Atheism vs Agnosticism
Just as there are different levels of belief, there are also different levels of disbelief. For believers, there are the evangelists who take almost everything in the book of genesis literally -The type who raise their hands up in the air, scream like lunatics then faint during sermons; There are also the everyday normal people whom I don’t want to offend here too much since I know too many of them. For non-believers, there are the hardcore atheists and there are also agnostics whom I sometimes lovingly call weaker atheists
Agnosticism
A lot of people claim to be agnostic but most are actually just not very religious theists. (cough, hazel , cough, poser, cough, agnostic wannabee) There’s your special mention:)
There are many flavors of agnosticism but generally agnosticism is non-comittance to either atheism or theism. They will not outright say that there is a god they also will not say that there is no god. Some might say that they’re being safe some may say that they’re being indecisive. Either way most agnostics are usually pretty smart people and they have my respect as objective thinkers
Agnosticism is a logically and scientifically sound position. 1.) Lack of evidence for the existence of an entity is not evidence against its existence. Analogously 2.) lack of evidence against the non-existence of an entity is not proof for its existence. 3.) An unsupported assumption shouldn’t be considered true until sufficient evidence pointing towards the probability of its validity is found but one cannot come to the definite conclusion that it cannot be true until conclusive evidence were found supporting that thesis. If you connect the premises above you arrive at agnosticism
Atheism
Atheism is not a religion. It’s the utter lack, or some may say, the utter rejection of one. Science and logic are the language that atheists speak. Supernaturalism is a language that they reject.
A theist would content himself with the easily digestible explanation that an unexplained and unexplainable entity is responsible for everything that he cannot understand Whereas most atheists wouldn’t be content with an answer that wasn’t derived and cannot be derived through scientific means.
An example would be the question of how the universe came into existence. Theists would be content with the easy and simplistic answer that a supernatural entity created everything. And that’s where all inquiries stop. For them, there is no need to ask where this supernatural entity came from or the process by which it created the universe. A common argument you’ll hear from a theist is “That’s like a pot questioning a potter” –funny that they’re comparing their intellectual capacity to a pot.
Atheists on the other hand would require a more scientific answer and if no definitive answer is available or if no answer is ever found, then it will simply remain an unanswered question. Their desire for an answer will not make them go the easy route by saying “because god made it so”
Similarities, differences and a critique of the agnostic’s position
One similarity between agnostics and atheists is that they both ask questions. They do not readily accept doctrine that was passed on to them. I’m not saying that All theists are gullible. It’s just that theists tend to compartmentalize. They may not be very easily persuaded in other areas but when it comes to their religion, they tend to be like sheep, going where their shepherd leads them
One major difference between agnostics and atheists is that the latter is usually more knowledgeable in science while the former is usually more philosophically inclined. The agnostic’s argument is valid to a point but that same argument could be used to support agnosticism towards more fantastic creatures like fairies and bogeymen or towards other gods like zeus, shiva or titan since after all their existence hasn’t been disproven and theoretically cannot be disproven. Truth of the matter is that not a single shred of evidence supports any of these entities and a truly objective thinker should be equally as “atheistic” or agnostic to all of them
Some agnostics are mystified by the complexity of life and the universe itself that’s why they still consider the possibility of creation. Most atheists are aware of how mystifying and “un-common-sensical” science itself can be and how introducing such a simplistic and unsupported answer would be comparable to spitting on the face of intellectual inquiry
I consider myself a strong atheist. I reject the concept of a supernatural, sentient, personal creator of the universe. For me the concept of a supernatural god is not only a redundant, unnecessary variable it also goes against proper reasoning. If proof were to be found supporting the existence of a sentient creator then I will be swayed. But as it is, I reject the concept the same way that most people reject the existence of gods aside from their own. All gods are completely unsupported by scientific evidence and I don’t really need to disprove anything since there is no need to disprove anything that hasn’t been proven in the first place.
For more of my arguments on the issue, check out my “on atheism” category
Posted by jaywalker_1982 at 09:53 AM in On atheism | 126 comments
Amye (guest)
Malone (guest)
I am from Haiti and also now teach English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Cheap flights to boston, chicago, new york, los angeles, miami."
With best wishes :(, Malone.
woobie (guest)
http://evilwoobie.com/2007/11/24/on-death-afterlife-and-the-soul/
Ischaramoochie
jaywalker_1982
Ischaramoochie
jaywalker_1982
kryos (guest)
sana may iba pang pede mag-evaluate kung ano talaga ang nangyari sa debate nato.
mczn_allstar23
kryos (guest)
jaywalker_1982
@sinnersaint you seem to be a decent, properly bred person. I respect you if that's your opinion. Please don't tell me you're associated in anyway to the flamer in this entry. Please read all the comments here to understand how sick this guy is.
tiltedin2006 (guest)
jaywalker_1982
kryos (guest)
Sabi mo:
"This is my last comment in this entry. I have no intention of engaging in "palenke-debates".
Wala ka palang isang salita e.
Kakatuwa naman, sakin di ka makasagot.
Wag kang mag-alala, DI kita tatantanan.
kampuput
Rank (guest)
kryos (guest)
jaywalker_1982 says:
ey thanks merry XMas din:)
2006/12/25 at 5:37 pm
WhataLoser!
ejay (guest)
kryos (guest)
(papalusot pa, tsk tsk)
sinnerxsaint pangalan ni miss cute, wag mong tanggalin yung "x". (it could mean something). no one is asscociated with me. i stand alone.
kaya lang naman naging palengke debate to kc kinuyug ako ng mga ka-tropa mo. pero mas may sense naman sinasabi ko kaysa sayo diba. we need a moderator.
I'LL PROMISE I'LL Be GOOD, sagutin mo lang mga tanong ko. No more trash talk.
I'' be a gentleman, of course not as gentle as you but still i'll try my best. ano? deal or no deal?
Sa totoo lang hindi mo pa kc nasagot lahat ng tanong ko, alam mo yan. at marami pa akong tanong miss jaywalker.
spunkybabe_09 (guest)
sa 22o lng, mdaming tao nagcecelebr8 ng xmas. d kailangan mniwala sa dyos o ky hesus o ky santa claus pra mkpgsbe ng "merry xmas". =D tngnan mo japan, ung xmas pra sa knila prang dating season.
LOLZ sa pgdiriwang ng berdei ni "santa clause" LOLZ
kryos (guest)
"d kailangan mniwala sa dyos o ky hesus o ky santa claus pra mkpgsbe ng "merry xmas".
physically possible, tama ka. nagawa nga ni jaywalker diba. pero kung ginagawa mo yan, niloloko mo sarili mo.
it happens, but its wrong.
ejay (guest)
kryos (guest)
at aking natanto na hindi ko alam...
enlighten me master. ano ba implication
kung malaman ko? how is it related to the topic?
ejay (guest)
kryos (guest)
i had a shot of horse tranquilizer kc.
:)
as always.. hindi mo na rin pinaliwanag yung side mo but still im being passive.
i dont want this to end prematurely so hindi ko muna i-rereveal kung sino ka talaga. kahit ibahin mo pa username mo, kilala kita. jay...ooops
ejay (guest)
kryos (guest)
wala pa nga akong sinasabi e.
camille (guest)
kryos (guest)
kunwari: ang manok wala naman talagang kautusan sa kanila pero gumagawa sila ng mabuti, tulad ng pagtatanggol sa mga sisiw at pagpapakain. ganun din naman sa mga tao.
Pero kung narinig mo at nabalitaan mo na may Diyos pero binalewala mo, naku po, ang Diyos narin ang bahala sayo kapatid. Sana dala ni jaywalker ang digicam nya pagnangyari yun ehehehehe.
kryos (guest)
geez. ive always wanted to say that.
Liz (guest)
kryos called agnostics as people 'that don't know shit'. i.e., he is calling agnostics 'ignorant'. now, tiltedin2006, you said that if someone calls someone ignorant, he or she must first prove that she is not. jaywalker wrote a very long reply; kryos retaliated. now, i believe that his [kryos] reply shows his ignorance and total lack of understanding regarding the topic (i will not elaborate; just read jaywalker's, adam mordo's, and kilawinguwak's replies). hence, my insult. i regard it as something more educated than saying 'people that don't know shit'.
kryos, amusingly, shut up after i told him to. but you did not. you had to argue about so-called errors regarding my grammar to prove that i am, in turn, ignorant. fine. you have insulted me, and kilawinguwak, too many times, defending your underdog who was in fact the first who traded an insult. i have not insulted you, gentleman. in fact, nobody has.
you said that i should respect his opinion. but i believe that not all opinions were made to be respected. kryos's is not respectable. if mine is not too, okay. but you're really being very vehement about the whole thing. amusing.
if you are offended by my insult, that's quite expected. but i was expecting kryos to be the one offended, and to feel strongly about it, not you. i don't mind your ad hominems; for all i care, they are just words on my screen. but i am throughly baffled by your behavior. you are a smart person. you know about fallacies, in fact. read kryos. count the fallacies. and yet you defend him.
if he is a friend, that's quite understandable. but if my friends are wrong, i will not defend their mistakes. i will correct them.
by the way, i said that ignorant people do not deserve intelligent conversation. i assume you are intelligent. however, your assertion as to me mistaking an argumentum ad hominem for an ad misericordiam is unfounded. i would not fain call you ignorant. but this is the end of our 'conversation', in the loosest sense of the word.
tiltedin2006 (guest)
To Liz:
I'm an agnostic myself, and you don't see me complaining, do you?
