Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines

[Clondalkin]

Is this the same "godly governance and mental reference (Bible)" that directly and indirectly was responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos from 1899 to 1903?

Ive forgotten most of Filipino-American War.  Did we lose that many people?  Could you kindly elaborate about this portion of our history in reference to this "godly governance and mental reference" theory?

[indie boi]

There's the Balangiga  Massacre. American soldiers killed up to 3000 Filipinos.

[devlin_waugh]

For a while, I thought Ahobbit would be able to present some scientific proof of how man was instantly created from nothing.  Anyways.

or even proof that man was created from clay/mud...

[barrister]

America is facing an attack from liberals ... influenced by the europeans who typically go sliding down into atheism ... and hide in the cloak of science. ... America rose to its place today embracing a more Godly governance and mental reference (Bible) early on ... Recently, America if slowly going down the drain (even internally) because they are removing God in their governance and mental reference ... Of course, that is only my assessment (as I understood my religion)

It is not true that America was founded on Christian principles.  On the contrary, the opposite is true --- that America was in fact founded on principles of religious neutrality.

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document.  That is why it begins with "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity."  Compare that with the Phil. Constitution, which begins with: "We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God ..."
 
Whenever the US constitution refers to religion, the reference is intended to exclude, rather than include it.  Hence: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment).

The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8 ).

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

The oft-repeated line that we hear these days - that America should "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded" - is the battlecry of the religious right.  They're the ones who work vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation and impose their narrow morality on others.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

[RU9]

or even proof that man was created from clay/mud...

or the bible is the word of god.

in the begining man wrote the bible, a fiction by my standard.

please prove me wrong so that i will be enlightened.  

[JT]

or the bible is the word of god.

in the begining man wrote the bible, a fiction by my standard.

please prove me wrong so that i will be enlightened.  

Before I try to shed some light to you regd the BIBLE, may I know which moral standards you follow?

[jerix]

or even proof that man was created from clay/mud...

water if turned into ice will return only as water...

If the physical component of man returns to its original form if it dies, then whatever it would be may be a proof of the materials or original components to which it was created. Magiging hangin ba katawan natin pag tayo ay namatay? Just think of the answer. 

[aHobbit]

And of course you would not get the "magic" billion years from C-14 because the half-life is only 5370 years!!! C dating is only good up to ages of 60,000 years. If you want the billion year ages, use U-Pb or Nd-Sm.

and yet it was accepted by scientist as credible dating device, isn't it?

Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

http://www.icr.org/article/1842/245/

Sa hinaba haba ng mga sinulat dito bale ang bottom line lang ay creationists have nothing to lose and prove while evolutionists have everything to lose and prove?   What???  

Ganon ba yon???  

For a while, I thought Ahobbit would be able to present some scientific proof of how man was instantly created from nothing.  Anyways.

simple lang yan clondalkin ... if you read the thread title ... atheism and agnosticism ... and since atheism anchor its belief on evolution ... then I will be deal with it here ...

I am not here to prove creation nor present scientific findings in its support ... but if you can raise scientific findings that refute biblical statements and records ... why not raise it here if you want ... or raise it in a separate thread re creation para di OT here ...

Neither evolution failed to prove why the big bang and the first cell happened ... from whence it came ... at least creation stated the Intelligent source ... while evolution started from a question mark ...

If you brand both of them as theory ... I have no issue with that ... science, in its continuing development and discoveries will determine the last theory standing ... to me, it is easier to see which one is it!  

Succinct. Direct to the point. And true.

It's funny that the burden of proof is on evolutionists and despite all of the evidence, it's still considered "magic".  

Of course, whose responsibility it is to prove evolution ... the non-believers of that manuscript?   ... and can you site which evidence evolution got that stand as strong evidence of evolution to date? ... it started as all assumptions ... and then they tried to get evidences ... and as science check the evidences & assumptions ... what do they get? ... can somebody show the picture of their ancestors?  

[aHobbit]

aHobbit: Approximately, only 1/3 of the Bible has basis on historical fact. In fact, historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have yet to uncover any hard, actual evidence that the story of Moses even happened.

Correct ... but that does that mean some of the statements are false already ... or will it remain a theory (if you wish) ...

in the same way the assumptions incorporated in the theory of evolution will either stand or fall as scientific evidences mounts ... if one of the many assumption is not yet proven, it will remain an assumption! ... if some of the asumptions are proven wrong, or not as consistent as previously regarded, then those assumptions become false.



