The Case for Atheism in Philippine Society
[NOTE: I am aware that it is Easter Sunday. I remember a teacher telling me once that every time Christ is resurrected into the world, he sees an entirely new one. And so, His story repeats itself. But the bottom line is that every time this happens, we come to a new understanding of His place in the world. This article on atheism hopes to do just that.]
The April 9 issue of Newsweek has a very interesting article on atheism, featuring a debate between Pastor Rick Warren (author of “The Purpose Driven Life”) and atheist Sam Harris (author of “The End of Faith”). They were asked flatly, “Is God real?”
I have always agreed with Rabbi Gellman, however, that those who ask this question miss the true nature of that question. Existentialist philosopher Gabriel Marcel spoke of two kinds of questions, the problem (questions we constitute) and the mystery (questions within which we are constituted). These two questions correspond to the there are the two kinds of truths, the logos (logic or reason) and mythos (myth or meaning).
In other words, the question of whether God is real is a mystery which will always remain unanswered. Nonetheless, it is in the process of finding this answer that pondering this question becomes important. Answering the question of God’s existence is a worthwhile debate into our own beliefs. It keeps us honest, humble and (supposedly) open-minded. However, that question should not be the be all and end all of faith.
This entry is not another exploration into that question. As a social scientist, I have always been interested at the social impact of that question because, quite frankly, basing our actions on these ancient systems of belief has true, real-world implications. It is a risk — made on faith — to allow our lives to be guided by pronouncements and words made millennia ago. Thus, I am prompted by this statement from the Newsweek article:
In its most practical form, the argument between atheists and the faithful is about public life and private belief. When you press many atheists, you find they are at their most ferocious and passionate when they think religion is playing too large a role — or any role — in politics or the classrooms or the labs or the courts.
Going by our news and media, I would say that atheism is still growing in the Philippines. They are out there and we even have some prolific bloggers around. But while there is an increasing number of atheists, there has yet to be a true icon or movement to voice their social concerns.
Still it remains that atheism has increasingly become an alternative world view for many people, especially among the middle class who now have greater autonomy and a sense of self-determination. Despite the outward cynicism and rationality of most, I have come to find atheists as actually very spiritual people. In a sense, ‘they don’t want someone telling them what to do’ but on a broader sense they rather not act certain about a thing they can’t be certain about.
The Philippines remains a widely Christian country with a Muslim minority. We are a very religious nation; God is in our constitution. Private schools are more often than not Catholic schools. While whether Roman Catholicism brought by the Spaniards has done more harm than good is arguable, its contribution to forming our nation is relatively clear (to the Christian north at least).
In a most pragmatic reading of history, it was a political device that formed networks between the provinces. It made the secular government more palatable to the people; that is why I scoff at our notion of separation of Church and State. While it exists in legal terms, there is none in real terms.
This deep integration of faith with our social and political life has not provided enough room for atheism to grow into a legitimate discourse alongside Christianity and Islam. In some extremes, people see atheists in the same bracket as homosexuals, child molesters and rapists. Not only is society incapable of accommodating them, but they are seen as evil. However, that has changed.
Our economy has given us clues to the rise of atheism. Let me explain: traditional Asian societies are family-bound, and all the members of a family share in one religious tradition. (The way we celebrate the Holy Week makes this clear.) But as our economy develops, the traditional hold of the family weakens over its individual members. A stronger economy gives them more opportunities to be autonomous and self-deterministic, and their belief systems then reflect this new ethos. It is in this space of growing individualism that atheism finds root. (Though take note that these phenomena are not exclusive.) This is why atheism is mostly a private affair.
At this point, we should make the cursory distinction between religion (the sacred as primarily a social matter) and spirituality or faith (the sacred as a private matter). There is vast difference between the two, and it sheds light into the apparent disconnection between what people believe in and what people do.
Continuing from our point on economic development and the rise of individualism, this partly explains why most families in poverty remain deeply religious. Not only does it provide them hope when there is none, but it also allows for their families to remain together. I have been to several poor communities without access to water, electricity, food or education. But they will always have access to God; whether it is a small altar in their shanty homes, or a chapel which they have clamored the municipal government to build for them. For these people, God is the only thing that comes for free.
So what then is the case for atheism? It is by underscoring this deep religiosity in the Philippines when I say that God, sometimes, is not enough.
In the same way that religion bolsters hope for the poor, it also subjects them to some sort of fatalism. “Pagsubok lamang ng Diyos ‘to” (“This is just a test by God”) is a phrase we often hear as they surrender to their daily hardships. In those same communities I have visited, I observed the blind devotion of some people to an icon or other divine image. These people would refuse to work content in knowing that God will answer their prayers and lift them from their poverty. What Karl Marx said about religion being the opium of the people still holds true.
Furthermore, our deep religiosity as a nation possibly holds back our economic development. With one of the highest population growth rates (2.36%) in the world, we desperately need a population control policy. The most realistic of course would be to allow and to educate our people in the use of contraceptives, but our government’s ties with the Roman Catholic Church prioritize dogma over demographics. And politicians would not want to lose favor with an organization that holds sway over a considerable majority of the population. This is why there is no such thing as separation of Church and State in the Philippines.
And lastly, politicians have also seen these religious groups as great sources of political capital. Every election season, candidates vie for the endorsements of groups such as the El Shaddai, Iglesia ni Cristo and even the Roman Catholic Church itself. The phenomenon of “block voting” is relied on by Philippine politicians, a tactic that they believe would guarantee their victory. But at what cost?
I find these politicians’ hypocrisy disturbing; their utilitarian attitude towards religious groups is a reflection of their person as politicians and human beings. We’ve had too many presidents in the past who believe they were sent by a divine power. Look at where that got us.
What we need is a voice in our society and politics that is willing to separate God from government. In our current milieu, that would be difficult. What has to emerge is a force that is secular and rational to dilute the debate and to balance our views.
Atheism, or at the least a critical attitude towards God and religion, is necessary to keep us honest, grounded and realistic. I am not advocating that atheism replaces our religiosity because there is no guarantee that a society founded solely on science and reason will not slip into its own dangerous dogmas. Also, the social upheaval caused by eliminating religion would be outright disastrous.
However, this isn’t a tide we can hold back either. There has been an increasing number of agnostics and non-practicing Christians as of late, both indicating a more critical attitude towards religion and the rising preeminence of the individual. I am certain that we will soon reach a tipping point where the most fundamental beliefs of our nation will be questioned, hopefully leading us to new horizons and possibilities for our nation. The atheists could be one force to lead the way (alongside entrepreneurs, technologists and pragmatic idealists — see my other writings).
