A "Designed" Brain?

The problem with the theist's comments is that he already assumed that the brain was "designed" to think. He just can't imagine how the brain could have the ability to think if the brain just came from some "random process of evolution." That’s why he was asking, "If the brain wasn't designed to think and it just came out from natural process, how can you trust your thought?"

"Gap Filler"

 

OK, so I got another comment from a Christian who wanted to shove his god right through my a**.

I don't even know where this comment came from. It was too far from the issue. Maybe he just got so pissed off with me. Anyways, since I really don't have enough time to type an answer to his comment at that time, I just stated (in a question form) that this is a "god of the gaps?" Instead of getting a rebuttal, the guy tried to make a slur, saying that I'm the filler. Too lame. 

Enough of the guy and let's talk about the comment.

Objective Morality

First of all, I still don't get the "justice" part on killing babies, the elderly, and livestock.

Anyways, there were talks about objective vs. subjective morality when I saw 1 Samuel 15:2–3 in the Bible so I asked a question:

"If the killing was commanded by god, will it make killing good?"

Satanism Again?

So what's with Satanism and atheism nga ba? I've noticed that a lot of god-believers seems to connect atheism with Satanism. Maybe because they think that Satanism is all about being against god. They think that if you don't believe in their god, then you're against their god. This implies that they don't know what atheism and Satanism is all about.

First of all, there's nothing in the Christian holy book that says Satan and his devils doesn't believed in a god. In fact, according to the General Epistle of James, the devils also believe, and trembles. (James 2:19) Ancient Israel can't imagine someone who doesn't believe their god - obviously, ancient Hebrews aren't that philosophical compare to the ancient Greeks.

When we talk about Satanism, what kind of Satanism are they trying to connect? The Church of Satan that was established in 1969 by circus artist Anton Szandor LaVey? Michael Aquino's Temple of Set, or is it DeGrimston's Process Church? Most of these churches are into theatrics and are know to be symbolic - Satan is just a symbol for indulgence. I really don't know what these people really believed but LaVey's Satanism is more of a parody against the hypocrisy of the Christian evangelicalism in the 70's.

Just like other religions, there maybe atheists who are members of these Satan churches, the same as atheists who are members of Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, Christian atheism, and even a Jedi.

So saying that "EVERY ATHEISTS ARE SATANISTS" is quite ridiculous.

Until next time.

Avoiding the Issue

 Now here's something typical, and yet a good catch.  

Grace,  I was shocked by your comment on the issue of the interpretation of the 6 days creation. Walang kweta pala sa iyo ang usapang hermeneutics. Why? According to the website Christianity.com, "The ultimate goal of hermeneutics is to discover the truths and values in the Bible and what the text truly means." 

Now in some of your videos, you even talk about how true the Genesis narrative was yet now you're saying the interpretation doesn't matter?   

Sure it matters. If Christians like you are shoving your religious belief and your holy book in our tight ass, might as well you give us the right interpretation.  Otherwise, it will be taken as a big joke book. You see, without proper  hermeneutics, biblical interpretation will be a sick joke since anyone will just interpret it base on what they wanted it to become. That's a big confusion. You can't just sweep in under the rug and pretend biblical hermeneutics doesn't exist.

Are both interpretation compatible?  According to the Christian evangelical site Answers In Genesis, "Jesus and the New Testament apostles read Genesis 1–11 as straightforward historical narrative. There are additional good scholarly reasons for coming to that conclusion (See Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury, eds., Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2008).

And taking the scriptures out of context and interpreting it based on modern scientific facts undermined the message. As if you trust your interpretation on worldly knowledge that from the Holy Spirit.

Christians wanted skeptics to accept the Genesis narrative as a historical fact yet now you're saying that it doesn't matter how it will be interpreted? Are you suggesting @  Grace Peñalosa that biblical interpretation is relative. That we just need to believe and biblical difficulties are gone? Wow! 

So, yes it matters. 

Also, how can an amateur apologist like you can defend your faith if all you got to do is to run for cover when tough questions are asked?  I guess you forgotten what the Apostle Paul said to "Prove All Things; Hold Fast That Which Is Good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21)  Is proving the truth of the "Word of God"  is beyond scientific facts something as "walang kwenta?"

My gosh, for an apologist you're so weak @ Grace Peñalosa.  No wonder Paul said, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." - 1 Timothy 2:12

Religion?

Pinoy Atheist Looks at Tik Tok Scientists

Grace's Kalamity