Unchanging speed of light?
Another fascinating article in the same issue of New Scientist deals with the theories of an Italian scientist, Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, ...

...
João Magueijo, . . . had been formulating an explanation of the evolution of the Universe. . . . But there was a heavy price to pay. . . . He was suggesting that the speed of light has been slowing ever since the big bang.9
...

His VSL cosmology leads to various other conclusions which would be even more difficult for us to deal with (for example, it negates the first law of thermodynamics, the principle of energy conservation)!

But it does seem to reinforce our frequent observation that modern cosmology has become nothing but a morass of conflicting mathematical models, which few besides Ph.D. theoretical physicists really understand, and which they seem to replace with other models every week or so. Remember those 50 variations in the inflation model!

Another important example of cosmological uncertainty is the current notion that the stars and other measurable physical bodies comprise only 5% of the "matter" in space. The rest is either "dark matter" or "dark energy," neither of which has ever been observed, but which seems theoretically to be needed. But as one scientist observes referring to this unseen sea of unknown material:

We know little about that sea. The terms we use to describe its components, "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.11

Space does not allow discussion of the numerous other problems and controversies in cosmology, but they are legion. But all of this accumulation of speculation may, indeed, give us the answer we seek. Why should we pay any attention at all to these cosmological speculations? No one outside this professional clique of specialists in higher mathematics and theoretical physics can really understand them— especially when they disagree with each other and repeatedly revise their theories anyway

http://www.icr.org/article/498/245/

[RU9]

Before I try to shed some light to you regd the BIBLE, may I know which moral standards you follow?

I remember Ayn Rand's book... The virtue of selfisness..

Now please prove me wrong... I may see the light.

[Clondalkin]

I am not here to prove creation nor present scientific findings in its support ... but if you can raise scientific findings that refute biblical statements and records ... why not raise it here if you want ... or raise it in a separate thread re creation para di OT here ...

Neither evolution failed to prove why the big bang and the first cell happened ... from whence it came ... at least creation stated the Intelligent source ... while evolution started from a question mark ...

Paki clear Ahobbit?  Because you can't, or, your faith tells you that you don't have to prove anything?

Bro, in case it's not clear, everybody is giving you enough latitude to prove what you believe about creation.  Nobody will raise the OT flag if you would only present your case in a clear manner.  In fact, I'm actually hoping you would be crystal clear on your evidence and explanations of creation as I personally believe in the existence of God, yet wondering on how to interpret what's written in the Holy Book.

Restate ko lang what has been asked of you in many different ways - ok semantics here and there - but I think everybody is simply waiting for you to enlighten us on creation because we have read enough about your perceived flaws of the theory of evolution.  Fine, evolution started from question mark and the idea seems to be flawed; and if I understand you accurately, you are quite certain that the theory of evolution will become extinct while you seem to be so sure of what you believe as regards the beginning of time (or is it the origin of man?).   Care to explain then?

Imagine, if you could actually prove creation scientifically, you would be the richest and most powerful man in the world.


  

[JT]

I remember Ayn Rand's book... The virtue of selfisness..

Do u just remember or is it the actual principles in this book you follow? Pls be firm on what you beleive in so that I will know your perspective.

[RU9]

Do u just remember or is it the actual principles in this book you follow? Pls be firm on what you beleive in so that I will know your perspective.

Just a guide including Atlas Shrugged. 

[JT]

Just a guide including Atlas Shrugged.  

AYN RAND advocates the Principles of OBJECTIVISM.  I will further check her stand point and get back to you.

In the meantime,  I suggest you also read the book WITHOUT A PRAYER by John Robbins.

[indie boi]

can somebody show the picture of their ancestors?  

Can you? And don't go posting pictures of your parents, grandparents or great grandparents.

[indie boi]

Before I try to shed some light to you regd the BIBLE, may I know which moral standards you follow?

Why is a person's standards a prerequisite before, as you said, you "shed some light" regarding the bible? Are you suggesting that a moral standard that is not based on the Bible will somehow prevent a person from being enlightened? Just curious.

[aHobbit]

Imagine, if you could actually prove creation scientifically, you would be the richest and most powerful man in the world.

hmmn ... you always show that you always missed the point ... who in the world say you can prove the actual creation or the actual BigBang ... proving here, my guess, is through scientific test & experimentation ...

