gdp's Comments

Filipino Freethinkers : Meet a Freethinker: Jong Atmosfera

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:00:00 +0000

Thanks, Caucasusbeetle! My favorite critter is the jumping spider with its large beady eyes. :)

Filipino Freethinkers : Why the Divorce Bill Should Be Easier to Pass than the RH Bill

Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:33:33 +0000

Check out the divorce bill and see for yourself whether or not it contains safeguards/criteria that would prevent people from divorcing so easily on a whim: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/222970/news/...

Filipino Freethinkers : Double Standards - Contraceptives and Medicines

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:26:18 +0000

[Who ever said the Catholic Church has a monopoly on morals and ethics? Your words , not mine. ] Okay, good. At least you made it clear that you don't believe the RCC has a monopoly on morals and ethics. [The truth of the natural process of life was not manufactured by the Catholic Church.] Of course not, but the Church is claiming to have received divine revelation on this natural process of life. [We've gone back and forth.] Not really. First, I've noticed that you no longer tried to refute my assertion that the issue is not whether pregnancy ought to be prevented with a drug, but if it should be prevented at all. Second, by saying, "Who ever said the Catholic Church has a monopoly on morals and ethics?", you saved us a lot of time that would have been spent trying to argue whether or not the RCC does have a monopoly over morals and ethics. So I don't think we've gone back in forth. In fact, we're nicely moving forward.

Filipino Freethinkers : Double Standards - Contraceptives and Medicines

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 05:31:05 +0000

What do you mean "instead of trying to be objective"? Were my arguments not objective? Kindly explain why you think so. [Just don't promote it as a health initiative.] Why not? If the WHO and the FDA deem contraceptives as effective to prevent reproductive health risks caused by closely-spaced pregnancies, why should the government not promote them as a health initiative? [It should not require institutions against it to promote it as public health.] Which institutions are you talking about? If you're referring to our DOH and baranggay health clinics, they are mandated to implement our laws, so if we have an RH law that promotes contraceptives, they are in no position to go against it. By the way, the RH bill does not really "promote" contraceptives but merely seeks to make the option available to poor couples who can't afford them. If these couples prefer NFP for whatever reason, an RH law will not force them to use artificial methods. But if you're talking about the RCC or other "pro-life" institutions or even private hospitals, the more they are not required by the RH bill, if it becomes a law, to "promote" contraceptives. [Fortunately, secular laws are not divorced from morality and ethics.] I agree. But even more fortunately, the RCC does not hold a monopoly on morality and ethics. [Unfortunately for you, you live in a predominantly God believing country and so teachings such as Humane Vitae will always come up when morals, ethics, and truth are perverted. ] And who determines whether morals, ethics, and truth are being perverted? Surely not the RCC – unless the morals and ethics you are talking about are CATHOLIC morals and CATHOLIC ethics, and that the "truth" you're referring to is the RCC's dogma which it 'claims' to be true. Fortunately for me, jurisprudence expanding the constitutional separation of Church and State says that "the morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular" and that "public moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds articulable in secular terms."

Filipino Freethinkers : Double Standards - Contraceptives and Medicines

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:02:44 +0000

I think the overlying question (and the one I keep on asking to show the double standard of the RCC) is not whether pregnancy ought to be prevented with a drug, but if it should be prevented at all. Whether with natural birth control or contraception, the intent is the same: to prevent pregnancy. Anyway, to answer your question about whether or not one ought to prevent pregnancy with a drug, my answer would be, why not? If a couple wants to enjoy sex during the woman's fertile period (when she happens to feel sexiest and horniest) without getting pregnant, they ought to use contraception. But I know you will never agree with me because unlike me, you hold the premise that Humanae Vitae is God's word, not to mention that God exists in the first place. Fortunately, we live in a secular country, or at least that's what our Constitution says, meaning we don't have to refer to Humanae Vitae when crafting our national laws.

