More Fun in the Philippines.

Just for Laughs!

"Hey! I said pull the ropes, NOT pull my pants!"

All About Rizal, evolution and Einstein...Facebook style.

Let’s talk about Jose Rizal’s idea of God and religion. This Fb surely doesn’t have the slightest idea about Rizal and his ideas towards religion and God. That is why he taught that he can use Rizal to…well aggravate a Filipino atheist.

Let me start with paragraph 1. According to his post Rizal (base on the quote) thinks that religion is a very sacred thing. That’s correct, Rizal is a deeply religious person, but there’s more. 

Rizal believes in what he called “Natural Religion.” In his notes to Morga, he claimed that primitive religion of the Filipinos was more in conformity with Christ’s religion that the religion brought by the Spanish friars. Well we know that the Spaniards brought Christianity to the Philippine shores in 1565. Now, base n most of his correspondence with Fr. Pablo Pastell on the time he was in Dapitan, Rizal seems to imply that he defines religion base on the romantic claim of deism natural religion. As Rizal wrote,on his third letter to Fr. Pastell, “Through reasoning and by necessity, rather than through faith, do I firmly believe in the existence of a creative Being. Who is he? I do not know. What human sounds, what accents are we to use in pronouncing the name of this Being whose works overwhelm the imagination? Can anyone give him an adequate name, when a small creature on this earth with power so fleeting carries two or three names, three or four surnames, and many more titles and designations? We call him Dios but this only comes from the Latin dues and ultimately from the Greek Zeus. What kind of being is he? I would attribute to him, to an infinite degree, all the beautiful and holy qualities my mind can think of, but the fear of my ignorance constrains me. Someone has said that everyone conjures up his own God in his own image and likeness. And if my memory serves me right, it was Anacreon who said that if a bull could form an image of God, it would imagine with horns and mooing in a superlative degree. Even so I venture to think of him as infinitely wise, mighty, good (my idea of the infinite is imperfect and confused), when I behold the wonders of his works, the order that reigns over the universe, the magnificence and expanse of creation, and the goodness that shines in all.”

And what about Rizal’s idea of God? Rizal’s belief in a Deity was based on reasonable reflection of nature as well as from conscience and not on faith or divine revelation. On the same letter, Rizal expressed his disbelief on the teachings of ancient sacred books. He writes:

“The various religions claim to have God’s will condensed and written in books and dogmas; but apart from the many contradictions, conflicting interpretations of words, and many obscure and untenable points I find in them, my conscience, my reason cannot admit that he who like a wise father had provided his creatures with everything necessary for this life, proceeded to bury what was necessary for eternal life in the obscurities of a language unknown to the rest of the world and hide it behind metaphors and deeds that go against the very laws of nature. Is it possible that he who makes the sun rise for all and the air to blow everywhere to give life, he who has endowed everyone with intelligence and reason for life here on earth, has also hidden from us what is most necessary for our eternal life? What shall we say of a father who heaps candies and toys on his children, but gives food only to one of them, educates and rears him alone? And what if it so happens that this chosen one refuses to eat while the others die looking for food?”

2. This reflects the Fb guy’s ignorance in evolution. Humans didn’t descend from monkeys and humans will not evolved into gorillas. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

3. Albert Einstein is a scientific pantheists.

When Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue ask Dr. Einstein if he believes in God, he answered, “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Also, in a letter March 24, 1954, Einstein wrote, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Atheista ka ba? Opo Atheista po ako. (Part 2)

Exodus 20:8 vs. Romans 14:5

Isa raw sa nakita nyang maling kontradiksyon na nakasulat sa website ng American Atheists ay ang patungkol sa Exodo 20:8 at sa Taga Roma 14:5. Ang sabi nya...

Teka...ano nga ba ang kontradiksyon dito?

(Exodus 20:8-9) - "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  "Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

(Romans 14:5) - "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind."

Ah, yun naman pala. Kung kailanga pa bang ipag-diwang ang Sabbath ayon sa iniutos ng Panginoon o ang tao na ang bahala kung anong Sabbath ang gusto nya. 

Ayon sa may akda bakit tila hindi ipinaliwanag ng American Atheists kung paano naging magkakontra ang naturang mga sitas o talata. 

Pinuntahan ko ang site na tinutukoy nya at napansin ko nga na walang paliwanag...dahil ito po ay nasa porma ng isang listahan o lists. Lahat ng sinasabing contradictions dito eh pawang nakalista lang po. Hindi po naman kasi ito kagaya ng site ni Farrell Till kung saan naka detalye ang lahat ng mga rason nya.

Ikalawang tanong, ano ba ang pakahulugan ng nasabing komentarista sa nais iparating ng talata sa Taga Roma 14:5? Ito ba ay totoong patungkol sa araw ng pamamahinga o Sabbath?

So, ang Romans 14:5 po ba ay walang kahulugan ukol sa Sabbath?

Well, ayon kay Adam Clarke (Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible) eh mayroon. Bagamat hindi binangit ni Pablo ang salitang "Sabbath" sa bersikulo na ito, dapat nating unawain na ang pinag-uusapan dito ay ang mga tradisyon at batas ng Hudyo kumpara sa Hintil. Ganito rin ang komentaryo ni Albert Barnes at ni B.W.Johnson. Sabi nya, hindi raw kasi maunawaan ng mga Hudyo na ang Lumang Tipan ay napalitan na ng Bagong Tipan kaya't ang mga utos tungkol sa tradisyon ng Lumang Tipan ay natapos na rin. Sya nga pala...ito ay mga kumentaryo ng mga Christian Bible commentators at hindi mga Katoliko. Tandaan natin na ang American Atheists ay kumakalaban ng mga pananaw ng mga Fundamentalist Christians.

Kaya dahil sa mga komentaryong ito, nakikita natin na para sa mga pananaw ng mga Fundamentalists Christians, may koneksyon and Romans 14:5 sa Sabbath.

At ang huling katanungan sa pag-aanalisa natin ay kung bakit hindi isinama ng komentarista ang talatang kasunod nito na nagsasabi ng ganito:

Ang nangingilin sa isang araw ay nangingilin alang-alang sa Panginoon. Ang kumakain ng kahit ano ay kumakain niyon alang-alang sa Panginoon, sapagkat nagpapasalamat siya sa Diyos. Yaon namang hindi kumakain ng lahat ng uri ng pagkain ay gumagawa ng gayon alang-alang sa Panginoon at nagpapasalamat din siya sa Diyos.

Nabura ba ng talatang kasunod ang problema?

Hindi po. Tandaan natin na ang naging usapan dito eh tradisyon (which kasama na ang custom on festivities, food laws at iba pa.) Ang tanong lang naman dito eh simple lang: Ang diyos ba ang nagtalaga ng araw o ikaw ang pipili ng araw na gusto mo?

(Sa kanyang naging tugon sa akin gagamitin ko na rin ang post na ito para masagot ang mga ito...

Unang una na ay ang patuloy niyang pagtukoy sa Exodo 16:29. Dapat po nating isipin na ang araw na binabanggit sa Exodo 16:29 ay ang araw ng pamamahinga para sa mga Hudyo na hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay patuloy na di kinikilala si HesuKristo at ang mga aral ng ating Panginoon.

Hindi ba kinikilala ni Hesus ang Sabbath dahil sa salita nya sa  Marcos 2:27-28? 