But let's go to one realistic view between creation and evolution that makes them poles apart ... and you'll see the same science findings/evidences will, if not prove, will support only one of them


CREATION: life forms are distinct ... apes are apes ... and humans are humans!
EVOLUTION: life forms evolved ... apes developed from ?? ... humans developed from apes!


SCIENCE: In Honor of Darwin's 200th Birthday: Evolution's Biggest Gaps
A very interesting article was recently published in New Scientist magazine in honor of the bicentenary of Charles Darwin’s birth.1 Sixteen of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists were asked to identify the biggest gaps remaining in evolutionary theory. Apparently this exercise was a real test of the evolutionary faith, as only 6 out of the 16 scientists directly answered the question by giving a description of some sort of gap that needs resolution.

Of the 6 biologists who made it a point to answer the question, a number of comments highly relevant to the creation model were mentioned. Several of the scientists stressed the difficulty of explaining how life began in the first place. Despite the countless experiments conducted under highly-controlled laboratory environments using complex instrumentation, it appears that the essential biomolecules and biological structures needed for life just won’t develop “spontaneously.”
...
It is now known that genes themselves are quite complex in their structure and in their expression, both individually and in highly-complex overlapping networks. ... The problem is that this is essentially impossible, as the coordinated changing of multiple genes—literally networks of genes—would have to occur simultaneously for many developmental traits to achieve a beneficial outcome. ... It does not require a statistician to see that the odds are stacked against the idea that gene networks, and the creatures that depend on them, were invented by mutations.

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4554/295/


You see, what science does, in its present development, is not really to prove evolution or creation ... as some here insinuate that science is partisan and have taken a side of the issues (for evolution they say  ) ... but science is neutral in showing us facts as it tries to unearth discoveries ... authenticate archeological findings ... validate processes really happens ... provide mathematical models ... etc etc

So based on this findings: let's go back to the 2 contentions -

CREATION: Did we start as distinct life form ... started as human ... and end as human?
EVOLUTION: Did we developed from evolution ... started as apes ... and end as human?

Which theory is weakened? and which one strengthened? Evolution can not claim of strengthening their assumptions that clear science has to offer ... not yet  

[devlin_waugh]

CREATION: life forms are distinct ... apes are apes ... and humans are humans!
EVOLUTION: life forms evolved ... apes developed from ?? ... humans developed from apes!

I doubt if you really are reading the Bible. I'm no devout Christian but from my understanding

CREATION: apes came from nothing...and humans aren't all that distinct because they came from clay/dust/mud/earth...and women came from a man's rib

please tell me how this reconciles with all your readings. If you can just give me one fantastic theory to back-up even one entity (you choose if it's ape, man or woman) then I guess you've got one valid argument going for you

[aHobbit]

I doubt if you really are reading the Bible. I'm no devout Christian but from my understanding

CREATION: apes came from nothing...and humans aren't all that distinct because they came from clay/dust/mud/earth...and women came from a man's rib

please tell me how this reconciles with all your readings. If you can just give me one fantastic theory to back-up even one entity (you choose if it's ape, man or woman) then I guess you've got one valid argument going for you

So yours is the theory of clayvolution  ... just kidding!

o siya, para sa iyo ...

My statement above is just a simplification of the different positions of the CREATION/EVOLUTION theories concerning the development of life form ... but I dont want to expound it anymore ... its known to the debaters of evolutionists and creationists anyway ...

[JT]

Why is a person's standards a prerequisite before, as you said, you "shed some light" regarding the bible? Are you suggesting that a moral standard that is not based on the Bible will somehow prevent a person from being enlightened? Just curious.

Is it not one's prerogative to ask?  For me, knowing what a person firmly believe will help me understand why he chose not to believe or doubt the bible as the word of God.


 

[devlin_waugh]

^in a debate, you discuss ideas, not the people participating in it...

you match thoughts not beliefs

[Moks007]

Is it not one's prerogative to ask?  For me, knowing what a person firmly believe will help me understand why he chose not to believe or doubt the bible as the word of God.


 

+1  

  Basta ako, I believe there is a God and believe in the Bible. Bottom line: We will know all of these answers in our afterlife, if one believes in this. If not, well if you die you just die tapos na . I assure you guys this: NOBODY will ever know how everything came into existence. Generations after generations after generations there will be a lot of question marks. People will just argue back and forth

[Clondalkin]

hmmn ... you always show that you always missed the point ... who in the world say you can prove the actual creation or the actual BigBang ... proving here, my guess, is through scientific test & experimentation ...

