Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines

[bass_nut]

children and adults need a well formed conscience sir alistair... reliable sources are GOD-centered persons around us...

"ipagpilitan" ? i do not know how to imagine that as i am on my 2nd generation parenting yet did not experienced that word...

[aHobbit]

children and adults need a well formed conscience sir alistair... reliable sources are GOD-centered persons around us...

"ipagpilitan" ? i do not know how to imagine that as i am on my 2nd generation parenting yet did not experienced that word...

Kasi di nakita yung development ng conscience.

True, all people have conscience.

But as you grow old, conscience becomes relative, based on your exposure & environment.

The bible talks about the development of a conscience to a point like it is "seared with a hot iron" - insensitive.

And finally - even with conscience, there is no denying that each of us have our own version of twisted conscience. That is part of the normal "DNA" of our personality.

[bass_nut]

tons of thanks sir aHobbit for chiming in for very enlightening inputs... same goes for our buddies' sharing here and on several threads at bigtalk section... surely revitalized my conscience  

[CMac]

Religion has played a very big role in civilized society. Whether you like it or not, you can distinguish between right and wrong because of your religious upbringing, be it at home or amongst peers. I doubt that you were a noble citizen when you reached puberty simply because you lived by the constitution and kept upto date through the years with all the corresponding amendments.

If Lapu-lapu had his own pagan beliefs and missionaries have not come to our shores, baka naka bahag pa rin tayo at nagspea-spear fishing while dancing around a bonfire praying for rain.

Pardon me for asking this question but who among you, atheists, have children? And do you outright tell your child that God does not exist? Please do not give me that "I want him/her to make up his/her own mind" cr*p, because some of you have used pretty indignant words and phrases to describe conscience and upbringing via the teachings of the bible. If you so strongly believe that there is no God, then you would not want to condemn your son/daughter to follow the religious or false path. We all know that most parents want the best for their kids.

And if in case you let your child decide on his/her own (because free will reigns and that is your motto in life), you would then be favoring his/her welfare which is the inclination that there is a God and that you might be wrong after all.

If you have no children, then do not bother answering. All I'm worried about is the innocence of a child and the absence of God in his/her life.

[alistair]

If Lapu-lapu had his own pagan beliefs and missionaries have not come to our shores, baka naka bahag pa rin tayo at nagspea-spear fishing while dancing around a bonfire praying for rain.

Oh, you mean like the Japanese? Or the Chinese?

Or our neighbors, the Thais and the Malaysians? Uhuh. Yup. They sure did badly for countries that didn't get the gift of Christianity.

And do you outright tell your child that God does not exist?

Do you tell your child outright that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

All I'm worried about is the innocence of a child and the absence of God in his/her life.

I think it'd be 'enlightening' (*badumpish*) to talk to children who grew up around Buddhist monks/monasteries.

[CMac]

questions for questions. just what i expected.

[Arulco]

Religion has played a very big role in civilized society. Whether you like it or not, you can distinguish between right and wrong because of your religious upbringing, be it at home or amongst peers. I doubt that you were a noble citizen when you reached puberty simply because you lived by the constitution and kept upto date through the years with all the corresponding amendments.

Religion has been a factor in conflicts and atrocities throughout the history of human civilization to this day. Ever heard of the inquisitions and the jihad? Not to mention the rampant coercion, hipocrisy, bigotry, fundamentalism and sectarianism.

If Lapu-lapu had his own pagan beliefs and missionaries have not come to our shores, baka naka bahag pa rin tayo at nagspea-spear fishing while dancing around a bonfire praying for rain.

The Spanish used religion as a form of social control to oppress Filipinos when this country was under their colonial rule. Just look at where it got us now. The Philippines, one of the two predominantly catholic countries in Asia and yet one of the most corrupt.

Pardon me for asking this question but who among you, atheists, have children? And do you outright tell your child that God does not exist? Please do not give me that "I want him/her to make up his/her own mind" cr*p, because some of you have used pretty indignant words and phrases to describe conscience and upbringing via the teachings of the bible. If you so strongly believe that there is no God, then you would not want to condemn your son/daughter to follow the religious or false path. We all know that most parents want the best for their kids.