“At sinabi niya sa kanila, Ginawa ang sabbath ng dahil sa tao, at di ang tao ng dahil sa sabbath: Kaya’t ang Anak ng tao ay panginoon din naman ng sabbath.”

Ito ang madalas na ginagamit ng mga Katoliko o iba pang mga mananamba ng Linggo para ma-justify ang kanilang pagsamba sa ibang araw. Pero alam mo...walang problema sa akin ito. Tandaan natin na ang kontradiksyon eh kung ang diyos ba ang nagbigay ng anong panahon ang dapat gawing Sabbath vs. kung pwede bang tao na lang ang mamili ng araw na gusto nya. Just telling me that Jesus changed the Law doesn't justify the fact that an omnipotent, omniscient God's Law is replaceable. Teka...but to tell that Jesus never respected the Sabbath Law is a lie isn't it? (See: Luke 4:16; Mark 2:27-28) 

Pero sasabihin na, "Malinaw mga kapatid na si Kristo bilang Panginoon ng Sabbath ay may karapatang baguhin ang Sabbath ayon sa kung ano ang makakabuti para sa tao. Ito ba ay mauituturing na isang kontradiksyon ayon sa Exodo 16:29? Hindi po mga kapatid sapagkat bilang Panginoon at Diyos ng Sabbath, may karapatan at kakayahan ang Panginoong HesuKristo na baguhin ito ayon sa kung ano ang makabubuti para sa tao na siyang dahilan sa pagkakatatag nito."

Para sa may akda binago na ni Hesus ang batas ng Sabbath kaya wala ng kontradiksyon, tama ba? Kung iintindihing mabuti ang nakasulat sa Marcos 2:27-28, hindi dyan sinasabi na binago ni Hesus and batas ukol sa Sabbath. Sinasabi lang dyan na mas importante ang tao kaysa sa Sabbath (Which still contradicts Exodus 16:29 that demands people to worship in the 7th day.)

Atheista ka ba? Opo Atheista po ako.

Habang ako'y naghahanap ng mga kung anu-ano dito sa Internet, ako'y nadaan sa isang blog na sinulat ng sa tingin ko'y isang Catholic defender na may titulong "ATHEISTA KA BA?" Ito ay naisulat noong Abril 8, 2008 ng isang tao na naitatago sa pangalang fperito at mayroon itong 5 bahagi. Hmmmm...mukhang nasagot ko na ito, ngunit nagtataka lang ako kung bakit mukhang nawawala ata yung ginawa kong kasagutan para dito sa aking blog?

Well, due to insisted public demand, aking ulit ibinabalik ang naging mga kasagutan ko sa kanya at sa kanyang sinulat tungkol sa atheism at sa mga ateista.

According sa blog na ito, ang layunin daw ng mga ateista na gibain ang pundasyon ng Kristianismo base sa isang artikulo sa Internet. Tignan natin ang kanyang sinabi:

Medyo naguguluhan ako dito. Ang artikulo na galing sa American Atheists ay kumakalaban sa mga paniniwala ng mga Evangelical Christians o yung tinatawag nating Fundamentalist Christianity. Malaki kasi ang pag-kakaiba ng paniniwala ng mga Romano Katoliko ikumpara sa mga Fundamentalist Christians. Umpisahan natin sa "The Bible has no errors."

Sa mga Katoliko, naniniwala sila na ang Biblia ay walang mali...KUNG ang babasihan natin eh yung mga tinatawag na original manuscript (na hindi na matatagpuan) at take note...ang Biblia ay walang mali kung ang pag-uusapan ay tungkol sa kaligtasan. Nakasaad sa dokumentong "Dei Verbum" Article 11. Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scripture..

Malinaw ba?

Sa naabing dokumento, hindi sinasabi na walang kamalian o kontradiksyon ang Biblia. Sinasabi dito na walang mali ang Biblia KUNG ITO AY PATUNGKOL SA KALIGTASAN.

Eh papaano naman sa mga tinatawag na Fundamentalist Christians?

Ayon sa Lausanne Covenant of 1974, "We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice." (Section 2. THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE BIBLE). Ibig sabihin, sa mga Fundamentalist Christian ang Biblia ay walang kamalian sa lahat ng sinasabi nito, hindi lamang patungkol sa kaligtasan.

Kaya bumalik tayo sa patukoy ng may akda. Motibo ba ng mg ateista na sirain ang pundasyon ng Kristianismo? Kung ang tinutukoy na pundasyon eh ang katotohanan na may kontradiksyon o kamalian ang Biblia suguro'y kailangan munang linawin ng may akda kung ano ang kanyang tinutukoy na doktrina ukol sa inspirasyon ng kanyang Banal na Aklat.

Sa susunod na bahagi ating pag-usapan ang kanyang mga sinasabing "kinokontrang" kontradiksyon...

The Awful Truth!

Do you know that Jack T. Chick, publisher of those nifty little Christian comics is a religious bigot?

Little is known about Jack Chick, a reclusive fundamentalist Christian preacher operating out of Rancho Cucamonga, California, and what little can be gleamed about him is only available on the website of his publishing house, Chick Publications. What is known is the proliferation of tiny, hand drawn comic books, called “Chick Tracts” which he uses to evangelize. The subjects of the tracts range from relatively typical to downright bizarre, but are best known for a particularly vicious brand of anti-Catholic bigotry, and anti-evolution.

Chick’s tracts portray the Catholic Church as sinister and conspiracy bent, especially in regards to Protestant Fundamentalists and himself in particular. He portrays Church belief and practice as being born out of ancient paganism, and depicts demons as infesting every aspect of Catholic life, as though Catholics secretly worship Satan. He frequently refers to the Church as the “Whore of Babylon”, “Antichrist”, insinuates the Church created Nazism as a means to exterminate Jews, and portrays Catholics as foul-mouthed, angry, abusive and prone to drunkenness.

For more of the Bigot's List, click here.

Ito po ang Atheist.

Here in the Philippines, when we talked about atheism, we get different reactions. Some doesn't mind it while others are bothered that it exists. Just take this post  written by a certain "ragubalane" from the Definitely Filipino blog as an example (Sorry guys, this is written in Pilipino dialect).

atheist – (noun) someone who denies the existence of god. they believe in the doctrine that there is no god or gods.

atheists groups are now growing. nakakalungkot at nakakatakot isipin na sa pagbabago ng panahon, nagbabago na rin ang pananaw at paniniwala ng mga tao. marami na ang naniniwala or should i say marami na ang hindi naniniwalang may Diyos. Sa European countries malaking porsyento ng mga tao dito ay naniniwalang walang Diyos, maging sa bansang Amerika ay nadadagdagan sila ng nadadagdagan isama mo na rin ang Asia kabilang na ang bansang pilipinas (Philippine Atheist) although hindi pa ganon kapopular ang mga atheist sa atin the bottomline is: meron at may possibility na dumami din sila. May mga pondo rin sila para sa advertisement; sa buses, sa billboards, etc. hindi ko alam kung ano ang nasa isip nila kung bakit kailangang ipangalandakan pa nila na hindi sila naniniwalang may Diyos, bakit hindi na lang nila sarilihin ito? bakit kailangang kumbinsihin pa nila ang ibang tao na tularan sila?

Pinoy Atheist: Now...I've noticed that the first paragraph of his posts has this so-called meaning of the word "atheism" that says it is a 1.) denies and 2.) doctrine. So,let's play his game, shall we?

