Addressing an Atheist (Live stream Time).pptx

This is the list of answering some of atheist objections.

1. Addressing an Atheist Responding the Comments and Objections of my Atheist Friend

2. Objection 1

3. Response Let's taken for granted pero ano ang moral standards nya para sabihing masama ang ginawa ng mga Kristiyano ? At saka kahit magpresent sya nyan , yang gumawa ng ganyang mga gawain in the name of Christ are not truly Christians at all.

4. Objection 2

5. Objection

6. Response Really? Then how about Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Pascal, Mendel and other scientists na nagsabing ang ginagawa nilang pag aaral ay para sa ikaluluwalhati ng Diyos ? if I still remember, nagquote pa yata ng Psalm 19:1. About inquisition, even if it happened, it doesn't disprove Christianity. Ang mga gumawa ng ganoon ay hindi talaga matatawag na sumusunod sa aral ng Panginoon . A bout sa issue ng blasphemy, if you are talking about Islam, may puntos kayo sana dyan . Kaso kung talagang inaaral ang Christianity particularly the words of Jesus, you will realize na iyung mga gumawa ng mga ganyang karumal-dumal na gawain ay hindi gumagawa ayon sa turo ni Kristo.

7. Sa isyu ng slavery, ang totoo nyan , andaming Christians ang sumagot sa ganyang ulit ulit na komento . Siya nga pala , bakit masyadong nagrereact ang mga atheist sa mga supposedly gawaing karumal-dumal kung wala namang objective moral standards? A no ba ang standards para sabihing mali ang ginawa nila ? A no ba ang standard if there is no God? Until today, I assure you, even Vox Atheus , Mr Atheist and Sensei Ilu cannot answer these simple questions. and if they say culture or individual, sa atheism, subjective ang lahat ng iyan .

8. What is Inquisition? The Inquisition is the institutional practice of specially appointed  Roman Catholic  priests charged with investigating and putting on trial individuals suspected of “heresy” (holding to beliefs and practices that were considered to be a threat to, or significantly out of line with, official Roman Catholic teaching). This system was used by the Roman Catholic Church from around the 12th century all the way up until the early 20th.  Those convicted of heresy by the Inquisition were typically turned over to civil authorities to carry out their determined sentences, up to and including death.  By the 16th century and the dawn of the printing press, the Inquisition was also closely connected with the systematic effort to suppress books and pamphlets considered heretical and to impose legal restrictions on a publication that would prevent such works from being printed in the first place.

9. What about slavery? Does the Bible teach that? 1. Slavery Was Pervasive Throughout The Entire Ancient World 2. God Outlawed The Slave Trade 3. Slavery Was More Like Indentured Servitude 4. Masters Couldn’t Harm Their Slaves 5. Slavery Was Only For Seven Years 6. Runaway Slaves Received Safe Haven 7. Slavery Is Not God’s Ideal 8. The Full Personhood Of Slaves The slavery in the Bible — though not ideal — is a far cry from the slavery that comes to our mind when we think of the word.  Those who have used the Bible to justify slavery in the past have , therefore, distorted Scripture’s teachings. It’s interesting to note that modern abolitionists and civil rights leaders like William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr. have led the charge against slavery and racial injustice by appealing to Scripture’s teaching that every person bears God’s image. Rather than promoting slavery, it seems the Bible was the foundation for abolishing it.

10. Summary Look just because somebody is bad at playing Beethoven doesn't mean that Beethoven didn't create something beautiful and wonderful. Constantine and popes and presidents and leaders have done terrible things in the name of Christianity. This is a reflection of them not of Christianity. For instance the New Testament explicitly condemns slavery. So does the Old Testament. Just because somebody uses parts of the Bible to justify something that is explicitly forbidden does not mean that Christianity or the Bible is flawed. That person is flawed and manipulating people who don't know any better. This is also forbidden.

11. How about criticizing and others? When he admits that it is the character of the person and not a reflection of the religion itself, we can do that with literally any group of people. If I claim to be a capitalist but I institute socialist ideas, then I am not a capitalist. If I claim to be a marvel comics fan but I don't know who iron Man is or the hulk or X-Men, then obviously I am wrong. Men with power will typically do anything in order to obtain more power. John the Baptist after seeing the holy Spirit descend upon Jesus and hearing a voice from heaven telling everyone "this is my son with whom I am well pleased", after being in prison sent his disciples to Jesus to ask him if he was the one to come. John the Baptist had doubts. Isaiah had doubts. Aaron the brother of Moses had doubts. Thomas had Doubts. Not only are we told that having doubts and questioning is completely natural but the Bible repeatedly tells us time and again to ask of God. Whoever told him that having doubts or asking questions is wrong Is simply mistaken.