Filipino Freethinkers : Double Standards - Contraceptives and Medicines

Sat, 15 Sep 2012 05:16:42 +0000

[You agree that pregnancy is not a disease then why are we still arguing why it should be treated with medicine.] I am not talking about treatment, but prevention, particularly why the RCC allows couples to prevent pregnancy at all regardless that the only prescribed methods are the natural ones. [Your comparison of pregnancy and diabetes or any other disorder does not hold water because they are apples and oranges.] Both pregnancy and type 2 diabetes can be prevented using natural methods (heck, I still haven't heard of a healthy person trying to avoid acquiring type 2 diabetes by taking drugs). Which means that a condition doesn't have to be considered a disease for it to be prevented, and that prevention doesn't necessarily mean taking drugs. Which means that the RCC's argument that pregnancy is not a disease does not hold water. You are focusing too much on the "cure" and "treatment" aspect. I am not arguing about those things. I am arguing about prevention. As for the rest of your comment, I have already answered those issues at length in an article I've previously written titled "Why the Church Allows Natural Birth Control (But Not Contraception)." If you don't mind, I would like to direct you to that article and perhaps we can continue our discussion there: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/03/20/why-th...

Filipino Freethinkers : Double Standards - Contraceptives and Medicines

Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:20:53 +0000

Pregnancy is NOT a disease, so why prevent it at all? Take note that the issue here is prevention per se, not the method of prevention (natural or artificial). To drive my point, consider type 2 diabetes. It is a disease, right? But is prevention limited to the use of drugs/medicines? No. In fact, it is "naturally" prevented by a having a healthy lifestyle (i.e., proper diet and exercise). Nevertheless, we try to prevent it by whatever means available. This means that your "not a disease = not a drug" does not follow, because "disease = not a drug" applies to the prevention of type 2 diabetes. Going back to pregnancy, why does the RCC allow natural methods of prevention while at the same time condemning artificial methods? If your standard is the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented, you have to condemn all means of family planning - natural or artificial. But if you condemn one but not the other, then you are employing a double standard.

Filipino Freethinkers : Double Standards - Contraceptives and Medicines

Thu, 13 Sep 2012 02:41:02 +0000

@Pinoyindy: Perhaps you didn't see my previous comment below clarifying what ARM meant by the RCC's double standard, so allow me to restate the argument here: According to the RCC: 1. Natural Family Planning: OK for prevention of pregnancy 2. Contraception/Artificial Methods: NOT OK for prevention of pregnancy The RCC also keeps on asking the rhetorical question, "Is pregnancy a disease? (If not, why prevent it using contraceptives?)" So the standard used for their objection towards contraception is the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented. But if you apply the same standard (i.e., the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented) to natural family planning, NFP should also be unacceptable. But why is NFP acceptable to the RCC? Are they using another standard/premise that makes them conclude that NFP is okay? If so, there is a double standard.

Filipino Freethinkers : Double Standards - Contraceptives and Medicines

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 05:27:44 +0000

@Pinoyindy and ARM: I hope you don't mind me butting in. I just want help make it clear to Pinoyindy what ARM means by the RCC's double standard: 1. Natural Family Planning: OK for prevention of pregnancy 2. Contraception/Artificial Methods: NOT OK for prevention of pregnancy The RCC keeps on asking, "Is pregnancy a disease? If not, why prevent it using contraceptives?" So the standard used for their objection towards contraception is the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented. However, it seems they don't apply the same standard (i.e., the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented) to the issue of natural family planning. Are they using another standard/premise that makes them conclude that NFP is okay? If so, there is a double standard.

Filipino Freethinkers : A Rebuttal to the Defense of CBCP's Stand on the RH Bill

Thu, 6 Sep 2012 02:59:45 +0000

Thanks, Miguel. As for your being Catholic, I don't think it's really ironic because being Catholic doesn't necessarily mean being dogmatic or having the illusion that your beliefs should be shared by everyone. No wonder you are my favorite theist. :)

Filipino Freethinkers : Quantum Queries: Is Ours A Clockwork Universe?