According to Mr. Webster, to deny means to "refuse to believe." So do atheists are just too stubborn to believe the irrefutable? Before, I accept this meaning, may I ask regubalane to give me the most irrefutable argument on the existence of God in his arsenal and...uh...wait...are you saying that what he will give me are just the same banana  apologists have been saying to us for the last hundred of years? You don't say...

OK...we atheist doesn't believe (not deny) your god because you guys still haven't gave us the best reason to believe its existence in the first place.

Is atheism a doctrine? Maybe regubalane doesn't understand what the word doctrine means. A doctrine can mean two things: 1. it is an affirmation of a truth and 2. it is a teaching. When a person says he doesn't believe in the existence of large-headed, green Martians, that's not a pronouncement of a truth, but rather a statement of disbelief. That is what atheism is. There is also no such thing as an "atheist teaching." Most atheists rely on arguments...they are not teaching. The Argument from Evil and The Argument from Disbelief are examples of arguments an atheist use. An atheist only argues for a point; why she doesn't believe a god exists.

So what is scary about atheism and atheists huh? OK...this guy is bothered on the growing number of people who have stopped believing in the existence of a god. He is also asking why an atheist can’t just keep her disbelief to herself. 

What makes people afraid of atheists?

Personally, I think the idea that morality came from a god is one factor. These people think that if a person stopped believing in God, he automatically becomes immoral. Looking at our history shows this is not true. When the Spaniards came to conquer our land, they've use the sword and the cross. Religious history is soaked in blood. So I guess a religious, god-fearing nation doesn't really make you morally upright.

Let us continue...

noong nag-aaral pa ako may isang tao na naniniwala na ang tao ay nagmula sa unggoy siya ay si charles darwin at ang paniniwala niyang ito ay tinawag na theory of evolution pero hanggang sa ngayon wala pang nakapagpapatunay at nagpapatotoo sa teyoryang ito. ang mga unggoy ba sa zoo o anumang uri ng ape sa kasalukuyan ay nag-evolve at naging tao? at sa panahong ito mas dumami na ang halos katulad ng paniniwala ni charles darwin.

Pinoy Atheist: I'm a little perplexed on what Darwin has to do with atheism? Some people are quite comfortable believing in God while also accepting Darwin's evolution as a fact. But OK...it seems that regubalane is the one having problems with Darwin and evolution.

There is a big difference between the word "unggoy" (monkeys) and "bakulaw" (apes) and it seems regubalane doesn't know the difference. Oh well...Darwin never said that humans came from monkeys (That's why there're still monkeys at the local zoo @ regubalane). Contrary to common Christian belief, according to Darwin, humans and apes have the same ancestor and that ancestors are not monkeys.

Is evolution not proven? Gosh...evolution is almost common with medicine and biology to say that it wasn't proven. It is already considered as a scientific fact. There are  branches in science and medicine that is being supported by evolution, just look on the issues of bacteria being immune with some antibiotics. That is a good example of evolution my theist friend. The problem here is not evolution...it's about not keeping your facts straight @ regubalane.

ang mga atheists ay hindi masasabing mga walang edukasyon dahil sa pagkakaalam ko karamihan sa kanila ay mga educated; degree holder persons, siguro nga sa pagiging well educated nila bigla nilang narealize na wala palang Diyos! should we pity them? should we be angry on them? or just completely ignore them? sabi nga eh, huwag kang manghusga para hindi ka husgahan pero hindi ko mapigilan na i-express ang opinyon ko sa kanila.

Pinoy Atheist: Not really @ regubalane. Just visit Luneta (Rizal Park) in a Sunday night. You see, there are also atheists (especially here in the Philippines) that are less educated. So I guess atheism is not only for the elites and the highly educated.

oo nga’t ang tao ay makasalanan, tayo ay makasalanan at madalas nga alam na nating kasalanan eh paulit-ulit pa rin natin itong ginagawa pero sa kabila nito humihingi tayo ng kapatawaran sa pagkakasalang ito at sa iba pa nating kasalanan dahil nga naniniwala tayong may Diyos. pero sa aking pananaw, at sa mga taong lubos na naniniwalang may Diyos, wala na yatang (opinyon ko lang po ito hindi judgement) hihigit pa sa kasalanang ikaw ay walang pinaniniwalaang Diyos. anyway, sa ngayon hindi nila alam na kasalanan ito dahil nga sa wala silang pinaniniwalaang Diyos at nabubuhay ang kanilang mortal na katawan base lamang sa pang-araw-araw at pangkaraniwang takbo ng buhay.

Pinoy Atheist: Hmmmmm...seems like regubalane's knowledge in the Holy Bible is inadequate. Disbelief is not the most horrible of sin (are you not reading your Bible?) it is blasphemy to the Holy Spirit. According to Mark 3:28-30, Matthew 12:30-32 and Luke 12:8-10 whoever blasphemed the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. Now, is blasphemy synonymous with disbelief? Blasphemy is defined as impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred thing. That doesn't sound like disbelief to me.

sinasabi ng mga self-confessed atheist na sila ay hindi naniniwalang may Diyos pero hindi rin naman daw sila gumagawa ng kasamaan o evil things, na normal lang din sila katulad natin parang sa puntong ito jina-justify nila ang pagiging “godless” nila pero kahit saang anggulo ko man tingnan parang mali pa rin. tama bang i-deny mo ang existence and miracles of Jesus Christ? tama bang sabihin mo na prayer doesn’t work? 

Pinoy Atheist: I really don't know how to address this one, I never really see any connection...Woah...what does goodness has to do with the existence and miracle of Jesus Christ and prayers? A person can believe in prayers and Jesus but based on experience I never really find it as deterrents in doing evil. Just look at some of our Filipino politicians.

Kidding aside, a person can still be god without any Jesus belief. Look at a typical Buddhist monk for example. You know, Buddhism is known to be one of the most peaceful religion (compare to Christianity) yet they don't even care about believing in Jesus Christ.  

the mere fact na tayo’y nag-exist sa mundo ay isa ng patunay na may Diyos. ang simpleng pagsikat at paglubog ng araw at ng buwan ay isa ring patunay na nandyan si Lord. kailangan pa bang bumaba Siya galing sa langit at magpakita sa harap natin para lang makumbinsi ang bawat isa na may Diyos? ofcourse, choice nila yan kaya nga may kanya-kanya tayong pag-i-isip para gawin ang gusto natin, paniwalaan ang gusto natin, at pag-aralan ang anumang naisin natin. sana lang sa isang bansang kristyano at sa paglaganap ng atheism/atheist ay wala na sa ating matinag at magiba ng ating pananampalataya kay Bro. na kahit na sinner tayo ay hindi darating sa punto na ang mga kakilala, kaibigan, kamag-anak natin ay magiging atheist.

Pinoy Atheist: The mere fact that God doesn't exists in a place where humans don't exist is a proof that God doesn't. It only exist in our minds. We talk about it, we profess it exists and so on.VIOLA! It EXISTS!

And now you say that the typical sunrise and sunset is a proof that your god exists? The Earth revolves around the Sun...Damn! Even in planet Venus, the Sun rises and set...for what? Can you appreciate the sunset in a Venus landscape? Yet still the Sun rises and set in Venus...and other planets in this Solar System on that matter without any living being appreciating it. And now you tell me that sunrise and sunsets are proof of God's existence? Ay papaya!

