gdp's Comments

Filipino Freethinkers : Candidate Santiago and the Duty to Vote | FF Podcast

Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:35:02 +0000

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/05/13/1322606/lacson-identifies-5-officials-napoles-luy-lists

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/09/05/1175631/miriam-only-taxpayers-should-be-allowed-vote

Filipino Freethinkers : From Bibles to Baboy: The Problem of Christian Privilege

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:47:44 +0000

For the most part, student orgs are independent and they are not endorsed by the university outside of registration.

Filipino Freethinkers : An Open Letter To The UPLB Office Of Student Affairs

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:10:33 +0000

How about: you're a vegetarian in a school whose charter prohibits the distribution of meat by the school, then an administrator starts handing out hamburgers to students.

Filipino Freethinkers : An Open Letter To The UPLB Office Of Student Affairs

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 02:42:55 +0000

You seem to have glossed over this tiny little detail where the government institution (OSA) was doing the evangelizing. Nobody is denying Christians the opportunity to evangelize. They're perfectly free to do so. The government cannot evangelize; it isn't even Christian. The government works for all Filipinos, not just for your club.

Filipino Freethinkers : Article 133: Special Rights Not Equal Rights

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 03:43:12 +0000

If it needs to be explicit, the context of "hurt" implied physical injury not emotional offense, which is already undisputed given the facts of the case.

Filipino Freethinkers : Article 133: Special Rights Not Equal Rights

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 03:41:30 +0000

That gets right to the heart of my piece. Certain feelings are privileged, religious feelings, over non-religious feelings. LGBT-ness is not a religious identity, but the LGBT do have feelings and they do have their activities intruded upon by people intending to offend. They have no special protection, unlike the religious.

Filipino Freethinkers : When does life begin?

Thu, 4 Oct 2012 00:14:45 +0000

Where in your citation does it say that "life begins at fertilization"? It says "a new genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed." This in no way implies that this "genetically distinct human organism" was not composed of living material before (which is the topic of this piece). And even then, what is before what? Fertilization is a series of several steps. It is not instantaneous. There is no distinct moment of fertilization. Even your citation agrees that "fertilization is the procession of events." To completely belabor the point, even "genetically distinct human organism" does not connote personhood. Two persons could be genetically indistinct (twins) and still be separate people. One person could be the amalgam of "genetically distinct" material (chimera) and still be one person. My piece argues that "Whatever the first replicating unit was, we know that 3.5 billion years ago was the beginning of life… and life hasn’t stopped since." That's when life began. If you want to argue instead that moral significance begins at fertilization, then be my guest. But, don't pretend that it's a scientific argument.

Filipino Freethinkers : Filipino Freethinkers Speak at DLSU

Sat, 8 Sep 2012 00:35:40 +0000

Human reason is finite, and then you, a human being (I presume), go on to make claims that, by your own concession, are beyond your own reason. The funny thing about people arguing to put the Bible's hateful passages into context is that they concede that God himself is context-bound, as if his own morals were dependent on human culture. If slavery has always been wrong, God could have said so. But, no, he made humans decide for themselves that it was wrong centuries after he was supposedly in direct and visible contact with human beings. Christianity claims moral superiority and absolute moral knowledge, but when it's challenged for its lack of foresight, Christians retreat to the "everyone else was doing it at the time" defense. Sorry, for people who claim to be speaking for a god, that doesn't fly. You challenge my comprehension of "a masterpiece from God" and exhort me to humility but it is not I who make knowledge claims about what this "masterpiece" looks like, it is you who seems to be able to fathom what you yourself say is not fathomable. I don't claim to comprehend this "masterpiece from God." I deny that this "morass" is a masterpiece at all. Your argument boils down to, "you don't know, therefore I am right." That's not how rational discourse works. But, if you'd rather not play on that "platform," then there is little else to discuss.

Filipino Freethinkers : On Epalwatch (And Why It's A No-Win Situation Sometimes)

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:10:56 +0000

They were from 2009. https://twitter.com/Abi_Valte/status/234516246421...

Filipino Freethinkers : Are We Free to Believe?

Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:25:14 +0000

No. Read: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/07/09/are-we...

Filipino Freethinkers : Are We Free to Believe?

Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:24:06 +0000

Yes.

Filipino Freethinkers : Are We Free to Believe?

Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:22:21 +0000

Yes, but she is still not free to believe otherwise without reason. She is not free in her rejection of Catholicism, in the sense that she could not have otherwise done anything else. She could not have said, "Oh, Catholicism no longer makes sense. Atheism is a consistent worldview, but I just don't feel like accepting it, so I'm going to consciously believe that Catholicism is true." She is not free to do that. She was forced by the facts to accept the conclusion of her reasoning. She was constrained by the facts. Now, as I later argue, this is the only kind of freedom that is worth having since it leads to an accurate worldview. It is not "freedom of belief," it is rather, freedom of thought—a method of thinking that is constrained by facts but not by authority or tradition.

Filipino Freethinkers : Are We Free to Believe?

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:10:06 +0000

Yes. :)

Filipino Freethinkers : Are We Free to Believe?

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:59:39 +0000

Not at all! Let's posit that there exists a realm of facts about the real world. In this realm, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is true and this fact is best conveyed by the Catholic Church, which also exists in this possible world. A person would look at facts about the world and, if they are not self-deluding, demand evidence, and are as rational as possible, they must conclude that Catholicism is true. They are not free to do otherwise. Now, if they are self-deluding, lax about evidence, and fail to logically argue, they could, of course, achieve an opposite conclusion, that Catholicism is false. However, this person, even given free contra-causal choice to view the world as he does (to willfully avoid information that would convince him otherwise), cannot pick or reject Catholicism for no reason. He can reject Catholicism by using half-truths and misinformation, but he cannot casually pick it if it is not already convincing to him, as Pascal's wager urges. He can only pick it if he already sees that the facts about the world are consistent with it, rendering Pascal's wager moot. Facts about the world are beyond his control, he cannot just aesthetically choose that the resurrection is true even if he does not see the facts bear this out.

Filipino Freethinkers : Rep. Raymond Palatino, Another Victim of Catholic Bullies

Tue, 3 Jul 2012 01:07:00 +0000

I don't understand the "intolerant" accusation. It's not like a secular society would force everyone to be gay. It's not like you'll be subjected to "corrective" therapy. You don't even have to be tolerant in a secular society. You just have to keep your intolerance in pockets of intolerance, such as churches or private establishments.

Filipino Freethinkers : Rep. Raymond Palatino, Another Victim of Catholic Bullies

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:37:06 +0000

\"Well it was wrong for the Comelec to have ruled in that manner anyway. I was happy that it worked but I think the ruling was weak and did violate the law, hence the supreme court decision.\"

Then you concede the point. The Supreme Court decided that using religious doctrine to support government decisions is a violation of the constitution.

\"Are the civil laws as they pertain to morals invasive of one's freedom? I think not. Looking at them, they at least serve the greater good of the country. Besides, if it did violate the establishment laws, dont you think it would have been challenged by now? \"

Of course the Catholic would have no qualms with having Catholic doctrine in schools. None of what you say refutes the unconstitutionality of the act, not even your appeal to tradition. Just because something has been the case for a long time, doesn't mean it is what ought to remain the case.

Filipino Freethinkers : Rep. Raymond Palatino, Another Victim of Catholic Bullies

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:20:05 +0000

If you're incapable of supporting your assertions with logic or evidence, I suppose snarky condescension is the way to go.

Filipino Freethinkers : Rep. Raymond Palatino, Another Victim of Catholic Bullies

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:19:06 +0000

Practical and logical need not be mutually exclusive. Rules of thumb can be practical but still based on solid evidence and logical reasoning. You provide neither in justifying how you are capable of omniscient knowledge of others' inner motives.

Filipino Freethinkers : Rep. Raymond Palatino, Another Victim of Catholic Bullies

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:32:06 +0000

Your personal \"experience\" with different people isn't a scientific or conclusive case. That's just bad argumentation.

Filipino Freethinkers : Rep. Raymond Palatino, Another Victim of Catholic Bullies

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:31:06 +0000

Well, it is literally impossible to have a productive discussion with someone who admits not to use evidence or logic and relies on anecdotal and unsubstantiated gut feels and \"common sense\".