Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines

[choy]

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.

yes but don't think that the Roman Civil Rights compares to the modern Civil Rights we enjoy

i'm not saying Civil Rights is a Christian invention, but the standard of today's Civil Rights are nothing compared to those of the Romans, at least for the Western World and those they influenced.  there are still some moral standards which were not influenced greatly by Christianity

a good example in the bible itself about the inequality of Roman Civil Rights is that Paul was granted a trial and then executed by the less painful death of beheading, because he was a Roman Citizen.  Peter was not, he was a Jew.  so he didn't get a trial and he was put to death slowly and painfully via crucifixion.

today, Western Civil Rights would place equal treatment for a local as well as a foreigner

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.

can you cite examples?

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

the Church never put a tight rein on religious expression more than it is doing so today.  the Church of course had to fight Heresy which was constantly being introduced from the time of the Apostles until today.  of course the Church has its duty to preserve its teachings.  i think a lot of people mistinterpret this as being a bad thing.  its like saying, Jesus taught 1+1=2, and then here comes someone who says 1+1 could be 3.  why shouldn't we try and supress that?

[Arulco]

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

Religious issues I brought up were in response to Hexagram's generalization that Religion = Good so everybody's gotta have it. I was not simply religion bashing. The point is, bias or no bias, as with everything else in this world, there are black, white and gray areas.

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).

You failed to mention that besides the "economically-motivated global war on terror" many of the casualties and atrocities done in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places in the world are due to socio-political and religiously motivated acts of terrorism.

adolf hitler was raised a roman catholic and spoke positively about German christian heritage as nazi propaganda. Based on hitler's book, Mein Kampf, his anti-semitism was, in part, religiously motivated.

The inquisitions, as insignificant as you put it in numbers, still involved persecution and execution of human beings by an organized religion. I am well aware that the rc has evolved since that time, but the point is, religion can't be good all the time.

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)

Try reading Jose Rizal's most famous works for starters.

As you put it, race defined your status in the society but besides the spanish authorities and their native collaborators, corrupt spanish friars and the church had a hand in keeping the indios in line.

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

I know it isn't catholicism fault but isn't it the church's self appointed job to give moral guidance to its followers to "do the right thing"? From the looks of things, they're not very effective. The same can be said for islam and Indonesia, as the country with the world's largest population of muslims.

Singapore, a multi-religious nation which is an example of religious tolerance and Japan, being largely secular have very disciplined populations and very low crime rates. I wonder if religion had something to do with it or was it something else?

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

I'll have to agree with you on that.......but sometimes right and wrong can vary from place to place and culture to culture. One can try learn and understand why or just impose their beliefs or opinions.

[choy]

Religious issues I brought up were in response to Hexagram's generalization that Religion = Good. I was not simply religious bashing. The point is, as with everything else in this world, there are black, white and gray areas.

well, religion if based on the right one, is good.  that is why there is an emphasis in the Bible to praise and believe the true and living God, as opposed to the idols who are false gods

of course now there are hereseys where people are led to believe they are praising the true God but the heresey puts them in error

that is why correct teaching is also important

i guess what i'm trying to say here is, separate God from the human acts.  nowhere in the history of the Church did Jesus command his Apostles to conquer nations.  and yet for some reason, Spain decided that they want to conquer the world for religion's sake.  so who's in error here?  is it religion? or is it Spain's own political ambission?  if you look at the religion itself, it says nothing about conquering other countries and forcing the faith on other people.  but Spain did it anyway.  so is it religion's fault?

You failed to mention that besides the "economically-motivated global war on terror" many of the casualties and atrocities done in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places in the world are due to socio-political and religiously motivated acts of terrorism.

i didn't fail to mention it, i omitted it intentionally.  i was making a point that there are other reasons to mass murders other than religions.  if i mentioned it, i just defeated my own point.  i didn't mention it because i was trying to hide it, just because it wasn't the point i was trying to make

adolf hitler was raised a roman catholic and spoke positively about German christian heritage as propaganda. Based on hitler's book, Mein Kampf, his anti-semitism was, in part, religiously motivated.

thats really a stretch.  Hitler believed in Aryanism, that they were a superior race.  religion was just one of the tools Hitler used to convinced the Germans to side with him, but it was never the reason he wanted to exterminate the Jews and the blacks.  in fact he persecuted a lot of Catholics during his time.  actually, while Hitler was raised by a Catholic mother, he wasn't much of a Catholic himself.  so religion was never his motivation for his genocide

The inquisitions, as insignificant as you put it in numbers, still involved persecution and execution of human beings by an organized religion. I am well aware that the rc has evolved since that time, but the point is, religion can't be good all the time.

actually, the Inquisition had good intentions, to fight Heresy
most of the abuses were done outside the Church and were mostly politically motivated.  this is another example of something the Church trying to do something noble, and someone taking it and turning it for their own agenda

the Spanish Inquisition is the most notorious of this.  its mostly politically motivated, in the guise of a religious order

Try reading Jose Rizal's most famous works for starters.

