Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines

[alistair]

one question though: was evolution been proved?

Correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but is your understanding of evolution limited to "man descended from apes?"

Have you taken it upon yourself to read beyond that, sir, or do you reject all other literature because they are "works of the devil?"

Part of the theory of evolution is natural selection, or, survival of the fittest. Do you also reject that, sir, even though it is actually observable (weaker individuals or populations die, fitter ones survive)? Do you realize that this part of evolution is observable even in non-biological systems? For example, in economics—products, companies and entire industries evolve or die according to their general economic/socio-political/historical environment.

A bigger part of the theory of evolution is evolutionary biology which concerns genetics, heredity and the biological/genetic changes in populations over time. Do you reject that all known living organisms have DNA, sir? That heredity happens? That mutations occur? That populations of organisms have been observed to change in response to their environment, sometimes only over dozens of generations? That speciation has been observed in dozens of plant and animal species?

I suppose to you these are all lies perpetuated by unbelievers.

[dpogs]

hmmm... and then... saan nagggaling ang tao? based on theory of evolution.

from a single cell?
saan nanggaling ang lahat ng nakikita natin ngayon?


to believe in evolution is simply a blinded faith. evolutionist cannot prove what really happened. instead they come out with so many theories against one acceptable explanation... Creation.

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." just like that... whew... how marvelous.


back to the idea of atheism...


some atheist argue that animism and ancestor worship, both implicit forms of atheism (or forms of non-theism) are the earliest spiritual belief systems and predate any formal religion.

but this was already explained by The Bible

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."


how will the atheist explain that our ancestors (deprived of the Bible, without knowledge of religion) decided to worship an "unknown god"?

our ancestors were aware that there is a supreme being, much more powerful than nature.

Just as God gives infants the natural instinct to suckle the breast without them having to be taught to do so, He also establishes in every human the instinctive knowledge of His existence and the ability to clearly discern it through the light of nature.

[alistair]

hmmm... and then... saan nagggaling ang tao? based on theory of evolution.

Is that question meant to be rhetorical, sir?

Here's a scientific answer: not from extant apes.

As sardaukar said, if you're going to disprove a premise, at least disprove the correct premise.

to believe in evolution is simply a blinded faith. evolutionist cannot prove what really happened.

Wrong. First, it's not "blind faith". There's an abundance of observed evidence, fossil evidence, and supporting sciences.

Second, nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously (mathematically) proved, or ever will be. But the current theory is largely consistent with itself and available evidence. It's long since eclipsed Darwin.

but this was already explained by The Bible

Ad nauseam

[indie boi]

Based on the arguments here, if you believe in God then you should believe in this timeline of how old the Earth really is?

http://www.abiblestudy.com/part1.html

Paleontology is a constant topic in my house because my son is fascinated with this branch of science and with dinosaurs. Do we now ask schools to stop teaching about dinosaurs because in the context of YEC, dinosaurs do not exist simply because their age does not conform to the 4,000 year-timeline?

[Clondalkin]

how will the atheist explain that our ancestors (deprived of the Bible, without knowledge of religion) decided to worship an "unknown god"?

Im not an atheist but I'd think the belief in the non-existence of a supreme being, or the doubt in the belief in/about God came with mankind's intellectual development.   Didnt we all believe in Santa Klaus when we were children?

[dpogs]

Based on the arguments here, if you believe in God then you should believe in this timeline of how old the Earth really is?

http://www.abiblestudy.com/part1.html

Paleontology is a constant topic in my house because my son is fascinated with this branch of science and with dinosaurs. Do we now ask schools to stop teaching about dinosaurs because in the context of YEC, dinosaurs do not exist simply because their age does not conform to the 4,000 year-timeline?

maybe because there is a two different timeline, from a view of an atheist and theist.

then the problem now : how accurate are those method used to determine the age of fossils?

another debatable statement/question.

[Clondalkin]

maybe because there is a two different timeline, from a view of an atheist and theist.

then the problem now : how accurate are those method used to determine the age of fossils?

another debatable statement/question.

Dpogs have you seen any of the NatGeo/Discovery Channel/History Channel special about "possible" remains of places during the time of Christ? - 2000 years ago.  Try to consider the depth of those remains..then compare that to how deep natural gas or oil have to be dug.  I think it's easy to imagine that those fossil fuels would have to be far far older than 2x2000 = 4000 years..isn't it?

[bumblebee]

What's the theist's view? I believe in God but I don't take the the creation story from Genesis literally.

[dpogs]

Is that question meant to be rhetorical, sir?

Here's a scientific answer: not from extant apes.

As sardaukar said, if you're going to disprove a premise, at least disprove the correct premise.Wrong. First, it's not "blind faith". There's an abundance of observed evidence, fossil evidence, and supporting sciences.