Do you think we need to see God in order for us atheists to believe it exists? No...that's to shallow. Again, in order for us to believe, all you have to do @ regubalane is to give us a good reason to believe and that's not about choice @ regubalane , that's about having a good evidence to support your claim.

subalit muli kong sasabihin lahat tayo ay may “free will”; malaya nating magagawa ang anumang naisin at gustuhin natin at kung iyon ang kanilang kagustuhan at paniniwala, hayaan natin sila. wala tayong karapatan na sila’y husgahan and as the bible says:

Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;”

And I also pray that may God forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.

Peace and Love to all of us.

Pinoy Atheist: Only existing, sentient beings can forgive.

Until next time.

Art against God?

This is not new. I still remember the issue about Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. The whole thing went by…nothing really happened. There was also the clamor against the movie The Last Temptation of Christ, remember that one? Today, we hear the same roar all over again. This time, it’s all about an art exhibit in which the Roman Catholic faithful declared as blasphemous.

Mideo M. Cruz, an artist with a very peculiar taste, displayed some of his artworks in the Cultural Center of the Philippines. These arts include a Jesus picture with a penis on his face and rosaries surrounded by condoms and some girlie pictures. The work is entitled “Polytheism” and it is all about Philippine history of idol worship. Base on Mr. Cruz interview, the phallic was a representation of male dominance over women.

Ok, I will not pretend that I know what art is. I might even say that his art work suck since they are just bunch of Catholic religious icons that can be bought in Recto and Quiapo and some Filipino smut mags rolled into one. But hey! I’m no artist. The issue here is expression. An artist creation is his expression about the world he lives in. So I bet Mr. Cruz is getting a little piss on what he sees around him and he’s lucky enough to have an outlet to relieve is views. Unfortunately for him, not everyone share the same idea, and he pissed them big time.

Enter the ultra-moralists Roman Catholic lackeys and lynch-mob that will not stop till Mideo and the whole CCP officials are burn in a stake. Well, in the first place, it seems they are the one who's making such a commotion on this art exhibit.

So what did Mideo did to deserve this? I heard in a TV interview that Mideo irk not only the Roman Catholic faithful but the entire Christendom as well. Really? Come on! I bet most Evangelical Christians are laughing right now telling their congregation that the Roman Catholic deserve that for worshipping graven images. Other says that this is an act of terrorism. Eric Manalang, president of Prolife Philippines, (him again?) even sued Mideo with violating Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code,. Oh for Christ sake!

According Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code:

Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:

(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
(2) (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling the same;
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. (As amended by PD Nos. 960 and 969).
Amendment of Article 201, Revised Penal Code. Article 201 of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and fifteen, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows;
"Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows. The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:
"1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
"2. The authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form, the editors publishing such literature, and the owners/operators of the book store or other establishments selling the same;
"3. Those who in theaters, fairs cinematographs or any other place, shall exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, including the following:
"(a) Films which tend to incite subversion, insurrection or rebellion against the State;
"(b) Films which tend to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their Government and/or duly constituted authorities;
"(c) Films which glorify criminals or condone crimes;
"(d) Films which serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography;
"(e) Films which offend any race or religion;
"(f) Films which tend to abet traffic in the use of prohibited drugs;
"(g) Films contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees, edicts, and any or all films which in the judgment of the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures or other agency established by the Government to oversee such motion pictures are objectionable on some other legal or moral grounds.
"4. Those who shall sell, give away of exhibit prints, engravings, sculptures or literature which are offensive to morals."

That is clear enough…is it? Wait…Section 3 is talking about films, so I guess Mideo will fall to section 4 – that his work are offensive to morals, right? So what moral code did Mideo tramples? All that Mideo did was to show to us what he thinks of idolatry and the deconstruction of neo-deities. His artworks are purely symbols. So it is "malaswa" (disgusting) OK, agree, but what do you expect with protests? Mideo's work is a protest about Filipino idolatry, what is so beautiful about that? An artist's work is not for everyone's consumption. If Mideo's work offended the ignorant majority then sorry, an artist's expression doesn't usually all about beautiful pink clouds.

And is it immoral? So, defaced and degraded an image that represents Christ is immoral, right? How about worshipping a graven image? That is also immoral – base of Judeo-Christian standard.

That where blasphemy enters the picture.

Blasphemy!

According to these Catholic lynch-mob, Mideo committed blasphemy. OK…so what is blasphemy? The word blasphemy is derives from a Greek term meaning “speaking evil,” that was then, but as time goes by, blasphemy became too lose a word. Blasphemy can now be everything, from just being a heretic, to being in a different faith. The Catholic doctor, Thomas Aquinas saw non-belief as blasphemy. Martin Luther condemned as blasphemies Anabaptism, Arianism, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam. Any denial of an article of Christian faith is understood as blasphemy. Sin was blasphemy, opposing Luther was blasphemy, questioning God’s judgments was blasphemy, persecution of Protestants by Catholics was blasphemy, Zwinglian dissent from Lutheranism was blasphemy, missing church was blasphemy, and the peasantry’s political opinions were blasphemy.

When Mideo made those sacrilegious artworks, he was accused of blasphemy…by the Roman Catholic Church, because those religious paraphernalia (pictures of Christ, rosary, etc.) are used by Roman Catholics. But talking about blasphemy, these things are also seen as blasphemy by other religion. Born-Again Christians says that using graven images is blasphemous. Islam even says that it is blasphemous to worship Jesus as the Son of God. Does that mean Born-Again Christians and Muslims can also sue the Catholics for being blasphemous?

Majority Rule?

According to some senators, majority doesn’t like Mideo’s work. It should not be shown in public galleries because people were scandalized and offended. One blog even says that Cruz's freedom of expression fizzled out the moment the first person cried 'heresy!' Some critics even say since the CCP is a public agency it should NOT be sponsoring or funding any exhibit or event that could potentially spark social discord.

Then maybe Mideo should pay for a private gallery for his exhibits instead huh? Does that make the difference?

The majority has the right to say…what majority? Like the average Roman Catholic will even gives a damn to that exhibit. Geeezzz!

This is a good example of Utilitarianism. This is purely self-interest.

OK, Mideo stepped on the Catholic majorities’ foot, but what happened to my rights? I don’t think Mideo’s work was blasphemous…It’s taste-less yes, but blasphemous? What happened to my individual rights and the rights of those who want to see Mideo’s artistic protests? In the detailed 52-paragraph statement, General Comment No. 34 in the United Nation Human Rights Council and the General Assembly paragraph 48 states that, “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.” Article 20, paragraph 2 calls on states to prohibit “advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.” The Comment is careful to require that any restrictions must not violate the Conventions’ guarantees of equality before the law (Article 26) and freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18). (See article)

There is nothing hateful in Mideo’s artwork. It doesn’t make me feel hatred towards my Roman Catholic neighbors. Looking at them doesn’t make me want to kill Catholics. I think these Roman Catholic lynch-mobs are just making the issue worst or they are just ignorant of the UN resolution.

=================================================

If you have some questions or comments on the article, send the author an e-mail at pinoy_atheist@yahoo.com. Thank you.

The Night God Ran Away From Me

by Ilving Tabios-Zamora 

Sir God:
Pour me a drink of wine. Sprinkle it with honey.
I want to sing.
I love wine when it is flower-sweet.
It drums the chest. Like lonely darkness
it fulfills all the hankerings of the flesh.