12. Objection

13. Response 6 through 9 tell us about empathy and how morality should be based on feelings. This is immature. This is also incredibly harmful. This person doesn't realize how much harm he has done emotionally to people who he is placing blame of God across the broad spectrum when it is a handful of individuals who have committed these atrocities. He's violating his own moral principles. This is the human problem and is outlined explicitly over and over and over again from Genesis to Revelation. He lays out and empathetic framework of morality and then as he goes through this framework violates his own framework his own empathy and his own morality. All men violate their own morality. This is the evidence of the fallen nature of man.

14. Response (Mine) It does not mean na Kristiyano talaga sila by what they did. If we will follow what the words of Jesus presented, what those people did (katulad ng namention mo na violence) is against the teachings of Jesus. At ano uli ang moral standards ng isang atheist para sabihin iyan? still, there's no answer in the side of atheism.

15. Nang sinabi ko na walang objective moral values ang atheism, hindi ko sinabi dyan na walang moral ang mga atheists. That is already a straw man. Humahanga nga ako sa mga atheist na nakaka acknowledge na may kabutihan eh. Pero ang magiging tanong ko ay ito. Ano ang moral standard para sabihing mabuti iyan o masama iyan? How can you justify that if there is no God? At kung subjective ang morality, love your neighbor is the same as what Adolf H has done to 6 million Jews in World War 2. Oo at masama ang gumawa ng kasamaan sa kapwa, pero sa mga atheist, ano ba ang moral standard ninyo para masabing mali iyan? kung morality ay subjective, paano mo masasabing tama iyan? at alam mo ba na nagdedemand pa rin ng absolute ang claim na morality is subjective?

16. Bakit mabuti ang empathy? Bakit nakagaganda sa society ang empathy kung walang Diyos? inamin mo nga lang na base lamang ito sa pagkaalam mo (I am talking about what he thinks and what he feels, which is not reasonable). So, it is just your own opinion. what if someone said that it is good for him to unalive you? Do you think nakabubuti iyan sa view mo? even if your claim is true, it does not disprove the existence of God. I think you must have to relearn your own argument and reexamine it.

17. Response You told na kahit hindi sila tunay na Kristiyano , yung ginawa nila ay sa pangalan ng Christianity, magiging kasalanan ng Christianity. Nag assume ka na dyan na dahil ginawa nila , gawa ng Christianity. Bigyan kita ng example. Lalo na isa akong drummer at dati akong naging bahagi ng banda noong college ako . Let's say tumugtog kami ng isang song mula sa bandang " Kamikazee " pero mali ang tono at mali ang lyrics. Dahil ba doon, kasalanan ng Kamikazee iyan ? Let me know your answer.

18. Hindi ko sinabing walang morality ang mga atheist. I hope you have read that carefully. Ang aking point, ano ba ang moral standard nyo para sabihing nakabubuti ang empathy if there is no God? At sa basis ng proof nyo na walang Diyos , it does not even disprove the existence of God. Bakit? Nanuod lang ba sa YouTube video, atheist na ang isang tao ? Kaya naging atheist dahil tugma pala sa panlasa (at naranasan )? Sounds like subjective and not based on actual examination of evidence.

19. Hindi sapat pala ang philosophical argument concerning our existence to prove the existence of God. Ironically, hindi kay magba backfire iyan sa iyong statement? Kasi, ang iyong ipinapahayag ay philosophical na :)

20. Objection

21. Response Number 10 is very vague but there are almost no atheistic philosophers. More than 95% of all philosophers are agnostic or religious in some sense. This is required because logic and evidence demand it. I can't say more without more specific details.

22. Objection

23. Response Jesus had enough empathy so that he came and lived a life full of suffering and sorrow tempted in every way that we are tempted.

24. Objection

25. Response Perfection is the moral standard. The greatest command is this to love God with all of your heart all of your mind and all of your strengths and the second is like it to love others as yourself. All the law and all the prophets hang on these two. There is no law against love. There is no wrong in love. There is no harm in love. When love is distorted and used as a weapon and tricked and manipulated that is when you have deviated from love and called love something that it is not. Perfect love requires violence to protect that which you love. Any father whoever had to protect his children knows this. Perfect love requires laws. These are principles and borders to protect and secure that which is loved and cherished. This is the moral standard.

26. Response (Mine) Let me answer by the following since your response is as long as it is, although I appreciate it. 1. Again, walang paliwanag kung ano ang moral standard para sabihing nakabubuti ang empathy. If there is no God, having empathy to other people is just the same as what Adolf has done to 6 million Jews. 2. Sinasabi mo na subjective ang morality without realizing na nagdedemand pa rin iyan ng absolute, which is, it is contradiction to your worldview.