Rizal is a Free Mason and a staunch anti-Catholic.  many experts now agree that Rizal exaggerated the abuses of the clergy during his time.  yes, there were abuses, but not as widespread as you would think.  in fact, his inspiration for Padre Damaso was a local clergy who he personally came in conflict with.

As you put it, race defined your status in the society but the corrupt spanish friars and the church had a hand in keeping the indios in line.

I know it isn't catholicism fault but isn't it the church's self appointed job to give moral guidance to its followers to "do the right thing"? From the looks of things, they're not very effective. The same can be said for Indonesia, as the country with the world's largest population of muslims.

that is why Jesus said, listen to the priests and follow what they teach, but don't do what they do.  because they're good at teaching the right things but bad at actually practicing them

Singapore, a multi-religious nation which is an example of religious tolerance and Japan, being a largely secular have very disciplined populations and very low crime rates. I wonder why?

i wouldn't say Singapore is very tolerant of religion
i was there 'bout 8 years ago when religious headwear became an issue in public schools, and Singapore decided to ban all religious headwear in public schools

Singapore is successful not because of their religious policies, they're successful because their an authoritarian state done right.  meaning they are authoritarian, but the leaders care about the success of the country.  unlike most authoritarian states where the leader only cares about his wealth and staying in power forever

I'll have to agree with you on that.......but sometimes right and wrong can vary from place to place and culture to culture. One can try learn and understand why or just impose their beliefs or opinions.

that is why its important to have a moral anchor thats universal and unchanging with an authority above all else.  that is God

[Arulco]

well, religion if based on the right one, is good.  that is why there is an emphasis in the Bible to praise and believe the true and living God, as opposed to the idols who are false gods

of course now there are hereseys where people are led to believe they are praising the true God but the heresey puts them in error

that is why correct teaching is also important

i guess what i'm trying to say here is, separate God from the human acts.  nowhere in the history of the Church did Jesus command his Apostles to conquer nations.  and yet for some reason, Spain decided that they want to conquer the world for religion's sake.  so who's in error here?  is it religion? or is it Spain's own political ambission?  if you look at the religion itself, it says nothing about conquering other countries and forcing the faith on other people.  but Spain did it anyway.  so is it religion's fault?

As you said, religions teachings can have many interpretations. That explains secularism and extremism. In the end, there are good or bad human acts following or motivated by religion which is created by man for their goals and ambitions in the first place. It's not religion's fault. It is the people who created it, are behind it and those who follow its doctrines.

i didn't fail to mention it, i omitted it intentionally.  i was making a point that there are other reasons to mass murders other than religions.  if i mentioned it, i just defeated my own point.  i didn't mention it because i was trying to hide it, just because it wasn't the point i was trying to make

Funny, i was making a similar point earlier. There are always two sides to any coin.

one of the tools Hitler used to convinced the Germans to side with him, but it was never the reason he wanted to exterminate the Jews and the blacks.

 

None the less, religion was still used as a tool. In their minds, the ends justifies the means.

in fact he persecuted a lot of Catholics during his time.  actually, while Hitler was raised by a Catholic mother, he wasn't much of a Catholic himself.

hitler persecuted a lot of people including atheists.

so religion was never his motivation for his genocide

But hitler said so in his book and in his speeches.

Hitler professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews.  In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

--Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003), The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, doi:10.2277/0521823714, ISBN 0521823714

Rizal is a Free Mason and a staunch anti-Catholic.  many experts now agree that Rizal exaggerated the abuses of the clergy during his time.  yes, there were abuses, but not as widespread as you would think.  in fact, his inspiration for Padre Damaso was a local clergy who he personally came in conflict with.

But he did provide a snapshot of the situation of the time. The friars were, in fact, figures of authority in the colony.

that is why Jesus said, listen to the priests and follow what they teach, but don't do what they do.  because they're good at teaching the right things but bad at actually practicing them

For jesus to say something like that is cool because he's actually encouraging people question authority and not to follow blindly. I think jesus was a great example to christians and non christians alike.

i wouldn't say Singapore is very tolerant of religion
i was there 'bout 8 years ago when religious headwear became an issue in public schools, and Singapore decided to ban all religious headwear in public schools

Singapore is successful not because of their religious policies, they're successful because their an authoritarian state done right.  meaning they are authoritarian, but the leaders care about the success of the country.  unlike most authoritarian states where the leader only cares about his wealth and staying in power forever

In the context of religious diversity and coexistence, yes there is tolerance. Whatever they're doing over there seems to have put their country in a better state than ours.

that is why its important to have a moral anchor thats universal and unchanging with an authority above all else.  that is God

That would be nice but not so nice when the belief and authority is imposed on others. Goodness isn't exclusive.