Second, nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously (mathematically) proved, or ever will be. But the current theory is largely consistent with itself and available evidence. It's long since eclipsed Darwin.
Ad nauseam

if not from extant apes... what what kind of species we came from? any evolutionst cannot provide fossil evidence where we came from, and yet atheist simply believed evolution?

that is "blinded faith".

or lets say... i am so close minded that i cannot grasp the idea of 'non-exsistence of God' or the other way around.... atheist are so close minded to believe the existence of God and ignore the fact that God is very evident in nature (heaven and earth) and in their heart.



The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).

That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

[av_phile1]

What's the theist's view? I believe in God but I don't take the the creation story from Genesis literally.

The problem lies in the translation from Hebrew.  The Hebrew language is the poorest of all languages, extant and dead.  It only has less than 9,000 words compared to half a million in English. Especially problematic are the nouns which are even fewer and can mean many things under different contexts and idioms.

The Hebrew word Yom appears in various parts of the bible to mean a 24-hour period, a season, a year, 40 years, time, evermore, a time period, a point in time and an age.  I can't recall where it all started that the bible interpreters insisted the literal meaning of the story of creation as seven 24-hour days when there were bible scholars in the past who already recognized that the word Yom in the Genesis creation means an age.  It could be millions or billions of years for each Yom.  The word Yom used in the creation actually has different meanings even within the context of creation

To the God of the bible, time is of no moment.  A billion years can be just a day to Him because he created the universe independent of time which He also created. God's concept of time is not ours to understand.  In addition. there was no sense for Moses to describe the creation of the world in terms of millions of years because the people then have no idea what a million is. And the fact is that the language then didn't offer much beyond Yom. That is why in promising Abraham his descendants, God didn't say "You will have a million descendants" because Abraham would have replied "what is a million?"   Instead, a more picturesque analogy is made: "Your children will be as the sands."

The story of creation is not only doctrinally sound it carries scientific logic if you were God doing some terraforming work and describing from where you are doing the creation, not from heaven above.

[bumblebee]

dpogs, people here question the existence of God, so you can't use the Bible as source.

[alistair]

if not from extant apes... what what kind of species we came from?

Since you had to ask, the current theory is that humans and apes shared a common ancestor which is thought to have existed 5-8 million years ago. One likely candidate is Australopithecus.

any evolutionst cannot provide fossil evidence where we came from, and yet atheist simply believed evolution?

Gaps in the fossil record exist, but that's expected, and it doesn't disprove the theory in general. But many transitional fossils have been found.

And no, in general we don't "simply believe" in evolution. The skeptic must weigh it equally with other myths or theories of universal origin, and constantly revisit or re-examine it against newer studies and evidence.

It so happens that current cosmological theory and evolutionary theory are more self-consistent, and are more consistent with other scientific theories on the observable universe and so it makes more sense to believe those, rather than, say, a young earth.

that is "blinded faith"

With all due respect, sir, the term is blind faith.

And it cannot be "blind" faith if there's theory, science, observation and evidence.

To be fair, it's not "blind faith" either if you seriously study the Bible, theology or catechism. On the other hand, most Christians or Catholics can't claim as much. They just take what their pastor or priest tells them without question. Now that is blind.

The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists

Two things.

First, of course belief in God requires faith.

Second, and more importantly, if someone believed in the Bible as the Word of God then they obviously believe in God to begin with. So they can't use the Bible as evidence for God because, well, that's called a tautology.

If you had came from a position where you acknowledge the diversity of various books in the Bible and their origins and literary forms—where some parts of it are allegorical, some are poetry, song, parables, and yes, some coincide well with recorded history—then this would be a much, much more productive and encouraging discussion.

[alistair]

Dpogs have you seen any of the NatGeo/Discovery Channel/History Channel special about "possible" remains of places during the time of Christ? - 2000 years ago.  Try to consider the depth of those remains..then compare that to how deep natural gas or oil have to be dug.  I think it's easy to imagine that those fossil fuels would have to be far far older than 2x2000 = 4000 years..isn't it?

God placed them there, that deep underground, to begin with?

[dpogs]

Since you had to ask, the current theory is that humans and apes shared a common ancestor which is thought to have existed 5-8 million years ago. One likely candidate is Australopithecus.

And it cannot be "blind" faith if there's theory, science, observation and evidence.

ohh... sorry... im not gramatically correct sometimes... you know...


"one likely candidate is Australopithecus".

what you mean by "likely candidate"... is that you called an observation and evidence... in court you will not win a case if you present the evidence in terms of "likely candidate".

is this australopithecus species is "Lucy" in particular? as far as i know it ("lucy") is a hoax.

considereing it is not a hoax... saan nanggaling ang species na australopithecus... and so on and so forth.. until pumunta tayo sa single cell... and then from nothing... in a very logical and intellectual thinking... where on earth can we find that a matter was created from nothing (or that something came out from nothing)?

