Author Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines (Read 84979 times)

Klaus Weasley · « **on:** Jun 20, 2009 at 11:00 PM »

First of all, I'd like to clarify that I am not an atheist. I'm a (semi)-practicing Catholic (although just two steps away from being agnostic).

I'm creating this post because I saw that Richard Dawkins' famous atheist book The God Delusion is readily available in local bookstores and I was wondering if, like in Europe, atheism/agnosticism in the Philippines is becoming just a tad more mainstream.

Do we have any atheists/agnostics on the board and are you open about it in real life?

Ice Storm · « **Reply #1 on:** Jun 21, 2009 at 12:17 AM »

I haven't gone to Holy Mass since last year and before that didn't go to Holy Mass for years. Yet I live a more ethical/moral life than those I know who goes to any sort of service.

I personally do not see anything wrong with being atheist/agnostic just dont be like those other Christians who preach/evangelize their beliefs whenever they have the chance to do so. Because honestly, if I really wanted to hear your crap I'd go visit your place of worship. Most cracks lapsed former Catholics turned Christians have is that the RC hierarchy are a bunch of NAMBLA members. This phenomena isn't isolated to Catholics there are a number of reported instances of preachers and ministers who love the flesh of young boys. Only diff is we Catholics get more press.

I think atheist/agnostics should try to keep to an ethical/moral standard that isn't too disgusting. At the end of the day religion shouldn't be mistaken for morality and their lives should reflect how much better it be.

Richard Dawinks appeared on this South Park episode http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103800

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #2 on:** Jun 21, 2009 at 01:51 AM »

Whenever there's an election coming up, the Cardinal would always issue an encyclical letter advising people on how to choose a candidate. The number one quality is that s/he must have a fear of God. In other words, s/he MUST be religious, as if being atheist or agnostic means that you are devoid of morals and you can't be a leader. But a lot of the most corrupt, most vile trapos in our government are self-proclaimed devout Catholics. So I don't know what they're talking about.

I also have to say that an atheist with good moral values and does good deeds is far more admirable than a religious person who only does it because he desires heaven and fears hell.

Ice Storm · « **Reply #3 on:** Jun 21, 2009 at 02:51 AM »

I do not blame religious leaders for this. I blame the spineless flock that can't think for themselves.

Price we pay for sticking to Filipino values but I hope the Internet with terabytes worth of pornography and free thought will influence new voters to go against the flow and do better.

dorian_gray · « **Reply #4 on:** Jun 21, 2009 at 06:14 AM »

these are totally different topics. Agonisticism and atheism are completely different--I strongly suggest that you stick to one topic only.

Ice Storm · « **Reply #5 on:** Jun 21, 2009 at 07:31 AM »

Just change the / to a &.

Ice Storm · « **Reply #6 on:** Jun 21, 2009 at 08:34 AM »

Though I may not agree with everything the religious say & do this doesn't dissuade me from my faith. It just emboldens me to make my own decision about important issues.

I only take what they say under advisement. I'm free to either take it or leave it.

Unfortunately the vast majority of Pinoys relish the idea that they are sheep thus are easily bent to the will of the Cloth.

barrister · « **Reply #7 on:** Jun 21, 2009 at 02:43 PM »

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

A 2008 independent documentary directed by Nathan Frankowski and hosted by Ben Stein, about the mainstream science establishment's persecution of academics who dare criticize the evolutionary theory.

YouTube:

Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh35qLYM424&feature=related

O'Reilly interview - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLuj1705u24&feature=related

Richard Dawkins:

YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related

Gillian Brown's response: http://theismbeatsatheism.blogspot.com/2007/09/richard-dawkins-caught-on-hop.html

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #8 on:** Jun 21, 2009 at 05:37 PM »

Quote from: dorian_gray on Jun 21, 2009 at 06:14 AM

these are totally different topics. Agonisticism and atheism are completely different--I strongly suggest that you stick to one topic only.

Yes, I know that they're different but they're both examples of free-thinking/secular thought.

Are there are any famous personalities in the Philippines who have openly admitted to being either atheist or agnostic?

barrister · « **Reply #9 on:** Jun 21, 2009 at 09:16 PM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jun 21, 2009 at 05:37 PM

Are there are any famous personalities in the Philippines who have openly admitted to being either atheist or agnostic?

I don't think so.

Filipino atheists, meron. Famous Filipino atheist, wala.

Even Joma Sison (Communist Party of the Philippines founder) believes in God, I think.

Kahit nga Tagalog word for atheist, wala yata, if you exclude the Spanish words ateista or ateo.

