Thursday, December 12, 2013

Welcome to my new journey.

Please visit my new place @ http://thepinoyatheist.blogspot.com/


Thanks.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Atheista ka ba? Opo Atheista po ako. (Part 3)

Jesus Story


Mapunta naman tayo sa paliwanag nya tungkol kay Hesus. Ayon sa may akda binasihan nya ang kanyang idea na mapapatunayan ng mga atheist na hindi nagkaroon ng HesuKristo batay sa pahayag ng Website na  http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html na nagsasabing:

The elimination of the OT leaves only the New Testament (NT) “evidence” and extrabiblical material to be considered. Essentially, the NT is composed of two types of documents: letters and would-be biographies (the so-called gospels). A third category of writing, apocalyptic, of which the Book of Revelation is an example, also exists, but it gives no support for the historicity of Jesus. In fact, it would appear to be an intellectual fossil of the thought-world from which Christianity sprang – a Jewish apocalypse that was reworked for Christian use. The main character of the book (referred to 28 times) would seem to be “the Lamb,” an astral being seen in visions (no claims to historicity here!), and the book overall is redolent of ancient astrology.

(Note: ang sinasabi nyang "link" ay hindi gumagana at ang tamang basihan ay dito matatagpuan. )


Teka...Thomas Paine? Anong kinalalaman ni Paine sa artikulong isinuklat ni Mr. Frank R. Zindler? Anyway, since ang bigla nyang kinalaban eh ang Examination of Prophecy ni Thomas Paine, mamaya na lang natin balikan ang unang katanungan nya,

Ayon sa Examination of Prophecy ni Thomas Paine, hindi nya tinatangap na ang Psalms 22:18 ay may kinalalaman sa pagkakapako ni HesuKristo, Ayon kay Paine ang nakasulat sa Mateo 27:35 ay isang hinaing ng taong naniniwala na sya ay anak ng isang diyos at hindi isang propesiya. Now...eksakto ba ang nasusulat sa Mga Awit ikumpara sa Mateo para masabi na isa itong prophecy? Tutal eh humihingi ang katolikong may akda ng paliwanag...

Una, ikumpara natin ang dalawang talata:

Sa  Ingles...

Psalms 22:18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Matthew 27:35 
When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Ang Psalms ba eh isang prophesiya tungkol kay Hesus? Ayon kay Thomas Paine ang Mga Awit ay isinulat ng maraming may akda at ang naturang bersikulo na ito ay nagsasaad tungkol sa hinagpis ng manunulat hindi isang bagay na sinasabing magyayari sa mga susunod na panahon. Ito ay nasusular sa "present tense" na ibig sabihin ay isang kasalukuyang nagaganap habang sinusulat ito ng may-aksa ng Awit, Ito ay ginawang propesiya ni Mateo ng isinulat nya ang kanyang ebanghelyo. Malinaw naman ang paliwanag ni Thomas Paine tungkol dito at mukhang ang ating Katolikong taga-basa lang ang hindi nakaintindi.



Mapunta naman tayo kay Ceasar.



Ayon kay Frank R. Zindler:

It may be conceded that it is not surprising that there are no coins surviving from the first century with the image of Jesus on them. Unlike Tiberius Cæsar and Augustus Cæsar who adopted him, Jesus is not thought to have had control over any mints. Even so, we must point out that we do have coins dating from the early first century that bear images of Tiberius that change with the age of their subject. We even have coins minted by his predecessor, Augustus Cæsar, that show Augustus on one side and his adopted son on the other. 1 Would Mr. Wright have us believe that these coins are figments of the imagination? Can we be dealing with fig-mints? 

Statues that can be dated archaeologically survive to show Tiberius as a youth, as a young man assuming the toga, as Cæsar, etc. Engravings and gems show him with his entire family. Biographers who were his contemporaries or nearly so quote from his letters and decrees and recount the details of his life in minute detail. There are contemporary inscriptions all over the former empire that record his deeds. There is an ossuary of at least one member of his family, and the Greek text of a speech made by his son Germanicus has been found at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. And then there are the remains of his villa on Capri. Nor should we forget that Augustus Cæsar, in his Res Gestæ (“Things Accomplished”), which survives both in Greek and Latin on the so-called Monumentum Ancyranum, lists Tiberius as his son and co-ruler.

Is there anything advocates of an historical Jesus can produce that could be as compelling as this evidence for Tiberius? I think not, and I thank N. T. Wright for making a challenge that brings this disparity so clearly to light.