I think Ive been trying to help most of the members reading this thread understand your gist better because you never seem to want to go straight to the point.     And in my opinion, it has worked because if I had read the above post and your most recent ones last week, I would not have asked for concise clarifications.

But thanks for the endless effort to reply anyways.   Yeah Ive probably missed your point again though.  

[aHobbit]

Before I try to shed some light to you regd the BIBLE, may I know which moral standards you follow?

Clondalkin ... perhaps this is the help you expect to benefit the general readers ... to you with compliments ... ( I thought am the original for not classifying EVOLUTION as SCIENCE   ) ... The following excerpt is quite a mouthful though ... and probably expounded my point  


Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer
…
A Brilliant Career
Ernst Boris Chain (1906–1979) was born in Berlin, Germany, where he obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry and physiology.
…
A Major Founder of Antibiotics
…
Chain was selected as a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize specifically for his research that demonstrated the structure of penicillin
…
An internationally respected scientist, Chain is widely regarded as one of the major founders of the whole field of antibiotics.
…
A "Hypothesis Based on No Evidence"
One of Chain's lifelong professional concerns was the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution, which he concluded was a "very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy, "mainly of morphological and anatomical nature," that "it can hardly be called a theory."13
…
A major reason why he rejected evolution was because he concluded that the postulate that biological development and survival of the fittest was "entirely a consequence of chance mutations" was a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."15
…, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.15
…
Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism.13 … he did not like the theory of evolution by natural selection--he disliked theories...especially when they assumed the form of dogma (mine: a religion?) . He also felt that evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation--and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view."16

Problems with Evolution
…
"living systems do not survive if they are not fit to survive."15 Chain recognized that the problem was not the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest, and that mutations do produce some variety:
…
He added that evolution "willfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species."15
…
 Chain noted our modern knowledge of the genetic code and that its function in transmitting genetic information seems quite incompatible with classical Darwinian ideas of evolution.17
…
… he stated: It is easy to draw analogies between the behavior of apes and man, and draw conclusions from the behavior of birds and fishes on human ethical behavior, but ...this fact does not allow the development of ethical guidelines for human behavior. …
...
… he said...that it was ridiculous to base serious decisions on religious belief. ... seems to me a very sweeping and dogmatic conclusion...scientific theories, in whatever field, are ephemeral and...may be even turned upside down by the discovery of one single new fact....This has happened time and again even in the exactest of sciences, physics and astronomy, and applies even more so to the biological field, where the concepts and theories are much less securely founded than in physics and are much more liable to be overthrown at a moment's notice.15
…
..... Apes, after all, unlike man, have not produced great prophets, philosophers, mathematicians, writers, poets, composers, painters and scientists. They are not inspired by the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man and which differentiates man from animals.19
…
He wrote that scientists "looking for ultimate guidance in questions of moral responsibility" would do well to "turn, or return, to the fundamental and lasting values of the code of ethical behaviour forming part of the divine message which man was uniquely privileged to receive through the intermediation of a few chosen individuals."19
Conclusion
… Chain is only one of many modern scientists who have concluded that modern neo-Darwinism is not only scientifically bankrupt, but also harmful to society


http://www.icr.org/article/3767/295/

[aHobbit]

+1  

  Basta ako, I believe there is a God and believe in the Bible. Bottom line: We will know all of these answers in our afterlife, if one believes in this. If not, well if you die you just die tapos na . I assure you guys this: NOBODY will ever know how everything came into existence. Generations after generations after generations there will be a lot of question marks. People will just argue back and forth

If the creationist die and there is no God at all who created all these thingies ... what will they loose? Nada
If the evolutionist die and there is the God who created what we are debating .... what will they loose?

My logic tells me ... better safe than sorry!  ... how about the decision of lower life forms?

[JT]

or the bible is the word of god.

in the begining man wrote the bible, a fiction by my standard.

please prove me wrong so that i will be enlightened. 

Before I try to shed some light to you regd the BIBLE, may I know which moral standards you follow?