And if in case you let your child decide on his/her own (because free will reigns and that is your motto in life), you would then be favoring his/her welfare which is the inclination that there is a God and that you might be wrong after all.

If you have no children, then do not bother answering. All I'm worried about is the innocence of a child and the absence of God in his/her life.

There is a world out there and not all people share your world-view.

[alistair]

questions for questions. just what i expected.

Sir, have you heard of the Socratic method?

[CMac]

God = Higher Being.

I'm not raised a Christian or Catholic. But my parents and I believe in one God even with different religions.

Well guess there are no atheists here who have children then.

[dorian_gray]

God = Higher Being.

I'm not raised a Christian or Catholic. But my parents and I believe in one God even with different religions.

Well guess there are no atheists here who have children then.

Atheists do not spend time defending something they do not have. It is ridiculous.

I do not think agnostics would visit this thread as well because they know it is going to be pointless.

[av_phile1]

Atheists do not spend time defending something they do not have. It is ridiculous.

Exactly.  But it gets just as ridiculous when they start to spend time attacking what they do not have.

[Moks007]

Exactly.  But it gets just as ridiculous when they start to spend time attacking what they do not have.

hehe..ya thats why I told somebody here before we can argue for 30 pages and we will still not agree with each other . I think you guys are at 24 already Anyway this thread, with all the Bible passages just made me read the Bible more and made my faith stronger. Also its good naman to read both sides of it. I'm just a lurker now for this and SSM . These issues or topics are pretty hard on who will come out the winner

[Arulco]

Exactly.  But it gets just as ridiculous when they start to spend time attacking what they do not have.

That goes both ways.

[aHobbit]

So the crux of the matter relating to morality (or immorality) can be sum up ...


that morality (as dictated by ones conscience) in the eyes of an atheist (or the people who do not have clear standards) is basically dependent (just follows the wind of change) on the tolerance of man's conscience ... this varies from place to place ... from culture to culture ... and may even come to a single standard due to the instant access to information (Internet)


However, for a person who exercise a religion that maintains an unchanging standard basis for morality (example a true Christian firm belief in the Bible) ... his morality (as dictated by his conscience) does not change (if it is in fact anchored on the Bible) ... and may in fact be in contradiction with the world's accepted morality.


God did not change the commandments for obedience ... He does not think as man ... He is not as changeable as man ... and make no mistakes here ... what the world considered moral maybe (in God's standard) is immoral ... and the fact is (as the Bible prophesied it), we are coming to an age when evil is branded "good" and that good is now branded "evil".


Thus, for those who believe that God exist, and punishment is exacted to those stiff-necked creatures that continues to defiy God and His lofty command for holiness, you can only nod to the reasonableness of God's action (an execution of His justice) - that you will not even feel pity to these people.


So I say - JUST FILL UP YOUR CUP (of wrath) while you have time - So you will drink it and will have a good dose of what you wanted!

[alistair]

that morality (as dictated by ones conscience) in the eyes of an atheist (or the people who do not have clear standards) is basically dependent (just follows the wind of change) on the tolerance of man's conscience ... this varies from place to place ... from culture to culture ... and may even come to a single standard due to the instant access to information (Internet)

Not quite.

Like I keep saying, there are those who would ""Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Kant's categorical imperative)

To simplify, ""Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This is neither individually relative, nor culturally relative. It doesn't depend on societal levels of tolerance, either.

A more concrete derivative would go something like, "It is immoral to impose your will upon those of another moral, willful being."

That other moral, willful being could be of any race, creed, sexual orientation. Heck, from a hypothetical perspective it can apply to aliens or sufficiently advanced AI.

In light of the above, it's easy to see how things such as murder, rape, and larger things such as slavery and religious or political oppression can rightfully be called immoral, independently of any faith or doctrine.

No, not all atheists are happy-go-lucky hedonists who'll do whatever they want, but never mind if it gives you a sense of security to think of them that way.

So I say - JUST FILL UP YOUR CUP (of wrath) while you have time - So you will drink it and will have a good dose of what you wanted!