[choy]

As you said, religions teachings can have many interpretations. That explains secularism and extremism. In the end, there are good or bad human acts following or motivated by religion which is created by man for their goals and ambitions in the first place. It's not religion's fault. It is the people who created it, are behind it and those who follow its doctrines.

that is why its important to listen to people in authority
the problem we have today with the protestants is that the authority of the Church is lost.  everyone's their own bible expert

you always say what evil religion does to the world but have complete disregard for those who act beyond human norm to show compassion and love as shown by Jesus Christ.  if not for religion, we wouldn't have the likes of Mother Teresa and her Sisters of Mercy who perform selfless acts of compassion to many poor people around the world.

if not for religion, you will not have the big and small charities that support nations down to small neighborhoods, as being done by the Catholic Church today

to look at only one side of the argument presents a biased viewpoint.  you blame religion for many wrongdoings in the world but fail to look at those who carry the true teachings faithfully, and how positively they have impacted the world

Funny, i was making a similar point earlier. There are always two sides to any coin.

None the less, religion was still used as a tool. In their minds, the ends justifies the means.

that is quite a narrow minded conclusion to the issue
Hitler never proclaimed religion in any way.  in fact, all evidence leads that he despised Catholicism.  to blame religion for Hitler's actions is just simply illogical, as it had nothing to do with what Hitler has done.

there are many good things in the world that has been abused by people.  should we do away with those things too?

should we abolish government because a lot of wars have been fought in the name of the nation?

hitler persecuted a lot of people including atheists.

But hitler said so in his book and in his speeches.
--Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003), The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, doi:10.2277/0521823714, ISBN 0521823714

like i said, Hitler's issue is race, not religion.  and of course, all those who would oppose him.

But he did provide a snapshot of the situation of the time. The friars were, in fact, figures of authority in the colony.

i don't know how unbiased that snapshot in time is.  if you look around the world today, there are people who paint America as an evil empire.  while there are some who looks at it as a bastion of freedom.  if someone 100 years from now would read a book from one side, then his opinion will form on that.  Rizal's snapshot is heavily biased from his point of view.  given that he's a Freemason and it was a time when Freemasons were actively anti-Catholic, plus he has had his own disagreement with a friar.

plus there's no evidence that the priests ran the locales.  they certainly have some influence, but governing the country still fell on those appointed by the throne of Spain.  not the Church

For jesus to say something like that is cool because he's actually encouraging people question authority and not to follow blindly. I think jesus was a great example to christians and non christians alike.

oh no, Jesus never told people to question the authority of the elders.  he in fact validated that they are knowledgable of the teachings handed down by the prophets.  the emphasis of Jesus was that the teachings came from God via the prophets, therefore they are good teachings, follow them.  these people who teach you, they are not good examples of these teachings.  therefore follow the teachings but not the teacher.

Jesus never usurped authority.  He was always about people being submissive to the authority over them, and this includes God.  training yourself to be submissive to authorities on earth, even if abusive, will teach you how to be submissive to God's authority.  it would be foolish to say that one can be submissive to God because He is good, and question all other authority.  if one cannot respect authority now, one will never respect anyone's authority.

In the context of religious diversity and coexistence, yes there is tolerance. Whatever they're doing over there seems to have put their country in a better state than ours.

That would be nice but not so nice when the belief and authority is imposed on others. Goodness isn't exclusive.

goodness has to come from God.  like i said, if not for God, how do we tell whats good or not?

[Arulco]

that is why its important to listen to people in authority
the problem we have today with the protestants is that the authority of the Church is lost.  everyone's their own bible expert

you always say what evil religion does to the world but have complete disregard for those who act beyond human norm to show compassion and love as shown by Jesus Christ.  if not for religion, we wouldn't have the likes of Mother Teresa and her Sisters of Mercy who perform selfless acts of compassion to many poor people around the world.

if not for religion, you will not have the big and small charities that support nations down to small neighborhoods, as being done by the Catholic Church today

to look at only one side of the argument presents a biased viewpoint.  you blame religion for many wrongdoings in the world but fail to look at those who carry the true teachings faithfully, and how positively they have impacted the world

I'm not the only one here with bias. I have already made my point and I'll say it again. There are always two sides to any coin. One side has been presented by one and the other side by the other party.

There is a dark side to everything, even in religion. Initially, it was not meant to highlight but to inform in the face of ignorance. Why the need to hide it?

that is quite a narrow minded conclusion to the issue
Hitler never proclaimed religion in any way.  in fact, all evidence leads that he despised Catholicism.  to blame religion for Hitler's actions is just simply illogical, as it had nothing to do with what Hitler has done.

there are many good things in the world that has been abused by people.  should we do away with those things too?

should we abolish government because a lot of wars have been fought in the name of the nation?