When kyros described agnostics as 'people who don't know shit', he was making a generalization that argues for his cause and against agnosticism. He wasn't making a direct attack on another person - but you did. So it seems you're even more unenlightened than you accuse kyros to be.
Don't flatter yourself by thinking 'kyros shut up after you told him to'. Contrary to what you believe, the world doesn't revolve around you, nor do people bow to your command.
Oh, and btw, you use the word 'amusing' much too often. You might cause people to think you're a headcase of some sort...
Ahhh... I believe I've proven my point. Arrogant people are often stupid.
kryos (guest)
kryos (guest)
Adam Mordo (guest)
I seriously need to question the extent of this experience that you base your conclusion that "agnostic (and I must assume you mean atheists too.) people dont know shit" because "walang kayong alam tungkol sa Diyos". How far reaching is this supposed experience of yours Kyros?
I spent four years of high school in the seminary with every intention of becoming a priest. I also had to go through 4 years of theology in college. I took my studies very seriously and I believe I know a bit more than the average joe when it comes to god and religion. And yet I still became an agnostic in junior high and an atheist by my sophomore year in college. I know several other people who went through a similar path to become either agnostic or atheist.
This only shows how you simply jumped to a conclusion without thinking things through. And you have the arrogance to call us ignorant? At least our lack of belief involved discernment. Can you actually say as much about YOUR faith? If you could not even be critically minded about your sweeping statements, how could you have been critically analyzing when it came to YOUR belief?
kryos (guest)
diba. tama ba ako? kaya nga may board exams e dahil hindi lahat ng nag-aral ay natuto. at marami din akong alam na semenarista na ngayon ay agnostic na. pano nung tanungin ko tungkol sa Diyos panay kabobohan lang ang alam.
Cge pag-nasagot mo to, maniniwala ako sayo na kahit papaano may alam ka.
1. Nasan ang Diyos nung hindi pa nya ginagawa ang Langit at Lupa?
2. May mga bagay ba na hindi kayang gawin ang Diyos o imposible para sa kanya.
3. Sa apocalypsis ano ang ibig sabihin ng 666. Sino ang tinutukoy dito at wag mo sanang sabihin si satanas to dahil tumutukoy to sa pangalan ng isang tao.
4. Omnipotent ba talaga ang Diyos?
Omnipresent din ba talaga Sya?
Omniscient kaya sya?
5. Dapat pa rin bang tuparin ang 10 commandments.
6. Nung sabihin ni Kristo na Sya at ang Diyos ay iisa ano kaya ibig sabihin nya dito?
Alam mo uulanin ka lang ng mga tanong.
At kahit di mo man tanggapin sa sarili mo ay bobo ka talaga.
Saka bat ako lang ang tinitira mo e. si Jaywalker din naman ang nagsabi na mga bobo ang mga Agnostic e.
Jaywalker:
"Agnostics choose not to believe on the basis of ignorance, Atheists choose not to believe because there is no compelling reason for them to do so"
alam mo ba kung may Diyos talaga o wala? Hindi diba? O edi BOBO ka.
Tignan mo ha. Nagsimula ka sa paniniwala sa Diyos at dahil sa kabobohan mo naging Agnostic ka. Tapos atheist kana ngayon. Kung matalino ka talaga bat pa-iba-iba ka ng stand. Siguro bukas theist ka na ulet.
Wag kang mag-inarte dyan, balat sibuyas. Patunayan mo na hindi ka Bobo. at yung mga arguments ko ang banatan mo, hindi yung kung pano ka nasaktan dahil tinawag kitang bopols.
Naiinip nako. Walang ba talagang tatapat sakin.
ejay (guest)
were not talking about the gospel here dude. we're talking about the existence of god, and to cite the bible as proof is to already assume his existence. no deal.
this is unbelieveable. kryos is unbelievable. unbelievably...self-confident.
kryos (guest)
please paki-elaborate naman nito kapatid.
"were not talking about the gospel here dude. we're talking about the existence of god, and to cite the bible as proof is to already assume is existence. no deal."
unang unang wala akong binanggit na gospel,hindi lahat ng nasa Bible kapatid ay gospel. and are we really talking about the existence of God? o ako lang yun? Ano kaba,Bible is a written evidence. It is my duty to prove its validity. Saka hindi lang naman Bible ang nag-iisang proof na binigay ko diba. Ano naman masasabi mo sa mga coincidences na coincidentally nagkasabaysabay?
"this is unbelieveable. kryos is unbelievable. unbelievably...self-confident"
Bat maniniwala kaba sa taong walang self confident, at least sa mga sinasabi nya?
liz (guest)
this is a blog, so i did not feel the need to apply myself to the strict confines of formal writing, as tiltedin2006 seems to insist vehemently. also, i was expecting a thrashing, but not on the basis of imaginary wrongs based on my grammar. well, i guess that's the only part where anyone can attack me. but it is a weak attack at best.
about me insulting kryos. that's true. i did insult him. so? i suppose you would like me to enumerate the premises which supported that insult. whoa. do i have to waste my time? i'm sorry, but while in fact i am for wasting time, i will take a break on this one. too laborious, if i have to dissect his arguments one by one. ignorant arguments, too. so go on. insult my grammar. or insult my insult. whichever suits you. like jaywalker said, i don't have to prove myself to anyone. especially to people i do not know.
'At least he posted an argument, w/c while may need restructuring, puts forth some very good points nonetheless.' i admire your faith in kryos, tiltedin2006. let's see you restructure his arguments.
oh wait, i forgot something. yeah! i'm condescending. that is so true. very perceptive of you. now what do you want me to do about it? stop? if you say yes, good. if you say no, good. either way, i don't mind.
tiltedin2006 (guest)
The reason you put an em dash and the word "pity" after your phrase regarding ad hominem is because you mistook ad hominem for Ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity). Let me just set you straight once and for all.
Ad Misericordiam = Appeal to pity
Ad Hominem = Argument against the person
Now who's IGNORANT? IGNORANT...
liz (guest)
i am not doing this in the spirit of ad hominem, but for pity. I am doing this for pity.
don't talk to me about fallacies. and don't say i don't know what they are. i can't believe a smart person like you can misunderstand a simple statement such as that. the two statements above mean the same thing, and if you thought they didn't, that's not my fault. two other people obviously understood what i meant.
oh, and what's all this talk about ad misericordiam? i'm not appealing for pity. i said i was doing something for pity---not asking for it. (ooops!)
if you want to defend the underdog, please don't do it on the basis of my grammar. well. i guess that's all the basis you have, because that's all the basis i gave. i was mean. true. you are mean. true. now can you go back to defending your underdog's arguments, and prove he is not ignorant instead of proving that i am ignorant? makes much more sense.
and i don't need hats.
tiltedin2006 (guest)
The em dash is not a substitute for the word "but".
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Read them and you'll understand why I think you're an idiot.
If you are claiming you in fact did not mistake ad honimen for ad misericordiam (w/c by the way, if you did, you totally misinterpreted the meaning of ad misericordiam just the same. Refer to my earlier posts), then my previous assertion still applies -- that the use of em dash is misplaced in your reply. But should I decide to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know the proper use of an em dash, then it thus will lead me to the conclusion that you do not know what an ad hominem really is. Either way -- and pardon the language -- you're screwed.
"the two statements above mean the same thing, and if you thought they didn't, that's not my fault."
Obviously it is. If you only used the em dash properly, then you wouldn't be in this situation now, would you? But then again, I'm quite sure you know how to use an em dash... You really just misunderstood the meaning of ad hominem.
"oh, and what's all this talk about ad misericordiam? i'm not appealing for pity. i said i was doing something for pity---not asking for it. (ooops!)"
Shooting blanks again eh? Read the other posts as I said. Don't prove over and over again how unenlightened you are. "Please stop displaying your idiocy in public."
"two other people obviously understood what i meant."
Of course they would presume to understand you! They're your "friends" aren't they?
"well. i guess that's all the basis you have, because that's all the basis i gave."
So why don't you argue against the fine points of his arguments Liz (instead of only shooting out insults)? I promise, even if I am an agnostic like you, I'll willingly take up the opposing end just to prove my point to you.
"and i don't need hats."
Apparently you do. Your head has been traumatized enough. Don't worry; I'll give you a hard hat for Christmas.
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Obviously it is.
Expoundedn below:
Obviously it is your fault.
tiltedin2006 (guest)
jaywalker_1982
How closely connected are you to kryos? Why are you so affected by this? Kryos invited the flame by his slightly less than diplomatic first comment. And even then I used indirect, sarcastic, light hearted ad hominems. You’re viciously attacking people here for no apparent reason. You insult people’s education, You insult people’s intelligence because of their (according to you) incorrect use of punctuations. …And what particular argument are you asserting here? The proper use of the dash? –pretty pathetic isn’t it (did I use the dash properly there) You can only go so far when insulting people
When he called kryos ignorant, that can be considered an ad hominem as it could be construed as an attempt to discredit the person’s arguments on grounds of his credibility as a person. FEELING PITY FOR A PERSON IS NOT ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM (APPEAL TO PITY.)