In closing, I consider myself a spiritual man, but not a religious one. I am Roman Catholic because that is where I find myself in (and join in the festivities to celebrate the community I am in), but I have long realized that there are alternative paths to salvation. I’ve never seen God’s love as exclusive to Catholics or Christians, and all the other faiths allow everyone to discover this revelation in their own terms. In studying history and politics, I have learned to be more critical of my faith and yet I realized that the question of whether God exists is too large for even me.
Still, the ability to raise this question keeps me honest. It allows me to talk about history, society and politics in a pragmatic and practical point of view. I know that tough choices have to be made and yet it is the belief in God that reminds me that no choice is too tough when it is made for the other.
It is that kind of discourse I wish to see in our religion and politics.
I’m a Filipina and proud of that.
Being in a pre-dominantly Christian/Catholic country, raised as a Catholic, when they hear that I am agnostic/atheist I always get the same reaction.
They are shocked and horrified!
Asking me how I could abandon my faith, even to the point of saying that my parents didn’t raise we well for me to abandon god.
As we grow and we learn a lot of things, we develop our own thoughts.
And these said thoughts can somehow shake the whole “blind belief” thing.
My parents have always encouraged me to question, ponder and look for the answers til I am convinced or satisfied.
Religion has never given me that feeling.
It always insists on being right and if you so dare raise a question that might contradict their stand, you are then told to shut up and just do “what god says”.
I have had the same response from my religious teachers back in school.
I was educated in one of the top “catholic” schools here in the city.
As a child, I started to have lots of questions, yet I was never taken seriously and scoffed at, at times.
I do not concern myself anymore with the question of “Is there a God?” simply because I have come to accept and realize that we will never have the answer to this age old question and even if we did, there will always be people who would “blindly believe” even if there will be proofs of god not existing.
There is no empirical evidence yet of his existence and even if there is a god, so what? I ask myself.
I just live my life, according to my own beliefs.
And for as long as I am not harming anyone. Its not really anyone’s business.
Hey, Eleany! Great to hear from you. We all have our own paths to truth. Good luck in yours!
check out my latest post
http://thelamp.wordpress.com/2007/04/08/what-does-god-have-to-say/
Great Post, sir martin. It encompasses many of my own notion.
See also:
Philippine Blog Awards: Musings
[...] friend and co-teacher Martin Perez has written another excellent article[link] on the role of religion and atheism in the Philippines. He says that traditional Filipino religion [...]
Thank you sir Martin, I really do agree we’d all have our own paths to truth whatever that may be.
We can only hope that whatever it is we encounter would help us become a better person regardless of one’s own religion or lack thereof.
Here’s a question Sir Martin: If you believe that there are alternative paths to salvation other than your faith, then you don’t really believe in what your Church teaches you, do you? It would be better to declare yourself agnostic, or something else more appropriate, than to pretend to be Catholic when you are not.
I found it odd that you’d speak of the hypocracy of politicians in using religion as a political tool, but saying you’re Catholic when you don’t follow the creed is using religion as a social tool… which is effectively the same kind of hypocracy. I know a lot of nominal Catholics. I like a lot of them. But when they talk about religion, especially thier own, I can’t take them seriously, because I know they see it as just something they do, not something they believe.
Those people that have lost their faith, either through apathy or conviction, whom I respect the most, are those that don’t claim to still hold it.
Of course, I would hope that a genuine search for truth is present in all. Likewise, I hope that search for truth brings them back to God and the Church.
God bless and Happy Easter.
Stephen, I definitely believe in our creed, and I don’t see how that should conflict with being able to see alternative paths to salvation in other faiths. I’ve never seen God’s love as exclusive to Catholics or Christians, and all the other faiths allow everyone to discover this revelation in their own terms. Happy Easter!
hey sir martin. happy easter.
i have always admired how well written and explained your articles always are and this is no exception – with the assumption that you based all these from historical and demographic facts. however, i feel na you are looking only on one side of the coin, that is why i dont totally agree with everything you said. what follows is what i think about parts of your article. it’s a bit long, i think i got carried away. :p
1. for the faithful, the question is God real already has an answer. and it’s yes. but proof
comes not from humanity but well, from God. faith is a gift from God. to be able to believe
without need of empirical perception is truly a divine gift.
2. “Despite the outward cynicism and rationality of most,
I have come to find atheists as actually very spiritual people.”
i dont really get this statement hehe. parang ang implication is the non-atheists are
irrational
3. i agree that at that separation of Church and State exists only in legal and limited real terms.
the State has four elements (i hope i remember my socsci 1 right) and one of them is the people.
and if people are members of the Church, then how can you really isolate the Church from the State?
this could only be totally implemented in a State that suppresses religion such as in the marxist
states.
4. you’re basing your conclusions on historical and demographic facts and i agree but i would like to emphasize
that more opportunities to be autonomous and self-deterministic is not equivalent to atheism. every individual
retains his freedom to decide whether to remain/be faithful or fall away from the faith. hehe. some people
may get the wrong message.
5. God is not enough if what we seek is material prosperity. God did not promise us bounty in this world.
He promised us eternal life and happiness. God is enough if what we want is what really matters.
6. grabe sir, i find this article very difficult to stomach because, well i find that some statements are quite
general and sweeping. subjugation to some sort of fatalism is not a fact for all impoverished families.
in fact, this fatalism is totally against what the Church teaches us. Jesus in His many parables tells us
that God will not do everything for us, we need to do our part. and blind devotion to an icon or divine image
is not part of the Christian faith. these people are misinformed if they think what they’re doing is Christian or
religious for that matter.
7. deep religiosity holding back economic development is also a sweeping and broad statement.
it should actually be the opposite if our nation is truly deeply religious. God through our Christian faith has
laid out for us how we might live as His servants and stewards of this world. imbeded in this is the morals and
ethics that should help us raech economic development. corruption is a sign of irreligiosity and immorality. is that
not a contributing factor in economic decline? population growth rate cannot be directly related to lack of economic development.
the problem is not overpopulation but unequal distribution of wealth – which should also not be a problem if each
and every one of us truly follows the faith.
8. the Roman Catholic Church in the country through the CBCP for it’s part officially does not support any particular candidate.
it has made this clear in various occassions already. in fact it discourages the clergy to participate
in politics. that if a priest were to run, he would be suspended from performing his priestly duties until the end
of his political career. i am defending here MY faith, i cannot speak for the other religious groups.