Hay...taken out of context again.....you said it yourself.

there are many good(or bad) things in the world that has been abused by people.

and that includes religion. I think that was what I was saying before.

Some ultra-religious people are usually the ones who come up with narrow-minded conclusions...like the one at the end of the last post.

like i said, Hitler's issue is race, not religion.  and of course, all those who would oppose him.

That's what you say. I think you failed to read my initial statement that hitler's antisemitism was in part, religiously motivated. I'm very well aware of the nazi party's ideologies as a whole. A fact is a fact. There's proof that religion was part of it. I don't think your bias would allow you to look for and accept it though.

i don't know how unbiased that snapshot in time is.  if you look around the world today, there are people who paint America as an evil empire.  while there are some who looks at it as a bastion of freedom.  if someone 100 years from now would read a book from one side, then his opinion will form on that.  Rizal's snapshot is heavily biased from his point of view.  given that he's a Freemason and it was a time when Freemasons were actively anti-Catholic, plus he has had his own disagreement with a friar.

So much for this national hero. Turns out his literature that inspired Filipinos to revolt against spanish authorities peacefully or otherwise and actually got him executed was full of biased BS just because its anti-catholic. Of course it was biased. He was a non-violent revolutionary and a reformist. He was biased about a lot of things that were happening at the time. It may be one-sided but its still a snapshot from a viewpoint. Take it as you will.

While it may seem like I'm putting rizal on a high pedestal, I'm very well aware that he was also a man of many contradictions.

plus there's no evidence that the priests ran the locales.  they certainly have some influence, but governing the country still fell on those appointed by the throne of Spain.  not the Church

Hmmm influence.....I wonder who they influenced? Maybe that's why they were seen as figures of authority. I observe this to this day with the priests, CBCP, INC, Shaddai leadership and all. Influence being the operative word.

goodness has to come from God.  like i said, if not for God, how do we tell whats good or not?

Okay...If that's what you believe in.

[choy]

I'm not the only one here with bias. I have already made my point and I'll say it again. There are always two sides to any coin. One side has been presented by one and the other side by the other party.

you're right.  i must apologize that i'm biased to the truth

There is a dark side to everything, even in religion. Initially, it was not meant to highlight but to inform in the face of ignorance. Why the need to hide it?

no, there are things that are inherently good.  how can the teachings of Christ be of any evil?  the problem is that people make their own personal interpretations of what the teachings are and this results into evil.  is it the faulf of Christ or His Church that someone twisted the facts for their own gain?  the blame must rest on the person who actually committed the crime?  its like blaming the person who made knives for the murders that resulted from stabbings with his knives.  he was only making tools for slicing meat, not killing people.  the blame must rest on the one who's guilty

Hay...taken out of context again.....you said it yourself.  and that includes religion. I think that was what I was saying before.

Some ultra-religious people are usually the ones who come up with narrow-minded conclusions...like the one at the end of the last post.

people only consider something narrowminded if it doesn't include their own opinion, which in itself is narrowmindedness

That's what you say. I think you failed to read my initial statement that hitler's antisemitism was in part, religiously motivated. I'm very well aware of the nazi party's ideologies as a whole. A fact is a fact. There's proof that religion was part of it. I don't think your bias would allow you to look for and accept it though.

and i'm telling you, Hitler was never motivated by religion at all.  not even 0.00000000001%.  if he used religion to convince other people, then its just a tool for him to gain influence, but it was never his motivation to perform what he did.  you see the difference and what motivation means?

So much for this national hero. Turns out his literature that inspired Filipinos to revolt against spanish authorities peacefully or otherwise and actually got him executed was full of biased BS just because its anti-catholic. Of course it was biased. He was a non-violent revolutionary and a reformist. He was biased about a lot of things that were happening at the time. It may be one-sided but its still a snapshot from a viewpoint. Take it as you will.

i've always believed that Bonifacio is supposed to be the National Hero.  because he actually fought for something.

funny but Rizal never really wanted to remove spanish rule.  he wanted the Philippines to become a full province of Spain, thus every Filipino will be granted Spanish citizenship and thus be treated equals with all other Spaniards.  it was Bonifacio and the KKK that actually fought for freedom.

While it may seem like I'm putting rizal on a high pedestal, I'm very well aware that he was also a man of many contradictions.

Hmmm influence.....I wonder who they influenced? Maybe that's why they were seen as figures of authority. I observe this to this day with the priests, CBCP, INC, Shaddai leadership and all. Influence being the operative word.