Regardless of how you reply to this, I’m not gonna (notice I used gonna) engage you in a debate as I really am not into debating about the use of punctuations. I prefer to debate about subjects of substance Give me your thoughts on the topic and I will engage you. It’s in such topics that intelligence is really measured. This though is just not worth my time. Punctuations and the proper nomenclature of logical fallacies are for geniuses of trivia
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Let me take you up on one of the finer points.
"FEELING PITY FOR A PERSON IS NOT ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM (APPEAL TO PITY.)"
Precisely! And that's why I think she's an idiot.
Again, I'll reiterate. It doesn't make sense to commit an "ad hominem -- for pity". Lest she mistook ad hominem for another term altogether (and badly understood its definition or use at that).
The way I'm insulting people right now is no different from how she did it, yet I do not see you arguing for me? You're not being very objective then which is a shame since as "a man of science" I would expect you to be one.
As for why I'm defending kyros, let's just say I prefer to root for underdogs...
tiltedin2006 (guest)
This is what she said:
"anyway, a word of advice to kryos: please don't say anything on the subject of atheism and agnosticism anymore. i.e., shut up. i am not saying this in the spirit of ad hominem---for pity. i am doing this for pity. your ignorance is offensive, so please stop displaying it in public."
If you read the whole statement in its entire context, you'll see where she mistook ad hominem for ad misericordiam. Although this is an incomplete ad misericordiam, it can still be easily mistaken as such (which she did). And if she did, then it is unforgivable -- even though I used the words "can still be easily mistaken") -- since she accused someone of being ignorant, when in fact, she used a term that she did not completely understand.
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Bottomline, leave the men to their arguing. If you're not going to argue against the points raised, then "keep your opinions (or in this case insults) to yourself as well. Or as you so beautifully put it, "shut up".
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Pardon me for mistaking you for actually having enough brain cells to conjure up something other than an insult. Well I do have myself to blame for having "blind faith" in egotistical maniacs.
Ugh! Waste of time... How I wish I could turn back the clock and not have replied. A hopelessly obtuse person is undeserving of my critique.
And just as a point of argument, anyone who insults somebody else's intelligence needs to prove his/her intelligence first, or at least prove the utter lack thereof of the person they are insulting (Oh, and by the way, this is done in â??civilized societiesâ??. If you lack the said civility, then pardon me for being presumptuous). Now if you think I am insulting you back with no basis, heck I'm only following your lead so "put up with it".
Oh, and thank you for replying -- even if your reply lacks astuteness. Shows me how much you really do care...
tiltedin2006 (guest)
"civilized societies"
Adam mordo (guest)
And the stand that atheists become so because it's easy or convenient is pure hogwash. The fact that atheists agree that there is no afterlife means that the burden of mortality weighs heavier on every atheist's shoulders.
jaywalker_1982
kilawinguwak
that's why i think agnostics are in a rather cushy position: they don't have to prove or disprove anything. if something happens, they can always just chalk it up to one side or the other (or at least that's how i see it, no offense to agnostics out there).
on the most part, it's the religious and strong atheists that feel the pressure, since they already have the drive to believe or disbelieve something. and you know how life is; something will always come to try and prove you wrong.
i say c'est la vie. live and let live yo.
here's an interesting item found in a UST bathroom tho: "The very necessity to reject the idea of god makes god more important than ever before." Or something like that. I don't remember how it truly went. :D
tiltedin2006 (guest)
---> I like this.
benj (guest)
Atheism, imho, should be focused on one thing alone. That thing is lack of impetus to believe (i.e. a concrete proof). Nothing more, nothing less. Since there is nothing to sway you, there's no reason to believe.
jaywalker_1982
kryos (guest)
metal-mouth james (guest)
liz (guest)
i sympathize with you. but you deserve this highly idiotic babble from mr kryos because you responded to it in the first place.karma. see, the logic of buddhism. *laughsandfallsofffloor*
anyway, a word of advice to kryos: please don't say anything on the subject of atheism and agnosticism anymore. i.e., shut up. i am not saying this in the spirit of ad hominem---for pity. i am doing this for pity. your ignorance is offensive, so please stop displaying it in public.
jaywalker, again. don't make your comment box a toilet joke.
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Come on Liz, let's see what you've got. Stop shooting people when it appears all you've got are blanks.
Ooopppsss... Am I committing another ad hominem? My apologies... It can't be helped... I hate condescension.
betch
i'm surprised this kryos guy actually has enough neurons to operate a computer.
kryos (guest)
sino kaya bobo satin. JOAT ako e. marunong kaba mag guitara? ako marunomg. lahat ata ng klase ng sasakyan kaya ko paandarin e. Kaw ba?
Pede panga akong mechanic e. Lalo na siguro sa PC. Programming, Web Development, Databases, Graphic Design, 3d modeling , Cracking, Hacking, Game Development. Uu di lang talaga ako marunong mag construct ng sentences e. ehehehehe. Sensya na. Alin ba kc ang bobo dun sa mga sinabi ko?
betch
Unang tanong: ano ang JOAT? Nakakain ba yun?
Pangalawang tanong: kailangan ko rin bang magpost ng mga kaya kong gawin dito? Muntik na ko bumagsak sa Filipino nung highschool. May alaga akong arowana na tinuruan kong tumalon mula sa aquarium. Naka-4 na ko sa PE, nagremoval exam pa. Oha oha.
Di ko na siguro kailangan sabihin yung mga bobo sa sinabi mo, more or less nacover na yun ng ibang tao dito. c:
At Ginoong Kryos, nakapunta na ko sa blog mo. (Stalker mode) Mahal na kita. XD
kryos (guest)
Alam mo ba na-ini-expect ko ang ganyang klase ng reply eheheh. Pinag-isipan ko pa nga e. Lalabas nga na nagyayabang ako pero lalabas din kung sino talaga ang mga kayang sumagot laban sakin. Hanggang ngayon personalan lang kaya nyo. wahahahahha.
Belat. :)
Oo na bobo na, Oo na mayabang na. Tulungan mo na si Jaywalker sumagot.
jaywalker_1982
jaywalker_1982
I enjoy mismatches like this immensely so I will again write a reply. I shall first try to contain my amusement, as it is quite difficult to write while rolling on the floor laughing.
liz (guest)
kryos (guest)
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Well I must say hats off to you for attempting to sound intelligent by using abbreviations such as "i.e." (w/c, while your use of it was acceptable, can still be considered inappropriate given the current setting), and words like "ad hominem" (though the context which it was in was lost on me, given the fact that you affixed the word "pity" and only separated it with an em dash. Unless I'm mistaken -- and I'm pretty sure I'm not -- the em dash, while used to show a break in thought or a shift in tone, still need to be in the same context, or congruent with the same sentence.
Ah... Now I believe what I just wrote is an ad hominem.
Post a proper argument Liz, then I'll give you an "intelligent" answer. So far all I've seen from you are disparagements. If you really are as "intelligent" as you believe yourself to be, post an argument than can sway even that of a non-believer, or a "believer" if you will -- no pun intended.
jaywalker_1982
BTW she's agnostic not atheist
kryos (guest)
sensya na di ko mapigilan e. kc
kung matalino si liz (pero alam ko lang na bola mo lang yun) lalabas na gago ka nga. biro mo magkaiba kayo ng paniniwala tapos sasabihin mo na matalino sya. ano yun? dapat kung naniniwala ka sa kanya dapat pareho kayong agnostic. tanga. sumama kana sa kanya at magladlad ka na tol. bisaya!
tiltedin2006 (guest)
I say if she's being flamed, she brought it upon herself. Have respect for other people, or at the very least their opinions and don't directly attack the person holding the opinion. A direct attack on another person is an invitation to retribution.
kilawinguwak
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Oh and as for the em dash "denoting a change in tone", isn't that precisely how I defined the use of an em dash? Or have you trouble reading?
If she doesn't want to participate fine. But there's no need to ridicule a person and insult their intelligence just because their opinion doesn't necessarily coincide with theirs.
kilawinguwak (guest)
Anyway. Dude. This. Is. A. Blog. In formal conversation, the consecutive use of periods - or pauses - in a statement is considered bad form; you could either be losing your patience, or you could be trying to prove that your opponent is stupid by rubbing something in. In this case, what I was doing was stressing a point.
Was it insulting in anyway, when read? No!
The use of id est, which translates roughly to "that is" connotes that you're putting what you just said in another way. The statement preceeding the holy words "shut up" were meant to impress her opinion that she thinks you should keep your opinions to yourself. No offense meant dude; it wasn't misplaced in any way. Don't take the things you read in blogs and forums too seriously, unless the person is of a very high repute. Say, Rowan Atkinson.
And the em dash. It's just supposed to denote a change in tone. It depends on the sentence whether or not you still need to maintain the train of thought. If you want to shift, you can shift! Parang college lang yan (mas mahirap lang sa college tho).
And hey. She may be wrong in ridiculing you. Pero kumagat ka naman. Sino'ng tanga? Really dood. If you can see that the statement's just blatant flame, don't bite. Don't go to the light gaddamet!
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Damn it dude, where did you go to school? I pray to God it's not somewhere reputable.
And anyway, my only point was, why use an i.e. (w/c is only normally used in formal writing/conversation) when THIS.IS.A.BLOG. Attempting to sound intelligent does not give you any more credit than someone's poor structure of English (considering that isn't even our native language).
"Was it insulting in anyway, when read? No!" --> The shut-up part? Maybe not. The "ignorant people" part? I say yes, that's pretty insulting.