Bilang kasagutan sa argumneto ni Zindler, sinabi ng may akda na, "Unang pagkakamali sa argumentong ito ay ang pagkukumpara sa dalawang nilalang na magkaiba ang estado sa lipunan nung mga panahong yaon. Si Tiberius Ceasar ay isang makapangyarihang emperador ng Roma samantalang si Kristo ay isang ordinaryong hudyo na naninirahan sa Jerusalem. Marapat lamang na ang mga pisikal na bagay na nauugnay sa isang pamosong tao sa kasaysayan ng mundo ay bigyang halaga at pag-iingat tulad ng pag-iingat sa unang bandila ng Pilipinas, sa Fort Santiago, sa mga pader ng Intramuros at iba pa. Ngunit para sa isang ordinaryong mamamayan nung panahong iyon, sino sa palagay ninyo ang mag-aabala upang tipunin ang mga pisikal na bagay na bahagi ng buhay ni Kristo maliban sa Kanyang mga taga-sunod? Gamit ang lohika, masasabi nating mali ang tinatawag na point of comparison ng nasabing may-akda kung kaya’t ligwak agad ang argumentong kanilang ibinibigay."

Tandaan natin na ang sinasagot ng artikulo ni Zindler ay ang argumento na ginamit ni N.T.Wright  sa kanyang aklat na Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress 1996). Sinabi ni Wright na mas madali pa raw na paniwalaan na hindi umiral si Tiberius Ceasar kaysa sabihi8n na hindi totoong umiral si Hesus.

Ay naku po...suguro naman mas maganda na basahin mo muna yung artikulong binabatikos mo bago ka bumatikos. Ganyan ba ang pag-gamit ng "lohika?"

Pero sige, pasukin natin ang argumento ng Katolikong may-akda. Ayon sa kanya, kaya may mga naiwang ibedensya si Tiberius Ceasar eh dahil sikat sya, tama ba? Papaano mga taga sunod ni Hesus? Wala ba silang ebidensya? Yung mga record o kaya mga census, hindi ba't ma-ituturing na ebidensya mga ito? Wag nyo namang sabihin na sikat na tao lang ang may mga record sa census ng mga Romano?

Pero mabalik tayo sa kanyang salita na sinasabing nakabase lamang ang argumento ng mga ateista tunkol kay Hesus base lamang sa dalawang aspeto (pisikal na ebidensya at sa kamalian at pagkakaiba ng istorya ng Ebanghelyo). Totoo ba ito? Dito nga lang baito nakabasi?

Maraming dahilan kung bakit ang mga ateista na katulad ko ay hindi naniniwala sa pagkakairal ni HesuKristo bukod sa kanyang mga nasabi:
1.) Kawalan ng


Ukol naman sa sinasabing inconsistencies and discrepancies sa mga ebangheloyo ng bagong tipan, marapat nating isaisip na ang mga may-akda ng mga ebanghelyo ng bagong tipan ay may kanya-kanyang paraan ng pagsulat at pag-atake sa kanilang pagpapahayag ng mga aral at karanasan sa piling ng Panginoong HesuKristo. Sapagkat ang bawat isa sa mga ito ay may sariling karanasan na nais nilang ibahagi sa mga mambabasa. At sapat na ito upang magkaroon sila ng magkakaibang istilo ng pagsulat. Wala akong kilalang dalawang magkaibang manunulat ng libro o kuwento na mayroong eksaktong parehas na istilo. At ito ang isang bagay na di kayang unawain ng mga ateistang ito. Ang tanong ko, bakit tinatanggap nila ang pagkakaiba ng istilo ng mga pamosong manunulat tulad ni Shakespeare at Hawthorne pero di nila matanggap ang pagkakaiba ng istilo ng pagsulat ni Lukas, Mateo, Markos at Juan? Kataka-taka hindi ba?


Si Kristo ay tunay na lumakad sa mundong ating ginagalawan mahigit 2000 taon na ang nakakaraan. Ito ay malinaw na pinatototohanan ng mga ebanghelyo ng Banal na Kasulatan. Mga ebanghelyong napatotohanang totoo at isinulat ng mga totoong nilalang.