Or, live your life to the fullest and let God's will be done. Worry about your earthly time here (esp. how you treat others), and leave your 'eternal fate' up to God.

[aHobbit]

Not quite.

Like I keep saying, there are those who would ""Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Kant's categorical imperative)

To simplify, ""Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This is neither individually relative, nor culturally relative. It doesn't depend on societal levels of tolerance, either.

A more concrete derivative would go something like, "It is immoral to impose your will upon those of another moral, willful being."

That other moral, willful being could be of any race, creed, sexual orientation. Heck, from a hypothetical perspective it can apply to aliens or sufficiently advanced AI.

In light of the above, it's easy to see how things such as murder, rape, and larger things such as slavery and religious or political oppression can rightfully be called immoral, independently of any faith or doctrine.

No, not all atheists are happy-go-lucky hedonists who'll do whatever they want, but never mind if it gives you a sense of security to think of them that way.
Or, live your life to the fullest and let God's will be done. Worry about your earthly time here (esp. how you treat others), and leave your 'eternal fate' up to God.

The judgment whether a thing done by one person to another is moral or not, comes from another person who may have same or different set of moral standards.

Thus, for a muslims, it is perfectly moral to have more than 1 wife. But for the "christian", it is not.

For another muslim, it is okay. For another Christian, it is not.


Thus, if you are in an extreme environment, and your conscience have been trained to consider another moral, it will come to a point that what is immoral becomes moral.

This is not difficult to see, since it already started creeping on smaller issues of morality.


I will not even ask to prove the extent that the "do unto others" thing will still stick, if you are in an environment that such maxim is not exercised.


And me as a Christian is not surprised by this. Conscience, for a "dead" person is by default corrupted. And I will not argue with you either. Pronouncement written in the air, as contrasted to the sure written pronouncement of God's word, will just vanish in the air.


Luke 21:33 - Heaven & Earth shall pass away, but God's word shall remain!

[alistair]

Thus, if you are in an extreme environment, and your conscience have been trained to consider another moral, it will come to a point that what is immoral becomes moral.

Am not sure I get what you mean.

Are you saying that all your morals come from training?

And me as a Christian is not surprised by this. Conscience, for a "dead" person is by default corrupted.

Yes, we know. You believe the Bible is the sole authoritative source of revelation, and your interpretation is sacrosanct. All non-believers are damned. You and Fundamentalist Muslims think alike.

[dpogs]

Am not sure I get what you mean.

Are you saying that all your morals come from training?

sir,

i think ahobbit is refering to  your moral.

[alistair]

i think ahobbit is refering to  your moral.

Then what you're saying about him is wrong. I already said my ethics involves me thinking things through for myself. I don't depend on, "Oh, this is what av_phile1 said" or "This is what our parish priest said."

[aHobbit]

Am not sure I get what you mean.

Are you saying that all your morals come from training?
Yes, we know. You believe the Bible is the sole authoritative source of revelation, and your interpretation is sacrosanct. All non-believers are damned. You and Fundamentalist Muslims think alike.

that all morals espoused by a person can change overtime - depending on where he is brought up! that the accepted morals of man is not absolute - meaning, it can be changed, modified, etc.

Christian and Muslim may think alike, because we have common five books (which is also part of the bible)!


Lastly, let me point out again! As contrasted with Muslims, the bibe says all of us are damned - though some will experience the grace of God! Not because of Christian religion - but because of a relationship that you can have with God!

[alistair]

that all morals espoused by a person can change overtime - depending on where he is brought up! that the accepted morals of man is not absolute - meaning, it can be changed, modified, etc.

I agree.

I'd also like to extend that to institutions, notably, the (Roman Catholic) Church. And society in general.

Hence, ethics, or (in simplistic terms) the study of morality.

No matter what your moral standards, you can't have changing ethics. Otherwise, you're really just adopting whatever course of action you find convenient or justifiable at the time.

If your ethics says, "all morality is subjective" then my morality is no better or worse than yours. If your ethics says, "all morality is objective, based on X", then you have to discard all other bases for morality that disagrees with X.