Okay...If that's what you believe in.

well, if they are as influencial the way that you are saying they are, then why are we even having this debate?  all issues should have been a done deal from the beginning

in fact, the INC has a larger influence on the politicians through their vaunted bloc voting, than the Catholic Church ever has.  if the INC would ask presidential candidates to repeal or block the RH bill in exchange for a "guaranteed" 4-5M votes, its done, just like that

[Arulco]

you're right.  i must apologize that i'm biased to the truth

Yup. You only know one of the many truths, half-truths and whole lies   in this world we share with many others.

no, there are things that are inherently good.  how can the teachings of Christ be of any evil?  the problem is that people make their own personal interpretations of what the teachings are and this results into evil.  is it the faulf of Christ or His Church that someone twisted the facts for their own gain?  the blame must rest on the person who actually committed the crime?  its like blaming the person who made knives for the murders that resulted from stabbings with his knives.  he was only making tools for slicing meat, not killing people.  the blame must rest on the one who's guilty

I never generalized that religion is totally evil if that's the impression you got. My point remains.

people only consider something narrowminded if it doesn't include their own opinion, which in itself is narrowmindedness

To say one side has it all seems like a bit dismissive of all others. Don't see open mindedness  in that.

and i'm telling you, Hitler was never motivated by religion at all.  not even 0.00000000001%.  if he used religion to convince other people, then its just a tool for him to gain influence, but it was never his motivation to perform what he did.  you see the difference and what motivation means?

I'd appreciate it if you showed some proof of your claims.

I sense a flat out denial of the connection because it wouldn't look good™ to have anything to do with hitler and/or his party.

i've always believed that Bonifacio is supposed to be the National Hero.  because he actually fought for something.

funny but Rizal never really wanted to remove spanish rule.  he wanted the Philippines to become a full province of Spain, thus every Filipino will be granted Spanish citizenship and thus be treated equals with all other Spaniards.  it was Bonifacio and the KKK that actually fought for freedom.

I agree with you on Bonifacio. Even in the current situation of the Philippines, actions may very well be stronger than words.

As I've said before, Rizal was a man of many contradictions. Funny how you are able to question Philippine history and other things so easily and not the roman catholic church. Oh I just remembered. It has something to do with faith.  

well, if they are as influencial the way that you are saying they are, then why are we even having this debate?  all issues should have been a done deal from the beginning

in fact, the INC has a larger influence on the politicians through their vaunted bloc voting, than the Catholic Church ever has.  if the INC would ask presidential candidates to repeal or block the RH bill in exchange for a "guaranteed" 4-5M votes, its done, just like that

Ok I get your truth™. The holy roman catholic church = the epitome of goodness without fault whatsoever, everyone else is less than perfect. I just wonder why so many politicians are still playing safe with the RH bill? cbcp perhaps? Maybe not. Maybe its because there are so many devout catholics in the Philippine congress & senate.  

[choy]

Yup. You only know one of the many truths, half-truths and whole lies   in this world we share with many others.

truths are universal.  no truth can make another truth untrue, then what has been rendered as untrue is not truth

I never generalized that religion is totally evil if that's the impression you got. My point remains.

religion cannot be evil because evil is a result of actions and decisions.  a religion cannot act nor decide, humans can

To say one side has it all seems like a bit dismissive of all others. Don't see open mindedness  in that.

we can't all be correct.  thats a fact.  are we gonig to accomodate people who believe 1+1=3 just for the sake of political correctness and/or inclusionism?  the earth cannot be round and flat at the same time

I'd appreciate it if you showed some proof of your claims.

i've already stated my proof.  that Hitler's motivation si Aryanism.  he believes the white europeans are the superior race and therefore all other races are inferior and must be eliminated.  he started with Jews but everyone knows he hates Blacks as well.  i don't see an ounce of religious significance in hating Blacks

I sense a flat out denial of the connection because it wouldn't look good™ to have anything to do with hitler and/or his party.

i'm just stating the plain facts.  if religion was his motivation, he should have targetted other non-Catholics as well, but he didn't.  and it is universal knowledge that it was Aryanism that motivated him

I agree with you on Bonifacio. Even in the current situation of the Philippines, actions may very well be stronger than words.

i've heard before, not sure if its true but its plausible i guess, that Rizal was chosen by the Americans to be the national hero because they want someone who's non-violent for the Filipinos to look up to.  allowing Bonifacio to become the national hero would only complicate their occupation plans futher

of course, the other issue could be because our first president had his little tiff with Bonifacio and viewed him as a traitor later on and had him executed for treason.  which is why Bonifacio wasn't viewed as fondly in the first few years after the Revolution.  if he was to become the National Hero, it would make Aguinaldo look bad for having him killed in the first place.  Rizal then was a logical safe choice

As I've said before, Rizal was a man of many contradictions. Funny how you are able to question Philippine history and other things so easily and not the roman catholic church. Oh I just remembered. It has something to do with faith.  