Higit sa lahat, ang katotohanan ng kabanalan ng Panginoong Hesus ay di marapat na ibase lamang sa mga pisikal na patotoo. Di tulad ng isang ordinaryong tao, ang pananalig natin sa Panginoong Hesus ay nakabatay sa personal na karanasan. Sa isang personal na relasyon kung saan nararamdaman natin ang Kanyang pagmamahal, patnubay, gabay at pagpapapala. Hindi ito isang pananalig na nakabatay lamang sa isang piraso ng tela, damit o anumang pisikal na gamit at pamamasaysay.


Sunday, November 04, 2012

Para ka lang nakipag-away sa bata (Its like you just fought a child.)


I find this too embarrassing. Nope, not on the atheist side of the camp but on those people who keep promoting this video. ADD members always show this YouTube video as their so-called "proof" that their so-called "Sugo" can face an atheist.

WTF?

I won't include how obvious this "sugo" is so misinformed about evolution, but to keep promoting this as an "evidence?" 

The guy Mr. Eliseo Soriano is facing is just a kid, for crying out loud. No intelligent person in his right mind will take this video seriously. Look , you won't find Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and even the late Christopher Hitchens spill their guts out in front of a yuppy. 

My gulay!

Sunday, August 05, 2012

Deceiving facts?


If you are trying to state a "fact" why do you need to tell a lie about it? 

According to a Pro-Life article that appearing in the CBCP website, "3. The RH Bills will destroy the family.

Will the greater availability of contraception improve the conditions of the family? Contraceptives bring about the downgrading of marriage, more extramarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, according to the studies of Nobel prize winner, George Akerlof. (See: Science Facts on the RH Bills IN PLAIN LANGUAGE.)

Yet in his  written response, Akerlof said, "In my opinion, giving women, whether single or married, the right to choose can only increase the dignity of marriage and its sanctity." 

Akerlof's research concluded that America's legalized abortion, as well as modern contraceptive technology, changed the American socio-sexual paradigm, as out-of-wedlock childbearing was now perceived as a woman's choice, which relieved men of any social obligation to marry the women or support their children. 

The research, conducted within an American cultural framework, is not generalizable to the culture of the Philippines, where abortion is still illegal and single mothers are common.

Akerlof had not previously known that his research, which was on American out-of-wedlock childbearing, was cited in the Philippines by opponents of the RH Bill. 

When asked about his stance on the bill, he wrote: "I support fully, and without qualification, the bill in the Philippines to promote, without bias, all effective natural and modern methods of family planning that are medically safe and legal." 

"Contraceptives and abortion, in my opinion, make family life richer and more rewarding because they reduce the number of unwanted children, which is bad for the family, and also bad for the children as well," he added. 

Akerlof is the Koshland Professor of Economics at the University of California-Berkeley, and a 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Akerlof was moved to comment on the issue after being contacted for comment by a freelance journalist who noticed the CBCP's citation of his research on their website.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Hollie Ones issues in Facebook


Holie Ones:  ang point ko eh natural event ang big bang na nangyari billion years ago,naiintindihan mo ba kung gaano katagal ang billion?,ang syensya ay ang pagdidiskubre sa mga bagay na observable,testable at repeatable sa PRESENT,pero yung method ng syensya sa para i uncover yung past ay ibang iba dahil hindi naman pwedeng ulitin yung nakaraan na event eh,yung doppler at hubble ay natural phenomena na ginagamit lang nila para suportahan yung big bang theory,hindi meaning may dioppler at hubble effect ay totoo na ang big bang,isang malaking theory lang yon na kailangan ng pananalig,halatang hindi mo alam kung pano magtrabaho ang syensya kasi panay basic knowledge lang ang alam mo e,ang lakas ng loob mong magsalita tungkol sa huble at doppler effect baket physicist ka ba?


Holie Ones: at baka isipin niyo anti big bang theory ako hah,hindi, ang point ko lang madami ring faith based sa science gaya ng religion,hinding hindi magiging anti science ang religion dahil ang mga religious na tao nga ang nag introduce ng science sa mundo magmula western civilization, copernicus,kepler,newton,mendel,planck,Boyle, Galileo,francis collins na director ng human genome project iilan lang yan at madami pang religious na tao na gumawa ng pundasyon sa science.

                                           ****
Pinoy Atheist: Ok, let us now deal with this post from our favorite Christian defender, “Holie Ones.” The post was written in Tagalog and is dealing with two issues. We will tackle them one by one.

The first paragraph is very familiar with the Christian evangelicals and Creationists argument of what they call as “operational science” and “origin science.”

