HEY EVERYBODY. on the other side of the forums there is currently a war being waged by 2 very intellectual people.
one is a Roman Catholic
the other is an Atheist.

well lately ive been seeing them talk the sh1t out of eachother so much i just simply had to intervene.
so to put thi hot topic to rest for good lets have a little forum ourselves.

here is a challeng i give

WHO HERE IS MAN(OR WOMAN) ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY HIS/HER RELIGION AND PIT IT AGAINST OTHER FILIINO RELIGIONS
THIS INCLUDES ATHEISTS(im an atheist)

honestly i think the philippines is better of with either being an ATHEIST or being BUDDHIST. because being an atheist is MUCHMUCHMUCH more cheaper than being a christian. and being a uddhist is more of a LIFSTYLE or a GUIDE to being human than being anactual religion(much like confucianism but better, then again i think confucianism is great here)

I think the Philippines would be better off it it were a secular multireligious state, like the U.S.

somebody deleted my post.

hey you troll

For me, I'd want to have the RP controlled by religion. I mean, everyone would follow the moral code of the Bible...haay..what a dream

would have been better if we remained animists

that just wrong of the mods here just to delete his post. at least let them argue it out here instead of posting randomly in threads.

just let them argue here, and just make SURE they do NOT start ACTING like LITTLE kids and CALL each other NAMES. (it just makes your argument pointless. NO pun intend to the eyes of others.)

plus this should be interesting as to whom has a better point.

im a christian but against for a state relgion.

I don't know really. I'm a christian, but I don't go to church that often, and I don't like the idea of sending children to saturday mass and threaten them that they will fail a certain subject if they don't go (I used to go to a catholic high school and thats what they make us do...) or just being a big plastic (fake) by going to church every sunday without ever listening to the priest (When I was in philippines, I know people who just go to church cause they think they'll go to heaven that way or they think they are saint or w.e). Anyway, I'm kind of in between Christianity and Science but in no way atheist. I believe that there is someone out there that made us, cause we can't just pop out of the blue. And about life after death... I don't know and I still don't want to worry about it. And yeah, the church shouldn't interfere with the gov't unless it is highly unethical.

As for Philippines being an atheist nation... I don't know.. Almost everyone in Philippines have a church, be it el shadai, Iglesia ni christo, Catholic, w.e. Of course there are atheist over there, but right now its like impossible to suddenly spread across the nation. And if it does, it is going to be very bad, since everyone would think "Oh, i'm gonna die anyways and there is no afterlife and no karma, i'll just go rob some people or even kill them" And then crime would go higher. And there would be like an anarchy... anyway, thats just my opinion.

you know marxman. we atheist arent anarchist you know. just because we dont have a bible, doesnt mean we dont have the CONSTITUTION to follow. like i said earlier on a different topic. we atheist are still human and must follow a humane lifestyle. such as being respectful to the elderly.

the people you said are lowlifes. that doesnt only believe in gods, but doesnt believe in the LAW.

atheist or not, we are still citizens of the Republic and must obey the laws regardless of the religion we follow.

and besides anarchy isnt always like that(i.e. killing for no reason, cursing everyone you meet). in fact if you read the book "THE DISPOSSESED" by Ursula Le Guin(you know, the book in National bookstore with the red anarchy symbol in it?) tells of an anarchistic society with ABSOLUTELY NO CRIME WHATSOVER. also note that it is not set on an utopian future.

still go praising the trees in our backyard and the stones in my drawer... lol
the church institution really makes the whole roman catholic religion suck...

You all may want to watch this programme done by one of the most ardent athiests, Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins.. Extreme but thought-provoking..

The Root of All Evil

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316

El Shaddai is catholic.
Yes, the phils experiences a lot of crap from the government. We need religion to go on... but really, it's not religion but faith: that there is a higher being greater than any of us!

I think the problem in the Philippines is not Religion. I think there are many Aetheists who already infiltrated in th Philippine Politics and Government pretending to be religious and they messed up our country. A dedicated religious person would not currupt the government because he will have ethics and morals in running the government.

Danding Cojuangco is a religious man but deep inside he is an Atheist. He killed many Filipinos, he stole money from the Farmers, he stole many Lands and Companies and even killed his cousin Ninoy Aquino.

When Filipinos will enter the upper class, they tend to forget gawd and become less religious. The eternal flame of desire for wealth and power should burn all the religious convictions.

So you are forgetting the moral example and achievements of such notable atheists and agnostics as-

Benjamin Franklin
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
David Hume
Francois Mitterrand
Mikhail Gorbachev
Richard Feynman
Stanley Kubrick
Neil Kinnock
Noam Chomsky
Sir Ian McKellen
Jodie Foster

I don't think that whether you believe that God exists or not matters a jot as your capability in running a country, except to make you take irrational, unscientific choices. Frankly, I'd much rather be ruled by a secular government run by pragmatic atheists and agnostics then some of the despotic religious regimes I see in the world. Religion and Government has no place together in a modern society.