no, i've questioned my faith many times in the past.  i've gone through my time even as an agnostic.  its this questioning that has led me to where i am now.  my faith is not blind, i believe because of what i know and have experienced.  to those who say faith is blind is ignorant of the truth

Ok I get your truth™. The holy roman catholic church = the epitome of goodness without fault whatsoever, everyone else is less than perfect. I just wonder why so many politicians are still playing safe with the RH bill? cbcp perhaps? Maybe not. Maybe its because there are so many devout catholics in the Philippine congress & senate.  

the Church in itself is good and holds the truth
but every human is a sinner and is prone to temptation.  no one becomes perfect just because of a position they occupy.  people expect the pope or the priests to be perfect, its like saying every president should become the most patriotic and idealistic person in a country.  we know thats not the case, esepcially in our country.  its like saying, just because our president is a thief, does it mean everyone in the Philippines is a thief?

politicians play it safe with every issue because all they care about is getting elected and staying in power.  thats the truth.  if they feel the majority of voters are on one side of an issue, they would want to be on that same side.  they're more concious of their image than on the issues.  very few politicans vote for issues as they are

[redrat]

"Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."
- Carl Sagan

Hello peeps! This thread caught my attention and would like to share a few links that may be able to help sectarian folks here to understand atheists, agnostics and free thinkers in general.

http://filipinofreethinkers.org - A recent and probably the only group of local free thinkers in the Philippines. This group is growing fast and gaining more attention. They hold a monthly meetup at Starbucks Shangri-La. You might want to check them out and debate on religious stuff.

http://filipinofreethinkers.org/film-fest - This was a recent film festival organized by the FFF officers. There were some good movies shown in the festival like "Letting Go Of God" and "The Root Of All Evil"

http://rationalhero.com - Not really an atheist/agnostic Filipino website but there are certain topics/posts here that can help enlighten religious folks on the dangers of letting the church meddle with secular affairs. Here are some goods posts to start with:

http://rationalhero.com/2010/01/19/stop-cbcp-politicking-now/
http://rationalhero.com/2009/11/10/reproductive-health-bill-my-perspective-and-thoughts/
http://rationalhero.com/2009/11/09/congress-and-the-cbcp/

I'm an atheist btw and happy about it 

[choy]

why to atheists call themselves "free thinkers" but criticize people for believing in God?  aren't other people FREE to THINK about God?

[indie boi]

why to atheists call themselves "free thinkers" but criticize people for believing in God?  aren't other people FREE to THINK about God?

Free thinkers are not necessarily atheists. You can look it up. I'll even do you one better -- ask the people here who have questions about faith, morality and religion if they believe in God. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the answer. I'll start it off by saying that I do believe in God. In fact, I even believe in the Virgin Mary. My whole family are devoted Marians.

Also, free thinkers do not stop other people from thinking about God (one reason being that it is highly impossible), but merely use it as a topic to initiate discourse. Go back to any of the topics and you won't see any person from the "atheist" group explicitly posting something along the lines of "stop thinking about God" or "stop believing in God." On the other hand, we always see posts whose gist is "stop living your life because how you live it is evil in our eyes and you should follow how WE live." Big difference there, don't you think?

Come to think of it, why are people who question the whole concept and nature of faith and God immediately branded as atheists?

[dorian_gray]

Isn't it ironic that this thread is supposedly about atheism and agnosticism and yet it has the most number of Bible passages?

[dpogs]

Isn't it ironic that this thread is supposedly about atheism and agnosticism and yet it has the most number of Bible passages?

it only shows that lot of people here still cares for them (atheist/agnostics).

[dorian_gray]

it only shows that lot of people here still cares for them (atheist/agnostics).

huh? puwedeng pakipaliwanag ang relasyon ng Bible passage diarrhea sa "caring" for atheists and  agnostics?

[indie boi]

Ako na ang mag-eexplain.

Yun kasing mga nasa opposing side of this debate mga makasalanan at walang moralidad. Showing these Bible passages are meant to show you how sinful and wicked these people are and may finally make them realize their wickedness and repent for their sins and change their life and live in service of the Lord. That's how "care" and "love" is shown.

[CMac]

atheists lean on scientific documents while religious people use passages and verses. alangan naman both sides will just lean on personal ideas without some sort of basis for their beliefs.

[alistair]

why to atheists call themselves "free thinkers" but criticize people for believing in God?  aren't other people FREE to THINK about God?

Personally, I don't criticize people for believing in God.

I question, critically, some of their other peripheral, often irrational, beliefs. For instance, believing that pork is unclean, that blood transfusions are unclean, or that the Earth and the Universe around are less than 10,000 years old.

[redrat]

Personally, I don't criticize people for believing in God.