Using Google, I tried to surf the web to find some reference about this, and I’ve noticed that only Christian website offer explanations on this “two types of sciences.” According to them,  operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites. Origin (or Historical) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation.  As Norman Geisler explained, “this origin science is not empirical and its conclusions are not falsifiable (When Skeptics Ask pp. 214-215). Origin science works on different principles than operation science does.  Since the past events that it studies cannot be repeated today, it uses an analogy between the kinds of cause/effect relationships that is being studied (When Skeptics Ask pp. 214-215).

He said that origin science study things that only happened once and by their nature, doesn’t happen again. This  seems to echo Christian theologian Richard Swinburne definition of a miracle as a non-repeatable exemption to the Law of Nature (The Existence of God p.229).


This is the same claim that Hollie Ones is trying to push through. According to him (minus his braggadocio), the Big Bang already happened billions of years ago, so how can we use science (since science only deals with the empirical and observational events) to believe that it is true. The Big Bang is only a theory and just like other theories, you can only use faith to believe it.

Ok, so how will we know that the Big bang is true? How do scientists deal with the past?

In the scientific community, this is still debatable, not because of the methods employed but more on the issues brought about by philosophers (who are not scientists) like Thomas Khun and Paul Feyerabend.

If I will accept this so-called “explanation” then “origin science” will become unfalsifiable thus making it unscientific (since the past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science).

But lucky for me, science doesn’t operate that way.  When dealing with past events, science use present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs to make verified retrodictions.  So, that’s not faith since we didn’t  just accept it without trying to observe with our claims. That’s the logical side of science. Unfortunately, when I told Hollie Ones about the Hubble Law and the Doopler Effect, he shoved them as irrelevant.

Irrelevant?

As I have already stated, science uses present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event to make a verified retrodiction. That’s where the Hubble Laws and the Doopler Effect steps in.  There are other hypotheses about the origin of the Universe like the Steady State Theory, The Big Bounce Theory, The Cyclic Universe and to make Hollie Ones happy let us include his Judeo/Christian Creation myth. However, in today's scientific model, the Big Bang fits present scientific observations. It is currently the best natural explanation we have and both the Hubble Law and the Doopler Effect have contributed to its explanation. Oh I’m not saying that  the Hubble Law, and the Doopler Effect are the only reasons to explain the Big Bang. There are other discoveries that support it like when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson found evidence of cosmic background radiation.

Now we go to paragraph number two.

It was the religious people who introduce science to the world. Hmmmmm…really?  Well, the irony here is that the Big Bang was introduced by a Georges LeMaitre (1894-1966) a Monsignor in the Catholic church. However, he advised Pope Pius XII not to make it a Catholic dogma.

So let see…

Are you familiar with the fallacy…uh yep…Appeal to Authority. 

Now, using Hollie Ones’ logic we can say that astrology and alchemy is true because Sir Isaac Newton practice it. That slavery is ethical because Aristotle agrees with it. See the problem? 

There are scientists out there that believe in a certain god or some kind of a religious discipline…roughly 75 percent does, but that doesn’t automatically mean that science and God belief go side by side. We shouldn’t declare them to be compatible purely on the basis that some scientists and philosophers are religious. There are scientists who believe in the Steady State model of cosmology, or that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, or that sunspots are the primary agent of climate change, or that UFO's are real (really?). The mere fact that such positions are held by some scientists doesn’t make these ideas are scientific. Their irrational ideas are not and did not become scientific foundations.

So again please before thinking of engaging an atheist in a rational discussion, think again. Oh, and I don’t need to be a physicist to explain that to you.

Pinoy Atheist

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Let's help CFI to win Alexander Aan freedom back.

After stating on Facebook his doubt about the existence of God and posting some satirical cartoons about the prophet Muhammed, Alexander was attacked by a mob, arrested for promoting atheism, and convicted of “disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hatred or hostility.” He was then sentenced to two and a half years in prison and saddled with an exorbitant fine. 

Let us help the Center for Inquiry  to win him his freedom with demonstrations and through diplomatic channels, and to bring the President of the United States to his cause.


http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/urgent_tell_the_president_to_speak_out_for_jailed_atheist_alexander_aan/

Where did you come from?

I got this comment from an anonymous person who is obviously a God believer.

"Kung di kayo naniniwala sa Diyos saan nagsimula ang unang tao? Evolution theory? saan naman nagsimula ang unang unggoy at pinagmulan nito?"( If you don't believe in God then where did the first humans originated? Evolution theory? Where did the first monkey come from and where did it originate?) 

