Why Can't Christians Understand the Word Atheist?

Pelikula lang pala eh.

I remember that movie, yung sabi ni Anita Linda "Ang buhay ay parang pelikula." However, I didn't know that some Christians took it too literally.

According to the post of this "angry Christian" the reason why Satan exists is to give god a villain to fight with?

WHAT?

So Christian worldview is just an FPJ action film huh? There's Fernando Poe Jr. and there are characters like Paquito and Romy Diaz, Max Alvarado, Larry Silva.

So what makes a good film? Is it just all about Good vs. Evil? In Martin Scorsese's psychological thriller Taxi Driver, who's the villain? Was it Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro), Iris' (Jodie Foster) pimp? Is it society? Good movies have a lot of grey areas, not just black and white.

Darth Vader didn't became evil without any reason - the lost of his mother, the anger on his society and his love to a princess was enough for his fall to the Dark Side.

But movies are for entertainment.

If movie can have a grey area, what more is life?

Movies are also scripted. Every act, every situation was already been predestined by a movie script. The hero wins, the villain loose. Is this the same with god and Satan? Is life just a big script? But wait… I thought we have freewill? If everything was scripted like a movie, then life is already predestined based on the script.

Jerome's Rant

Often, when I saw a so-called rebuttal against atheism, I've noticed that it is more about misconceptions rather than an actual rebuttal. Jerome Gabijan's rant is a good example.

Thank you Mr. Alexander Blechschmidt

I just like to thank Mr. Alexander Blechschmidt for making this study about the secular movement in the Philippines.

Very complete! Specially on the history... and nasama pa ang Luneta.

The Refining Reason Debate: Matt Dillahunty VS Sye Ten Bruggencate

On May 31, 2014 at the Marriot East's Grand Ballroom in Memphis, TN, atheist Matt Dillahunty and presuppositional apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate took the stage before a live audience for a formal debate, which was moderated by David Smalley of Dogma Debate.

It's Useless

It is quite useless to debate a presuppositional apologist.

In presuppositional apologetic all worldview is wrong and only their "Christian" worldview is the right one. So presuppositional apologetic is fideism. That is also what traditional Christian apologists says about them.

As stated by the Christian-website CARM, "Presuppositional apologetics differs from Classical apologetics "in that presuppositional apologetics rejects the validity of traditional proofs for the existence of God. A pure presuppositionalist tackles the worldview of a person and seeks to change the very foundation of how a person perceives facts."

Paul Copan (professor and Pledger Family Chair of philosophy and ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University) explain...

It engages in question-begging—-assuming what one wants to prove. It begins with the assumption that God exists, and then concludes that God exists. Such reasoning would get you an “F” in any logic class worthy of the name!

Presuppostionalists seem inconsistent about natural theology.

For me, the fatal flaw of presuppositional apologetics is that  it doesn't offer an adequate account of the relevant phenomena. The presuppositional apologist offer no explanation and if that's the case, then their view cannot be taken seriously.

As you're own holy book said...

Why afraid of discussing with me (an atheist) in Luneta? Diba yan ang challenge mo? Why are you running away? 

Remember, The wicked run away when no one is chasing them, but the godly are as bold as lions. - Proverbs 28:1

Time for you to prove this one @ The Christian Worldview Project. 

No Balls?

Next time when you make a challenge, have a set of balls to make it happen.

Challenge Accepted!

A certain "Jordan Ravanes" was challenging atheists on a friendly discussion.
I accepted the challenge.

The question is...
Is his bite worst that his bark?

Abangan!

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Moral of the story: If you're a Christian, don't use the "Flew Argument."

A "Convenient Truth." (Part 2)

So how relative is "religious truth?"

As in my last post about religious truths, these "truths" are connected to human emotional systems, which are connected to life-threatening circumstances and social needs. The doctrine of salvation is a good example of religious truths.

A Very Smart Reply

I really don't have any idea who created this, but it's a very smart reply.

A "Convenient Truth." (Part 1)

I saw a post written by a confused Mormon member about something called "religious truth" and atheists doing the offense? Uh…whatever.  

The OP didn't really elaborate what he meant by religious truth, other than some mix-up words about science, secular, and atheism (To be honest, reading the post is like eating a granola bar). So I guess I have to start by exploring religious truth.

In a nutshell, religious truths are expressions of human experience for the purpose of achieving the greatest well-being possible (i.e., salvation, absolute freedom, or total harmony). These "truths" are connected to human emotional systems, which are connected to life-threatening circumstances and social needs. Looking at it, we can say that "religious truth" is all about providing reassurance or comfort.  

Now, here's the problem. If religious truth are expressions of human experience, then it's relative since human experiences varies from different interpretations. It is also subjective. It is influenced by personal opinions and feelings.

What A Sick Racist!

According to a Fb comment of a Christian named Edranlix Sarzaba

"African didn't evolve. Look at their faces. Why? Is it hard for them to evolve to have beautiful faces? 

I'm not surprised. Racism is a part of being a relidiot.
Yuck!

I guess this is what you learn from reading the bible -  A book that promotes a so-called god favorite "superior" race is baloney full of racism.