In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

[sardaukar]

God placed them there, that deep underground, to begin with?

Yes, to mess with the heads of future scientists.

[dpogs]

dpogs, people here question the existence of God, so you can't use the Bible as source.

na post ko na rin ang logical reason sa existence of God.



naisip ko lang... if i cannot use the Bible as a proof of God's existence...
puwede ko rin bang sabihing "birth certificate" is not a proof of a certain person's existence?

or i can claim that the next person na magpost ay walang mga magulang or i can just simple ignore his/her existence.

hmmm.... it is acceptable???

[bumblebee]

dpogs.

Valid yung birth certificate kasi me witnesses. As for the bible, God didn't write it. People did.

[indie boi]

Yes, to mess with the heads of future scientists.

And for God to test our faith. 

[dpogs]

dpogs.

Valid yung birth certificate kasi me witnesses. As for the bible, God didn't write it. People did.

hmmm.... valid ang birth certificate kasi may witness... pero paano ipoprove ng birth certificate mo na nageexist ka nga? eh di mo naman sinulat yan... sinulat ng tao yan...

or nakita ng mga tao na ipinanganak ka at linagay nila sa birth certificate mo (to prove na nag-eexist ka nga) para maniwala ang iba na ipinanganak ka nga. tama?

how about... iyong mga author ng books of the Bible naranasan nila na may diyos or sila mismo ang witness na may diyos kaya sinulat nila ang tungkol sa Diyos para malaman ng iba na may Diyos.

hmmm... so anything 'people' write di dapat paniwalaan? it includes your birth certificate...



how do you know that your birth certificate is of your own? new born ka pa habang ginagawa ang birth certificate mo? maybe na brainwash ka lang ng mga magulang mo na maniwalang anak ka nila? paano mo nalaman na mga magulang mo nga sila (new born ka pa lang noon)?

[bumblebee]

dpogs,

I'm not so sure if I'm going elaborate further on my birth certificate

I'm Catholic but I don't believe everything the Bible says. For me, the Bible is a source of hope, enlightenment, with some really nice stories

I have to ask you. Is your God, the real God? What if Allah or Brahma is the real God? You have your Bible, the Muslims have the Koran, the Hindus have their scriptures etc. All of you will quote your texts, so who will win?

[dpogs]

dpogs,

I'm not so sure if I'm going elaborate further on my birth certificate

I'm Catholic but I don't believe everything the Bible says. For me, the Bible is a source of hope, enlightenment, with some really nice stories

I have to ask you. Is your God, the real God? What if Allah or Brahma is the real God? You have your Bible, the Muslims have the Koran, the Hindus have their scriptures etc. All of you will quote your texts, so who will win?

sir,

i just want to make a point. im just making a conversation out of birth certicicate to prove that Almighty Creator does exist.

the way i question the authenticity of our birth certificate over our existence is the way atheist question the existence of God.

[bumblebee]

There is a flaw with your argument. A birth certificate is a legal document. Universally accepted. The Bible is not.

We can't blame the atheists if they don't believe in God. Tama nga naman na ipinanganak ka ng walang idea ng diyos. Kung lumaki silang wala idea ng diyos, mahihirapan tayong mga naniniwala na paniwalain sila. Kasing hirap na paniwalain ang mga taga ibang relihiyon na ang Diyos natin ang tunay na Diyos.

[Clondalkin]

Commercial:  Please try to watch one of BBC's new docs... The 6-part A History Of Christianity now on it's 5th part.

Ok back to regular programming.    

[CMac]

There is a flaw with your argument. A birth certificate is a legal document. Universally accepted. The Bible is not.

what dpogs meant was that if the Bible is not a true testament to the existence of God because it was written by man (dispute of an Atheist), then all the other man made documents should be stricken as proof of existence or factuality as well - or something to that effect.

[choy]

Based on the arguments here, if you believe in God then you should believe in this timeline of how old the Earth really is?

http://www.abiblestudy.com/part1.html

Paleontology is a constant topic in my house because my son is fascinated with this branch of science and with dinosaurs. Do we now ask schools to stop teaching about dinosaurs because in the context of YEC, dinosaurs do not exist simply because their age does not conform to the 4,000 year-timeline?

the various Churches, including Catholicism, has stated time and again that the theory of evolution does not entirely go against the faith

in fact, if you think about it, the story of creation is all to similar with the Big Bang.  and the sequence of events in Genesis is the same sequence that science finds in evolution, despite the fact that Genesis was written 4000 years ago.  Genesis states that stars came before the animals before the humans.  thats pretty factual especially to people with no concept of science

[choy]

Got the PM. I'll respectfully answer it here though.