 And here's another one.

 Who made you, then? You popped out of nowhere? Surely you don't believe the evolution theory? why would anyone accept that they evolve from an ape? Where did life come from, would you please care to explain? Atheisits. You're an easy prey for Satan. I'm not dissing you or anything. I'M JUST WARNING YOU. But on second thought, maybe he won't prey on you so that you keep on believing that atheism of yours, then you'll neer know HIM. Ever thought that Satan might be the one putting that "atheism" thing in your mind? (By Haidi on 10/23/11)

 Have you noticed anything familiar with these two comments?

Yes, they are all assuming that believing in a God will answer the question of where you came from.

Unfortunately, they're just using one source, which is the Jewish myth of Adam and Eve. So how will you answer this question? Where does life comes from? Did I popped from nowhere? I will not pretend to know the answer about the origin of life. What I can do is to assume its origin. That's why we have myths.  Different culture had given us different answers on where we came from. For some good examples, we'll look at a few different creation myths.

According to the Altaic speaking people, the world was created by Ulgen and the first man was Erlik. Now Erlik was corrupted ( I don't know why so don't ask) and became the devil, and he tempted and corrupted the first woman.

Here in the Philippines, the Bagobo Tribe of Southern Mindanao believed that Melu created this world and with the help of his brother, they both created the first humans. My Tagalog ancestors believe that human emerged from a bamboo pole. When the world first began there was no land; there was only the Sea and the Sky, and between them flew a huge, beautiful Kite (a bird similar to a hawk). One day, the bird, which had nowhere to land and rest, grew tired of flying about, and in frustration stirred up the Sky in a quarrel against the Sea. The Sky threw rain, thunder, and lightning that reached the Sea, who in turn rose up and hurled waves and hurricanes that reached the Sky.

In order to restrain its fury, the Sky showered a multitude of massive boulders down upon the Sea, which became the islands that formed the Philippines. These islands prevented the waters from rising any more - instead causing them to flow back and forth, and thereby creating the tides. Afterwards, the Sky then ordered the Kite to light on one of the newly-formed islands to build her nest, and to leave the Sea and the Sky in peace.

Now at this same time the Land Breeze and the Sea Breeze were married, and they had a child which they named Bamboo. One day, when Bamboo was floating against the sea, it struck the feet of the Kite. Shocked, hurt, and angered that anything should strike it, the bird furiously pecked at the bamboo until it split in half. Out of one section came a golden-bronze colored man, named Malakas (Strong One) and from the other half came a similarly hued woman, named Maganda (Beautiful One).

The earthquake then called on all the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea to see what should be done with these two, and the animals decided that they should marry each other. Together, Malakas and Maganda had many children, and from them eventually came all the different races of people (see: Ancient Philippine Creation Story).

The Huron people believed that in the beginning there was water and water animals. Into this emptiness a goddess who had lived with the Great Spirit fell out of the sky. Two loons saw her falling, and they made themselves into a cushion for her to land on. The loons cried out for help from the other animals; the loon still has a loud voice. It was Giant Tortoise who came first and offered to carry Sky Woman on his back. Then he called a council to see what could be done. It was decided that Sky Woman must have some permanent place to live, so Tortoise ordered the animals to dive into the water to find earth. Many died in their attempt. Only the toad made it and returned with a pinch of earth. Sky Woman took it, placed it on Tortoise's back, and it grew into land. The Great Tortoise still supports the world.

Now these are a lot of different creation myths that we can find in different cultures, and they are all trying to explain our origin. The Genesis story is just one of them. (For a scientific explanation, see the article The Origin of Life by Albrecht Moritz).

There is nothing really bad about myths. According to Joseph Campbell, myths are more than just trying to search for the meaning of something, but it is the experience. "They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols. Read other people's myths, not those of your own religion, because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts - but if you read the other ones, you begin to get the message. Myth helps you to put your mind in touch with this experience of being alive. It tells you what it is."

Mr. Campbell was right. You have to read other people's myths because you might start interpreting your own religious myth as facts. That's what's happening with Christians nowadays. Going back to the topic, we have a very rich source of different creation myths to choose for, surely you can always look for the best story that will suit your personal lifestyle.