Clondalkin ... perhaps this is the help you expect to benefit the general readers ... to you with compliments ... ( I thought am the original for not classifying EVOLUTION as SCIENCE    ) ... The following excerpt is quite a mouthful though ... and probably expounded my point   

Im really missing the point of what's wrong with my question to RU9. Arent RU9 mention about his standard? Is it wrong to ask then what is it? 

In fact RU9 replied properly thats why I really respect him for that. He knows where he stand and his guidelines.

[nels76]

+1  

  Basta ako, I believe there is a God and believe in the Bible. Bottom line: We will know all of these answers in our afterlife, if one believes in this. If not, well if you die you just die tapos na . I assure you guys this: NOBODY will ever know how everything came into existence. Generations after generations after generations there will be a lot of question marks. People will just argue back and forth

+1. Maraming pang bagay dito sa mundo na hindi pa kayang ipaliwanag ng tao gaano man maging advance ang ating teknolohiya.

[m0b1u5]

If the creationist die and there is no God at all who created all these thingies ... what will they loose? Nada
If the evolutionist die and there is the God who created what we are debating .... what will they loose?

My logic tells me ... better safe than sorry!   ... how about the decision of lower life forms?

makikisingit lang din po.  I am a Christian but also not a devout one and has also been wondering with the number of religions in the world, having their own God, how sure are we that we are praying/worshipping the one true God? Also, will God be basing His judgement by just being an evolutionist? Should everything that cannot be explained attributed to God? Why can't He just show himself, just like in the story of Moses where He manifested Himself and end every doubt about His existence.  Once and for all settle the score and confirm that the words of the Bible truly came from Him.  In a way, I think we will have a unified religion and live harmoniously. 

[Moks007]

makikisingit lang din po.  I am a Christian but also not a devout one and has also been wondering with the number of religions in the world, having their own God, how sure are we that we are praying/worshipping the one true God? Also, will God be basing His judgement by just being an evolutionist? Should everything that cannot be explained attributed to God? Why can't He just show himself, just like in the story of Moses where He manifested Himself and end every doubt about His existence.  Once and for all settle the score and confirm that the words of the Bible truly came from Him.  In a way, I think we will have a unified religion and live harmoniously.  

There is a passage in the bible (new testament ata) when the people are asking Jesus for a sign. Jesus responded with a no. No sign will be given.  I don't want to sound all religious here  but look at how sinful this world is? (based on who is breaking the ten commandments) If God shows himself, thats it, tapos na. We will have a thinking hey God is there and we can sin all we want anyway  in the end we can ask for  forgiveness easily diba?   If we don't get what we want, we will rebel. We will never be closer to God this way imo. Also I think God has his reasons. I don't want to quote him but He already showed himself during the old testament (based on the stories) days, so he knows what he is doing

Its better to go thru life thru faith imo. A great example is this: A person who believes in God does not pray or go to church very often, but when there is a true test (ex. he/she/family getting cancer, etc.)  in his/her life he/she will usually pray more and spend more time in church, making sacrifices or be a better person. Why is that? Bec we need God during that time. Desperate na tayo eh. I think this is the best reason na why God is not showing himself. We will be closer to him if we just have faith.

Im not saying my religion is right  and the rest is wrong. I just believe there is a God and he created all of these wonderful things on earth, the universe etc. ..Just watch the planet earth series and see how amazing everything is

Ok masyado na ako religious, sorry, yun lang opinion/view ko

[barrister]

There is a passage in the bible (new testament ata) when the people are asking Jesus for a sign. Jesus responded with a no. No sign will be given.  I don't want to sound all religious here  but look at how sinful this world is? (based on who is breaking the ten commandments) If God shows himself, thats it, tapos na.

There was a sign given, actually.

The Bible says no man can see God and live (Exodus 33:20).  That is why the Father sent His Son, who took the material form of man.  

The Israelites of the day were waiting for the Messiah, as promised in the Old Testament.  Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but many of them had doubts.  So they asked Jesus for a sign to prove that he was indeed the one.

Matthew 12:38-40 says: "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.  But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

It means that because the people were evil, they will be given no sign except this: the death and resurrection of the Christ.

God gave man the sign, yet many still do not believe.  Ano, isa pang sign ang ipapadala?  Useless din ... hindi pa rin maniniwala kahit padalhan ng isa pang sign ...  

... I just believe there is a God and he created all of these wonderful things on earth, the universe etc. ..Just watch the planet earth series and see how amazing everything is

There's a Bible verse that says basically the same thing:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1, NIV)