Sinong tanga??? And yet kumakagat ka rin sa flame ko sa kanya... That's like the pot calling the kettle black... I say if you're trying to imply I'm stupid, then you're even more stupid than me... You're crossing over to the dark side huh?
tiltedin2006 (guest)
"And anyway, my only point was, why use an i.e. (w/c is only normally used in formal writing/conversation) when THIS.IS.A.BLOG."
Expounded below:
If you're going to use i.e., you might as well use it properly (in this case, not following it up with, as you called it "HOLY WORD") or not at all.
kilawinguwak (guest)
Wikipedia wiki-fu says otherwise:
"The em dash indicates a sudden break in thought�a parenthetical statement like this one�or an open range (such as "John Doe, 1987�"). The em dash is used in much the way a colon or set of parentheses is used: it can show an abrupt change in thought or be used where a period is too strong and a comma too weak. Em dashes are sometimes used in lists or definitions, but this is not considered correct usage[citation needed]: a colon should be used instead."
It doesn't have to stay congruent to the idea. It's a sudden break in thought. And just like thought, you don't always have to go back to the original train of thought.
My schooling? La salle greenhills from kindergarten to high school, UST journalism major, then transferred to JRU english major. And so what if I'm an idiot from a reputable school? I went to school with a lot of idiots, and they're pretty nice people. Being an idiot doesn't demean you or your school any more than it makes you any less competent in one special set of skills. That's reverse elitism; everybody's capable of being good or bad, regardless of their educational background. Anybody who believes otherwise should be strung up by his balls publicly and fed water.
And me? Going to the dark side? Kumagat ako sa flame mo sa kanya kasi di ko maintindihan yung point ng pag-flame mo sa pagkasulat ng reply nya. Pointless to argue over an em dash and the use of i.e. And that's all i'm pointing out here. She could be blackmailing you to your grave and i would still be more concerned with the use of the em dash and i.e. since i don't know either of you. If i knew you, then i'd help you defend your dignity, but i don't. so as it is, i point out where i think you were wrong and i think she was right - in the argument of the punctuations.
And as for the i.e. part, I'd say it was ok to use it in informal conversation. It's a bit weird, yeah, but she ain't breaking any rules of social conversation. I mean, you can use the words fantabulous demagougery in the same sentence when you're talking to people - even when you're insulting them or not. Some people actually pronounce 1050 as ten hundred and fifty in normal conversation, and aside from being a little quirky to the point of being weird, it isn't anything worth quarrelling over. Some people live in military time; is that wrong? I've heard at least ten people use i.e. in informal conversation. I sometimes swear by saying poppycock. A friend of mine says COCK regularly in public, while another swears by saying PUKI. Distasteful isn't it? But that's personality quirks for you. In creative writing workshops, punctuations are usually just glossed over; story elements are considered to be more important than punctuations, since those can easily be remedied in post prod editing.
So while i'm not really losing anything in discussing the finer points of writing and conversation with you, you, on the other hand did become a little bit violent with your words when you replied to the woman's post. So i'm not the pot. I'm not on fire here. You are.
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Regardless, by the very definition you gave above, an em dash cannot be used when the subsequent phrase or thought following the em dash does not agree in any way with the subject of your preceding sentence. Read the definition you gave above a hundred times so you'll understand what I mean. Better yet, since you're an English major, go back and ask your professor if I am correct in my assertion.
The use of slang terms in normal conversations is acceptable. However it is not applicable to formal writing or conversation.
No wonder you landed in JRU. I'm not suprised if your previous schools threw you out.
tiltedin2006 (guest)
"The em dash indicates a sudden break in thought"
Break in thought, meaning a pause in thought, not a widely divergent issue altogether.
"it can show an abrupt change in thought"
You're being much too literal (as an English major, I would think that is a crime). An abrupt change in thought doesn't necessarily mean you delve into another area of discussion altogether. It just means you have an additional point to discuss but still very much related to the previous subject matter (again I strongly encourage you to ask your professor so he can enlighten you about this).
"or be used where a period is too strong and a comma too weak"
By the above definition it already connotes that the phrase succeeding the em dash should still be congruent to the subject of the preceding phrase. When a period is used, then you may shift completely, but as it is, the use of an em dash already presupposes that a period is too strong to use for the phrase following the em dash. Ergo, the succeeding phrase after the em dash should still be congruent to the previous phrase.
I feel Iâ??m being redundant. Kindly do as asked and go to your professor. Youâ??d do well to know a little more than you do now.
kilawinguwak (guest)
and here: <a href="http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/091502.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/091502.htm</a>
note that em dashes can be used to " . . . detach one end of a sentence from the main body . . . "
which can denote what you said, straying from a main idea to go back, or straying from the main idea almost as a whole.
she said that she was not saying whatever it was for an argument ad hominen, which according to a definition you gave, was an argument against the person. she gave it out of pity, in which she used an em dash to connect. there was nothing wrong with that.
The definition I gave wasn't clear enough in one reading? dude, definitions follow the strunk and white elements of style, which is to be clear, concise, and free of any underlying messages. One to two readings is enough.
I mean really, haven't we wasted enough time trying to argue over what an em dash can connote? you have a point when you say that it should say powtaytoe, but I know - along with a lot of other english proficient people - that you can also say pohtahtoe. Same difference man. I'm not arguing to save face here. You want to slander me, fine. I'm not resorting to character assasination tho. I'm too big for that. :D
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Regardless, read Liz's reply regarding ad hominem again and I'm hoping you will see where my point lies.
It doesn't make sense to say you committed an "ad hominem -- for pity". The correct way of translating this is she believes ad hominem is defined as something else.
But as you said, "powtaytoe-pohtahtoe". Regardless, the only reason I attacked her in the first place is because I found her first post to kyros offensive. If I operated in the same manner as she, then my apologies. But I strongly felt I had to call her up on it, if only to let her know it is not right to insult people in that manner. As jaywalker said (even if he was being sarcastic), "we should be more civilized than that".
tiltedin2006 (guest)
Detaching the end of a sentence to the main body doesn't connote the idea that the phrase following the em dash is a different subject altogether. If anything, it supports my claim even more -- that the succeeding phrase should still be congruent to the rest of the sentence.
tiltedin2006 (guest)
jaywalker_1982
jaywalker_1982
If anyone's confused, I was referring to kilawinguwak's comment
tiltedin2006 (guest)
tiltedin2006 (guest)
jaywalker_1982
kryos (guest)
Atheistism are devoids of facts. Its neither scientific nor logical.
cyberpunk (guest)
we (agnostics) don't know shit? hell, you don't know shit either. at least kami aminado na kulang ang aming kaalaman/kakayahan na alamin ang nature ng dyos...
so other people try to find the truth through science, math and logic...what makes believing in a highly inconsistent book any better?
can anyone really prove or disprove the existence of god? no. can we know his nature? no. do we have to? no. does god want us to really learn about him? no. otherwise, he would have made the knowledge about his nature and existence automatic and consistent, instead of letting us all fight like idiots...
kryos (guest)
Meron lang naman o wala e. Pero
yung "hindi ko alam" hindi kc acceptable sakin e.
can anyone really prove or disprove the existence of god?
Kryos: YES
can we know his nature?
Kryos: YES
Hirap sayo tanong mo sagot mo e.
cyberpunk (guest)
ang hirap sa mga taong nagmamarunong... mag-enumerate pa ng skills...ano to, resume? :D you're not as smart as you think you are, Mr. Hotshot.
kryos (guest)
Wow. Kasali ka pala? Ang akala ko kc
si Jaywalker lang ang inimbitahan ko sa isang debate e. Ibig sabihin nyan EPAL ka. Pwera nalang syempre kung humingi ng tulong si Mr. Jaywalker sayo para ipagtanggol sya eheheheh.
Isipin mo to, madalas ang taong nagyayabang meron talagang pinagyayabang. Belat. Pinalabas mo na bobo ako sa Computer diba. Pinagtanggol ko lang sarili ko. Sabihin mo ngayon kung san ka magaling. Tatapatan kita. Kung lalaki ka talaga.
cyberpunk (guest)
hindi ko pinagtatanggol si jaywalker, atheist sya, agnostic ako...
kung magaling ka talaga, dapat sa ibang tao nanggagaling ang papuri, hindi yung ikaw ang nagbubuhat ng sarili mong bangko. pathetic tuloy ang dating.
wala rin akong sinabing bobo ka sa computer. ewan ko kung saang lupalop mo napulot yung "sinabi" kong yon. at since pinagduduldulan mo yang pagka-"henyo" mo sa computers, graduate po ako ng ComSci sa DLSU...
"Tatapatan kita. Kung lalaki ka talaga." Hahahaha, siguraduhin mo munang lalaki nga ang kausap mo bago ka mag-inarte dyan :P
kryos (guest)
debate kaya niyaya ko sya sa isang diskusyon. si jaywalker ang may karapatan na tanggihan kung sino ang mga sasali. sinalo mo kasi sila, tuloy kala ko ikaw si betch na nagsabing kulang neurons ko para makapag-operate ng computer. sori my mistake.
hindi ko rin naman pinupuri ang sarili ko kapatid. kung may pagmamayabang man ako, Diyos lang ang kaya kong ipagmayabang. sana maintindihan mo na pinagtanggol ko lang sarili ko.