A Government run by Agnostics is fine but I think if a Government is run by Atheists it will just lead to communism, a sodomic society or a babylonic empire.

Albert Einstein is not an Atheist he is a Theist or Pantheist.

no man can ever live long enough without faith...
whatever it is... at least one needs something to believe in...
what i'm certain is that we filipinos are better off without christianity

Christianity ushered in the rise of Europe and the modern world? For about 1500 years it did exactly the opposite!

Tycho Brahe, Nicolas Copernicus and Galileo were persecuted for their discoveries regarding astronomy by the Catholic Church. The Church outlawing medical research on corpses kept us behind the more scientific and medically advanced Arab world until the Renaissance.

If it wasn't for the secular Renaissance (when the Church's power was diminished) we would still be living in the Dark Ages.

To quote a line in George Orwell's 1984 - "_ boot stamping on humanity's face - for eternity"

You do not speak for all Filipinos. In the US, religion is dwindling such as women priests, premarital sex, artificial birth etc... and do you think their moral upbringing is still good? hmmm

very excellent! I am now seeing human potential in action. xtianity should be forgotten through the increase of liberalism and progress. Judaism should be the only religion to remain in the beautiful future, because it is the only true and oldest semitic religion. The religion that doesn't convert and torments the world in the name of Yeshua.

Umm I think this can increase crime rate (O_o)~ Philippines overall doesn't really have a high crime rate compared to countries like United States, Mexico or the even worse Brazil. One of the reasons is religion, because the main point of religion is to be good! I used to live in Cebu, and let me tell you there where not a lot of major crimes going on!

I'm not saying Atheist is bad, but err most Filipinos lack a certain common sense so err they might statr acting like they don't care if they kill or die.

You ain't dreaming,it's already been controlled by each religion. See how Catholic Church dictates their people not to do birth control. See how some government uses every religions' leaders they can bribe of to manipulate their followers to gain more votes.

But dream on more so miraculously, the followers can follow what's in the bible code instead of what most of the church leaders' between the lines code: do as I say,not as I do.

Is it a definitive statement or just another ambiguous datum? I know a lot of wealthy Filipino family here in England and also in Philippines who still believe or practice Christianity; perhaps some data or studies that suggest secularisation is occurring within the Filipino upper class will change my mind. The decline in churchgoing is clear, but to call this secularisation is to imply that true religion—or at least Christianity—equates to churchgoing; that someone who ceases to attend church has moved from religion to secular. Why should we kowtow to your simplistic narrative?

Although a philanthropist does not directly mean a "religious person", having goodwill motives does indicate some sort of religious reason. These wealthy, powerful tycoons and individuals who have donated their time and money to charitable causes, according to Uwag_Davao, should 'burn' their religious beliefs.

http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan.pdf

that dude is gone or ASSumed another SN. LOL

That Jewish battyboy finally revealed his inner frustration when he mentioned about Jewish men being hot and fu-kable. People who troll here are usually the ones with personal agendas, and Uwag_davao was certainly no exception.

Almost all religion teaches their followers to be good yet people are not. There are good and bad christians/muslims/jews and there are good and bad aethists. Its not the religion that is the problem its the people themselves.

islam forever!

The 'bad' religious people are the ones who don’t follow in accordance to the teachings, and most of the times twist the teachings to suit themselves - to propagate their interest. A good atheist might be good but that would be paradoxical, as these people have no foundation to their beliefs, morals and values. So they are 'good' because they wanted to borrow some teachings from the scriptures? Or are they good because they just 'feels' like it. Religion is a funny word really; it’s more about believing in God regardless what religion you belong to, and you judge a religion like how you judge a tree by its fruits.

The concept of "good" is not exclusive to religion. You can be good without thinking of religion or god at all. Even animals are capable of doing good things like taking care of their young and help them survive and their intelligence is far from knowing what religion is. So its not paradoxical at all. Theists have to accept that foundation for morals/values doesnt only come from teaching of these religions, matter of fact it doesnt have to come from there at all. It can come from themselves and the way they were brought up.

PinoyMogul,

I now love the Great Jewish People because I am no longer a bitter Filipino nationalist. In fact, one of my closest friend on msn right now is an Ashkenazi boy.

I am back promo. I was banned without warning. How dare he?! May he boil alive in his hot excrements!