This, IMhO, is where the confusion, and conflict, between the various faiths (religions) stems from, each branding their holy texts and bases for universal morality.

If your ethics says, "As long as if I can do it, you should be entitled to do it, and neither of us is imposing anything on anyone else, then it's ok", well, then that means you and I can pray to our respective deities (or not) in private. Or destroy religious icons (that you rightfully own) in private, if that's what your faith dictates.

By extension, you or I should be able to decide whether we want to use condoms (or not) during sex. Your morals say "Go ahead", fine. A fundamentalist Catholic's morals say, "No, the Pope doesn't want us to" then that's equally fine¹.

Or another example, you and I should both be able eat what we want, even if my killer lechon kawali is literally a killer with all the cholesterol and saturated fat². A Muslim might brand me haraam.

¹ If a Catholic schoolgirl says, "I'm on the pill" then you lucky basterd!
² Vegans would say the pig didn't give its consent. I just say, "Thanks, pig."

[choy]

Oh, you mean like the Japanese? Or the Chinese?

Or our neighbors, the Thais and the Malaysians? Uhuh. Yup. They sure did badly for countries that didn't get the gift of Christianity.
Do you tell your child outright that Santa Claus doesn't exist?
I think it'd be 'enlightening' (*badumpish*) to talk to children who grew up around Buddhist monks/monasteries.

don't forget that there were missionaries sent to these countries even in the past

just look at the list of Catholic Saints who were martyred and where they were martyred

and the Japanese modernized as a result of British influence.  the British are Anglicans, which is a branch of Christianity that came from Catholicism after King Henry VIII rejected Vatican leadership of the Church and proclaimed himself as the head of the English (Anglican) Church

[alistair]

don't forget that there were missionaries sent to these countries even in the past

and the Japanese modernized as a result of British influence.

Yes, but he was implying that if not for Christian missionaries we'd still be a backward, tribal society living in huts and spearfishing.

I find that a very demeaning view of indigenous Filipinos, and of Malays/Polynesians in general. Which is why I countered—look at the Thais, the Chinese, the Koreans and the Japanese, who remain largely Buddhist, and Malaysia and Indonesia, who remain largely Muslim.

Try telling them to their face, "Look, if not for Christian missionaries you'd still be backward fuedal warring tribes or kingdoms who depend on subsistence farming."

Somehow, we attribute the growth and progress of other countries to their own industriousness and resourcefulness, but we look at ourselves and say, "Oh, we owe everything to foreigners."<sup>1

1</sup> And we blame everything on the Spaniards/Americans/Marcos too.

[CMac]

Tama. Kaya di na rin natin kelangan mag-ingles. Wala namang kwenta impluwensiya nila sa atin.
Anu sa tingin nila? Indiyo ako dahil di ako marunong mag-ingles? Sila ang matuto ng wika ko!

And to answer your question about Santa Claus: Yes, I believe in Santa Claus! That ol' fat bast*rd makes my Christmas a little more cheery. Although I've never seen him, because my mama says he only visits houses with chimneys. So tough luck.

[choy]

Yes, but he was implying that if not for Christian missionaries we'd still be a backward, tribal society living in huts and spearfishing.

I find that a very demeaning view of indigenous Filipinos, and of Malays/Polynesians in general. Which is why I countered—look at the Thais, the Chinese, the Koreans and the Japanese, who remain largely Buddhist, and Malaysia and Indonesia, who remain largely Muslim.

Try telling them to their face, "Look, if not for Christian missionaries you'd still be backward fuedal warring tribes or kingdoms who depend on subsistence farming."

Somehow, we attribute the growth and progress of other countries to their own industriousness and resourcefulness, but we look at ourselves and say, "Oh, we owe everything to foreigners."<sup>1

1</sup> And we blame everything on the Spaniards/Americans/Marcos too.

i agree with the gist of that argument, albeit it should be worded better

modern day moral standards are a result of the morality of Christians.  uplifting the lives of the poor and needy are teaching by Jesus.  before his time, the poor and needy are outcasts, left to fend for their own and die in the wilderness, they were not accepted into society.

i wouldn't go to say that Industrialization is a result of Christianity, but today's world moral standards are.  and it has helped our society a lot

[choy]

Tama. Kaya di na rin natin kelangan mag-ingles. Wala namang kwenta impluwensiya nila sa atin.
Anu sa tingin nila? Indiyo ako dahil di ako marunong mag-ingles? Sila ang matuto ng wika ko!