I question, critically, some of their other peripheral, often irrational, beliefs. For instance, believing that pork is unclean, that blood transfusions are unclean, or that the Earth and the Universe around are less than 10,000 years old.

Add also the irrational belief that people who don't believe or agnostic/skeptical in the existence deity/god/teapot are sinful and immoral. For the religious, I highly recommend this video as a good introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

Atheists are fundamentally freethinkers. I'm guessing that some people are twisting the definition on what a free thinker, or freethought is also about. Here's a simple definition borrowed from Wikipedia:

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

We can go even further by explaining how to be free thinker. Here's a good article fro Scott Berkun:

http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/how-to-be-a-free-thinker/

It can be argued that Buddha is perhaps a good example of a freethinker. Unfortunately some of his followers have corrupted the core essence of his teachings and wrapped these with dogmas and beliefs. Buddha might not have wanted to his followers to build a religion around it (look for the Buddhism Without Beliefs for a good read on this topic).

I'm speculating also that Jesus might not have really wanted his followers to treat him as a son of god and created a religion. The Romans, however, where the ones who created it as a religion, opium for the masses.

But going back to the thread subject on Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines, it's good that there are now groups of people flocking together to share/debate on ideas about atheism and agnosticism. I think this is a good trend that there are now Filipinos who are speaking out that they don't subscribe to any religion, and help break the taboo on the misunderstood minority of free thinkers.

Since this thread is part of a forum focused on DVDs, it would be good to share some good movies about the subject of Atheism and Agnosticism.

[redrat]

why to atheists call themselves "free thinkers" but criticize people for believing in God?  aren't other people FREE to THINK about God?

Yes people are free to think about god, but this does not make them free thinkers.

You might be referring to militant/intolerant atheists, just like Richard Dawkins. Not all atheists are blatantly criticizing religious people, or those who believe in deities/gods, same goes with religious folks not adamantly playing down with those that don't belong to their faith. Atheists are just plain people also. It just so happens that they don't believe in deities, they're against the mainstream flow of believers. Funny, here in the Philippines and America, the idea of not believing in a god is considered taboo. That's probably why some atheists are hitting back and criticize back those religious bigots.

[redrat]

Ako na ang mag-eexplain.

Yun kasing mga nasa opposing side of this debate mga makasalanan at walang moralidad. Showing these Bible passages are meant to show you how sinful and wicked these people are and may finally make them realize their wickedness and repent for their sins and change their life and live in service of the Lord. That's how "care" and "love" is shown.

I guess those who are not Christians but are religious (example Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Taoists) are sinful and wicked. I think this is a very good example of bigotry.

Care and love, emotions and perhaps morality are not exclusive to humans. Please read up on animal altruism, that may give you a different perspective.

[redrat]

Isn't it ironic that this thread is supposedly about atheism and agnosticism and yet it has the most number of Bible passages?

There are religious trolls out there to sanitize the "infidels" 

[redrat]

Come to think of it, why are people who question the whole concept and nature of faith and God immediately branded as atheists?

I don't know, I didn't know about this until you posted about it 

I think people who question religion and don't subscribe to it are automatically labeled as atheists by religious folks. This is incorrect, I think a better label would be skeptics 

Atheist is a person who don't believe in deities and gods, that's the simplest definition. Agnostics are unsure with the existence of a god, that any truth claimed for the existence of gods/deities are unknown or unknowable. There are further classifications on agnosticism, there could be strong agnosticism, agnostic atheist, and agnostic theism (a.k.a. as a spiritual person).

[barrister]

I think people who question religion and don't subscribe to it are automatically labeled as atheists by religious folks. This is incorrect, I think a better label would be skeptics  

Speaking of skeptics, I notice that it's usually the atheists that are the best skeptics.  

My favorite skeptic site is snopes.com, an urban legend debunker site founded by Barbara & David Mikkelson.  Has anybody seen the documentary, "The God Who Wasn't There"?  I haven't seen it yet, but I know there's a segment where the Mikkelsons were interviewed.


DVD cover art, The God Who Wasn't There

Youtube trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_IjNPmIEI

[choy]

Yes people are free to think about god, but this does not make them free thinkers.