9. “What we need is a voice in our society and politics that is willing to separate God from government”
- why? democracy includes religious freedom and if people are the ones running government, then perhaps this is inherently inevitable.
and well, if we look at historical facts, the most recent atheistic state (U.S.S.R) tama ba? collapsed. China is opening up to more
democratic ideologies. why is it that these states even allow religion within the state if they truly want COMPLETE Church-State
separation.
10. “Atheism… is necessary to keep us honest, grounded and realistic” i don’t agree. if we are truly faithful to God, we would be honest, grounded and realistic.
in conclusion, the problem is not religion. the problem perhaps is that we are not practicing religion the way we ought to be.
we are not living the Faith the way we should be. and perhaps what needs to be done better understanding of the creed we declare ourselves to be part of.
and well for me, God is real. the question that ought to be raised is what do we do about this fact.
i have to correct my number 5. God really is enough. as we have learned in econ, humanity’s unlimited want can only be satisfied by an unlimited good. and only God could fit that description. a nation’s economic prosperity is not exactly what God promised us but if we really ask it of Him and He sees it is for our own good and the good of everyone, then perhaps He will grant it to us. God is enough.
Wow, Rob. I was expecting this article to ruffle your feathers but not this much. I really appreciate the insights and here are my responses.
1. I agree. No question about this. For the faithful, God is real.
2. I’m not implying anything about the faithful here. Perhaps I should qualify my statement by making it ‘hyper-rationality’ where I mean that atheists, in general, seek real, empirical answers to faith questions.
3. Good insight. In principle, separation of Church and State means that we have no state-sponsored religion and that no religious group receives funding or concessions from the state. That’s it. But people often interpret the spirit of the law to mean that the Church doesn’t meddle with politics.
4. I never said these were exclusive and I in no way mean to. I equate this, by and large, with the general rise of individualism and autonomy brought by social change.
5. Right. The faithful would definitely agree with you.
6. If you read the article again, I took care to balance my statements. If I were to be sweeping, I make sure I at least look at both sides. I point out the other side in the previous paragraph. Perhaps, what I should have done is a distinction between religion and faith. And thus, I agree that these people who fall into blind devotion are misinformed.
7. You raised an excellent point here and I agree with what you say about corruption and Christian values. We do have the moral responsibility to eliminate corruption though I’d like to see that translated into policy.
However, you fall short by underestimating overpopulation. I agree that there is an inequality in the distribution of wealth and that will only worsen as a quickly increasing number of people want a larger slice of a not as quickly growing pie. While our numbers may show that we have economic development, our disenfranchised masses will disagree. To me, economic development will always be stunted when it cannot translate into goods and services for the people.
8. Yes, good for the CBCP. That’s all I’ll say for now.
9,10. You’re right. We’re democratic. Then why deny the voice of the atheists and all those who prefer a more secular way of life for our country? According to your belief, faith should keep us humble, grounded and honest. I just find this ironic considering we are the foremost Roman Catholic Country in Asia, and yet we have a spiraling population growth rate and are one of the most corrupt countries in the world (just echoing your argument here). Thus, I agree with you. We need to be reminded of our Creed and what it means to be Christian and Filipino.
I can still imagine a Philippine state founded upon Christian values — equality, justice, brotherhood, freedom for all — and I would love that in the future. However, I think debates are healthy. In the same way we have welcomed Muslims into our politics, I would also welcome secularists and atheists.
Reading your comments, I observed that one train of thought would emerge all the time: that my ‘hasty generalizations’ are brought about by observing those who are misinformed of their religion. That’s a great point though I won’t concede to it. Now I ask why are they misinformed and what can they do about it?
This is the sort of debate I would like to stir by throwing Godless politics into the mix. You may not agree that this is necessary and I am sure there are alternatives. But we are in a democracy and I am addressing the fact that the atheists are coming, and we must welcome them into the debate.
hey sir again. well i agree, our democracy also allows atheists equal opportunities as with the Christians, Muslims or members of any other faith.
haha. that question is one of the most difficult to answer, and well i wouldn’t be in a position to answer it completely and it would spark a whole new debate. hehe. but i believe in the usual saying that change begins with ourselves.
i will try to partially answer it. Living the Faith is a personal choice and a personal responsibility. misinformation may be from our own ignorance of what the Faith dictates because it is inconvinient or rewarding (in the worldly sense of it). The Church is the one charged to spread the Faith and make sure the faithful is living it out this includes the clergy and us as well. We were all entrusted with this mission and one of the reasons perhaps that many are misinformed is that we are not fulfilling this mission, or most of us are not even aware of it.
So what do we do about it? if we are truly faithful, then we would do our mission to spread the true Faith not the convinient one (we can see some politicians announce their faith for political mileage alone.) and we should pray. Faith is again a gift from God and we should ask Him to enlighten those who have not received this grace completely.
i’m speaking again as a Catholic Christian. hehe.
i was thinking about why atheism is seen by many as an evil of society. siguro kasi, atheism is against ALL Faiths. all these major world religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, all have this in common, they all have the God of Abraham as the one, true God and the purpose of all these religions is to lead the faithful to Him. Atheism is against these religions because well, it denies the existence of God. kaya nga siguro evil ang perception, because it is the complete opposite of what all these faiths stand for.
this article has been one great finale for this year’s holy week. thank you sir for posting this.
God bless. 
oops. kulang pa pala. the problem of overpopulation is also a debatable issue. haha. in fact nagdebate na kami nito sa pisay! haha. second year po ata yun val ed. hehe.
Hey, Rob!
I suppose overpopulation is a debatable issue as far as what its effects are on economic development or how to solve it. I just can’t imagine anyone going so far as to say that it is a good thing. I’d like to hear what that sounds like.
Anyway, good arguments from you. Spoken like a true Christian and if I may, I’d like to recommend you read “The Audacity of Hope” by Barack Obama. I’m sure you know who he is and what’s interesting about his book is that he’s a Christian but he doesn’t sound like it while he argues about religion, history and politics. But he definitely holds on to the values. Try it out.
Also, read up on the Newsweek links I have on this post for more on atheism. They’re enlightening and they basically sparked this post of mine.
God bless!
P.S. Ever thought of getting a WordPress? I imagine it would be a good read, and you would get to exchange ideas with people from all over. That’s the best part about blogging.
matagal ko na pong gusto magblog. pero the pisay workload is just too much para isama ko pa siya sa schedule. hehe. might do it this summer i guess. hehe. thank you for this wonderful exchange of ideas. first time i wrote this long a comment ever. hehe.