Sir God:
Pour me another drink. Squeeze bile into it.
I want to cry.
I love it more when wine is bitter.
It makes you sick yet well. You throw up
all the pains of the heart.

Sir God:
Pour me one more. And one more. Then just one more.
Blend it with dog's blood. I want to shout.
There is magic in wine. It makes you cool.
It gives you bones. You taunt everyone --
all the powers-that-be and even the ghosts.

Just pour everything out of the barrel, will you?
Come, let us talk. Why did you rid Alodia of me?
I work in mysterious ways...
Why have you forsaken the poor?
Blessed are the poor for they shall inherit the world...
Why do you tolerate the oppressors?
Render unto Caesar what is due Caesar . . .

Come on, cut the parable bullshit!
Why don't you listen to the prayers of the people?
Open your eyes. Q-tip your ears. Tune your brain.
Stop feigning deaf, dumb, blind and mute.

Goddamn you God, what kind of God are you?

Hey, where's my drink? Shit, you are a sorry slowpoke.
Where the hell are you? Dog gone you!

=================================================

If you have some questions or comments on the article, send the author an e-mail at pinoy_atheist@yahoo.com. Thank you.

Relihiyon, Moralidad at Ano pa?

(Written in Tagalog)

Matagal ng naging kaugalian na ikonekta ang rehiliyon at moralidad. Ito ay nababatay sa paniniwala na ang kagandahang asal ay nakukuha lamang sa turo ng rehiliyon sa pamamagitan ng mga batas na sinasabing inutos ng isang diyos. Kaya hindi na rin nakakapag-taka na makakabasa ka ng mga ganitong uri ng artikulo sa Internet.

Ayon sa isang tao nagtatago sa pangalang “samuelcamus”, “Isa sa pinakamahalgang papel na ginagampanan ng pananampalataya’t relihiyon ay ang pagtitimbang at pagsasaayos sa moral ng tao. Kung wala ito, ang tao ay parang hayop na walang pagiingat at pagpapanatili tungkol sa kung ano ang mabuti at masama.”

Tama ba ito?

Teka muna…hindi ba’t mas maraming digmaan ang nagawa ng relihiyon? Mukhang hindi ata tinalakay ito ni Ginoong “samuelcamus” sa kanyang artikulo laban sa ateismo. Kung tutuusin, mas maraming tao ang naging asal hayop sa pamamagitan ng relihiyon. Sabihin na lang natin na ang isa sa dahilan eh mas madaling pumatay ng kapwa mo tao kung sa tingin mo ay ang iyonng ginagawa eh utos ng isang diyos. Hindi ka makokonsensya. Tulad na lang ng mga nagyayaring terorismo. Ang mga suicide bombers na mga ito ay naniniwala na ang kanilang ginagawa ay utos ng Diyos.

Tignan mo na lang ang pahina ng banal na Bibliya ng mga Kristyiano. Diba’t mas maraming nakasulat doon na pag-patay…kahit sa mga bata at matatanda na ipinag-utos ni Yahweh? Kung tutuusin, mas umaasal hayop ang mga tao kung inaakala nila na ang ginagawa nilang karumaldumal eh utos ng Diyos nila…ang pag-gahasa, pag-nakaw, pagkitil ng buhay ng mga bata at mga alagaing hayop ay baliwala kung nakapasok sa kanilang isipan na ginagawa lang nila ang pinag-uutos ng kanilang Ama sa langit.

Kaya’t mukhang hindi totoo na relihiyon ang nag-sasaayos ng moral ng tao. Marami pa tayong pwedeng gawing halimbawa. Ayon sa mga mananampalataya, bawal ang pumatay at mag-nakaw, tama ba? At ang mga aral sa ito ay matatagpuan lamang sa kanilang mga banal na aklat. Ngunit may mga nakasulat din dito na sumasalungat sa kagandahang asal. Bagay na kagaya ng panloloko, pag-nanakaw, ang maliit na pagtingin sa kababaihan, ang pagkitil ng buhay ng hindi mo ka-tribo at pagsisinungaling para matakpan ang kahayupan ng iyong kapanalig. Ang “double standard” na pag-tingin sa mga isyung ito ang nagiging gabay ng mga mananampalataya upang sabihin na puno ng magagandang moralidad ang kanilang relihiyon. Basahin mo ang mga sinasabing mga banal na mga aklat at ikaw na mismo ang magsasabi na tama ako.

Kunin natin itong halimbawa.

Ngayon nga ay patayin ninyo ang lahat ng mga batang lalake at patayin ninyo ang bawa't babae na nasipingan ng lalake. (Numbers 31:17)

Mababasa sa banal na aklat ng mga Kristiano, iniutos ni Yahweh sa pamamagitan ni Moses ang isang malawakang pag-patay ng kanyang mga kalaban at pati ang mga kababaihan at mga batang lalaki ay hindi patatakasin.

Ngayon sabihin na natin na ikaw ay isa sa mga sundalo ng Israelita na napag-utusan ng patayin lahat ng mga tao na kalaban ng diyos at kahit mga bata ay hindi mo patatakasin. Kung naawa ka sa bata at hindi mo napatay, masasabi bang nag-kasala ka? Ang hindi ba pagpatay sa isang inosenteng bata ay masasabi mong gawaing imoralidad dahil hindi ka sumunod sa utos ng Diyos? Kung ganoon pala, masasabi nating ang moralidad pala ay nakahiwalay sa utos ng relihiyon.

Sumunod, sinabi ni Ginoong “samuelcamus” na, “Ang panganib ng Atheism ay ang maaaring pagbagsak ng moral ng tao at maibaba ang antas nito bilang isang supremo sa lahat ng mga nilalang dito sa mundo at dahil sa taglay na katalinuhan ay mas bumaba pa at suamahol pa sa hayop!”

Ating suriin ang pagbibintang na ito.

Ayon dito, ang mga ateista daw ay nagkakaroon ng tinatawag na “superiority complex” sa lahat ng mga nilalang sa mundo. Mukhang nakakalimot si Ginoong “Samuelcamus” na mas may ibedensya na ang isang mananampalataya ang mag ganitong kakitid na isipan. Basahin ulit natin ang banay na aklat ng mga Kristiano. Makikita sa Genesis 1:26, “At sinabi ng Dios, Lalangin natin ang tao sa ating larawan, ayon sa ating wangis: at magkaroon sila ng kapangyarihan sa mga isda sa dagat, at sa mga ibon sa himpapawid, at sa mga hayop, at sa buong lupa, at sa bawa't umuusad, na nagsisiusad sa ibabaw ng lupa.”

Tapos ibibintang nya sa mga ateista ang ganitong uring kaisipan?

At tignan mo ngayon ang nagagawa ng panjiniwalang batay sa Banal na Aklat na ito sa ating mundo. Maraming Kristiyano ang walang ginawang maganda sa ating mundo sa paniniwalang lalayasan din naman nila ito baling araw. Ang pag-iisip ng tayo ay may kapangyarihan sa lahat ng nilalang ay nag-bibigay ng ugaling pabaya…tutal tayo naman ang binigyan ng Diyos ng kapangyarihan sa lahat ng nilalang diba?

Mali!

Ngayon, inaani natin ang kagaguhang paniniwalang ito. Marami ng hayop ang nawala dihil sa ating kaswapangan. Pero ngayon tayo ay binabaha, at kinikitil ng mga sakit na naglalabasan dahil sa walang pakundangan na paninira sa eco-system ng ating mundo.