And to answer your question about Santa Claus: Yes, I believe in Santa Claus! That ol' fat bast*rd makes my Christmas a little more cheery. Although I've never seen him, because my mama says he only visits houses with chimneys. So tough luck.

Santa Claus is actually a real person.  except that somewhere in the last 150 years or so, he's been transformed into this mythical elf that can fit into people's chimneys and bring gifts.  he was actually a generous Catholic Bishop from what is today Turkey

[choy]

Actually, abortion and miscarriage are interchangeable terms in medicine. Specifically, a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.

its all semantics
we all know that in today's society, the word abortion is purely used to refer to the deliberate and intentional termination of a pregnancy by unnaturally removing the fetus from the womb

[choy]

Religion has been a factor in conflicts and atrocities throughout the history of human civilization to this day. Ever heard of the inquisitions and the jihad? Not to mention the rampant coercion, hipocrisy, bigotry, fundamentalism and sectarianism.

for everything you blame on religion, there are other countless acts done by non-religious reasons.  i wonder why the anti-religion people never bring those up?  biased views of course

how many wars and attrocities have been done not in the name of religion?  Hitler's genocide was because of race, same case for why the Japanese tried to conquer Asia (Asia for the Asians).  you get stuck up on the Inquisition which killed far less people than those that have died in Iraq in the last 20 years because of the two wars there.  and yet play Inquisition as a greater evil than Economics, which was the driver of the war on Iraq (to be more specific, oil).

The Spanish used religion as a form of social control to oppress Filipinos when this country was under their colonial rule. Just look at where it got us now. The Philippines, one of the two predominantly catholic countries in Asia and yet one of the most corrupt.

i wonder where did you get that?  the Spanish used race, not religion.  everyone was Catholics, but your place in society was determined not by faith but by race.  that is why you have the Insulares (pure spanish blood born in Spain), peninsulares (born of pure spanish parents in the Philippines or other colonies), the mestizos (half spanish, half other race) and the indios (puro Filipinos)

Catholicism isn't the reason why the Philippines is corrupt.  Indonesia is more corrupt than the Philippines yet they're Muslim.  you're trying to reach to a conclusion to justify religion hate, and yet not look at the entire picture without any bias to find the truth

There is a world out there and not all people share your world-view.

of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  but not just because you have an opinion means you are correct.  having the right to an opinion can never replace right from wrong

[choy]

God = Higher Being.

I'm not raised a Christian or Catholic. But my parents and I believe in one God even with different religions.

Well guess there are no atheists here who have children then.

everyone has a god.  the god doesn't have to be called Jesus or Allah or Vishnu or Ra.  sometimes someone's god is knowledge or power or money or even sex.  we all follow somebody or something which we put our life in servitude to

most of those who call themselves atheists unkowingly are the worshipers of the pagan god of knowledge.  because they believe and follow only what science has to offer.  by placing a higher premium on science than on anything else on earth make science your god.

you don't have to bow down and pray to something to make it your god.  if in your heart you put that thing higher than anything else, you make that object your god

[alistair]

modern day moral standards are a result of the morality of Christians.

We can't deny the influence of Christianity on modern social norms, but we also can't attribute everything to Christianity.

Prior to Christianity the Romans already had firm concepts of law, citizenship, and civil rights.

Then there's the Age of Reason, where epistemology and empiricism were systematized, and where, it can be argued, a lot of 'Victorian-era' Christian morals were slowly challenged, giving way to modern sensibilities. For example, the Roman Catholic church kept a tight reign on religious expression, until the Enlightenment where freedom of individual worship gained ground in Europe and America.

uplifting the lives of the poor and needy are teaching by Jesus.

Also of the Buddha, and practiced by Hindus—both of which pre-dated Christianity.