Sige, Rob. I look forward to it. Just tell me once you’ve set it up.
Blame it all on the modern approach to science — empirical and realistic. If modern science were more mystical and irrational, like alchemy, being an atheist would be far more taboo than it is now.
Does that mean the only way for society to have stability is to have an equal amount of both atheists and religious people? Like a tug-of-war?
^ Personally, I don’t think that really matters. I think what matters is how much it matters to society.
The Case for Atheism in Philippine Society
Atheism, as a social movement, has yet to join the discourse in Philippine society and politics. However, it is coming. This article looks at atheism’s place in the Philippines and explains why it will do some good for this most dominantly Roman Catho…
“Is God real?” is a very basic question asked by people centuries ago. Answer is: use your common sense. There are a lot of arguments given as proofs of God’s existence. From the cosmological, ontological, moral arguments even to quantum physics and basic principles of chemistry, no one can deny that God exists. The fact is people can’t escape the existence of a divine being. How can you explain the existence of reason if there is no God? Why is there an innate conception of a God in every human being if God doesn’t exist? Why is there a sense of morality present in every human being? If God doesn’t exist, why do atheists have a hard time proving it?
After reading this article, I understand that everything written here is based on the writer’s opinion but not supported enough with substantial evidences upon its attack on Christianity with false understanding of what Christianity really is. I strongly disagree with a lot of things written here. So let me give you a run down of what is the Truth that is Jesus Christ.
Christianity goes beyond religion. Christianity is about believing in the One God of Israel, who is revealed through the Scriptures (the Bible), as eternally existent in three persons – the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit (the helper/comforter). They are all co-equal in nature, power, and holiness, possessing the same attributes but of different positions. Christianity is believing that Jesus Christ is the only son of God who became man and walked the earth to die for all the sins of mankind and who continuously lives in the same body, that He died and rose again. Christianity is believing that all who repent and exercise faith in Jesus Christ receive salvation as a free gift apart from any work of the law or deed. That only by faith in the Gospel can one receive salvation. Being justified by the merits of Christ’s death alone and regenerated by the Holy Spirit and given eternal life.
Before you question me about the authenticity of the Bible, let me give a brief account about it. The Bible is an account of God working with man throughout our history. With individuals and nations. What makes the bible unique is that it was not authored by one person but inspired by one God. It has a consistent message through 40 different authors that transpired over 1500 years, 60 generations. 66 books were written on 3 different continents in times of peace, war, slavery, and imprisonment. These books comes from the perspective of Kings and young men chosen as prophets. Throughout all this time God has maintained his message for succeeding generation despite those who oppose him, his people and his word. The message has been consistently the same, man needs redemption because we are fallen. God is holy, perfect, loving and just. And he must punish evil, and He rewards those who are yielding to obey his commands, specifically in receiving Christ.
Let me also explain a little about Roman Catholicism. 200 years before Jesus was born, Israel was under the Greek rule. About 150 AD, the Romans overpowered the Greeks and took over Israel. When Jesus was born, Israel was still under Roman rule. By the time He started His ministry (when He was 30) until He died (33 yrs old), His ministry was persecuted by the Romans because the Romans were practicing Hellenistic paganism. They worshipped the Sun, the planets, etc. For years, until 300 BC, Christianity was persecuted. On 300 BC, for political reasons (despite its persecution, Christianity grew and more people became Christians), Constantine decided to be baptized as a Christian. When he was baptized, he decided to make a “universal” religion, hence Roman Catholicism (from the Greek word Catholic- meaning general or universal). Constantine integrated the concepts of Christianity with their Roman pagan practices. He replaced the worship of their gods (Jupiter, Saturn, etc.) with Saints. [Basing on the Word of God (Bible), a saint is any living believer who has faith in Jesus and not as the misconstrued meaning of saints in the Catholic concept. As Rom. 15:25 " But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints." and 2 Cor 13:12-13 "Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the saints greet you."] [Worshipping anyone (for example, Mary) or anything that takes the glory away from God is idolatry.] Roman Catholicism therefore is not Christian in its teachings. Roman Catholicism does not embody what Christ intended for Christianity to be. According to Paul, Jesus said, “For there will be a time when they will not put up with sound doctrine, but according to their own lusts, they will heap up for themselves teachers, tickling their ears, and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to myths. You however be watchful in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” (2 Timothy 4:3-5). Catholicism doesn’t even explain the biblical basis of the practices they have. When someone asks a question, the answer would always be on the line of, “because it’s tradition.” Catholicism is one of the major causes of apostasy, why people turn “atheist”.
There is only ONE TRUTH. And that is Jesus. You would then say, “How can you say Jesus is the only way to God?” And I would say that that is a very good verbal camouflage. People have a hard time swallowing this truth because they have a problem with Jesus’ authority. People saying that “any religion could save,” “no matter what religion you have as long as you believe in God,” either do not really believe it or are clueless about what they are saying. There is only one truth, whether you believe it or not. Not believing in the truth doesn’t make it false. Truth is truth despite what people believe. And that truth is Jesus Christ who is the ONLY WAY TO SALVATION. There are no other ways to salvation. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No one can come to the Father except through Him.
There are only three options to explain our existence, one is to believe in God, another is agnosticism which states there may be a God but I haven’t found proof. The last is atheism where one will state they know God does not exist. This is not just a non- belief in God but a willful denial of his existence. Agnosticism is where one admits that they do not know if God exists, not having the proof or that there is a personal God who has always existed.
No one is born an atheist, they learn NOT to believe, just as one learns to believe. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians, unfortunately they usually disbelieve by default. Hopefully one becomes a Christian because of evidence.
Atheism is natural to man, it is the most comfortable position. It is a reflection of his depraved state being engulfed in sin (existential anguish?). The Bible states: the fool has said in his heart there is no God. Why, because there is so much evidence to the contrary? No, it is more of a hopeful out look so that they will not be accountable to anyone or for anything they have done.
God is aware of the atheist while the atheist is not aware of God. In response he says Psalm 14:1-2 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God.”
I pray for enlightenment for all who could read this.
As Sir Francis Bacon once said, “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism. But depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”
I pray that you will not just be intrigued by religion, but that your hearts would be opened to seek God. He’s the only one who could answer all your questions. He answered mine (I was pro-existentialism before and pondered hard why there is evil in this world despite God’s omnipotence, omni-benevolence… and He made me understand).