Kung tutuusin, mas naniniwala ang mga ateista na ang tao ay walang kapangyarihan na mas mataas kaysa sa mga hayop at halaman. Lahat tayo ay may ginagampanan na papel sa mundong ito - Ito ay ang sensitibong “web of life” na lahat tayo ay naka-konektado. Kung mawala ang tao sa mundong ito, hindi ito ikakatapos ng buhay. May papel nga tayo, totoo…pero lahat tayo eh expendable. Walang mas nakakalamang.

At papaano naman mapapabagsak ng atheism ang moralidad? Walang binangit na rason dito si “samuelcamus.” Naubusan na ba? Kung hindi ba ako naniniwala sa diyos o ako’y hindi myembro ng isang relihiyon, wala na ba akong pag-kukunan ng moralidad? Papaano na ang mga pang etikong pilosopiya? Wala na bang silbi ang mga ito? Kagaya ng mga sulat nila Epicurus at mga iba pang pinag-kukunan ng secular ethics? Suguro eh kailangan maipaliwanag mabuti ito ni ginoong “samuelcamus” para naman maging kapani-paniwala ang artikulo nya.

Sabi ng kanyang artikulo, “Kung ang tao ay tumalikod sa pananampalatayang may Diyos, ang unang-unang mawawala dito ay ang kanyang moral. O ang moral at imoral ay mawawalan ng kabuluhan sa kanya. Sapagka’t sa pananaw ng atheism, ang kabutihan at ang kasamaan ay bunga lamang ng relihiyon na likha lamang ng tao (Na sa katotohanan, ng dahil sa paglitaw ng masama at mabuti kaya kinailangn ng pananampalataya sa Diyos)…”

Teka…ng ako’y nawalan ng paniniwala sa isang diyos, hindi naman ako naging rapist o mamamatay tao. Alam ko pa rin naman ang tama at mali. Kung tutuusin, isa sa mga naging dahilan ko sa kawalan ng paniniwala ay ang moralidad. Alam ko na mali ang pagiging mapanibugho. Ito ay isang ugaling nagpapakita ng kababawan ng pag-iisip at pag walang tiwala sa sarili, ngunit mababasa sa Exodus 20 na "… sapagka't akong Panginoon mong Dios, ay Dios na mapanibughuin.” Alam ko na masama ang pag-nanakaw ngunit mababasa din dito na iniutos ng Dios na nakawan ng mga Istraelitas ang mga kalaban nila.

Mas nagkaroon ng saysay ang moralidad para sa akin mula ng nawalan na ako ng paniniwala sa Dios…noong una kasi naniniwala ako na mali ang isang bagay kung maykapalit na gantimpala o parusa: ang isang bagay ay masasabing moral kung ito’y ikalulugod ng Dios at immoral naman ito kung ang gagawin mo eh laban sa kanyang utos. At ang utos na ito ay yung Sapung utos ng Diyos, tama ba?

Ito ang madalas na ginagawang katibayan ng mga mananampalataya na suporta sa kanilang argumento na ang moralidad ay galling sa relihiyon. Tignan natin…halimbawa, Igalang ang iyong ama at ina. Tama po i to…pero…kulang yan. Kung babasahin natin ang pagkakasulat, ganito po yan: Igalang mo ang iyong ama at ang iyong ina: upang ang iyong mga araw ay tumagal sa ibabaw ng lupa na ibinibigay sa iyo ng Panginoon mong Dios.

Igagalang ko ba ang mga magulang ko dahil sa mahal ko sila o dahil para humaba po ang aking buhay sa mundo?

Bakit ba ang moralidad na ibinibigay ng relihiyon eh lagging may naka-akibat na gantimpala? Ginagawa lang ba nating maging mabuti dahil mabuti ito o dahil sa mga gantimpala? Ito ba ang sinasabing moralidad ni Ginoong “samuelcamus?”

Kung ang gabay sa moralidad ay gantimpala, para na lang pala tayong mga aso ni Maslow. Isipin mo kaibigan…gumagawa ka ng mabuti kasi naniniwala kang pupunta kang langit. Ito ay isang baluktot na dahilan. Niloloko lang pala tayo…para tayong mga laboratory animals nyan. Tapos sasabihin mo, kaming mga ateista ang asal hayop. Mang “samuelcamus” ako’y isang ateista at gumagawa ako ng mabuti dahil gusto ko. Dahil naniniwala akong nakakapasaya ako ng tao pag gumagawa ako ng mabuti. Wala itong halong ka-ipokrituhan. Hindi ako gumagawa ng mabuti for the show…para may matuwa sa langit at bigyan ako ng buhay na walang hanggan. Hindi yan kabutihan…ang isang gawaing ginagawa dahil sa taglay na gantipala ay makasarili…madamot yan…at wag ka namang magagalit...hayop lang sa laboratoryo ang gumagawa ng isang gawain na naghahanap ng kapalit.

At sa pagtatapos ng artikulo nya, sinabi ni “samuelcamus” na, “Ang panganib ng Atheism ay syang maaaring maging susi ng magulong argumento tungkol sa kasamaan (problem of evil) na nasa ilalim ng pilosopiya ng taong kumukwestyon sa katotohanan ng pagkakaroon ng Diyos na may katalinuhang hindi tinaglay ng tao. Kaya’t sa panganib ng atheism, sinagot ng katalinuhan ng Diyos ang problema sa pilosopiya ng sa paningin Niya’y kamangmangan ng tao. Na kahit kailan ma’y hindi makakaarok ng kahiwagaan ng Diyos.”

Kaya ang solusyon mo sa Argumento ng Kasamaan” eh hiwaga…ganoon ba? Na ang talino ng Diyos eh hindi saklaw ng tao? Kung gayon…bakit ka naniniwala na may diyos? Kung hindi pala sakop ng utak mo ang bagay na pinag-sasasabi mo @ “samuelcamus” eh bikit kita dapat paniwalaan? Eh misteryo pala yan…paano mo nalaman na yan ang may hawak ng moralidad?

Kung sa bagay, ito na rin naman ang takbuhan ng mga mananaplalataya. Ang kanilang kabalukturan at pagiging mapariwala ay itinatago nila sa kanilang inimbentong hiwaga. Ang hiwaga ng katalinuhan ng diyos ay isang paraan para hindi ma-kwestyon ang maling paniniwala. Misteryo ang tawag nila dito…ngunit sa totoo ito ay isang delusion. Sila ay naiipit sa sarili nilang mga haka-haka at para maitago ito, sinasabi nilang mas matalino ang diyos sa tao. Pero sino nga ba ang higit na matalino? Ang diyos na nakagawa ng dalawang tao o ang tao na nakagawa ng milyon-milyon na mga diyos?

At dito nagtatapos ang artikulo ni “samuelcamus.” Isang artikulo na sya na mismo ang gumiba sa pamamagitan ng hiwaga.

Hanggang sa susunod,

Pinoy Atheist

=================================================

If you have some questions or comments on the article, send the author an e-mail at pinoy_atheist@yahoo.com. Thank you.

The Moral Argument is a Bad Argument for the Existence of God

By Newo F. Nash

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Objective values do exist. Therefore, God exists. The argument above is the argument from morality for God's existence in its deductive form, formulated by William Lane Craig. The argument is valid; it is in the form of modus tollens. There are many other different versions of the moral argument, but I chose this because this is, in my opinion, the simplest. This note though will only focus on premise 1 because a critique of premise 2 would be dependent on the atheist's ethical view which varies from atheist to atheist, and I prefer to argue here in behalf of all atheists -- whether he be a realist or an error theorist or whatever, against the assumption that objective moral values necessitates the existence of God.