Which brings us to the issue of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is not about origins. It's about change. Evolution is not after where life came from, it's about how life branches off to from different species. Evolution is essentially the process whereby new species arise from earlier species by accumulated changes. This is often referred to as "descent with modification." The first monkey came from its ancestor, which doesn't look like a monkey. Humans don't descend from  monkeys; we came from a different lineage. Ok...let us level with the kind of thinking these fundamentalist Christians have when it comes to science. I reasonably assume that when they talk about "monkeys" they automatically include the Great Apes (the chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas). Now, if I'm going to trace my biological ancestors, say 6 million years ago, it would very much like the chimpanzees. Notice that I said "like," I never said it would be a chimpanzee because the modern chimp we have today branched out to a different species from humans. 105 million years before, my ancestors look more like a tree shrew and 417 millions years earlier; it's a bony fish. So you see, it's not just about monkeys. Before becoming a Aegyptopithecus, life has evolved from different species before reaching my ancestors.

So why do I accept the Theory of Evolution more than eh, let say the Genesis Creation Story? Well, because we have valid evidence on evolution and there are supporting evidence from geology, organic chemistry, and genetics to support its claim. Now, if these Christians can show me a decent evidence that human males are missing a rib and there is a tree that bares a fruit that is the source of human morality and...or let's make this easier and just be contented that the Genesis story is a myth.

Monday, July 16, 2012

On the news: Atheism on the rise in America.


by Don Lacey on Jul. 14, 2012

On June 1st, Pastor John Hagee gave a speech in which he tells Atheists to move out of the country. Thank you for sharing your feelings, Johnny, but I don’t think I’ll be moving soon. Perhaps you should move. Pentecostals such as you, Pastor Hagee, are famous for handling poisonous snakes and testing your faith by drinking strychnine. As far as I know, you all believe that the meaningless babbling you spew is talking in tongues. I don’t think I’ll be taking your advice anytime soon.

The fact is, Atheism is gaining ground in America and locally, The Tucson Atheists just signed up its 500th member. There are four freethinking groups operating in Tucson—Tucson Atheists, Skeptics of Tucson, the U. of A. Skeptics Club, and FreeThought Arizona. In Arizona there are two coalitions currently operating—Secular Coalition for Arizona and the Arizona Coalition of Reason. The coalitions combine the efforts of many secular and freethinking groups in Arizona from Flagstaff, Prescott, Phoenix, and Tucson.

Perhaps the rapid increase in the number of people shedding religion is a reaction to the fact that the Religious Right has shown its true character with its intolerance of the civil rights and in some cases the health of homosexuals. Here in Arizona the Center for Arizona Policy sidelined legislation designed to protect our school children from being bullied because it might accidently protect gay students from being bullied. How Christian is that? How is it that Cathi Herrod wields so much power? I don’t remember voting for her. Remember that she is heading a 501.c.3 organization (tax exempt charitable organization). According to the rules established for that kind of organization, there are restrictions on political action, such as lobbying. Please check out StopCAP to get a more complete story on this powerful, religious, right wing organization.
Perhaps the rise in Atheism is due to the amount of information that is readily available. Many of us carry around internet connected, hand held computational devices that can be also be used as a phone. Arguments are different now. Sometimes points of disagreements are settled on the spot after a short consultation with Mr. Google. Have you ever noticed how someone looking up something on their iPhone looks like someone praying? Except, they’re not looking for answered prayers, they’re looking for answered questions. Do you want to know who wrote the song The City of New Orleans? Check it out HERE. I’ll bet you thought it was Arlo Guthrie didn’t you? People used to carry the Bible to answer all the hard questions.
It’s a sure bet that the next generation will be less religious than the current one.

****

This news happened in the USA so why posted it here in a Filipino atheist blog?

Ans: So you'll know where my journey is heading.

Just a reminder.


Friday, July 13, 2012

The Usual Gang of Idiots

"Cruel persecutions and intolerance are not accidents, but grow out of the very essence of religion, namely, its absolute claims."  - Morris Raphael Cohen


















Don't get me wrong. I am not calling these people in the following pictures above as "bunch of idiots", it's what they are doing what I see as idiotic...but sometimes I am tempted to think otherwise.


It is typical to see Christians acting this way, like they have the authority to judge people base on their standard, which is the Christian Bible of course. Since the Christian holy writ declares homosexuality is a "sin" therefore these Christians think they are giving humanity a service by demonstrating on LBGT parades, reminding the gay community that homosexuality is a sin, thus saving the poor chap's soul for being condemned in hell for all eternity.

Normally, we call that being a self-righteous jerk.