Hindi ko narin susubukin ang kakayahan mo sa ComSci. Alam ko naman sa Comsci tinuturo din ang logic, dahil Comsci din ako. Saka ang ibig sabihin ko ng lalaki ay yung paninindigan mo. Pero hindi para sayo yun, para kay betch ata yung hamon na yun. Pasensya na.
Sana pag-usapan nalang natin yung topic na binuksan ko. Wag na tayong mag-away ng personal. Hindi naman ako seryoso sa pakikipag-away e. Nang-aasar lang naman ako. Dami kasing pikon kaya natutuwa ako. :)
cyberpunk (guest)
you don't have to accept things/ideas just because they were handed down to you... try mo explore other options, other religions and ways of thinking...i believe most of the pinoy agnostics/atheists eh ganun...at least i was...i was deeply religious as a child...
although agnostic, i don't discount the existence of god because it's a comforting thought and easily answers the difficult questions about creation and everything else...however, i don't see any proof of the existence/non-existence of god...we can argue for generations but i don't think we'll really find the answers...and i don't think we really need to bother...god and the concept of heaven/hell don't have to be in the equation for us to lead good lives...
for me the concept of god is like morality, it's not a black or white thing...if god wanted acknowledgment, he would have instilled the knowledge about him as a human instinct...
kryos (guest)
yung point mo naman, nasagot ko na to dati dahil pinoint out na din to ni bading. pero sasagutin ko narin. I am not a conventional person o naive, na kahit ano nalang tinatanggap ko o kung ano ang nakagisnan yun na din ang paniniwala ko. sa katunayan, i was a catholic pero hindi na ngayon dahil pag may nakita akong kahit isang mali sa religion, ayaw ko na. it should be perfect.
if I were to ask you if men can actually land on the moon syempre nung unang panahon imposibleng paniwalaan, i know it sounds really childish pero totoo yun. naniniwala ka kasi within the frame boundary e which is science and experience. kailangan mag-isip tayo outside the box. tulad ngayon, nagsasalita ka lang kung ano lang ang alam mo o pagkakaintindi sa bagay bagay using only your bare understanding. tell me "pano ko idedescribe sa isang bulag ang kulay na BLUE", ibig bang sabihin dahil hindi mo nakikita ang kulay blue ay hindi na sya nag-eexist. maaring sayo hindi sya nag-eexist pero reality doesnt revolves around you.
i am only asking for little time para mabuksan ko ang mga mata nyo so that makita nyo rin kung ano tlaga ang kulay blue.
kung napasin mo walang masyadong nagrereply sakin. I really think dahil yun sa wala na silang maisagot laban sakin o kayay hindi naman talaga sila seryosong pag-usapan ang mga bagay bagay spiritual o nagsasawa na sila dahil inaakala nila na paulit ulit lang ang pinag-uusapan. alam ko ang human psychology, at pagsinabi mong mali ang paniniwala ng isang tao, talagang magagalit, pero sana pagbigyan nyo lang ako kahit konti, sasagutin ko mga tanong nyo dahil ang taong nakakaalam ng katotohanan ay hindi humihiwalay sa usapan tulad ni jaywalaker na pinili na ang tumahimik nalang. inaasar ko nga lagi ng bobo para magalit at mapilitang sumagot para lang matuloy ang debateng ito.
alam mo mag-aral ka lang ng konti, nandyan lang ang sagot e.
jaywalker_1982
[QUOTE] “IT IS EASIER TO SAY WALANG DIYOS KAYSA SABIHING MAY DIYOS”[/QUOTE]
You’re making unsupported arguments. Why did you say that it’s easier to say that there is no god than it is to say that there is a god? You see, if you’re going to make an assertion like that you should follow it up with an actual explanation and then maybe try to support that explanation with facts. The burden of proof is on the side that’s proving a positive. It’s your side that’s trying to prove the existence of an entity. Since the burden of proof is on you, shouldn’t it also follow that it’s more difficult to assert the existence of your preferred god?(hence the word “burden”) Please try to correct me if I’m wrong as I am befuddled by your logic
You’re right there. There is no proof for or against god. At the very least, that could be made as an argument for agnosticism. That’s why I said that agnosticism is a logically and scientifically sound position. the primary reason for my being an atheist is my rejection of supernaturalism, which is tangential to proper intellectual inquiry.
[QUOTE] “I KNOW KUNG BAKIT KA ATHEIST, KC HINDI MO ALAM ANG MGA SAGOT SA MGA TANONG TUNGKOL SA DIYOS. DIBA SUPERNATURAL SAYO YUNG MGA BAGAY BAGAY NA HINDI MO KAYANG IPALIWANAG.” [/QUOTE]
A supernatural entity or phenomenon is not just one that is unexplained. -Human stupidity is not something that is fully understood in its entirety but stupidity is not considered supernatural, at least by medical people. A supernatural phenomenon, in addition to being unexplained is also is one that incongruent with naturalism or known scientific laws -One that is deemed to be unexplainable and to not require an explanation from the get go
The complete opposite of scientific inquiry which always assumes that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything hence continuing scientific investigation for unexplained phenomena even if the easy answer, “because god made it so” is there and can be used to answer almost everything
[QUOTE] “ARE YOU EXPECTING SCIENCE TO PROVE GOD? COMMON MISTAKE NG MGA MATATALINONG TAO. CAN SCIENCE EXPLAIN EVERYTHING? BAKIT YAN ANG GNAGAWA MONG BASEHAN”[/QUOTE]
There is no rule in reasoning and logic that says God is the default explanation should science fail to provide an answer. To argue so would be logically fallacious at best and downright obtuse at worst. You cannot equate what is currently explained by man to what actually has an explanation.
I DON’T expect science to prove or disprove god ever. God by its very nature is unfalsifiable. There is no naturalistic model to falsify or test the validity of. All you have are highly dubious claims that almost seem like they were lifted straight from fairy tales designed to scare children. Haven’t you stopped to think that maybe the only thing that makes you take your bible more seriously than the holy book of another religion is the fact that you just happened to be born and raised catholic. If you were born in muslim family do you think you’d be worshiping the same god? Is that something that makes you feel comfortable? Context based reality
I’ve said this a lot before and I’m gonna say it again. People shouldn't use logic to defend their faith. It shouldn't be called faith in the first place if it's logically well grounded. Just say that you believe and that's enough justification already. There is nothing wrong with believing in something but you can’t criticize an agnostic or an atheist’s views from that vantage point because you’re on very shaky ground.
[QUOTE]“ATHEISTISM ARE DEVOIDS OF FACTS. ITS NEITHER SCIENTIFIC NOR LOGICAL:”[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what you meant by this. You really have to start reading books and I don’t just mean dictionaries, though that could help too. I mean reputable science journals or if you really want to discuss this issue. (BTW Deviods must also be a very strong word)
jaywalker_1982
kryos (guest)
Kala ko ba youre enjoying this mismatch? Di knb nag-eenjoy? wahahahaha.
kryos (guest)
"I DON’T expect science to prove or disprove god ever. God by its very nature is unfalsifiable. There is no naturalistic model to falsify or test the validity of."
kitang kita naman sa 3rd sentence na dalawa ang tinutukoy mo e. "prove or disprove" at "to falsify or test the validity of"
wag mo kaming pa-ikutin boy. wag ka nang maduwag. bakla. at sumagot ka na sana sa mga tanong ko. please lang.
jaywalker_1982
Tinatagalog na kita ha halatang wala kang naiintindihan sa mga sinasaboi ko.
Ibig sabihn ng "falsify" I prove na mali. Ibig sa bihin ng test "the validity of", itest kung mali o tama. Ang ibig sabihin ng 3rd sentence, walang modelo na pwedeng itest kung mali o tama. Walang koneksyon yun sa I DON’T expect science to prove or disprove god ever"
Kung ayaw mong maniwalang typo yun bahala ka pero nakasulat mismo sa article na "If proof were to be found supporting the existence of a sentient creator then I will be swayed" Nagets mo ba ibig sabihin nun?
kung ganyan ang pakikipag away sa kanto niyo, wag mokong idamay ha. Magaral ka muna. English tinuturo mula preschool hangang college. sa english mo parang di ka nakatapos ng elemetary e. Humirit ka pa ibaban na kita.
Gusto mo ng debate try mo sa pinoyexchange.com/realm of thought dun
At yung mga huling arguments mo, tawag dun ID o kaya appeal to ignorance. Sinagot ko na yun dito at sa article. Kaya ako di na nagpopost sa pex dahil nagsawa ako mga ganung arguments. check mo ulit article ko pati mga reply ko. andun mga sagot ko sa huli mong comment. Kund di mo maintindihan, basa ka ng dictionary
kryos (guest)
>kitang kitang bisaya ka brod, di ka marunong mag-tagalog e. ehehehe
"Ibig sabihn ng "falsify" I prove na mali. Ibig sa bihin ng test "the validity of", itest kung mali o tama. Ang ibig sabihin ng 3rd sentence, walang modelo na pwedeng itest kung mali o tama. Walang koneksyon yun sa I DON’T expect science to prove or disprove god ever" "
> bopols. di ko sinabi na magkapareho ang mga sentences, ang sinasabi ko is yung structure. always 2 ang tinutukoy mo, kaya ka nga gumagamit ng "or" diba.