In his debate with Sam Harris, Craig define "objective" as "independent of human opinion". Therefore, we say that objective moral values exist when we believe that actions are objectively right and wrong independent of human opinions. But why would God's existence be necessary in order for objective moral values to exist? Again, I am not arguing here, as I noted before, whether objective moral values exist or not, but whether God's existence is necessary to have objective moral values.

Let's take a look at the statement "1+2=3". This statement is objectively true because it is true even a lot of people believe that 1+2=5. Even how many people believe otherwise, 1+2 will always be 3. Now, where is God's role in here? Of course, the theist could argue that mathematical statements are different from moral statements, but what I only tried to show here is that, if a statement -- mathematical, logical, etc., can be objectively (how Craig defined it) true even without uttering the word "God", it seems that it is not impossible after all for some statement to be objectively true even without the necessity of God's existence. But if some statements can be objectively true even without the necessity of God's existence, how can moral statements be an exception to those? The demarcation between statements that can be objectively true which necessitates God's existence and those which do not becomes an obfuscation, making the claim that objective moral values necessitates God's existence arbitrary.

An another objection to the moral argument involves what we call the Euthyphro Dilemma -- a classic dilemma that comes from way back to Plato, which Plato stressed out in his dialogue "Euthyphro". "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" By choosing the first horn of the dilemma (God commands the good because it is good), the theist is forced to believe that objective morality is external to God in which God is also bound by, making God's existence a nuisance. This will imply an atheistic moral objectivism. By choosing the second horn of the dilemma (the good is good because it is commanded by God, also called the Divine Command Theory), the theist is forced to believe that whatever that is "good" is subject to God's will and, therefore groundless and arbitrary, which is no different to, say, Hitler Command Theory, i.e. that whatever Hitler did is good.

Most apologists try to avoid the dilemma by showing that the Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma and that there's actually a third option. From the Faith Interface blog:

The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.

In his paper "Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape", Michael Martin quotes Greg Bahnsen from his book "Theonomy in Christian Ethics" on how he tried to solve the Euthyphro Dilemma:

"truth of the matter is that good is not independent of God. Certain behavior is good because God approves of it, and God approves of it because it is the creaturely expression of His holiness -- in other words, it is good. To be good is to be like God, and we can only know what behavior is good if God reveals and approves of it. The important point is that good is what God approves and cannot be ascertained independent of Him..."

Martin then notes that Bahnsen's position is "not clear"...

"The quotation suggests both that something is good because God approves of it and that God approves of it because it is good. But these two positions cannot both be maintained at once. Suppose that "X because of Y" means "X is caused by Y". This would mean that when one says that rape is bad because God disapproved of it one means that God caused rape to be bad by disapproving of it. But if one says that God disapproved of rape because it is bad, this would mean that the badness of rape caused God to disapprove of it. But how can what God caused by disapproving of it have caused God to disapprove of it? If "X because of Y" means "Y is the reason for X," a similar problem arises. If the reason for rape being bad is God's disapproval of it, how can it be the case that rape being bad is the reason for God's disapproval of rape?"

So it seems that apologists do not only try to evade the horns of the dilemma, but do they also try to grab them. Long story short, apologists think that they have solved the dilemma by claiming that God is essentially good -- that goodness is in His nature, and everything He commands are, therefore, good.

A common atheist's objection to this is that this kind of approach actually only ups the dilemma to another level. The theists are then faced with an another dilemma similar to the Euthyphro Dilemma, only the subject is God's nature instead of God's commands. "Is God's nature the way it is because it is good, or is it good because it is God's nature?" Same dilemma. By choosing the former, the theist is forced to believe that there is a standard of good that is external to God which determines whether God's nature is good or not. By choosing the latter, the theist is forced to believe that good is simply whatever God is.

The latter position was expanded by Steve Lovell in his paper "C.S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma". In avoidance of God's commands being charged as arbitrary qua Divine Command Theory, he constructs a modified version of the Divine Command Theory which he calls "Divine Nature Theory" which states that God is essentially good therefore everything He commands is good. He then quotes C.S. Lewis, which is footnoted to his "The Poison of Subjectivism":

"When we attempt to think of a person and a law, we are compelled to think of this person either as obeying the law or as making it. And when we think of Him as making it we are compelled to think of Him either as making it in conformity to some yet more ultimate pattern of goodness (in which case that pattern, and not He, would be supreme) or else as making it arbitrarily … But it is probably just here that our categories betray us. It would be idle, with our merely mortal resources, to attempt a positive correction of our categories. … But it might be permissible to lay down two negations: that God neitherobeys nor creates the moral law. The good is uncreated; it could never have been otherwise; it has in it no shadow of contingency; it lies, as Plato said, on the other side of existence. [But since only God admits of no contingency, we must say that] God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God."

This approach then will lead us to the statement that "good is whatever God is", or to put it simply, "good = God". But this is tautological it makes the statement "God is good" logically equivalent to "God is god", which is equivalent to the second horn of the original dilemma, i.e. whatever God commands is good because it is commanded by God. Therefore, it still doesn't escape the arbitariness of the Divine Command Theory.

In an attempt to evade the circularity of his position, Lovell notes that his position is indeed circular, only that circularity "need not be vicious":

"This argument has a certain appeal, and I must grant that it has a valid point. The point is that any explicit justification of my belief that God is good will be circular. But that point can be happily conceded. Circularity need not be vicious, and the kind of circularity involved here is not in any way peculiar to my position. Indeed, any theory that posits objective values will face the same problem, which is essentially a sceptical one..."

I don't get this. I just don't get this. If a position is tautological, I don't see any reason for it be worthy to be a starting topic for a discussion. The circularity of his position only hurts it.

So, here, I have shown that the first premise of the moral argument, i.e., "if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist", to be false. God's existence need not have to be necessary for objective moral values qua Euthyphro dilemma, and that its critiques doesn't escape the dilemma by constructing a third option, i.e., God is essentially good, because that would be tautological and is still no different to the Divine Command Theory, which apologists have been trying to avoid for God's commands not be arbitrary.

=================================================

If you have some questions or comments on the article, send the author an e-mail at pinoy_atheist@yahoo.com. Thank you.

What Folly?

The problem with some believers when confronting atheism is that they rely too much to misconceptions. Surely, if you dismantle a misconception you are not accomplishing anything. 

Now here is a good example:

You often hear atheists say that that they are the guardian of reason; this is true as far as it goes. But this illusion of being a guardian comes from the misconception that reason is confined only on empirical evidence. Human truth such as beauty, joy, romanticism, love etc. are all evident in each of us and yet intangible. But for the atheist, intangibility is tantamount to inexistence ergo unreason. The atheist takes empirical truth and treat it as human truth, for he has no imagination. They see the dinosaur turning into a bird or the seed turning into a plant and yet they cannot see how extraordinary this is, they are too close to see the big picture. As a great man once said “If you don’t think it extraordinary for a pumpkin to become pumpkin then you hadn’t even began philosophy”. For the philosophy of the atheist is narrow at best, they demonstrate empirical nature and do not find God, The theist find God and demonstrate nature. For to look for God in nature is incomplete, to find God in our universe is to also take in to account human truths. They assert that matter only exists and yet they cannot imagine a universe such as theirs, for if they did, they wouldn’t be atheist.