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #10 on:** Jun 21, 2009 at 09:41 PM »

Kahit semi-famous man lang. Like a writer or a columnist.

surg · « **Reply #11 on:** Jun 21, 2009 at 10:11 PM »

there is no tagalog word for atheist bec our ancestors believe in god/gods e.g anitos, gods of nature. etc

Ice Storm · « **Reply #12 on:** Jun 22, 2009 at 12:30 AM »

Quote from: surg on Jun 21, 2009 at 10:11 PM

there is no tagalog word for atheist bec our ancestors believe in god/gods e.g anitos, gods of nature. etc

That's why Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are big hits here while Star Trek and science fiction don't play well.

Ice Storm · « **Reply #13 on:** Jun 22, 2009 at 12:31 AM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jun 21, 2009 at 09:41 PM

Kahit semi-famous man lang. Like a writer or a columnist.

Pinoys prefer you worship the Devil than not believe in anything at all. :'(

allanmandy · « **Reply #14 on:** Jun 22, 2009 at 03:49 AM »

Quote from: Ice Storm on Jun 22, 2009 at 12:30 AM

That's why Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are big hits here while Star Trek and science fiction don't play well.

I don't see how the box office performance of these movies relates to Filipino religious beliefs. There's just no direct relationship between public appeal and religiosity for the abovementioned films.

Anyway, I would expect the bulk of Filipino atheists to hail from communists and academics. Communists because they do not believe in individualism, something upheld by most religions; and academics (particularly scientists) because rationality dictates the necessity of proof that a supreme being exists. But since Filipinos are generally deeply rooted to tradition, even most people from these groups uphold sectarian beliefs despite these being essentially in contradiction to, say, scientific logic or communistic ideology. Commonly, these people whom one would expect to be atheists, belong to some kind of religion without giving any thought on the implications that their faith have on the integrity of their ideology/philosophy. Besides, it is less bothersome this way, and for this reason atheism is not a popular thinking in the Philippines.

As for the "grey" people, the agnostic theists - those who choose to stay in the middle of the two ends of the spectrum (on one end being the religious faithful and the atheists on the other), it might even be rarer to encounter such people who will truly spend time to reconcile between blind faith and hard logic, as this would entail deep thought and understanding of both the physical and metaphysical, which most Filipinos do not have the luxury of time and patience to spend on. It is easier to have blind faith or surrender to the natural order of things, than to find a strong foothold on a belief system that balances the two.

Ice Storm · « **Reply #15 on:** Jun 22, 2009 at 05:30 AM »

Quote from: allanmandy on Jun 22, 2009 at 03:49 AM

I don't see how the box office performance of these movies relates to Filipino religious beliefs. There's just no direct relationship between public appeal and religiosity for the abovementioned films.

People don't watch things they cannot relate too. Does country music sell as well as the latest from Britney here in the Philippines?

allanmandy · « **Reply #16 on:** Jun 22, 2009 at 08:35 AM »

Well, had you chosen The Da Vinci Code or The Passion of the Christ as your examples, it might have been clearer. But Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings vs. Star Trek? Even in the United States films of those two franchises grossed better than the latter. I do not "blame" religious inclinations for the relatively weaker (compared to the two) performance of Star Trek here and in the United States (or for the rest of the world). I blame the people's perception that the movie would only be appreciated by sci-fi nerds and geeks.

Compaq · « **Reply #17 on:** Jul 09, 2009 at 06:40 PM »

Just want to make clear that I'm not starting a debate, but just want hear your thoughts/opinion.

Have read before that a person cannot be really classified as an "atheist"... but agnostic yes. The argument was about making an absolute claim that there is no God. Absolute in terms of a person knows everything that he/she needs to know for him/her to make an absolute statement or claim. Otherwise, that's agnosticism. Again, that's according to the article i've read. Unfortunately, it was a very long time ago and I can't even remember if it's a printed material or an online one

. Honestly, I tend to believe in that.

Peace and Cheers!!!
Compaq

tigkal · « **Reply #18 on:** Jul 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM »

Sana may candidate sa election who will publicly acknowledge to be an atheist or agnostic, and wins!

garyMD · « **Reply #19 on:** Aug 03, 2009 at 11:39 AM »

this is a dangerous thread.