"Tinatagalog na kita ha halatang wala kang naiintindihan sa mga sinasaboi ko. "
anong "sinasaboi"? di ko makita sa dictionary to brod. sa bisaya dictionary meron ba nito?
"Kung ayaw mong maniwalang typo yun bahala ka pero nakasulat mismo sa article na "If proof were to be found supporting the existence of a sentient creator then I will be swayed" Nagets mo ba ibig sabihin nun?"
Sinong maniniwala? Yung "sinasaboi" maniniwala ako na typo, alam mo ba ano ibig sabihin ng typographical error?
"kung ganyan ang pakikipag away sa kanto niyo, wag mokong idamay ha. Magaral ka muna. English tinuturo mula preschool hangang college. sa english mo parang di ka nakatapos ng elemetary e. Humirit ka pa ibaban na kita"
Hinihintay ko nga na i-ban mo ko e. Para makita ng madla na yabang lang ang alam mo. Sige na i-ban moko. Sisign-up lang ako sa bagong account tapos uulanin ka ulet ng argumento.
Mag-aaral din ako ng english grammar, wag kang mag-alala, basta mag-aral ka rin ng tagalog.
"Gusto mo ng debate try mo sa pinoyexchange.com/realm of thought dun "
ano to? sentence ba to?
dun ba yung pinagtatalunan nyo kung may DIyos at free will. Kuh naman, nabasa ko na e, ang haba haba ng diskusyon, e sa simula palang mali na ang premises e. Hindi alam ng Diyos kapatid ang lahat ng bagay at hindi rin sya kahit saan nandoon at lalong lalong hindi Nya kayang gawin ang lahat, tulad ng pagsisinungaling. Sa premise palang mali na ang mga barkada mong gunggong na, na pinatulan mo pa.
saka bat moko i-didivert dun? di mo nba kayang sumagot. saka bat nandun sagot mo, e dito kita tinatanong? ano yun? hahanapin ko pa kung saan lupalop ka nagpost ng sagot. ano ka? sira ba talaga ulo mo?
alam mo very predictable ka. lahat ng pain na sinubo ko sayo, kinagat mo.
ahahahah. . kailangan pang asarin kita para sumagot ka.
ganito nalang, kung ayaw mo na, sabihin mo lang sakin, hindi yung iiwanan mo nalang ang usapan ng basta basta. bad yun. or better yet, accept defeat, yun lang.
marami pa nga sana akong tanong e.
tulad nalang ng pagiging atheist mo simula pa nung grade 5. ibig sabihin grade 5 alam mo na na walang Diyos? nabasa mo na lahat ng articles? e wala ka pa ngang alam masyado sa Science nito e. Tapos icoconfirm mo na walang basehan para maniwala sa Diyos. Ano yun? In an early age sigurado ka na na walang ebidensya. O sino ba talaga bobo satin?
I-ban moko, i dare yah. Yan naba yung tinatawag na "Brute Force" to preserve your dignity. wahahahahahahah.
Saka sino ba talaga Bobo, si liz o ikaw? Wahahahahahahah. Wag mong sabihing matalino ang isang tao kung iba paniniwala nya sayo. kung 1+1=3 pra sa kanya, tapos 1+1=4 sayo, pagsinabi mong matalino sya, e di lumalabas na bobo ka. Wahahahahaha.
pia (guest)
nice one..
jaywalker_1982
kryos (guest)
It was just a strategy to get your attention and i think it works.
I didnt expect that you'll be countering me this fast (and this long).
What I gave you were just premises and until you've accepted my invitation,
only then that I'll start building-up my defense. Nonetheless, I feel
obligated to answer you back.
Atheist talaga ang attitude mo kasi assuming
ka na wala nga akong support sa mga arguments ko. Eh kaso in fact meron. Di ko lang
nilagay dahil mahaba. But if youre serious enough then I'll give it to you in details.
Its really disturbing how you avoided the question "How can you be an Atheist
if you cant prove that there is no God." Diba sabi mo Scientific ka eh bat
ganyan ba ang scientific attitude mo? Ano nalang kaya ang naging scientific
method mo for you to arrived to that conclusion? tsk tsk.
Bullshit No.1 - "the primary reason for my being an atheist is my rejection of
supernaturalism, which is tangential to proper intellectual inquiry."
I'll give you an analogy for dummies. Dracula. He does many supernatural things.
And If I may say so, its all bullshit. But is it enough to deny his existence?
Of course not. So your so-called primary reason for being an Atheist is
unsubstantial and busted.
"-Human stupidity is not something that is fully understood in its
entirety but stupidity is not considered supernatural"
Where did you get this? This is really misleading. "Not Fully Understood"
and "Unexplained" is a whole different matter. This Jedi-Mind Trick dont work
on me. Thats why I am explaining to you how stupid you are because it is
really a non-supernatural thing.
"A supernatural phenomenon, in addition to being unexplained is
also is one that incongruent with naturalism or known scientific laws "
When viruses and bacteria still hasnt been discovered yet by Science
and most people think that diseases are due to bad spirits, many people
think that this is supernatural. But after Science explained it to us,
this supernatural phenomenon became scientific and logical.
Wow from supernatural to scientific. I hope you can agree with me that
there are supernatural phenomenon before that are not supernatural
anymore due to Science finally catching up.
Technically supernatural phenomenon are variable and are not constant.
So is this going to be your basis?
"There is no rule in reasoning and logic that says God is the default
explanation should science fail to provide an answer."
Yes. Though it is not the default answer, but could be the second
if not the best answer.
"I DON’T expect science to prove or disprove god ever. God by its very
nature is unfalsifiable. There is no naturalistic model to falsify or
test the validity of."
Whoa. Sounds very agnostic. I'm sorry. Correct me if Im wrong but
isnt it that Atheist=There is no God?
If youre not expecting Science to prove or disprove God ever and Naturalism is
also a Science and your basis of supernaturals is Science and Naturalism. How
the hell can you prove that there is no God when you have no other means.
Yeah Math is Science ang Logic is Science too.
You said that your primary reason for being an atheist is that you reject the
supernaturals. How can you know what are the supernaturals without Science and
Math and Logic? How? Just face it- Science is you basis. Dont contradict yourself.
"Haven’t you stopped to think that maybe the only thing that
makes you take your bible more seriously than the holy book of another
religion is the fact that you just happened to be born and raised
catholic. If you were born in muslim family do you think you’d be
worshiping the same god? Is that something that makes you feel comfortable?
Context based reality"
Im sorry Mr. Assuming Atheist. I am not a Catholic nor you can associate me
in any other religion made by man. People isnt born with religion.
Was i born as a catholic? Is it like your mother is Filipino and you father is
a Filipino that you will be born a Filipino? Its generally true that people born as
a catholic or in any other religion that they remain that way. But I am not like that.
I've studied Religion and Science because Im seeking for the truth. How about
you? Have you made any study for you to conclude that there is no God?
Lastly faith should be based on logic. That why you are wrong. Unless of course your
talking about blind faith. I'll give you another analogy for dummies.
I have faith that my gf will come to our date. Why? Because she never fails
to come. Because I am sure that she'll remembers it. See that faith.
Faith should have basis.
So lets substitute your logic to the analogy. shall we
I have faith that my gf will come to our date. But she never come. Why?
Because I dont have any GF or we never talked about any dates. Dont be stupid
to believe something that has no basis.
Lastly. I'll answer your question on why is it easier and more convenient for
you to accept that there is no God. Because believing in God is much harder
to do. It comes with responsibilies and obligations, like walking the right path.
Obeying hundreds of commandments. Worrying where will you go when you die, adding
fear to death. Why would I accept that there is God when it is more convenient to
believe that there is no God? It is because Im after for the truth and not the easy
way out.
Analogy for dummies:
Customer: Miss do you have a Chuck Taylor.
Saleslady (Agnostic) : Hmmmm. I dont know. I'll go check.
Customer: Miss do you have a Chuck Taylor.
Saleslady (Theist) : Hmmmm. Yes we have. I saw a delivery truck...blah ...blah
I'll get it.
Customer: Miss do you have a Chuck Taylor.
Saleslady (Atheist) : We dont have that.
Customer: Fuck you! Please check it. Are you lazy to do your job?
Well i am the customer. :)
Analogy for dummies 2
Supervisor: Is this project feasible?
Programmer (Agnostic): I have no idea. Maybe.
Supervisor: Is this project feasible?
Programmer (Theist): Yes.I'll do my best to have it done.
Supervisor: Is this project feasible?
Programmer (Atheist):No. Its is impossible and even if it is. I wont do it.
I'll just sit here and do nothing.
Supervisor: Youre Fired!
Exaggerated. I know. Its too long already. Next time I'll give my evidences that
there is really a God. Sensya na di ako sanay talaga sa Conio mode ng pagsasalita
e. Wag ka sana magalit. Nang-aasar lang talaga ako. Peace Meyn! Apir.
kilawinguwak (guest)
And If I may say so, its all bullshit. But is it enough to deny his existence?
Of course not. So your so-called primary reason for being an Atheist is
unsubstantial and busted."
vlad tepes dracula was a real person, but he never sucked blood or turned to bats or whatever. he was just really sadistic.
"Where did you get this? This is really misleading. "Not Fully Understood"
and "Unexplained" is a whole different matter"
these are synonyms of different degree, just as fat and obese are interchangeable but normally refer to different levels of fatness.