Believe me, I admire professions of faith but hopefully you also understand that I cannot fathom why you should choose to keep your denomination private when it is fundamental in truly understanding your opinions and knowing where you come from, so to speak. Av_phile revealed that he is more into pre-Vatican II Catholicism, and it really revealed a lot. At least now I know where he's coming from when he posts about his beliefs.

Since it is only fair to answer my own question, here it is. I've been raised a devout catholic and even went to catholic schools. I even seriously entertained entering the priesthood before I went to college. But I've always been a free thinker so I began to question catholicism, faith and religion in general. Bottomline is, I still go to church, I consider the Black Nazarene my patron and I'm a Marian to the bone, but I'm not afraid to question dogma and I believe I won't burn in hell for doing so.

In my opinion, I would rather question faith and God first then believe, than to blindly follow something without questioning anything. I think that I have a healthier relationship with God because of this.

To quote Mahatma Gandhi -- "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

i agree with you.  following faith blindly is wrong.  God did not make revelations so we can follow blindly
its good to explore the faith and learn more why.  i grew in faith when i questioned it and studied it closer.  now i understand more which supports my faith better

[choy]

Wow, a lot happened since last night. Young Earth Creationist din pala si dpogs, pareho sila ni aHobbit.

A lot of what you cut and pasted has also been added to the discussion by aHobbit. But some of the premises are even wrong. For example, evolution never clamed that mammals evolved from birds. If they're going to disprove a premise, at least disprove the correct premise. And I suppose mentioning animals like Tiktaalik won't really make a difference to people who don't believe in evolution.

I have a question though for dpogs and other YEC. Do you even watch any of the documentary channels? History, Discovery, NGC--every other program must be so heretical that it's not even amusing. Programs about planets, geology, earthquakes, volcanoes, biology, practically anything that deals with the past I'm guessing will, in the course of the hour, say something that will disagree with your belief. Would you even listen to/believe in science after seeing all of those glaring mistakes? These aren't even little mistakes where it's 200% or even 1000% off. At least in the case of the age of the earth, they are 45 million percent off! How can we believe anything they say.

i myself subscribe to the young earth belief.  for one thing, evolution is full of holes.  it seems every new discover disproves the last, so to me its a clear indication that they haven't proven anything yet and that they haven't made up their mind yet.  or maybe they have, until the next discovery when they re-write everything yet again

and one glaring mistake of evolution is the assumption that something they've observed for 10, 20 or 50 years will act the same over a long period of time, therefore they conclude that it will take thousands or millions of years to take place.  its seems very short sighted not to think something could accelerate a process over the years.

also, if evolution is true, we should be seeing new speicies every so often.  but we're not.  we have the same species 2000 years ago as we have today.  there should be some species that are in evolutionary transition that would have completed a cycle within the last 500 years.  but we haven't been able to find any.

[alistair]

puwede ko rin bang sabihing "birth certificate" is not a proof of a certain person's existence?

Sir, a birth certificate is not a proof of a person's existence.

It's just a document that supposedly records a person's birth, their parents, and so on.

Like other documents, it can be faked.

The chain of causality goes, "a person is born" -> "a birth certificate is made for that event".

It's not, "a birth certificate is written" -> "a person is born".

[alistair]

i myself subscribe to the young earth belief.  for one thing, evolution is full of holes.  it seems every new discover disproves the last, so to me its a clear indication that they haven't proven anything yet and that they haven't made up their mind yet.  or maybe they have, until the next discovery when they re-write everything yet again

Boss, the entire recorded history of science is full of holes in theories that were later completed, refined, or even completely rewritten. Or the theory can be discarded, if a better model with more can be shown to fit the empirical data. That's how science works.

Until today, there are 'holes' in how certain diseases originate and progress. Up until the 1950's, the structure of DNA was a big 'hole'. Up until Mendel in the 1800's, the theories behind heredity were full of holes.

Would you deny that, it's possible that your child will inherit some disease from you? What if they said they can treat that disease by repressing the gene? Would you say, "No thanks, genetics is full of holes?"

its seems very short sighted not to think something could accelerate a process over the years.

True, but no other evidence, or no other model can better fit all existing observations and data. Going back to oil and fossils buried deep underground, under layers of volcanic rock, for example—how could they be there if they hadn't been buried for at least longer than 6000 years?

also, if evolution is true, we should be seeing new speicies every so often.  but we're not.

Sir, Speciation has been observed, in the wild and in labs.

[av_phile1]

Sir, Speciation has been observed, in the wild and in labs.

In labs, yes.  clearly pointing to the fact behind every living thing, there's deliberate conscious design, a creator and cannot happen by mere chance.  The genetic code could not be sequenced not until the advent of supercomupters. And took them nearly a decade to get it done.  Clearly shows how immensely staggering the complexity of the code is in its design no mere mortal could make. Much less leaving it to happen by chance.   Something as complex as the quadrinaric genetic code cannot happen by chance.  It was designed.  Not a spontaneous chance.