I don't like to be moralistic here but if you don't believe in God, then what is your anchor? do you think you will have positive values if you do not anchor it in someone higher than ourselves? i don't think so.

let's not be swayed by the things we see and hear everyday. because the Devil can also pose as a beautiful, sensual, wonderful, great deceiver.

with the demise of Cory, i understand more how it is to have a Godly life.

my 2 cents..

gearhead000 · « **Reply #20 on:** Aug 03, 2009 at 11:58 AM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jun 21, 2009 at 05:37 PM

Are there are any famous personalities in the Philippines who have openly admitted to being either atheist or agnostic?

raymundo punongbayan of philvocs is one.

garyMD · « **Reply #21 on:** Aug 03, 2009 at 12:35 PM »

Quote from: gearhead000 on Aug 03, 2009 at 11:58 AM

raymundo punongbayan of philvocs is one.

he's dead already. was he given the last rites when he died?

Alfie · « **Reply #22 on:** Aug 03, 2009 at 02:36 PM »

Quote from: garyMD on Aug 03, 2009 at 11:39 AM

this is a dangerous thread.

I don't like to be moralistic here but if you don't believe in God, then what is your anchor? do you think you will have positive values if you do not anchor it in someone higher than ourselves? i don't think so.

let's not be swayed by the things we see and hear everyday. because the Devil can also pose as a beautiful, sensual, wonderful, great deceiver.

with the demise of Cory, i understand more how it is to have a Godly life.

my 2 cents..

Not really....

Buddhism does not advocate belief in Gods and considered atheistic, however, they are ther most peaceful individuals in this world and would not even disrupt ants foraging for food.

...on the other hand, the Inca civilization, the Jews and even the early Christians advocates violence and human sacrifice to their gods(and most of the time for trivial reason)

BTW....the contention is a true Atheist does not believe in God, thus he does not believe in the devil.

Another thing, there is such a book called Postive Atheism by Gora, an Indian who have witnessed the cruelty and atrocities in the name of religion in India.

garyMD · « **Reply #23 on:** Aug 03, 2009 at 03:00 PM »

Quote from: Alfie on Aug 03, 2009 at 02:36 PM

Not really....

Buddhism does not advocate belief in Gods and considered atheistic, however, they are ther most peaceful individuals in this world and would not even disrupt ants foraging for food.

...on the other hand, the Inca civilization, the Jews and even the early Christians advocates violence and human sacrifice to their gods(and most of the time for trivial reason)

BTW....the contention is a true Atheist does not believe in God, thus he does not believe in the devil.

Another thing, there is such a book called Postive Atheism by Gora, an Indian who have witnessed the cruelty and atrocities in the name of religion in India.

Buddhism is still believing in someone larger than yourself. hence, the values are anchored on something positive.

However, as long as there is an anchor is what you believe in, then it's fine with me. What matters is that we live accordingly to the values and virtues that we believe in a positive way.

Arulco · « **Reply #24 on:** Aug 03, 2009 at 03:47 PM »

Taken from the "life being an atheist" thread from TPC.

FAQ by "DarthDract"

Quote

What is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in deities or gods.

Isn’t atheism a religion?

No. A religion can be described as a group of people who worship a deity and subscribe to an organized set of dogma or beliefs usually encoded into a “sacred” tome.

Atheists have no existing codified belief system for atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god/gods and deities.

Is atheism the same as agnosticism?

Yes and no. Agnosticism in the widest sense is the view that we do not know if there's a god or not. This view is compatible with negative/weak atheism. However, to be an agnostic may also mean believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god is impossible because of the limitations of the human mind.

A person becomes an atheist because of a bad experience he/she blames on god.

While this statement is true to some, it does not apply to all.

There are said to be four different kinds of atheists. Those who are merely rebelling, those who experienced a tragedy, those who inherited it from their parents, and those who “found” their way to atheism.

The first and the second are not considered to be real atheists since they do so only out of a sense of rebellion and depression. These are the “atheists” who return to belief.

The third and the fourth are the ones considered as main-line or true atheists.

Atheists are devil worshippers.

No. We don't believe in god/gods or devils/demons. How can we worship what we do not believe in?

Atheists are evil because they don’t believe in god.

It is a misconception that a person needs to believe in a deity in order to be good. The fact is, even belief in the supernatural doesn’t prevent many people from committing crimes.

A person can be good even without belief in the supernatural. Morality and laws, afterall, are not rooted in religion but in the community’s concepts of what is acceptable and right. It varies from place to place but their core is always the same: that which would protect a person’s life and well-being.

Following the laws and acting in the socially accepted manner is already enough for people to call you a good person.

Atheists hate believers and take every opportunity to attack their beliefs.

We don’t hate believers. What we hate is the intolerance some believers direct at us.