27. Bakit ko tinanong iyung tungkol sa moral standard? at paano mo nasabing straw man gayong mismong mga atheist tulad ni Dawkins at Lawrence Krauss ay nagsasabi na para lang tayong mga moist robot? Did you ever read my response concerning to it? Basahin mong mabuti . Ulitin ko. Hindi ko sinabing walang morality ang mga atheist. I hope you have read that carefully. Ang aking point, ano ba ang moral standard nyo para sabihing nakabubuti ang empathy if there is no God? At sa basis ng proof nyo na walang Diyos , it does not even disprove the existence of God. Bakit?

28. Nanuod lang ba sa YouTube video, atheist na ang isang tao ? Kaya naging atheist dahil tugma pala sa panlasa ? (Take note: I am not talking about him but others. However, since he said that he became an atheist because of experience, then that is not based on intellectual aspect but moral aspect ). Sounds like subjective and not based on actual examination of evidence. So, tell me, my friend. If you think atheism is true, then what is your good reason to believe that? At napaghahalataan na you are assuming naturalism since, based on your own statement, psychological lang daw iyan . Even if it is true, if atheism is true, iyung sinasabing psychological ay batay lang sa galaw ng molecules at DNA. But since you mentioned psychological and other abstracts, it only shows na hindi iyan physicalism.

29. Objection

30. Response

31. Objection

32. Response: Is Atheism a Worldview?

33. Definitions of the word Atheism

34. According to the most usual definition, an  atheist  is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence “God exists” expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic [in the epistemological sense] maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God, that is, whether the sentence “God exists” expresses a true proposition. On our definition, an  atheist  is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not the reason for the rejection is the claim that “God exists” expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

35. An  atheist  is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives his life without reference to such a being. ( Robin Le Poidevin) I n philosophy, the atheist is not just someone who doesn’t accept theism, but more strongly someone who opposes it. ( J. L. Schellenberg) Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief . ( Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy )

36. The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.  Worldwide there may be as many as a billion atheists, although social stigma, political pressure, and intolerance make accurate polling difficult. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosop hy)

37. Is atheism really a worldview? In order to know if  atheism  is a  worldview , we need to first define our terms.  A worldview is a set of propositions, beliefs, and assumptions that a person uses when relating to and interpreting the world around him.  If that definition isn’t sufficient, please consider the following definition: “The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.” (thefreedictionary.com, answers.com/topic/worldview)

38. So is atheism a worldview?  Yes, it is.  Think about it.  It is the  Christian  worldview to say that  God  exists, that he has given us our purpose, that we did not evolve, and that there is right and wrong which God reveals to us in the Bible.  We Christians view the world through this basic perspective.  Likewise, atheism is a worldview because it deals with the same issues.  It says that God does not exist 1 , that we determine our own purpose, that we evolved, that we develop our own morals, etc.  Atheism, or should we say, atheists, have answers to the same questions that Christians do concerning the world, purpose, morals, etc., that are based on there not being a God and/or the denial of God’s influence in the world, morals, existence, etc.  Therefore, it is a worldview.

39. But some atheists might object and say that there is no book like the Bible from which they derive answers to various questions.  But, they derive their beliefs and assumptions within the perspective that there is no God.  This means that even though different atheists will have different answers to questions, the same as Christians can have different answers to questions, the common denominator of the denial of God, no ultimate purpose, and subjective morals are necessary parts of an atheistic worldview.

40. Objection

41. Response If we take away the suffering of this world, we also take away the empathy that he requires for morality. It c an only have empathy if suffering or hardship or difficulty or wrong is done. If there is no difficulty or wrong or hardship or suffering, then there's no empathy because there's nothing to be empathetic toward. Every achievement in the highest points of mankind involve reaction to suffering in the evil. Forgiveness requires a crime or harm to be done. Empathy requires suffering to be empathetic toward. Mercy requires a penance due that is not enforced. Courage requires danger or fear in order to exist. Every attribute of mankind that is the greatest attributes of mankind are all a result of suffering and evil. If these things are removed, then you also remove all the highest and best parts of mankind.

42. Objection

43. Response

44. Objection

45. Response Anyone that thinks that prophecy is coincidence needs to read prophecy. It cannot be a mere coincidence The Jesus was born in Bethlehem and crucified and died was buried and then Rose on the third day. There was a book by the Moody Bible institute concerning the Messianic prophecies. He should read this book and then try to look at the coincidence argument. There's no way it could be coincidence.

46. Response (Summary 101) 1. 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟: Claiming there is no God is also a claim, so where's your proof? 2. 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬: Judging a belief by its abuse is a fallacy; should we condemn science because of harmful experiments? 3. 𝐈𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞: Christians promoted science; many pioneers were devout believers. 4. 𝐏𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Misuse of a belief doesn’t invalidate the belief itself. 5. 𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Blaming Christianity for all historical wrongs is like blaming all atheists for Stalin. 6. 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲: Without an objective standard, morality is just personal preference, not binding. 7. 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧: Empathy alone can't justify morality; why is hurting someone wrong if there’s no objective moral law?