Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines

[indie boi]

we humans get in a lot of trouble because we want all questions answered. maybe that's what you called faith.

What a strange comment. Aren't you a man of science, sir?

[Alfie]

Idiocracy...hmmm..that's a good movie.

[Clondalkin]

Im just curious why there has been a surge of documentaries about Einstein, Darwin and Stephen Hawking recently - and di hamak na mas madaling intindihin instead of reading the manuscripts.  

[garyMD]

What a strange comment. Aren't you a man of science, sir?

    why did you find my comment strange? and maybe can you define a man of science? what does it mean? thank you!

[sardaukar]

I believe there is a God, the creator, omnipotent. I can't answer all your questions bec. I'm not God He has his own reasons. Like I said, our mind is limited and we can't answer everything. Days for God could be hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of years for us. Dinosaurs were probably destroyed by God bec he wanted to create humans, who knows. All I know is, presently, we are the supreme beings of this planet, with our minds, intelligence, looks (just check out the hot or not thread ), etc. and we did not come from some organism, apes or whatever.   We will know all of these answers when its our time to meet God.

By the way, I'm just curious, What do you believe in?

I believe in evolution. I believe that the universe was created from a singularity. From infinite density and temperature the universe expanded, created stars, eventually planets. On our planet life started from simple cells. After 3 billion years simple animals finally arrived. Fish then amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. Early humans arrived about 2.5 million years ago but modern humans only arrived in the last few hundred thousand years.

Now I'm completely open to the assertion that God is what I referred to above as infinite density and temperature. But the rest of it (after the singularity) pretty much plays out as science has discovered and explained. There may still be gaps and there may even be some mistakes. But what I like about science is that it has to survive "peer review". If something is discovered that contradicts a "scientifict fact", it ceases to be scientifict fact.

Even if, as you assert, man's mind is limited and we cannot answer everything, I dislike it when it becomes an excuse against further enlightenment. I'm sure God did not want us to remain ignorant about our world. It is in learning and discovering that makes our modern life today possible.



Since from your viewpoint man did not evolve from apes, do you believe we were put on this earth as we are now about 200,000 years ago? I'd like to find out how, specifically, you believe we got here. I don't think you believe in the Adam and Eve story, or am I wrong about that? Also, how much of my "history of the universe/earth" above do you agree/disagree with?

[indie boi]

    why did you find my comment strange? and maybe can you define a man of science? what does it mean? thank you!

From what I gathered you're a doctor. And being one, you rely on science to do your job. Science, not faith. Unless of course you're not a doctor, or you're a different type of doctor then just disregard my earlier posts. 

[garyMD]

From what I gathered you're a doctor. And being one, you rely on science to do your job. Science, not faith. Unless of course you're not a doctor, or you're a different type of doctor then just disregard my earlier posts. 

    isa akong kun-doktor! hehe


    seriously, isa lamang po akong hamak na manggagawa! 

[tigkal]

For me, the closest plausible explanation about man's existence is by Sitchin. That is why as of now, we can not find that missing link in the evolution process of man. We were made in the creator's likeness, as stated in the bible, after a series of experiments. I am still searching for a more plausible explanation though and as of this moment, that explanation of Sitchin is more realistic.

[jerix]

Even if, as you assert, man's mind is limited and we cannot answer everything, I dislike it when it becomes an excuse against further enlightenment. I'm sure God did not want us to remain ignorant about our world. It is in learning and discovering that makes our modern life today possible.

GOd prohibited Adam and Eve to eat that "fruit of knowledge" -- but why?

[Moks007]

I believe in evolution. I believe that the universe was created from a singularity. From infinite density and temperature the universe expanded, created stars, eventually planets. On our planet life started from simple cells. After 3 billion years simple animals finally arrived. Fish then amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. Early humans arrived about 2.5 million years ago but modern humans only arrived in the last few hundred thousand years.

Now I'm completely open to the assertion that God is what I referred to above as infinite density and temperature. But the rest of it (after the singularity) pretty much plays out as science has discovered and explained. There may still be gaps and there may even be some mistakes. But what I like about science is that it has to survive "peer review". If something is discovered that contradicts a "scientifict fact", it ceases to be scientifict fact.