We respect what other people believe and we have no problem if someone says they believe in a supreme being or beings. Many of us have family or relatives who are devout believers. We have no problems socializing with people who subscribe to a faith system.

But when someone uses that belief to attack, condemn, harass, or insult us, or when someone tries to impose their own beliefs on us, we tend to retaliate - mostly in the form of invalidating what they use to attack us, in the first place.

Atheism is responsible for atrocities such as the Holocaust, the Gulag, the Killing Fields, etc.

This is patently un-true.

There have been many who have blamed atheism for some of the worst crimes against humanity. However, such acts were never done in the name of atheism.

Simple research shows that these were done for reasons ranging from Communism to political revolutions. Atheism was never the reason given to justify such acts. One of the justifications for the Holocaust, for example, was the christian dogma of jews being christ-killers. The Killing fields and the Russian Gulag were the results of communist ideology.

When faced with this, some say that communism is the same as atheism. Again, this is not so. While communists implemented state atheism, it did so to further the cause of communism, not atheism. To them, religion was contrary to the communist society and so sought for its abolishment. As stated in wikipedia:

According to Karl Marx the founder of the communist ideology, religion is a tool utilised by the ruling classes whereby the masses can briefly relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions. It is in the interest of the ruling classes to instill in the masses the religious conviction that their current suffering will lead to eventual happiness. Therefore as long as the public believes in religion, they will not attempt to make any genuine effort to understand and overcome the real source of their suffering, which in Marx's opinion was their non-Communist economic system. It is often thought that it was in the sense that what Marx advocated, that religion is used to control people, and that it was the "opium of the people". That this is and was the main reason that certain communist regimes past and present curtail religious freedom and ban religion altogether because they consider it a suppressive, subversive set of guidelines, and thereby attached the charge of sedition to certain religions.

Do atheists celebrate Christmas?

Most of us do. Not because it's Jesus' birthday (it isn't), but because of tradition and the chance to be with loved ones. The proper questions are:

Why do Christians celebrate the Winter Solstice (Dec 25) which is a pagan holiday? Why do Christians put up Christmas trees, which is a pagan symbol?

Denying the existence of god(s) actually confirms the existence of god.

Denying the existence of god(s) only confirms the existence of the CONCEPT of god. We all know the general concept of a god (a supreme being who has power over all of us, etc), that's why we can deny it's existence.

Besides, if the statement above were true, then Christians should confirm the existence of Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra, Thor, etc., and vice versa. Adults will also confirm the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Atheists cannot disprove the existence of god(s).

Another logical fallacy. Atheists are under no obligation to disprove the existence of god(s). The burden of proof rests on those who make the claim of the existence of god(s).

Let’s say I tell everyone that I have a computer whose monitor is encased in solid platinum, whose system unit is contained in a case made of titanium, with buttons are made of blue diamonds, a mouse made of solid gold, a keyboard of pure silver, speakers made of ivory, and is capable of running for five days on a single 1.5 volt AA battery.

Does the fact that you can’t disprove my claim make it true?

Or does the fact that I can’t even show it to anybody prove that it’s a lie?

Atheists have just never tried to find God.

On the contrary, a lot of people became atheists because of their search for god. It’s just that they found no evidence to support the claims of religion.

This can be clearly seen in the tendency of atheists to know a lot about the myths of (different) religion(s).

Atheists have no purpose in life.

Another misconception. Atheists do not see religion as the purpose of life. Family, friends, goals and aspirations, even ideals of creating a better world are things that atheists see as being purposes to live. Reasons to better themselves and to reach their utmost potential.

It is better to just believe since it guarantees you eternal rewards.

This statement is known as Pascal’s Wager. It goes thus:

If you believe in god and it turns out there is none, you gain nothing and you lose nothing.
If you don’t believe and it turns out he is real, you gain nothing and you lose everything.
So it’s better to just believe.

The first problem with this logic can be summed up in one question: Which god should you believe in?

In our world where there are tens of thousands of deities being worshipped, how do you know that you are indeed worshipping the right one? Remember that each religion holds that it is the true religion and that following a different religion or god ensures your eternal damnation.

The second problem is: If indeed it was your god that is real, do you think your god would be pleased that you just believed in him as a form of insurance?

Believing for the sake of believing in something “just in case…” is not something that is considered as true belief.

The only logical basis for atheism is to know everything — in other words, to be God!

Some theists also love to use the statement that to be an atheist, one has to have seen or known everything in order to say “There is no god” – that one has to be omniscient to disprove god. If that were the case, atheists would have to be god to disprove god.