You might be referring to militant/intolerant atheists, just like Richard Dawkins. Not all atheists are blatantly criticizing religious people, or those who believe in deities/gods, same goes with religious folks not adamantly playing down with those that don't belong to their faith. Atheists are just plain people also. It just so happens that they don't believe in deities, they're against the mainstream flow of believers. Funny, here in the Philippines and America, the idea of not believing in a god is considered taboo. That's probably why some atheists are hitting back and criticize back those religious bigots.

true.  usually the atheists on the web are the ones who act like these

my boss as far as i know is an atheist and he's a good guy.  he never even says anything about my crucifix necklace thats i always wear outside my shirt


how come religious can't be free thinkers?  atheism is also closed thinking because you're closing your mind to the possibility that there is a god

[choy]

Free thinkers are not necessarily atheists. You can look it up. I'll even do you one better -- ask the people here who have questions about faith, morality and religion if they believe in God. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the answer. I'll start it off by saying that I do believe in God. In fact, I even believe in the Virgin Mary. My whole family are devoted Marians.

well, among those who i come across online who refer to themselves as free thinkers are atheists

Also, free thinkers do not stop other people from thinking about God (one reason being that it is highly impossible), but merely use it as a topic to initiate discourse. Go back to any of the topics and you won't see any person from the "atheist" group explicitly posting something along the lines of "stop thinking about God" or "stop believing in God." On the other hand, we always see posts whose gist is "stop living your life because how you live it is evil in our eyes and you should follow how WE live." Big difference there, don't you think?

Come to think of it, why are people who question the whole concept and nature of faith and God immediately branded as atheists?

well, if you question the existence of God, then you don't believe in His existence, then what that makes that person?

atheist = one who doesn't believe in the existence of a god/gods

[alistair]

Come to think of it, why are people who question the whole concept and nature of faith and God immediately branded as atheists?

well, if you question the existence of God, then you don't believe in His existence, then what that makes that person?

indie boi's statement pertained to people who questioned the concept and nature of faith and God, not the existence of God.

On the other hand, if I question the existence of Allah, does that make me an atheist? How about questioning the existence of Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva?

[dorian_gray]

well, if you question the existence of God, then you don't believe in His existence, then what that makes that person?indie boi's statement pertained to people who questioned the concept and nature of faith and God, not the existence of God.

On the other hand, if I question the existence of Allah, does that make me an atheist? How about questioning the existence of Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva?

It makes you the pope and his followers.

[redrat]

true.  usually the atheists on the web are the ones who act like these

my boss as far as i know is an atheist and he's a good guy.  he never even says anything about my crucifix necklace thats i always wear outside my shirt


how come religious can't be free thinkers?  atheism is also closed thinking because you're closing your mind to the possibility that there is a god

Actually a theist can be a freethinker. If you have read Scott Berkun's article, as long as a person does not fear of being wrong on certain things (this can be also referred to rationality, not to be absolutely certain on things/ideas), does not subscribe to dogma, unquestioned ideas/beliefs, the person can be a free thinker.

Here's another good article, http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/freethinker.htm . Here's the conclusion that I fully agree:

...the point about freethought is the process rather than the conclusion — which means that a person who fails to be perfect does not also fail to be a freethinker. An atheist might regard the theist’s position as erroneous and a failure to apply reason and logic perfectly — but what atheist achieves such perfection? Freethought is not based upon perfection.

It's easy to generalize and box people if they are atheists or religious, but that's not how it really works. It's easy to think that atheists are not free thinkers but rather closed minded persons because they don't believe in deities. Here you're focusing on the conclusion and not how atheists derived or came up with their conclusion. If an atheist just claims that there is no god without any reasonable/logical basis, then he/she is no different from a religious person believing in a god just because someone told them so. The former is probably rare but the latter is likely common.

Someone might point out that atheism is also a religion of non-believers. Here's a good article why this is plain nonsense:

http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/01/19/atheism-is-a-religion-and-other-nonsense/

[redrat]

Ok I'll start sharing some good movies/documentary films that talks about atheism, agnosticism, and probably some religion bashing 

The Root of All Evil?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0774118/
http://www.amazon.com/Root-All-Evil-Original-Program/dp/B0015GEB4O



Synopsis (from imdb.com)
Atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins visits England, America and Israel interveiwing prominant people of faith; Islamic, Hasidic Jews, and the new Christian sects popping up throughout the world, and expressing his view of the extent to which this fanaticism has degraded our civilisation, and will continue to degrade it.

The first part of the documentary is mainly attacking the idea and the obsession behind that idea of 'faith'. He talks about the story of Adam and Eve, which even the Catholic church admits this is metaphorical. So this guys Jesus has himself horribly tortured and murdered in order to save the souls of people who never existed from a sin that was symbolic! Dawkins describes faith as a virus.

The second part delves into the lifestyles these extremists bring their children up in, sectorial schools, complete segregation. Children are very sensitive to what they're exposed to and what their elders tell them. In this way, Dawkins theorises, the narrow-mindedness of faith is spread like a virus from generation to generation. Very few of these children are coming out of school with a mind that is open to the world and everything in it. They're coming out with a whole other fantasy world inside their head, one most of us don't understand, and that world, in their mind, rules the real one that they share with us.

Dawkins is successful in his subtle way of showing that although creationists think evolutionaries are the narrow minded ones, preaching your own 'faith' is a far more damagingly selfish act, probably the result of grandiose delusions.