God bless you all.
^ After reading this comment, I understand that everything written here is based on the writer’s opinion but not supported enough with substantial evidences upon its attack on the article with false understanding of what the article really is.
[...] they say about them fundamentalists is true, Billy-Bo Bob! Links: An interesting article article, with an even more interesting comment, with a comment on the said comment by [...]
Donna, thanks. Although there is nothing here I don’t already know, thanks for giving us a summary.
I won’t question your beliefs because they’re yours. However, I would have appreciated it if you responded to the points raised by the article. This is not about the existence of God. It is about involving more secular forces in our society (such as atheists) since we are a democracy.
If you feel so inclined, read the article again and respond to that point.
Dear Martin,
What a fantastic entry! It’s refreshing to see people who are actually concerned about the great divide between nominal belief and authentic belief. I’m not just referring to religion here; I’m referring to personal principles. Personal integrity is always a challenge to human nature. How many feel obliged to be imposed ashes on Ash Wednesday but do not see the need to be self-sacrificing in a practical sense? (By the way, the AshWed Mass ain’t an obligation) How many people hate being lied to but lie to other people anyway? How many Filipinos do lip service to the words “buhay ay langit sa piling mo,” that we sing so often in our national anthem?
What can we do? We don’t choose the society in which we are born into. Consequently, we don’t choose the dominant ideology that operates in our social context. Hence, many Filipinos end up going with the flow. What’s funny is that after following, we have a lot to say under our breath about the apparent idiocy and flaws of what we follow.
Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci argued that society is made up of social groups with conflicting interests and competing ideologies. In the hierarchy in which they operate, the dominant ideology gains power by winning the consent of individuals. Thus, the personal voice appears to be silenced.
However, that’s only an illusion. True, there are powers that appear to suppress the individual. Yet, the choice to assent or dissent is a very personal one. One might even claim that he or she was brainwashed into thinking that way. But in the end, the ability to choose will never be lost—same goes for personal responsibility.
We may have someone telling us what to do, but that doesn’t take away that fact that we are the ones who decide. Even Christ at his most human moment during his hour of agony even told God that he preferred not to suffer that way yet he ended up saying, “not my will but yours be done.” Furthermore, Christ asserted, “I lay down my life for the sheep… No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.” (John 10) Even Christ does not advocate blind obedience and drifting faith.
As someone who thinks within the Church, I would say that it’s a misconception that personal autonomy and self-determination can’t exist with having a belief system anchored on organized religion. Its presence does not, in any way, suppress the individual. Its purpose is even to empower the individual. Just like any organization, religion is just another proof of the philosophical notion of intersubjectivity or concurrence of subjective judgments. The only problem is that many people don’t see it this way.
Oh well, it’s 2007, and in this post-modern world (post-Deridda, actually), everything can be viewed as black and white by different people at the same time. Suppression or empowerment? The answer to that would begin with another debate on the existence of objective truth. Hehe.
In the words of Kant, “Reason without faith is empty. Faith without reason is blind.” This is the same rationale behind the concept of “faith seeking understanding,” by St. Augustine. This is the motivation for all the bible study classes, catechism classes, doctrine classes, that Christian organizations impart to its members. Religious leaders do recognize that there is a need to wake up all their sleepy (ignorant, misinformed, and nominal) members. The discrepancy between public profession and personal values is so darn blatant in our country! There are so many drifters while only a few choose to steer. That’s why these days there has been an increasing focus on the personal relationship between self and God.
Going by news, media, local entertainment, and my daily experience of commuting from the Alabang wet market to the Ateneo, I would say that it is practical agnosticism, not atheism, that is growing in the Philippines. Yep, in our country, many people have a lot of faith: a lot of blind faith, and a lot of misinterpreted faith, and a lot of convenient faith.
Although I do welcome Atheists and other dissenters of religion as elements in society that do help us curb the mentality of fatalism, I think that what is more important is some form of instruction. People have to seek to understand their religion, and decide for themselves if this is the kind of faith that will lead them to salvation, which is simply happiness. “Understanding religion” does not just refer to the dogmas, precepts, and things we learn in CLE class, but to “what it actually means to be Catholic and have Christ at the center of one’s life.” And with the term, “happiness,” I’m not just referring to pragmatic descriptions of the word, but to its most personal and intimate meaning: in the possession of joy and peace. Perhaps, even a happiness that politics can never assure.
Then again, it’s a free world. If people don’t want to know any better (better is a relative term here), what else can we do but respect their decision? That is something that is called for by the dignity of their human nature. But that doesn’t mean that one not going to stop trying. I mean, one should go as far as the boundaries of other people’s freedom, but it stops right there: at the boundary.
I think Rob has summarized everything else I wanted to say. : )
I suggest you browse through “Faith, Truth, and Tolerance” by Joseph Ratzinger. It’s a very cerebral book that talks about, well, everything in the title. But what I find fascinating is how Ratzinger explains how the Church actually views ideologies that deviate from its own—it is far from what many people, Catholics and clergy included, think it is. Christianity, and all other ideologies are not opposing but they use different points of departure. Ultimately, in pursuit of good, all ideologies are not competitors, but actually collaborators. After all, the search for good and “the untarnished truth” is inherent in everyone. Who seeks evil anyway? It’s just that in the Christian belief, the one true good is found in God. That’s why Ratzinger’s answer to the question, “how many ways are there to God (that which corresponds to the ultimate truth)?” makes sense. He answered, “as many as there are people.” Talk about being democratic! On this is founded the case for greater understanding and tolerance, and more importantly, the case for hope.
On a personal note, I do agree with you that God’s love is never “exclusive to Catholics or Christians.” However, it never has been that way and it never will be. While the word, “catholic” precisely means “universal” or “for all” as mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it’s ironic that it is often viewed as an exclusive group. This reality is even represented in the architecture of St. Peter’s square where the columns form the image of arms that embrace the world. A more symbolic image would be that of Christ himself nailed on the cross, whose own love for all mankind leads him to die with outstretched open arms.
Sorry for the lengthy reply. Happy Easter!
Wow, Frances. That was a fantastic comment! It’s great to hear the point of view of someone well versed in the philosophy of religion, and I’ll definitely look into the literature more. “Faith, Truth and Tolerance” sounds like something that should belong in my library.
I’d like to highlight some of your points which I really, really appreciate.
First, you raised an excellent point about autonomy still being possible within a religious system. I definitely agree. I’ve never felt constrained by my religion, and have always had a personal relationship with my faith.