That's the problem with religious standards. The Westerners (in which where the Bible came from) have culturally accepted that their god only created two genders; Male and Female. However, other cultures has 4 or even five different genders. For example, in Thailand, it is accepted that there are other gender roles than masculinity and being feminine. But hey, these Christians will not accept that as a fact since it's not written in their Holy Book.

What's written in the Bible eh? I am wondering. If Born-Again Christians like to protest about such issues why is it that they seem to be choosing the case? For example, why don't they rally in front of an organization that's protecting the rights of a child? The Bible is clear on this. To discipline a child, you have to whip him hard with a rod (see: Proverbs 23:13-14, and 19:15). It is also said in that Holy Book that disobedient and disrespectful children must be stoned to death (Exodus 21:17). Today the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child forbids such cruel punishments. So why not demonstrate in front of the United Nation Commission on Human Rights?

Now how about slavery? There are a lot of words about slavery in the Bible, yet I can't find a single act of God that He gave any orders to abolish it. Even His son Jesus Christ seems to be too silent about the issue. No wonder the American South can justify owning Negro slaves using this "holy book." So why is it that these Born-Again Christians don't demonstrate in front of the Commission on Human Rights against the abolition of slavery?

Rape? According to the "Good Book" if a man raped a woman, he would be killed if she was married or engaged, but if she wasn't married or engaged, a virgin, she would have to marry him (See: Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Gosh, nowhere in any  Police woman's desk will recommend this. So, why not rally in front of every police precinct in Metro Manila?

Cherry picking? Why choose if the Bible is the inerrant word of a God? Whose standards do these Christians are using if they are selecting some verses in the Bible while ignoring the others?

As they say here in the Philippines, before you clean someone else's yard, clean your yard first.

Monday, July 09, 2012

After the discovery of the Higgs boson, now what?

I found this post from that Christian apologetic website called "Apologetic Press."
            As stated above, evolutionists consider the existence of the Higgs Boson “crucial to forming the cosmos after the Big Bang” (“Scientists…,” emp. added). Notice that without the existence of this theoretical particle, Big Bang theorists recognize that the Universe could not even form after the Big Bang theoretically occurred. Its existence would not prove that the Universe did form in the manner suggested by Big Bang Theory. Its existence would not even prove that the Universe could form after a hypothesized Big Bang occurred. Further, its existence would not prove that the Big Bang itself could occur at all. Its existence would not prove that matter could exist forever or pop into existence out of nothing, one of which must be true in order for the Big Bang to even get started. And its existence would certainly not prove that the scientific laws governing the Universe could write themselves into existence. However, without the existence of the particle, theorists know the Big Bang could not happen. Thus, discovery of its existence would not prove anything in the end, but only allow evolutionists to cross one of the many chasms that stand in the way of their theory even being considered a remote possibility. In other words, the Big Bang has not even reached square one in the realm of proof. It still lies firmly in the realm of impossibility. Bottom line: the Creation model still stands as the most logical explanation for the origin of the Universe—the model that matches the scientific evidence.
Evolutionist and Big Bang? The Creation model? Is this a joke?

Anyway, the  funny thing here is that since the Higgs boson was called the "God particle," some Christians inside Internet forums think that it has something to do with god. For example, a certain "Wayne" in Yahoo Answer has this to say, 
Atheists, how do you feel about the discovery of the God particle? It must turn your stomach knowing that the God particle has been discovered. In my opinion this completely ends the debate between religion and science. Religion is science. Scientists have discovered a particle that highly suggests the existence of God.
Why else would it be called the God particle?
The Higgs boson was nicknamed the “God particle” because of Leon Lederman. It came from one of his books, “The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question,” that was written in 1993. According to Lederman, the God particle was so named because:

(a) it's short for "goddamn particle," presumably owing to the difficulty of establishing its existence, and
(b) finding proof of said existence would help us understand the "mind of God." Skeptics would likely add that the term is also appropriate because
(c) like its namesake, it may not really be there.

By the way, Peter Higgs is a self-proclaimed atheist. That's why he disliked the name, "God particle" and personally, I don't really like to give the Higgs boson a religious undertone.


I hope this drawing from Live Science can help you guys understand what this Higgs boson is, coz I don't understand it myself. Eh...I will not pretend to be a scientific "Know-It-All" just to make me look "cool."

Now, I live here in the Philippines, and the bad news is that we Filipino doesn't really care much about science, especially particle physics. Ask a typical Filipino in the street about the discovery of the Higgs boson and wait for a reply. He may know more about the news in the latest entertainment gossips, on what's happening with the government or in the boxing ring...but particle physics?