Unfortunately, this statement makes two general misconceptions:

First, atheists declare that they don’t believe in god – not that there is no god.

The position of atheists is that they don’t believe in god(s) due to there being no real proof or evidence of the existence of god(s) – not because they know everything.

Second, it is not the responsibility of atheists to disprove god’s existence. It’s the believer’s job to prove their claims.

Atheists are only looking for attention.

Far from it, all we ask is to be respected for who we are and what we believe.

garyMD · « **Reply #25 on:** Aug 03, 2009 at 03:54 PM »

Quote from: °BSΩLE†e on Aug 03, 2009 at 03:47 PM

Taken from the "life being an atheist" thread from TPC.

FAQ by "DarthDract"

good luck to them. i think they're just confused but whatever makes them live a good life, it's ok.

firewired · « **Reply #26 on:** Aug 03, 2009 at 04:30 PM »

Why do you think they're confused? The FAQ is pretty detailed and one of the clearest explanations I've yet read on atheism.

I think it's that kind of unilateral dismissiveness that ultimately prevents any kind of intelligent discussion on atheism and religion. Perhaps a point-by-point response?

garyMD · « **Reply #27 on:** Aug 03, 2009 at 08:45 PM »

Quote from: firewired on Aug 03, 2009 at 04:30 PM

Why do you think they're confused? The FAQ is pretty detailed and one of the clearest explanations I've yet read on atheism.

I think it's that kind of unilateral dismissiveness that ultimately prevents any kind of intelligent discussion on atheism and religion. Perhaps a point-by-point response?

pardon sir..but this is not a unilateral dismissiveness. maybe it was my take and as it is, i don't see any clear explanation there. maybe they say it's not the absence of God but the question of "is there really a God?"

i pose this question then..so where do you think all the goodness they feel is coming from? for me, it is also the unilateral denial of what is truth that i think confuses them. sometimes, there is no need for any proof to say that there is really a God. their mere existence is enough explanation for it. the goodness that comes from their heart is a proof of the presence of God. their good living, good relationship with people is a proof that there is a God.

from the top of their head, to the end of their toes, is a proof that there is God.

firewired · « **Reply #28 on:** Aug 03, 2009 at 09:36 PM »

Okay, maybe you should've posted that in the first place.

However, you're essentially saying that "goodness" is proof of God. "Goodness" emanates from God. Man needs God to be "good". Therefore, "goodness" is not man's inclination?

Quote

It is a misconception that a person needs to believe in a deity in order to be good. The fact is, even belief in the supernatural doesn’t prevent many people from committing crimes.

A person can be good even without belief in the supernatural. Morality and laws, afterall, are not rooted in religion but in the community’s concepts of what is acceptable and right. It varies from place to place but their core is always the same: that which would protect a person’s life and well-being.

Following the laws and acting in the socially accepted manner is already enough for people to call you a good person.

To an atheist, I doubt that the presence of "good" in the natural world is proof of God. You can't prove that empirically. And if you can't prove it, it's not reasonable and ultimately not acceptable. To them, proper laws and generally accepted norms of behavior in society are what define "good".

It really is a different way of looking at things, and judging from the FAQ, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. Why? Because religion is rooted in faith, and atheism pretty much rejects faith because it demands empirical evidence, but faith by its very nature is empirically impossible to prove because of the supernatural dimension, which of course is unacceptable because it cannot be explained scientifically... and so on and so forth.

My recommendation? Ye of much faith... ignore this thread. Please.

garyMD · « **Reply #29 on:** Aug 04, 2009 at 12:29 AM »

Quote from: firewired on Aug 03, 2009 at 09:36 PM

Okay, maybe you should've posted that in the first place.

However, you're essentially saying that "goodness" is proof of God. "Goodness" emanates from God. Man needs God to be "good". Therefore, "goodness" is not man's inclination?

To an atheist, I doubt that the presence of "good" in the natural world is proof of God. You can't prove that empirically. And if you can't prove it, it's not reasonable and ultimately not acceptable. To them, proper laws and generally accepted norms of behavior in society are what define "good".

It really is a different way of looking at things, and judging from the FAQ, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. Why? Because religion is rooted in faith, and atheism pretty much rejects faith because it demands empirical evidence, but faith by its very nature is empirically impossible to prove because of the supernatural dimension, which of course is unacceptable because it cannot be explained scientifically... and so on and so forth.

My recommendation? Ye of much faith... ignore this thread. Please.

my Philo teacher will definitely kill me.

so i'd rather follow your advice...i'll ignore the thread instead.