Second and related to the first, I also agree that instruction plays a large role. That cannot be overstated more. I’m lucky to have had good theology classes back in the day. They paved the way for a thinking faith which I appreciate.
And lastly, I really like how practical agnosticism sounds. It makes a lot of sense, and works in the larger framework of Philippine society. Of course, my sociologist instinct is now pushing me to learn how this came about and your comments raised some possibilities. For that, thank YOU!
No need to apologize for the lengthy reply. I know I write as much. Thanks again and Happy Easter!
We surely cannot answer whether GOD exists or not, it is a mater of Belief, however when you have so many GODS, whom should we choose, Christian God, muslim God, Jew GOD, Hindu God/s,. So why did God of GODS create create different Morality for different sects. Sought of confused, mathematically we cannot prove anything till the time we can mathematically model conscience and awareness. Still it is a matter of belief, one believes in existence and the other in non-existence.
Thanks, Martin. I’ve never actually thought of myself as “well versed in the philosophy of religion,” though.
As for the book, I’m actually referring to “Fe, Verdad Y Tolerance” but I guess Ratzinger would reiterate the same points in the later book, “Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions.” Sounds similar, maybe that’s the new English edition. Good luck!
Thanks, Frances. Well, how much do we really know of ourselves really, right? Good luck to you too.
[...] is why this article caught my attention. I have always argued that we must rethink the way religion and faith operate in our society (on that note, is Fr. Ed’s win the way we should go?), and I think the CCT is one good [...]
Hello Sir. I am not and was never student of yours, but I hope I could just leave a comment.
Dear Sir, I find your discourse very interesting and excellently stated. I think the way you erected the case for atheism here in the Philippines, without out rightly attacking religion, is fruit of a good reasoning, reasoning, I agree with one commenter, which is not tainted with religion (the taint part is mine).
It feels so good being an atheist. The core of your case was my personal case for deconversion. I became an atheist, first and foremost, because I wanted my opinions to be my own. I wanted to form my opinions on current events with no voice whispering behind my back save for the voice of my reason, and I wanted to plan my actions without consulting an antique and fantastic sacred text; my logic and conscience should be enough.
As one commenter has pointed out, it seems that the truly pious are only people who do not own themselves. “Surrender yourselves to God!” is the theme of the Abrahamic religions. Islam means ’surrender’. Christians on the hoopla pray for God to “take over their lives”. I find all this talk crazy; we should be ourselves. This freedom could only be atheism’s.
And when we discuss abortion, prostitution, economics, population control and contraceptives, death penalty, the unabused freedom of artistic expression and protection for the right of the homosexuals, among many other topics to be discussed, we should not allow truth to be clouded by superstition, Our politicians should think of what is best for this country and for the future of our children, and not the gathering of votes.
I am an atheist, a positive atheist, and still on the closet, at least to my family. As of now, the only people who know my unbelief is my loving and beloved girlfriend, who respects it through and through, and my other friends. My roomie in high school (I graduated at PSHS-WV) was also an atheist, and he’s very happy to know that I am an atheist now. But very soon enough, I would have to say it out loud, “I am an atheist!”
This nation needs a voice for atheism, and I would want to serve this country as an atheist.
About the statement of the God hypothesis, I agree with Sam Harris that God is a hypothetical idea that could be proved and disproved by science. The existence of God is disproved. I leave the better atheists to give a voice for this argument.
Thank you so much, Sir.
If you were my student, Piecer, 1.00.
Excellently said!
I have a lot to say about the article and the comments that followed it, but I just can’t get myself to put them all here.
Here’s one: I cringed when I read a comment saying that faith without evidence is a virtue. I mean, really? Do you really think that believing something without any evidence is a good thing? I think this manner of thought is a very dangerous thing.
Rob: As an atheist-agnostic, I find your arguments for God very weak. They sound like you’re simply preaching to the choir. If you want to get an insight on how non-Christians (or non-Catholics) think, try to replace every mention of a god/s with, say, Zeus, or Thor, or the Tooth Fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and read this thread again. You’ll see why we consider your arguments as mere appeals to emotion.
Re: “God is love.” …What does that even mean?
Sir Martin, I’m confused about your position on religion and belief. First you say that we need more atheists in the Philippines. Then later at the end you state that you still hold “Christian beliefs,” i.e. belief without evidence. I myself am Catholic culturally, which means that I was raised by Catholic parents, go along with society’s celebration of Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter, and generally tolerate their rituals. But in no way do I hold the beliefs and doctrines behind those rituals as true. I only celebrate Christmas and other traditions because I think it’s only polite to do so with other people. I agree with Menken when he once said that one should respect a man’s religion only in the same way that he should respect his beliefs that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
Here’s a good read that strongly argues against religion and says why it is, at the very least, a deterrent to critical thinking: “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins.
(I apologize if my thought process sounds rather disorderly.)
Luigi, great insights!
Now, a little introduction to my perspective. Perhaps by doing so I allay your confusion, let you understand how I can support atheism and yet remain Catholic, and present an alternative point of view.
My background is history and politics. Richard Dawkins is a biologist. I will argue differently than him, and I think that will be very clear in the following discourse.
First off, a distinction between religion and spirituality. Religion is a primarily social matter where there are shared beliefs, values, rituals and norms among people. The Holy Eucharist and the ritual prayers at a mosque are examples of the social expression of faith. On the other hand, spirituality is a more individual matter, and pertains mostly to a person’s own commitment to a set of beliefs, values, and norms. Personal devotions (ie. bhakti in Hinduism) are examples of this, and atheism – the belief that there is no God – can be considered to be spiritual even if it is not religious.
The root of religion begins with the history of myth.
As the historical records would show, myth-making is a form of rationality. Man placing his thoughts and beliefs in things unseen is an ancient form of psychology. Arabs would write poetry to express their feelings on tribal desert life. The Hindus would write hymns for their rituals. The people of Mesopotamia wrote epics and stories to understand their place in the world. The world’s many creation stories were written not only to express man’s understanding of how the world came to be, but for man to realize their place in such an awesome, inspiring world.
An example closer to home would be the Filipino <i>alamat</i> which purports to explain everything from the origin of man and woman, to the hills of Bohol, to Mt. Makiling, and almost everything under the sun.
All this served a purpose. Ancient people engaged in myth-making to give meaning to their lives. It helped them deal with realities such as death, famine and war. It helped them transcend the human condition, and eventually paved the way for civilization.