So let me leave this article to the Filipino science geeks who are now having a Mad Hatter's tea party of their lives because of this news. Any reaction with the Filipino Christian Community on the discovery of the Higgs boson? As long as you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he is the answer to your salvation, it really doesn't matter for them.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The Curse of Silence

Luke Skywalker: "But...I can't get involved with anything like that..."

Ben "Obi-Wan" Kenobi: "Remember, Luke, the suffering of one man's the suffering of all. Distances are irrelevant to injustice. If not stopped soon enough, evil eventually reaches out to engulf all men, whether they have opposed it or ignored it."

There are atheists out there who prefer to sit on the side bench, and watch the parade go by. I call these atheists as moderates. Well, that’s my term.

These atheists prefer to call themselves as “agnostics." Unlike the true agnostics, these atheists just want to be identified as agnostics simply because they don’t want to be labeled with the “A” word. For them, the term atheist signifies militancy, intolerance or worst.

Reasons for this moderation vary, but the one rationale I always heard is that we (as atheists) should respect other people’s belief that includes the religious belief.

In his book, The End of Faith, Sam Harris devoted pages on religious moderates. I think he should also include moderate atheists in that chapter. Anyway, just like their god fearing brothers (the moderate believers), these moderate non-believers believe that atheists and pious people should learn to respect the belief and non-belief of others. In other words, mutual respect. Now, is there such a thing called “mutual respect” between a God believer and a “godless” person?

Personally, I find some Christians (Catholic or Protestant) friendly. I have theists’ friends, but that’s it. We prefer to talk about politics or trivial stuffs. Even so, we never talk about religious beliefs.

Now, try opening the Bible and read Psalms 14:1. How about reading Psalm 53: 1-6, Romans 1: 18-32 and Romans 3: 10-18. It that what you call "mutual respect?"

Ah so as an atheist it is OK for me to respect the idea that I will be burning in hell because I don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I am destitute of reason or of the common powers of understanding because I don't believe God exists, or I am corrupt, wicked and vile, right?

I think what these moderate atheists should do is to read some religious scriptures and try figuring out for themselves what these “faiths” have to say about the faithless.

In Islam for example, atheists are known as Kafir. The word Kafir is derived from the Arabic term Kafara which means to "to cover up or hide something." So a kafir is a person who covers up and hides the truth. For those who believe in Islam, the word Kafir is the worst word in the human language. A Kafir, or disbeliever, will be punished for eternity in the fire of hell. Try reading the following in the Qur’an so you will know how these Muslims really look at atheists: 40:35, 83:34, 25:77, 47:4, 6:25, 86:15, 6:111, 23:97, 37:18 and 8:12. Furthermore, take note: A Muslim is not the friend of a kafir - 3:28. Believers should not take kafir as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah's protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him. So, when they say “ respect”, does that mean I cannot even criticize their ideas. That I should just shut my trap and let these God believers proselytize his faith, his archaic philosophy, his twisted science, his wanton disregard tthe other person’s ideas? 


Wow!

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Eye of the Needle


Just a thought...

A famous Filipino boxer is now promoting the Bible and is rallying that everyone must obey what the Lord have said.

Now, as of today this boxer is worth P1.5 billion. That's almost 60 million dollars worth of earnings. I think that includes all his material wealth. I even heard he bought a helicopter worth $18-million.

When a rich man asked Jesus how he can serve him Jesus answered, "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." (Luke 18:22)

In Matthew 6:19-22, it is written that Jesus said, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal."

Going back to the Gospel According to Luke, Jesus said, "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys."

Now, if you said you are a Christian, yet you seem to ignore what Jesus taught. Does hypocrisy ring a bell?

Well as what happened to the rich man, "When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth." (Luke 18:23)

Hay...

Christian hypocrisy indeed!



Monday, April 09, 2012

Serves You Right!



Every Lenten Season the pious Filipinos flock the street wiping themselves, carrying makeshift crosses and worst, nailing themselves on a cross amidst spectator. Now some conservative Catholics are shouting “blasphemy” because a girl in her shorts went up a cross to have her picture taken.

My gulay!

Why can’t we just be a little bit honest for a change? Lenten season here in the Philippines is a circus. The reason why we do it is nothing more but a show. We’re doing all of this for the foreign tourist industry. What a bunch of hypocrites!