Even if, as you assert, man's mind is limited and we cannot answer everything, I dislike it when it becomes an excuse against further enlightenment. I'm sure God did not want us to remain ignorant about our world. It is in learning and discovering that makes our modern life today possible.



Since from your viewpoint man did not evolve from apes, do you believe we were put on this earth as we are now about 200,000 years ago? I'd like to find out how, specifically, you believe we got here. I don't think you believe in the Adam and Eve story, or am I wrong about that? Also, how much of my "history of the universe/earth" above do you agree/disagree with?

Yes I believe in the Bible, Adam and Eve and everything in the Bible.  . I'm not here to convert anybody, preach or say I'm right and the rest of you are wrong. As long as one is secure with his/her belief then thats the bottom line. We can go back and forth and make this 50 pages, we will still not agree with each other. Well, I'm off to watch Planet Earth, Great bites collection, and other documentaries to admire what an amazing, magnificent place we live in

[dvdaddict2009]

the mere fact that we are arguing if there is really a God or his existence comes with the knowledge and impression that there is really a God.

but whatever floats our boat, so be it. 

[JT]

GOd prohibited Adam and Eve to eat that "fruit of knowledge" -- but why?

Better yet, why was the tree there in the first place if not to be eaten.

[sardaukar]

Yes I believe in the Bible, Adam and Eve and everything in the Bible.  . I'm not here to convert anybody, preach or say I'm right and the rest of you are wrong. As long as one is secure with his/her belief then thats the bottom line. We can go back and forth and make this 50 pages, we will still not agree with each other. Well, I'm off to watch Planet Earth, Great bites collection, and other documentaries to admire what an amazing, magnificent place we live in

No problem with that. Just wanted to understand what position you're coming from. If you don't want to debate this further we can agree to disagree.

[sardaukar]

the mere fact that we are arguing if there is really a God or his existence comes with the knowledge and impression that there is really a God.

but whatever floats our boat, so be it. 

Not true. Merely arguing about God's existence does not automatically make Him exist.

[sardaukar]

GOd prohibited Adam and Eve to eat that "fruit of knowledge" -- but why?

I never did get the point of that bible story. Sort of like putting a toddler in a room with ice cream, telling him not to eat it then leaving the room. Oh and then leaving a snake there to tempt the toddler into eating it. Was He really expecting Adam and Eve not to eat it? Oh and btw He did since He's omniscient.

But if you believe we're not supposed to learn everything we can from this universe of ours, where is one supposed to stop? God wasn't quite clear on that either. Stop at grade 5? in high school? from discovering the origin of the universe? Tough to draw a line.

[tigkal]

Better yet, why was the tree there in the first place if not to be eaten.

The tree was actually not a literal tree, same as the the seven days not the seven days we know now. It was just written as a tree for easy understanding, same as the seven day creation story. The Tree symbolize the genetic manipulation they did to us for us to have the intelligence to know good and evil, and comes with it the intelligence to survive on our own and not having a God as supervisor. And most important thing: To Think and use our faculties and abilities to discern what is the truth or not.

[JT]

The tree was actually not a literal tree, same as the the seven days not the seven days we know now. It was just written as a tree for easy understanding, same as the seven day creation story. The Tree symbolize the genetic manipulation they did to us for us to have the intelligence to know good and evil, and comes with it the intelligence to survive on our own and not having a God as supervisor. And most important thing: To Think and use our faculties and abilities to discern what is the truth or not.

Excuse me but where exactly u got this doctrine?

[tigkal]

It was from the ancient sumerian texts, per Sitchin. It predates the bible.It is not a religion by the way. It is just a statement of facts as recorded.

[allanmandy]

Try downloading the BBC documentary "Did Darwin Kill God?" It's about a Christian scientist's quest to reconcile the "differences" between science and faith. One interesting thing that came up there is the little known fact that the Bible (or at least the original books before the Church adopted and compiled them) was never meant to be interpreted literally.

[Clondalkin]

Try downloading the BBC documentary "Did Darwin Kill God?" It's about a Christian scientist's quest to reconcile the "differences" between science and faith. One interesting thing that came up there is the little known fact that the Bible (or at least the original books before the Church adopted and compiled them) was never meant to be interpreted literally.