Many non-religious people behave morally 'good', but they contend that without a belief in God and his Law there is no ground or reason for being moral. The sense of moral relativism, skepticism, and nihilism rampant in our age is due in large measure to the general weakening of religious belief in an age of science. Without God there can be no objective foundation for our moral beliefs. The believer alone clearly perceives that the 'Good', as it is recognized in faith, is the sole 'Good', and all that is otherwise called 'good' cannot lay claim to this title, at least in the ultimate sense of the word.
We can use the word 'good' without implying anything about the reality of God. Linguistically speaking, it clearly shows that 'good' is a concept which can be understood quite independently of any reference to the Deity and that morality without religion, without theism, is quite possible. In fact quite the reverse is the case. Christianity, Judaism and theistic religions of that sort could not exist if people did not have a moral understanding that was, logically speaking, quite independent of such religions.


Humans are not simply a higher decree of animals, but beings of a completely different nature than animals. To compare 'goodness' of human beings to animals is simply of a different wavelength. Animals do not possess the intellect, spiritual and value of morality which clearly define the uncrossable divide between humans and animals.


If you ask someone where he got his moral beliefs, he should answer that he got them from his parents, parent surrogates, teachers, etc. They are beliefs which he has simply been conditioned to accept. But the validity or soundness of a belief is independent of its origin.

I cannot say that I envy you're newly found sexual preference. I congratulate your newly found happiness and wish you all the best in all your sodomitic affairs.

Sorry I dont understand if you agree with me or not here. From what I understand, it seems that you agree that "good" doesnt have to come from religion. On the other hand you claim that without God, humans will have no morals. But morals/values are all considered "good" in our society. The kind of good where it becomes subjective. For example, "Respecting your elders", thats the kind moral where it can come from anywhere. It can come from people who believe in god and people who DONT believe in god. Just like Pagans and Buddhists. Morals are just sets of philosophies. And philosophies doesnt have to come from the teachings of god.

I believe that humans are not different with animals. The only thing that we have one up over them is our intelligence, but that doesnt make us different. A dog is much more smarter than pig, a dog can feel emotion and it can be trained to do things easier than a pig(assuming we find the smartest pig out there). Does that mean the dog is different than a pig?. I dont believe so. Thats why we cant divide animals with humans because we humans ARE animals, we are just more intelligent. If intelligence should be the reason for division, then there would be no reason why we shouldnt divide humans with different human intellects.

The argument from morality has been supported by such great names as Immanuel Kant, C.S. Lewis and more recently William Lane Craig. It has enjoyed a lot of change over the centuries, but now philosophers have managed to distil it down to one simple argument:

1. Objective moral values exist
2. Objective moral values require the existence of a god
3. Therefore, a God exists

First, it is important to know what I mean by ’Objectivism’. Essentially there are two views in ethics: morality is either ’Objective’ or ’Relative’.

’Objectivism’ is the idea that right and wrong are true whether we believe them to be or not. They aren’t dependent upon us or any changeable thing. For instance, if we take objectivism, ’Torturing babies just for fun is wrong’ is objectively true whether we believe it to be or not. Even if everyone was brainwashed into thinking it is morally right, torturing babies just for fun would still be plain wrong.

’Relativism’ on the other hand, is the complete rejection of objectivism. At its core is the idea that all moral statements are grounded purely in the whim and individual taste of each person or culture.

But does relativism work? Hypothetically, one culture may think that torturing babies just for fun is right, and another that it is wrong. Under relativism, both views are equally valid, and equally true or false. If one society changed their behaviour, they could not have progressed morally because there is no unchangeable measure by which to test their values. They have simply altered their moral outlook, and nothing more. There is no value-added because there is no value. We cannot tell a baby-torturer that what they do is wrong, and they should stop. Their torturing is just as morally acceptable as our non-torturing. There is no logical reason why they should change.

Although many people like Relativism at first, as soon as we go beyond face-value, drastic and terrifying problems emerge. Baby torturers become as saintly as child-carers, Hitler becomes as morally acceptable as Mother Teresa, and Relativism becomes ridiculous.

But, we can go on from here, it seems that relativists render themselves incapable of holding moral discussions. For, what does a conversation on morality consist of? It is simply examining and evaluating different ethical theories, or options in a moral dilemma. But when all is equal, equally right and wrong, there is nothing to discuss. We cannot weigh up the advantages and disadvantages, because there are none. Moral discussions come to a halt. We cannot even talk to the baby-torturer about their ethical choices!

Further, some have cast doubt over whether one is able to argue for relativism. Surely within any argument, there is a moral “ought” implied. And that is this; “you ought to believe a logical argument with valid truth claims”. This, itself is an objective ought, as it is imposing a morality, a code of conduct, on others, the supporter assumes it applies to all. So, in trying to convince us of relativism they seem to be forced into implicitly accepting objectivism. In practice, their stance is self-defeating.