Wed, 4 Jul 2012 06:15:29 +0000

You guys don't understand what he's saying? It's actually very simple. To end the blue radish is the upside of luxury, and sparking a good lizard can only make tears fall in hindsight. Puddles do not ask for why not. It is cheese, breath, and wind. It is cheese.

Filipino Freethinkers : Why Religious Symbols and Ceremonies Should Be Banned In Government Offices

Fri, 22 Jun 2012 05:57:25 +0000

[the display of religious symbols and rites in government offices does not violate the constitution which itself invokes the intercession of an almighty God.] Are you claiming that the Almighty God invoked by the Filipino people in the Preamble of the Constitution is represented by something as mundane as, say, a Sto. Niño statue made of cement or plaster or whatever earthly material that was then formed by the hands of men? Take note that not all God-believers respect the Sto. Niño. Protestants and Born Again Christians detest graven images, and Muslims and INCs don't even acknowledge Jesus as God. If you then say that when the Filipino people implored the aid of Almighty God, are you sure you are not merely referring to Filipino Catholics?

Filipino Freethinkers : Why Religious Symbols and Ceremonies Should Be Banned In Government Offices

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 02:15:45 +0000

Not necessarily. In the Preamble, it is the People who are imploring the aid of Almighty God; HB 6330 simply prohibits the State from endorsing any particular version of God (be it Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, etc.) which is very much in line with the establishment clause in Art. III Sec. 5 of the Constitution.

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:53:26 +0000

The resurrection story is airtight? Or do you mean unfalsifiable? :)

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:32:47 +0000

Yes, but unlike the CA and TA, the arguments and contentions that supposedly corroborate with them to build a cumulative case for the existence of an intervening god cannot be considered seriously in forums like this because they are not based on reason and evidence but on alleged revelation.

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 05:44:39 +0000

Let me rephrase then. In itself, the CA (and the TA for that matter), if correct, only proves the existence of a creator; it does not go so far as to prove that such creator continues to intervene in the universe after the Big Bang. And if according to the TA the whole purpose of setting the right values at the Big Bang is to make at least one planet hospitable to human life 13.7 billion years later, that does not necessarily mean that God answers prayers or gave souls to humans and puts believers in heaven and nonbelievers in hell.

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:12:00 +0000

The God shown by the CA would support whatever God is presupposed by other beliefs, be it Thomism, Islam, or deism. But in itself, the CA only supports the deistic creator. As for the purpose in the Teleological Argument, it only means that during the Big Bang God made sure that all the values would be just right up to the last decimal point so that 13.7 years later there would be at least one planet hospitable to human life. It does not argue that God continues to intervene after the Big Bang.

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:40:07 +0000

Care to explain how the CA and Teleo arguments prove theism more than deism?

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:18:03 +0000

[Who cares what they (the deists) would say?] For starters, people who are serious about determining whether what their religion claims to be the Word of God is really the Word of God. Won't you agree that the cosmological and teleological arguments merely try to prove that there is a creator but does nothing to support the contention that such creator continues to intervene in the affairs of the universe? There are also no logical arguments to prove the existence of the soul and heaven and hell and especially the rules for gaining entry to heaven - all these come from claims of "divine revelation" which the deists would argue are mere hearsay.

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:51:22 +0000

[Tell that to the gnu atheists then, because, that's not what they do, actually. ] Gnu atheists =/ = science. [Aquinas spends hundreds of pages inferring these characteristics from the argument's conclusion --so does Craig. I think you should read their papers and see they're doing nothing of the sort.] Could you please give me a link so I can see if I can refute them? [Obviously, many characteristics about God will be inexplicable, but remember, the CA only gets you to soft theism. The other things Christians know about God they learned from revelation. ] As the deists would say, "revelation can only be revelation in the first instance. For example, if God revealed something to me, that would be a divine revelation to me. If I then told someone else what God told me it would be mere hearsay to the person I tell. If that person believed what I said, they would not be putting their trust in God, but in me, believing what I told them was actually true." By the way, someone just added me up on Facebook but I'm not sure if it's you. Could you please PM me? Thanks :)