"If youre not expecting Science to prove or disprove God ever and Naturalism is
also a Science and your basis of supernaturals is Science and Naturalism. How the hell can you prove that there is no God when you have no other means.
Yeah Math is Science ang Logic is Science too."
Naturalism is a philosophy, not a science. Logic is a way of thinking and is only scientific because it utilises the scientific method to come up with conclusions, and science naturally uses logical reasoning.
Faith cannot be fully based on logic - even the pope would tell you that. There's a realm of faith that can't be explained by logic. Logically, god can't exist; jaywalker is correct in saying that if you want to believe, you can't expect everything to be explained by logic. that's why faith is called faith.
And the task of doing the right thing is decided by the conscience. The reason why Christianity is one of the most popular religions in the world is that it doesn't impose that many restrictions on a person beyond the social callings of your average conscience, unlike some of the muslim tennets (I could be wrong here) which demand retribution, and is thus beyond the average social conscience of a person.
Anybody could be good if they choose to. God or not.
kryos (guest)
kryos: are you saying that i am right?
"Naturalism is a philosophy, not a science. Logic is a way of thinking and is only scientific because it utilises the scientific method to come up with conclusions, and science naturally uses logical reasoning."
kryos: what? methodological naturalism and scientific naturalism is not science? oh c'mon.
ano ba talaga sinasabi mo? science ba ang logic o hindi? anything systematized body of knowledge based on facts is science. bugok.
At please mag-bigay ka nga ng isang example ng faith na walang basis.
Saka di ako naniniwala sa Pope.
mali din pagkaintindi mo kapatid. basis of faith ang pinag-uusapan. hindi yung faith mismo.
"The reason why Christianity is one of the most popular religions in the world is that it doesn't impose that many restrictions on a person beyond the social callings of your average conscience"
Kryos: san mo na naman pinagpupulot tong mga sinasabi mo? Maraming restrictions ang Christianity. Baka Catholicism ang sinasabi mo. Kung sa paniniwala mo na Catholicism ay Christianism, nagkakamali ka kapatid.
gekokujo (guest)
jaywalker_1982
IF YOU CANT PROVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD." DIBA SABI MO SCIENTIFIC KA EH BAT
GANYAN BA ANG SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE MO? ANO NALANG KAYA ANG NAGING SCIENTIFIC
METHOD MO FOR YOU TO ARRIVED TO THAT CONCLUSION? TSK TSK. “[/QUOTE]
I’ve already answered this not only in my reply to your comment but also in my other articles. I know ADHD can be a bitch but please try to exert some effort.
Let me pick up on what benj said, Given that there is neither proof nor disproof for god, there should be no impetus for belief. The neutral position then would be, not to believe and not to completely deny. This position is squarely in the atheist’s camp since atheism is generally defined as the lack of belief for a supreme being. Whether the atheist holds open a slim possibility for the existence of god or completely closes himself off to that possibility is an entirely different matter.
Complete rejection of any possibility of the existence of god is an extreme position and is one that I do not hold. I’ve said it in the article “If proof were to be found supporting the existence of a sentient creator then I will be swayed” Even Richard dawkins who considers himself a strong atheist doesn’t completely close himself off to that possibility
Though no one can be completely certain of anything, one can be more certain on some things than others. For one it is MORE certain that god is an unnecessary variable, it is more certain that god as he is described by his believers is incompatible with science and It is more certain that god is a logically fallacious answer to anything.
The point of the article itself is to define the vague line between atheism and agnosticism because in both groups, belief is non-existent, or at the very least weak. Both groups wouldn’t say that there is a god but only one group would say that the probability of the existence of god is low enough to warrant disbelief. It is mostly in their underlying motivations where they differ. Agnostics choose not to believe on the basis of ignorance, Atheists choose not to believe because there is no compelling reason for them to do so
[QUOTE]WHEN VIRUSES AND BACTERIA STILL HASNT BEEN DISCOVERED YET BY SCIENCE
AND MOST PEOPLE THINK THAT DISEASES ARE DUE TO BAD SPIRITS, MANY PEOPLE
THINK THAT THIS IS SUPERNATURAL. BUT AFTER SCIENCE EXPLAINED IT TO US,
THIS SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENON BECAME SCIENTIFIC AND LOGICAL.
WOW FROM SUPERNATURAL TO SCIENTIFIC. I HOPE YOU CAN AGREE WITH ME THAT
THERE ARE SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENON BEFORE THAT ARE NOT SUPERNATURAL
ANYMORE DUE TO SCIENCE FINALLY CATCHING UP.
TECHNICALLY SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENON ARE VARIABLE AND ARE NOT CONSTANT.
SO IS THIS GOING TO BE YOUR BASIS?[/QUOTE]
That is indeed a fact. What is supernatural changes with the available scientific evidence.
As I said in the article if god were scientifically proven or at least a feasible scientific hypothesis for him were given, then I may be swayed. To be completely closed to the possibility of anything is, as you said, unscientific. Of course once a NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION for god is found, he would CEASE to be a supernatural entity. The problem now is that not only is there no empirical evidence or at least a feasible hypothesis for god, there is also virtually no compelling or even mildly persuasive, non circular logical argument for him to exist. –Please give me a few. What is your primary reason for belief?
Yes I am strongly intolerant of supernatural explanations. By its very definition, a supernatural explanation is one that is entirely speculative, not based on credible facts, not testable through scientific means and incongruous to known science. If I were to say that invisible pink fluffy butterflies were responsible for the existence of the universe would you believe me? What would be the nature of the evidence that makes your chosen god a more compelling choice?
Are you familiar with Occam’s razor? It’s a logical concept that is also used in mathematics and science Basically it says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. In other words you should not introduce unknown variables that complicate the explanation and don’t make any difference to the explanatory hypothesis. If the only impulse for belief in god is that he can answer everything that science can’t, then explain how this answer your proposing EXPLAINS everything that science can’t. A hypothesis is different from a conclusion. God s a conclusion without a hypothesis. You’re basically answering a question with an answer that infinitely eclipses the question its trying to answer in scope. If you don’t know how the complex universe came into existence, why answer that question with an even more complex answer like god, when you don’t even know how it came into existence. >C>D>E>F is an incomplete chain therefore I will add B so it will be >B>C>D>E>F –how does that change anything?
[QUOTE]I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER ANALOGY FOR DUMMIES.
I HAVE FAITH THAT MY GF WILL COME TO OUR DATE. WHY? BECAUSE SHE NEVER FAILS
TO COME. BECAUSE I AM SURE THAT SHE'LL REMEMBERS IT. SEE THAT FAITH.
FAITH SHOULD HAVE BASIS.[/QUOTE]
That is not merely faith. That is extrapolation from observed data. You assume that she’s going to come because she always comes. If you’ve never met her before and you have no idea what she’s like then that would be closer to faith than intelligent projection from known data. How is this analogous to faith in god? Please explain
[QUOTE]LASTLY. I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON WHY IS IT EASIER AND MORE CONVENIENT FOR
YOU TO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS NO GOD. BECAUSE BELIEVING IN GOD IS MUCH HARDER
TO DO. IT COMES WITH RESPONSIBILIES AND OBLIGATIONS, LIKE WALKING THE RIGHT PATH.
OBEYING HUNDREDS OF COMMANDMENTS. WORRYING WHERE WILL YOU GO WHEN YOU DIE, ADDING
FEAR TO DEATH. WHY WOULD I ACCEPT THAT THERE IS GOD WHEN IT IS MORE CONVENIENT TO
BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD? IT IS BECAUSE IM AFTER FOR THE TRUTH AND NOT THE EASY[/QUOTE]
Contrary to that, Atheists don’t expect any form of reward after life, they expect to completely disappear after death and they do not expect to see their loved ones after death -Don’t you think these are much harder to bear? This argument is merely a matter of taste and has no bearing on anything at all. Argue from facts and logic and not from your personal fears and preferences.
I am tempted to make direct ad hominems but it seems like I don’t need to. Your penchant for direct hominems and you impeccable grasp of grammar are like double-edged swords arent’t they? I think a lot of people would agree.
kryos (guest)
also in my other articles. I know ADHD can be a bitch but please try to
exert some effort."
Hehe. Sensya na. Medyo makulit nga at papansin ako. :)
"The neutral
position then would be, not to believe and not to completely deny. This
position is squarely in the atheist’s camp since atheism is generally
defined as the lack of belief for a supreme being."
Kung sinasabi mo na ganito nga ang stand ng atheism na hindi
kayo naniniwala sa Diyos at least hanggang wala pang ebidensya
pero bukas parin kayo sa posibilidad na mayroon nga. Ok sakin yun.
Dalawa lang naman siguro ang posibleng sagot dyan diba. Meron o
Wala. Para sakin meron. Pero di ko lang kasi masiguro kung ano
ang sagot mo. Eto ba? "Walang Diyos, pero baka meron"
Maitanong ko lang, anong klase bang pruweba ang hinahanap mo para
mapatunayan na meron ngang Diyos?
Cge ako naman. Maglalabas ako ng ebidensya. Kitam. Mas mahirap
nga lagay ko sayo e. Biro mo maglalabas ako ng ebidensya ikaw
sasabihin mo lang na wala tapos na.
Simulan natin sa universe. Wag mo munang kontrahin ha. Premises
pa lang to.