On this evidence, it seems relativism is wrong, so it would make sense to accept objective morality as actually being the case.

As our first sentence, “Objective moral values exist” is true, we can move onto the second step in our argument; “objective moral values require a God”. It needs to be said, this is not the full God of the Christian faith, but simply a personal being, whose very unchangeable essence is “good”.

Now, objective moral values exist, and by their definition are unchangeable. So we know there is a changeless essence out there that is the “good”.

But aren’t we also obligated to it? We feel guilt when we go against the “good”; if we steal something from a shop, or lie for no good reason. And guilt is only felt when some obligation or duty is broken. So we do, it seems, have a duty to the “good”.

A duty, then, is defined as being held to account for our actions. But surely only a personal being can do that. For instance, I cannot have a duty to, say, a rock, but I can to a human being.

Hence, it would make sense to say that this objective “good” is not only unchangeable, but that he is also personal, because we are obligated to him. This, I believe to be a suitable candidate for the label that is “god”.

We have established a choice; on an over-all level morality is either relative or objective. We have to make a decision, but relativism leads to infinite practical problems to the point that it is unworkable. So we chose the view that does appear to work – objectivism.

But we also have a duty to this objective “good”. When we go against it, we feel guilt, which we can only have towards a personal being. So, the “good” is alive, and interactive. We have a personal duty to an objective “good” being, so, it seems that he is deserving of the name “god”.

Thus, we can conclude, on the evidence that “a god exists”. Without God, there would be no "good", no "right" and "wrong". The two are inseparably linked. So, with no God in the picture, what kind of a world would ours be?



I wrote a more detailed difference between humans and animals in this thread.

Wow, you wrote a whole essay there. LOL.

Theres alot of things there that I disagree with. But really there is no point in debating it because you seem to have an already set attitude towards this subject. Lets just agree to disagree.

You're entitled to your own opinion, and it’s good to see an atheist or agnostic who can actually back up their opinions. I'm not prone to hypnotic sways, if the evidence strongly suggest (whether in a philosophical or scientific level) points to a particular conclusion then that's where I stand - until proven otherwise. So, yes, I agree to disagree with you on this complicated subject and somewhat never-ending topic.

Religion is the reason why there is Philippines.

we'll one thing...

Im glad Philippines is a christian country and not a muslim country like indonesia and malaysia....

your so racist!

give to caesar what is to ceasar and give to God what is to God...to each his own freedom of belief, religion, political views and speech.

no Im not....
its just that I'd prefer to be a christian than a muslim....

my thinking is confined inside a box u say..
maybe so...

but im definately not racist..

i highly doubt that! so what if they're a muslim country, it doesn't make them less of human being compared to christians.. christians has their faults too. they fu-ked each other in past...

nah, i don't think i said you live a box, that was felltohell, but i do agree with her. but i just said to you "you need to get out of you diluted reality"

so, DON'T fu-kING PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, KID!

INDONESIA and MALAYSIA can have any religion they want..
its their country...

MY POINT IS...
I WANT THE PHILIPPINE'S RELIGION TO BE THE WAY IT IS........
NOT TO BE A MUSLIM COUNTRY ETC...

u think muslim religion is so much better..
not...
the way they treat women is disgusting...
when riding a bus women are at the back seat just to name 1
and theres more..........

fu-kIN SEXIST...........

People tend to blame the Catholic Church for the overpopulation...

This is very short sighted of them. First of all, the Catholic Church does not support contraceptives. Yes, it means overpopulation...

But YOU ARE ONLY HALFWAY IN THEIR TRUE GOAL..

The next thing to do in eradicating overpopulation is following the guideline (yes, the Church supports this) that they make children only as much as they can support...

That is abstinence and sometimes rhythm method..

Rhythym: God made the woman to menstrate only 5 days in the month with a week of freedom..you can use that time to do what you want...


I really hate people who keep blaming this and that for what is happening to this country...

First off, blaming them is not the problem, it's them not following them..

People say it's all because of the government and it's all because of the church...

Can they just pause for a while and ask: "Is it because of me??"
Think about it..the Church is doing their part and I have faith in those guys..give them some slack..they're not perfect

Religion has separated brothers and families, and killed millions of men, women, and children.

I somewhat agree to what Karl Marx has said, "Religion is the opium to the masses."

Not saying I am a communist – I am a staunch liberal, but there is truth behind what he said. My version would be, "Religion is for the weak."

^^ Christianity never teaches violence. It's the people that's the problem, not the teachings.

Read the bible then.

Its not only a fight between Catholics and Atheists, they also bomb each other in Britain Catholics and Protestants..

a person without faith is really scary..
a nation without faith should be bombed , seriously...
the title of this thread is so moronic to start with...

not like christianity's the only thing capable of teaching faith...