Austria: there need not be an
"alternative" pertaining to god as an outside source for morality
because what i'm saying is that there is no need for such for morality (even
that which are objective in nature) to exist.]
Wrong. There are no objective moral values if there is no God on which these
values are grounded. Moral standards will then be arbitrary and subjective. So
rape being a wrongful act will just be a subjective opinion; it will be just
one of the many views springing from diverse human culture. Same with the case
of marital infidelity, murder, and stealing, these acts will not be wrong
objectively if there is no God. This is actually the case in Atheism. Anything
is allowed because you have no God to serve as a moral compass. This is the
reason why I said that atheism permits murder. The subjectivism aspect of
atheistic morality makes every thing permissible, even murder and rape.
Kahapon sa ganap na 12:14 AM ·
Gustuhin
[Nick Austria: the
cosmological argument (existence of a first uncaused cause of the universe).
while this is not entirely illogical a concept, even if there were suppose an
uncaused cause, to conclude that said uncaused cause is the scripture-based,
judeo-christian god in particular is an incoherent extrapolation.]
On what basis do you say that the first cause can’t be our God? Don’t just
object, show a more viable alternative. Of course, the Cosmological Argument is
logical. It is one of the potent arguments for the existence of God. The fact
that you can’t find it illogical makes your atheistic belief problematic.
[Nick Austria: the clockwork universe theory's version
of god (first cause) is more reasonably applicable to the cosmological view.
quite similar to the deistic as well as spinoza's interpretaion of god
(einstein's as well) in which said god/creator/first cause is
non-anthropomorphic, non-personal and non-intervening in nature.]
The clockwork universe theory you are talking about is just a theory.
Furthermore, what you are doing is ad verecundiam. Just because Spinoza or
Einstein espoused similar beliefs doesn’t make your argument valid. I can also
cite you equally or possibly more knowledgeable people who believe in the
contrary but that’s beside the point. I find it amusing that you readily
believe a theory just to articulate your anti God bias. I think your allegiance
to clockwork universe theory is just a way to circumvent the validity of
Cosmological Argument [because you can’t deny its validity] by espousing a god
that is almost non-existent.
As the English philosopher, Samuel Clarke said:
“The Notion of the World's being a great
Machine, going on without the Interposition of God, as a Clock continues to go
without the Assistance of a Clockmaker; IS
THE NOTION OF MATERIALISM AND FATE, and tends, (under pretence of
making God a Supra-mundane Intelligence,) TO
EXCLUDE PROVIDENCE AND GOD’S GOVERNMENT IN REALITY OUT OF THE WORLD."
[www.crystalinks.com/clockworkuniverse.html]
Here are the proofs that you’re wrong with your clockwork universe theory:
Proof 1:
The problem with your theory is that God desired that he shall be known by his
creation.
Hosea 6:6
I want you to show love, not offer
sacrifices. I WANT YOU TO KNOW ME
more than I want burnt offerings.
That’s why he created the world bearing his goodness and qualities in order for
us to know him:
CCC#41
All creatures bear a certain resemblance
to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. THE MANIFOLD PERFECTIONS OF CREATURES –
THEIR TRUTH, THEIR GOODNESS, THEIR BEAUTY – ALL REFLECT THE INFINITE PERFECTION
OF GOD. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures'
perfections as our starting point, "FOR
FROM THE GREATNESS AND BEAUTY OF CREATED THINGS COMES A CORRESPONDING
PERCEPTION OF THEIR CREATOR.”
Romans 1:19-20
19 For what can be known about God is
plain to them, BECAUSE GOD HAS SHOWN
IT TO THEM.
20 Ever since the creation of the world HIS
INVISIBLE NATURE, namely, his eternal power and deity, HAS BEEN CLEARLY PERCEIVED IN THE THINGS
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. So they are without excuse;
And with this desire and initial efforts to be known, God literally intervene
in history when at the fullness of time, God became man and was born of woman
[Gal 4:4; John 1:14], was witnessed, touched, and heard by the apostles [1
John1:1-3], and communicated his message of salvation to all people. [Mat4:17]
That’s why your idea of an amorphous and non-intervening God is wrong.
Proof 2:
If God can create a self sufficient machine called the universe, what makes you
think he can’t assume a human form? Nothing is impossible to God. [Luke1:37]
Proof 3:
Do you think a self-sufficient machine, which is according to your clockwork
theory is the universe, is consistent and possible within the framework of your
secular ethics?
Proof 4:
During the death of Christ on the Cross, there occurs an eclipse
[Luke23:44-45]. This eclipse is considered an intervention, a disturbance in
the otherwise perfectly functioning clock-world:
“A similar concept goes back, to John of
Sacrobosco's early 13th-century introduction to astronomy: On the Sphere of the
World. In this widely popular medieval text, Sacrobosco spoke of the universe
as the machina mundi, the machine of the world, SUGGESTING THAT THE REPORTED ECLIPSE OF THE SUN AT THE CRUCIFIXION
OF JESUS WAS A DISTURBANCE OF THE ORDER OF THAT MACHINE.”
www.crystalinks.com/clockworkuniverse.html
In fact, Sacrobosco put it this way:
“The eclipse was not natural, but, rather, miraculous and contrary to
nature".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness_and_eclipse
The eclipse is an intervention from God. Another clear proof that your notion
of a non-intervening God is wrong.
Proof 5:
Any created being or thing [created ex nihilo] needs some form of sustenance or
support for it to continue to exist. It can’t exist apart from its creator. The
role of God is not only to cause the existence of things but also to sustain
his creation. Your clockwork universe theory reduces the role of God as a mere
initiator of creation, portrays God as irresponsible because he abandons his
creation, and implies a perpetual motion machine which is scientifically
improbable. Any machine for it to continue being operational, needs sustenance:
fuel, new parts and frequent maintenance. If the world is a machine just like
what your theory provides, then it needs someone which will continually
sustains it. This someone is God, the great provider. You have yet to show me a
viable alternative which can sustain the universe:
Heb1:3
He reflects the glory of God and bears
the very stamp of his nature, UPHOLDING
THE UNIVERSE BY HIS WORD OF POWER. When he had made purification for
sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
CCC#301
With creation, God does not abandon his
creatures to themselves. HE NOT ONLY
GIVES THEM EXISTENCE, BUT ALSO, AT EVERY MOMENT, UPHOLDS AND SUSTAINS THEM IN
BEING.
So God is not only a creator, but a great provider. He provides for his
creation. He sustains and upholds them. So your clockwork universe theory is
incorrect.
Kahapon sa ganap na 12:15 AM ·
Gustuhin
Nick
Austria Franz
Luigi Lugena, this is your logic: we're not
yet 100% knowledgable of the origins of the universe, ergo it must be the
scripture-based judeo-christian god."
- i don't want to further this discussion anymore for i haven't the time. let's
let the comments stand for themselves.
Franz
Luigi Lugena @Nick Austria, I don’t have problems believing that God exist since
it’s the best explanation for the origin of the universe and human life here on
earth. It is you who have problems. You just keep on denying God but time and
time again, you failed to show proofs or at least a more viable
alternative.
may isang minuto na ang nakalipas ·
No comments:
Post a Comment