Alam naman natin na merong invisible force na nagpapanatili sa
mundo sa kalawakan diba. Syempre yung gravity ng araw at ng mga ibang
planeta yun. Saktong sakto diba para magkaroon ng mga panahon,
at ng araw at gabi. Tamang tama naman ang klima para magkaroon ng
buhay sa planetang to.
Sa Aklat ng Job 26:7
He stretchet out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth
upon nothing.
May sinasabi pa nga tungkol sayo e.
Psalms 14:1
The fool said in his heart, There in no God.
Nasulat ito over 2000 years ago. Coincidence. Cge payag ako.
nailinya ang mga planeta sa pamamagitan ng chance o probablility.
Tignan ko nalang ang sarili ko kc ebidensya ako na may Diyos nga.
Simulan natin sa buhok. Yung buhok kc sa ulo nagreregulate ng
init mula sa araw. Parang cap diba. At ang buhok naman sa kilikili
ay naglelessen ng friction against the skin. Ang kilay naman
panangga sa tulo ng pawis mula sa noo para hindi mapunta sa mata.
Bakit ako may buhok na ganito? Tila mayroon silang tinakdang katungkulan.
Coincidence? Cge payag ako.
Ang mga daliri. hindi pantay pantay diba. Pero subukan mong magkamay
kung kumain ng kanin diba nagpapantay pantay sila.
Eh ang mata? Kahit na pagsamasamahin mo ang lahat ng kompanya na
gumagawa ng digital cameras wala paring tatalo sa mata ng isang tao.
3G pa, kc dalawang mata e parang 2 camera sa isang 3G na celfon.
Ito bang mga bagay na ito ay walang nagdesenyo? Malamang.
Coicidence? Cge payag parin ako.
E ang ilong naman. Bat dalawang ang butas? Iniisip ko nga e.
Pagsinisipon ako, minsan isa lang ang barado, may natitira pang
isa para huminga. Pero minsan dalawa na ang barado so sa bibig kana
hihinga. Pero ni minsan hindi nababara ng sipon ang bibig ko.
Weheheh. Dahil dyan naisip ko na may Diyos nga. Dinisenyo
nya ko para hindi mamatay sa sipon. Coincidence? Cge payag
na payag parin ako na nagkataon ang mga bagay bagay due to
evolution of some sort.
Eh ang sipon. Wow. Favorite ko. Microbiology. Sobrang liit pero
napaka destructive ehehehe. Sayang at hindi na well accepted
na living thing nga ang mga viruses. Anyways may mga bagay
na sobrang liliit. Tulad ng garapata. eheheh. Kahit Honda pa ang
gumawa ng robotics at A.I nyan wala parang panama yan sa isang
garapata. Biruin mo me AI na nanotech pa. May sarili pang energy.
Walang baterya. Oo coincidence na kung may garapata. Hindi
kaya ng tao ang gumawa nito. Pero maaring nagkataon lang.
At kung para sayo gawa ito ng Naturalesa, payag ako pero
napakagaling at napakatalino ng Naturalesang ito. At kung kayang
magpersonify ng naturalesang ito tatawagin ko syang Diyos.
antibodies, immune system, respiratory system, digestive system
endocrine, skeletal. lahat sila nakakamangha? Lalong lalo
na kung pano tayo lumabas sa mundong ito. Papayag ako
na bunga lang ito ng evolution, papayag ako na bunga lang
ito ng chain reaction. Pero ang mahirap paniwalaan ay nagkasabay
sabay ang coincidence na ito. And I think these are supernatural.
Ano ba ang probability na mangyari itong mga bagay bagay na
ito na tila napaka-perpekto. Ano?
Kaya bang gayahin ang utak ng isang tao? Walang kwenta ang
Intel C2. Kung iniisip mo na gawa lang ito ng probabilty ay para
mo naring naiisip na may buhawing dumaan sa junkshop at
nakagawa ng isang F18 Jet Fighter. Ganon ba?
Kahit sadyain pa ng tao na gumawa ng isang lamok gamit ang
Science na pinagmamalaki mo ay hindi sila makakagawa.
Ang sama naman na ibintang natin sa probability na sya ang
gumawa, e wala naman syang kamalaymalay.
Yung ngang tumataya ka sa Lotto hindi ka nananalo, yun pa
kayang sa hindi ka tumataya. Syempre mas maliit ang probability
na manalo ka kung hindi ka tumataya. Sa tingin ko nga e zero ang chance
mo na manalo. eheheh. Hindi mangyayari to kung walang Diyos
na nagdesenyo.
Makikita mo sa gawa ang katotohanan. Pagnakakita ka ng isang
mesa na napakaganda, masasabi mo na magaling ang pintor nito
este karpentero pala. Eh pano kung makakita ka ng isang bagay na
kamangha mangha gaya ng kalawakan, kaya ng nature, ulap
bulaklak, mga hayop na napakaperpekto at alam mo na sinadya.
Dahil kung hindi sinadya ay hindi mo alam kung pano nga nagyari.
So is this merely faith? Sa tingin ko oo. Pero sabi ko nga aminin mo man o hindi
walang faith na walang basehan. Sabi ni lola na mabubulag daw ako pagnatulog ng
basa ang buhok. Pananalig yun pero mali ang basehan. Basis nonetheless. Cge nga
magsabi ka ng isang faith na walang basehan.
Wag mo namang sabihing nagtatalo tayo sa isang bagay na hindi umiiral.
Umiiral ang Diyos sa konsepto kaya tayo nagtatalo diba. Tama? Hindi nakikita ang konsepto.
Kung ang Diyos ay espiritu talaga na hindi nakikita, ano ngayon ang gusto mong patunay na may Diyos
kung sa pisikal ka lang bumabase. At isa sa katangian ng Diyos ay gumawa ng ng mga bagay bagay
na hindi kayang ipaliwanag ng tao. Supernaturals kung baga. Pano mo malalaman na si Efren Bata nga
yan kung hindi mo pagbibilyarin? Eto ka oh > Cge nga kung Diyos ka talaga patunayan mo. Tapos hinati
ng Diyos ang karagatan. Sabi mo... Sorry God pero hindi ako naniniwala sa supernaturals e. E yun
nga trademark nya e. Kung idedeny mo nga ang mga supernaturals. Hindi mo nga makikilala ang
Diyos. Pano. Pano. Pano ko ipapaliwanag
sayo. Parang 1+1 pero dapat hindi 2 ang answer ha. Parang prove God scientifically. Pero cge next time
scientific naman. Eto kasi evidence ko common sense palang ang ginagamit.
Umiiral din ang Diyos sa Ispirutu. Hindi rin nakikita. Padedefine mo ba
sa sarili mo kung ano ang Diyos? Hindi naman diba. Mag isip ka nga ng isang bagay na
hindi umiiral? Cge , at wag sana yung pink fluffy butterflies dahil pink exist and
butterflies also do exist. Walang bagay kang maiisip na hindi umiiral. Dahil kung naisip mo
ay sya nga.
Gusto mo bang sagutin ko ito. > Kung may Diyos bakit hinayaan nyang mamatay ang mga
batang ito. Bakit may kapansanan? Bakit may mahirap? Bakit sya napahamak e naniniwala
naman sya sa Diyos. Bakit hindi nalang sya magpakita para matapos na lahat ng to.
Mga dahilan ito ng pagiging atheist. Wag ka nang komontra. eheheh. Hindi mo alam
ang sagot kaya ka ganyan diba.
Alam mo maraming Diyos. Ikaw diyos ka din. Mas makapangyarihan kapa dahil gusto
ng Diyos na makilalala mo sya pero may kapangyarihan ka na itanggi Sya at sundin kung
ano man ang naisin mo. Bago ka kaya mawala sa mundong ito. Tatawag ka sa kanya.
Tiyak ko yun. Kung ang kamatayan ay gaya ng iniisip mo, now na pede nakong mamatay.
Bigla na lang ako mawawala sa mundo and sarap nun. Wag mong isipin na ang Diyos na tinutukoy ko ay ang Diyos ng mga katoliko iglesia ni kristong tao o ano man. Mas malalim ang pagkaDiyos para sa akin.
at alam ko na mali sila at puro katantaduhan ang tinuturo na walang basehan. Alam ko na nakita
mo rin ang mga mali nila at iniisip mo na kung mali sila mali din ang Diyos na sinasabi nila.
If God dont exist then God is merely a concept and if God is merely a concept then God exist.
jaywalker_1982
Cheska (guest)
jaywalker_1982
helga (guest)
jaywalker_1982
helga (guest)
Ooh, the controversy in this entry.
jaywalker_1982
Haters ...every blogger must have at least one
jaywalker_1982
hazel (guest)
fine, label me all you want...alam mo naman ako, dedma sa labels...saka na ako magpost ng "counterpost" hehe, pag sinipag ako...
hay naku...kung alam lang nilang lahat na Christian ka sa totoong buhay! :P
tho agree ako sa sinabi mo, atheists usually more on science, while agnostics more on philosophy ang approach :D
jaywalker_1982
kalteng
jaywalker_1982
kalteng
wherever the religious neorosis has hitherto appeared on earth we find it tied to three dangerous dietary prescriptions: solitude, fasting and sexual abstinence - but without our being able to decide with certainty which is cause here and which is effect, or whether any realation of cause and effect is involved here at all.
- friedrich nietzsche
yes i am. been such since 12. so ten yrs now.