Myth was so powerful that once the earliest societies evolved into powerful civilizations, rulers found them effective at bridging people who were no longer of kin or clan. At this juncture, religion was born. The poetry of the Arabs flowed into the Quran. The hymns of the Hindus formed the sacred Vedas. The stories of the Mesopotamian people are read to this day in the Old Testament. When these myths began to justify rituals, hierarchies and empires, doctrine (and its dangerous twin, dogma) was born.
The point of this brief account of the root of religion is that firstly, myth-making is a response to the world people found themselves in. By today’s standards, these myths are irrational but then they lived thousands of years when everything in the world was new, fantastic and incomprehensible. They also saw the world through a different lens than we do today. A person today cannot say that their beliefs were invalid or untrue because they did not have the perspectives we do today. Hindsight is always 20/20, and to cast away myth and religion as ’superstition’ is to deny the people before us their place in history.
Secondly, religion has always been a social activity that began by justifying the rule of kings and other ‘man-gods’. Just remember how Catholicism was used by the Spaniards in colonizing the Philippines. Thus, there is evident danger in this. Religion has clean negative social impacts and these are what find ground for criticism. None the less, a religion had to keep the basic function of myth — provide meaning and sense to people’s lives — in order to survive, lest they fade into antiquity (ie. Manicheanism). We may look back at them now and call it one great deception, but there is no doubt that these belief systems formed the core of civilization itself.
Nonetheless, the story of religion does not end there. It continues to adapt to this day. In the places it persists, it continues to provide meaning in people’s lives, though that is constantly challenged now.
Fast forward to today, and even a couple of millennium before us, where the Age of Reason is now the stage of history. Atheism, just like the ancient belief systems before it, is a response to the world but seen through a rational-scientific lens born during the Enlightenment, forged through the positivist movements and solidified in the secularist movements of today. This too is a valid way of looking at reality, the only difference is that it presupposes that a god does not exist, a fact that can be gleamed from the simplest rational observations.
It is also in these modern times that spirituality — faith as an individual activity — has become more pronounced. With people able to pursue their own paths to Truth because of reason, there are those who have developed a more personal relationship with God and those who rejected him entirely.
It is with this survey of the history of religion that I can see atheism co-existing with belief systems that presuppose a god exists. <i>All</i> of them were born of a specific time and cultural context, and thus are all valid paths to Truth in their own right. Religions, too, have to evolve or die and there have been a lot which faded to obscurity. Yet those that survive to this day have grown with the times (like Islam in the Middle East), or struggle to (like Catholicism in Europe).
I don’t think that atheism will be able to overwrite religion anytime soon, since religions too have begun to express themselves in rather rational ways, though far they may be from the methods of science. (The current Pope is such an example of a superb Christian scholar.) Though science will always find ways to skin the arguments of religion, it stands that religion can appeal to reason as well. And that may be sufficient for most of its followers (like those you’ve read above.)
When I said that the Philippines needs more atheists, I say that as a political observation since I feel that our country’s religious sectors have too strong an influence on public policy. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but can be critical when it comes to issues such as contraception and abortion. But perhaps I have been too rash by saying we should have more atheists, when it would suffice to say <i>secularists</i>. My bottom line is that we need policy makers with as little ‘religious baggage’ as possible. And come to think of it, that person may not necessarily have to be an atheist; just someone with strong political will.
————————————–
Now, some comments on Richard Dawkins. I’ve read his book. I respect his tenacity, but I find a lot of his arguments laughable, to be honest.
His argument about Zeus, Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is perhaps the weakest of his arguments. If you ask someone who believes in Yahweh whether he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course he would say no. Why? Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster has <i>no meaning</i> for that person. Recall the history of myth. Richard Dawkins has no historical sense whatsoever (though I am not surprised), and is judging belief systems to his modern standards and not in their original context. For him to discard them as irrational superstitions just testifies to how weak his grasp is of the true nature of religion.
Also, I find Richard Dawkins’ methods intellectually disturbing. In his long discourse about why God cannot possibly exist, what he’s basically saying is that the Myth of <i>Malakas at si Maganda</i> is not true because it cannot be proved by science. Read that again very closely. That is all he is saying in “The God Delusion” which is basically his own delusion that myths, which are pieces of literature that resonate with a people, are subject to rational verification by science.
I also don’t appreciate the fact that he practically cheats his reader by focusing on the Judeo-Christian God. Heck, I felt cheated! What would he say about Allah? Brahma? Vishnu? Shiva? Ahura Mazda? He makes the grand mistake by casting them all in the same net. What he isn’t aware of, again, is the original context of these Gods and the distinct meanings they hold for their people.
Richard Dawkins is committing the ‘rationalistic fallacy’ in his work — the fallacy that all people think the same. While it can be said that people share a common affinity for facts, people think differently when it comes to meaning and truth. Dawkins insensitivity to this makes him less convincing for me.
He also cheats his reader by not discussing Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. Those are religions too. It is fascinating that he pushes them aside because they have no clear concept of God. But aren’t they, using his arguments, also capable of brainwashing and manipulating people? I am saddened that he offers no viable response to these forms of religion, but I am not surprised considering his unawareness of doctrines and histories.
If ever there is one atheist I would listen to, it is Sam Harris. He has a more pragmatic approach which I can agree with. He attacks religion on a more political and social level, and perhaps that is why his arguments work with me. We agree on a lot of points, especially how mysticism is a form of rationality. Harris actually looks at the dangers of religious thought, such as how it was used to colonize nations, to how it fuels fanaticism and terrorism, to how it negatively impacts public policy. I may have some reservations for his political views and I don’t agree with his assessment of Islam, but his ideas are true food for thought. And that is more than what I can say for Richard Dawkins and his “God Delusion”.
Sir, have your read the book IDEAS by peter watson? Its a good read sir, it gives evidence, if not actually proves that god and religion are simply human ideas. Ideas that were created in response to needs they deemed unfulfillable through humanity’s own actions.
Not to mention that abrahamic religions (islam, judaism, christianity) were first created as a form of social order (with ancient judaism as a root faith). Literally moral philosphies packaged as orders from a moral god. Philosphies, rules even, that when broken or not recognized result in bad (painful) consequences in one’s mortal life and after life. In this setting, people then and now will surely follow.
hehe, nice article dude! toodles!
oh yes, your theory on the rise of atheism in the philippines as the economy developes, is quite true. It is very much supported by one theory from the book IDEAS, that modern thought, progressive thought, even way back in the olden days are connected to the formation of complex urban settings and the positive development of their economy.