I felt he was trying really hard to connect Darwinism to God.

Well, my faith simply tells me there is The God no matter how convincing the theory of evolution is.   I do not want to think that being good in one's lifetime has no meaning in the afterlife. 

[indie boi]

I don't think that believing in God and in Evolution is an either/or proposition.

To enlighten all of you guys, please watch this interview with Jesuit priest Fr. George Coyne, the former Director of the Vatican Observatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

He does not at all support Intelligent Design -- which has put him at loggerheads with Pope Benedict XVI. It's interesting to note that Pope John Paul II supports Coyne's views.

[barrister]

I never did get the point of that bible story. Sort of like putting a toddler in a room with ice cream, telling him not to eat it then leaving the room. Oh and then leaving a snake there to tempt the toddler into eating it. Was He really expecting Adam and Eve not to eat it? Oh and btw He did since He's omniscient.

The story would be perfectly clear if you recognize that, contrary to popular belief, God is not omniscient; otherwise, the story would not make any sense.

The Genesis story of Abraham and Isaac is one proof that God is not omniscient regarding matters concerning human free will.  

To test Abraham, God commanded him to slay his only son Issac as an offering.  As Abraham was about to slay his son with a knife, God said to Abraham through an angel:

Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. (Gen. 22:12)

God did not say that He knew what Abraham was going to do even before he was tested.  God said "now I know", meaning that God knew only at that moment, not beforehand.

How did God know?  Because God is omniscient?  

No.  God knew only when He saw that Abraham was ready to slay his son.

And that is why we are on this earth.  We are here to be tested, in order to find out if we are worthy to be with God in heaven.  Why does God have to test us to find out if we should be in heaven or in hell?  Because God is not omniscient.  

[ralfy]

Related: "Father Barron on The New Atheists"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI

[Clondalkin]

I never did get the point of that bible story. Sort of like putting a toddler in a room with ice cream, telling him not to eat it then leaving the room. Oh and then leaving a snake there to tempt the toddler into eating it. Was He really expecting Adam and Eve not to eat it? Oh and btw He did since He's omniscient.

Free will Bro.

[barrister]

Some people believe that we should share God's word with everyone.  That's not true.  In fact, Jesus commands us not to share the meaning of God's word with those who have already rejected it.

Matt. 7:6 says: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

During that time, they didn't see dogs as man's best friend, but dangerous animals that traveled in packs.  

Give dogs and swine something they have already rejected and they will trample it under their feet, then rip you apart.

That's why Rev. 22:11 says: He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

[sardaukar]

That God is not omniscient, is that dogma? I thought the Catholic view is that God is all-knowing and all-powerful.

[sardaukar]

Free will Bro.

Yes but I see Adam and Eve as innocent and naive, much like a little child. I wouldn't leave a 3 y.o. in that same situation. I'm sure God had wisdom enough to see what was likely to happen, omniscient or not.

I know it's essentially a parable about free will but it does not have the same impact as if the protagonists were fully conscious adults who know right from wrong and therefore can fully appreciate the consequences of their actions.

[barrister]

That God is not omniscient, is that dogma? I thought the Catholic view is that God is all-knowing and all-powerful.

The Catholic view is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  This view is shared by many religions and theologians.

The minority view is that God is omnipotent, but not omniscient or omnipresent.  To me, this is the Biblically accurate view.

[sardaukar]

The Catholic view is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  This view is shared by many religions and theologians.

The minority view is that God is omnipotent, but not omniscient or omnipresent.  To me, this is the Biblically accurate view.

That would actually make more sense to me because Free Will and Omniscience are mutually exclusive. Where one exists, the other, by definition, cannot exist as well.

[tigkal]

Yes but I see Adam and Eve as innocent and naive, much like a little child. I wouldn't leave a 3 y.o. in that same situation. I'm sure God had wisdom enough to see what was likely to happen, omniscient or not.

I know it's essentially a parable about free will but it does not have the same impact as if the protagonists were fully conscious adults who know right from wrong and therefore can fully appreciate the consequences of their actions.

the fact that they roamed naked shows that there was no free will involved. I agree the before that fruit was eaten, their mind was that of a 3 yr old or less.