Kudos to the article. Good to know open-minded religious people still trives in Philippine soil.
We can’t deny the powerful influence of the church on state matters. As you said, our government’s close ties with the Catholic church requires that dogma comes before demographics. I am also concerned with this issue, especially after I read the book, Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.
I wrote a review and this book and I hope you can find time to read it. I would love to hear your thoughts about it. I posted my review here:
http://lestercavestany.com/2007/09/30/a-must-read-for-filipinos-letter-to-a-christian-nation-by-sam-harris/
Christianity, the cause why Philippines is a 3rd world country. If Religion is the basis of moral values, then Philippines should be the most safest countries in Asia. Japan, is the one of the least most religious country’s in the world, but crime rate is 80 times lower than the Philippines. Coincidence?? Nope!
Catholicism is the entirety of the beliefs and practices of the Western and Eastern churches, which are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter.
The term Catholic was defined by the Roman Emperor Theodosius on February 27 AD 380 in the Theodosian Code XVI.i.2: “It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one Deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation and the second the punishment of our authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict.”
To each man his own I guess.
I was born a Catholic, grew up a born-again Christian, and ended up being an atheist/agnostic.
I am now an atheist with respect to the anthromorphic God – the God we created in our own human image. I guess atheism almost always is the logical consequence of being exposed to the advances in the field science. When you realize the power of evolution and natural selection which led to our mind and consciousness, it is not hard to understand how religions were created.
To conclude that there is no such thing as a Cause, a Force, or a God though, I believe, is premature. Positivists would always argue that science will eventually discover the answer to the greatest question – “why is there something instead of nothing?” When that happens, it is highly improbable that they will find an old man sitting on His throne.
I was a hard-line born-again Christian – a true fundamentalist. I can relate to the post insisting that Jesus is the Truth. Now, I don’t believe that this claim can stand and closing ones mind to this so-called truth simply discourages debate and discussion. End of story there when you start arguing with me when I was my old self. Even now that I feel liberated from this cage, I still find it difficult to be open-minded. I believe that one major downside to being a born-again Christian, or for that matter a Jewish or Muslim fundamentalist, is the “us versus them” mentality. I find myself in a battle everyday to clear my mind and be open. Now that I’m more of a secularist, I have to understand the people who feel the need for a Comforter. They are just being human, to borrow the words of Carl Sagan. We are all just being human when we wish and hope that someday there is a paradise where we can all see each other again and where there will be no more tears.
What now if there is no heaven, no hell, no God? This is the existentialist dilemma. It took me a couple of grueling years to come to terms with this possibility. That we are our own savior. That there is no inherent purpose in life but the meaning that we ourselves create. Why don’t we just all commit suicide then ala Camus? I believe to do so is the height of irresponsibility and ingratitude. To this world, to this universe. Let us marvel at the wonder and beauty of everything around us. Let us learn from the Buddhists who make it a point to cherish every moment. We will pass through this moment only once.
Wow, so you have also touched on this subject. Personally, im happy you did. I grew up Catholic sa Pinas. All the packaging that came with it, i got. In spite of going to St. Mary’s and St. Augustine, and several born again seminars, I ended up being agnostic at the age of 30. I was lucky to actually have the chance to leave our islands. It maybe of some sort of predestination that i met Jewish Americans here sa US, got to know them. Its disorienting at first to meet actual Jewish people. I grew up thinking they wore scary masks during passion plays in Holy Week. They were masks depicting Roman Centurions of course but never was it mentioned by nuns and priests to me that the Romans crucified Jesus. When i was having my first communion, kneeling in front of a giant crucifix hanging on the church ceiling, i kept thinking, why am i being asked to kneel in front of this bloody guy? And who was he?
Now at 40 years of age, i keep wondering what if the Spanish did not bring the Catholic faith and what if the Muslims did not make it to our islands. Will we have our own version of how this world came about? And why not? China and Japan have thousands of years of history without the Muslim or Christian god, why not the Philippines? Is God’s hand really in control here, if he ever really existed? Or is it just human beings being human beings, creatures who cannto accept tha fact that they are going to die and their love ones are going to die and so they need to come up with something to make themselves feel better?
great post, but why do you have to be called SIR Martin?
The early years of this blog were devoted primarily to my students, since that’s what they call me in class. I dropped it as my readership grew. Thanks for dropping by!
Anyone who would like to start a group here in the Philippines regarding atheist points of view the please write me
daxhalloway@gmail.com I am new to this country and would like to meet like-minded people.
“If you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods you will understand why i dismiss yours”,
my favorite line from an atheist (forgot his name), it really ends a debate, haha..
I am a solid atheist.. I became an agnostic when i was 14, and a solid atheist when I was 16, am 18 now..
unfortunately, my girlfriend wants me to change…
I don’t know what to do.
Atheism in the Philippines is not accepted – hey, that’s the truth!
-
kid
ps, I want to tell everyone what atheism really is, that even atheists has the capability to do good, and that other “so-called religous guys” are NOT really religious, well, you know what I mean..
-
will have a decent convo with atheists,
paulotaku@gmail.com – hit me up..
If a scholar would examine the Old testament of the bible..
He would certainly see the apparent contradictions that Religious people oversee.. for instance, God is the God of all yet the old testament implies that the Jews are the Chosen People. How about other races?
“Do not Kill” said God.
But it is he who provoked his people to slaughter those who worship other Gods.. those people whom they slaughtered are not sinners, instead their upbringing forced them into following ‘traditions’ from their ancestors.
Religion is a Virus! It implies that it has moral bases but it shows the opposite. Muslims kill for their God Allah implying that their God would justify their actions..
Religion only forces people to act on behalf of a Millennial Old Literary Fictional masterpiece(Bible, Koran etc.).
People must be skeptics not just believe in everything they hear, believe in every concept they are raised from…
I am not an Atheist… i am Anti RELIGION.. Religion is a cancer of the Society…
I firmly believe in God and i agree that Man has an inner sense of Morality…
Man should not solely rely on Traditions and Dogmas..
He is a rational creation of God.. God created man as a free thinker..
very well said silver agnostic.
im also a believer, but not a religionist.
IMO, religion is cultural prison cell, it has become anti-intellectual.
this is the sad reality that I face everyday with professing believers who are even ignorant with the scriptures.
I currently have a theology class in a top university in this country. During the first day, I told them I was an atheist since third year high school. You know how they reacted. SHOCKED like crazy. LOL