Ok…so the first thing we notice here is that the author thinks that atheists claims to be “guardian of reason.” No, we don’t guard reason, we just use it better.

Maybe the best thing we have to do here is to define what reason is and how atheists use it.

I think the author of this Christian article defined reason, as a rational motive in believing in the existence or non-existence of something. Further reading suggests that the author thinks that the word reason is synonymous with the word truth, is it?

All of us use reason...that is because it justifies our belief. We reason because we think. Ancient people believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth and to prove this, they will reason out that the Sun always rise to the East and set to the West. Most Christians still believe that planet Earth is flat, that it is just 6,000 years old and their reason is that the Bible (which is the inerrant word of God) said so. That is reasoning, but is it true?

Being Reasonable or Being Rational?

Not all reason is good reasoning. Hey, anyone can draw, right? However, an artist is very different compare to an ordinary Joe. That is the same with reasoning. Everyone can reason out, but it takes more than that to arrive in an objective truth - that includes the disciplines of science and logic, as well as critical thinking.

Faith is also reasoning. Well, some atheists do separate reason from faith, but base on our working definition of the word “reason,” faith can also serve as a cause to believe in the existence of something intangible. However, just because faith is also a kind of reason does not mean that it is proven true.

We use reason to justify our belief system, yet it does not constitute a truth-value. That is where rationality sets-in. Faith-based reasoning is motivated by emotion while rationality is more objective. Hmmmm…Christians believed that God exist because…well because He might strike them dead or curse them to go to Hell if they don’t or because they love Jesus, the Roman Catholic Church, the communion of the Saint and so on. Yet atheists like me does not believed that God exist because the probability of its existence is improbable. We get our conclusion using science (not too much in philosophy though…in philosophy, even Humpty-Dumpty can exist), by dealing with data and logical arguments, not because of fear or love or hate…whatever.

Now the author thinks that joy, love, beauty, and romanticism as human truth, yet it cannot explain the existence of something intangible. Joy, love, beauty, and romanticism are example of abstract human thought, and these are too subjective to give a good example of something as true. Human emotions are not use in critical thinking. The existences of a god are epistemological and metaphysical concerns not an emotional one.

Empiricism Do Not Enter!

Why this allergic reaction to the word “empirical?”

Christians are always shooting this word every time they see it approaching their arguments. What is wrong with empirical proofs? The problem here is that when we talk about something empirical, we are talking about something that we can observe. Remember, the foundation of their God belief relies on something that cannot be observe…that’s faith. Therefore, they have to do something for this shortfall.

Ideas are not tangible, so does imaginations. I can always imagine a perfect island (like Gaulino) or a perfect universe. However, that is it…it is just an imagination- a figment of an over-active mind. That is why empiricism is barred in Christian apology – it will be hard for them to justify the existence of an invisible, supernatural, disembodied entity in the scope of empirical evidence. They have to rely on “out of this world proof” or emotional, subjective feeling to defend God’s existence. That why they need faith…to justify the existence of the unseen and the unproven. Come on, if God is real, why need the justification of faith? I do not see air, or atoms, or black holes and dark matter yet I do not need faith to justify its existence. I do not see dinosaur turning to birds or seeds turning to pumpkins, yet scientific evidence proves it. Now, if I will believe that a pumpkin will turn into a glass carriage, now that requires faith.

Until next time,

Pinoy Atheist

=================================================

If you have some questions or comments on the article, send the author an e-mail at pinoy_atheist@yahoo.com. Thank you.

Atheism on the march...and JW's were pissed. (Part 2)

Going back to the magazine article

It seems the Jehovah’s Witnesses are now affected by the "atheist scare" huh? In the latest Awake! (November 2010) they featured some stories about their issue against atheism.

These anti-atheist articles came out last September 2010.


The  first article is saying atheists are in a sort of "crusade". Crusade?

Ah OK...so atheists can't keep their view to themselves, say whom? Ah those Jehovah's Witnesses who has this tradition of systematic, door-to-door sales pitch. They just love knocking to your gates in a peaceful Saturday morning to give you their magazines and try convincing you that the Jewish God name is "Jehovah."

These Jehovah's Witnesses who are knocking at your doors and doing the sales pitch not the atheists. In addition, what is the issue about atheist books? Why not write a JW best seller? Oh I get it, they seems to be having a hard time convincing people that it is a sin to salute to the American flag and to accept blood donations huh? Well...blame Red Cross not us atheists.

Moreover, when did we bully the agnostics? It seems the JW's doesn’t know that atheism and agnosticism can share bed together. The issue here is, as Christopher Hitchin saw it, is how religion poison everything. This is beyond having a god belief or knowledge.

If a person believe that the gods are beyond human knowledge, then so be it. The only issue the New Atheists have with agnostics is that atheists now have factual evidences on the improbability of god. However, there is nothing wrong being an agnostic. Agnosticism will not make a person ram a jet plane in a building.

Whose Side Do You Think Time Will Vindicate?

The JW article poses two questions:

1.1. Is the belief in a Creator intrinsically harmful?

2.2. Would universal atheism makes for a better world?

Do these questions answer atheistic issues, or are the Jehovah Witnesses barking at the wrong tree? Let us explore them and, separate the fictions from the facts, and please...lets us have some ounces of honesty here.

Now, does believing in a Creator intrinsically harmful? It depends. If a person believes that a certain god ordered his people to refuse blood thus letting her child die because of lack of blood, we have a problem.

In addition, what is this about “universal atheism?” Atheists are not interested with a so-called “universal atheism.” They just want to satisfy their skepticism towards religious claims. The issue here is not to proselytize atheism but free inquiry. When talking about something as “universal,” atheists are more interested on secularization: that church and state should be separated and that political decision should be based on reason rather than revelation.

I was wondering about this write-up on God’s view towards religious atrocities. Reading this gives me an impression; the people at Watch Tower are justifying God’s brutal action against the Canaanites.

In any case, the issue here is religious atrocities.

Besides, what is the difference between the Hebrews and the Canaanites when it comes to child sacrifices? The Hebrews were guilty of the same barbaric practice (See: Exodus 22:29-30 and Judges 11:39). According to Susan Niditch, “While there is considerable controversy about the matter, the consensus over the last decade concludes that child sacrifice was a part of ancient Israelite religion to large segments of Israelite communities of various periods.” (War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence p. 5)

So child sacrifice is only evil to Jehovah when it is done in the name of foreign gods huh?

Going back to the subject. So what are religious atrocities? I define it as violence and killing done in the name of God and the article seems to skipped the subject altogether.

The next article (A WORLD WITHOUT RELIGION—AN IMPROVEMENT?) deals with the issue of a godless society. Again, the author seems to imply the connection of being morally good and believing in God. There are even pictures of something from Nazi death camps and Pol-Pot’s ‘Killing Fields’ in Cambodia.

Is there a connection?

It seems the article was implying that communism is synonymous with atheism. The JW article was quite misinformed on the issue. The crime committed by Pol-Pot has nothing to do with theological debates. The “Killing Fields” was about politics and ethnic cleansing, not atheistic.

So let us answer the question, is a society without religion an improvement? Oh…eh wait a minute there folks! This is a little bit of a tricky question. It seems the people at Watch Tower are ignorant to the fact that religion is not synonymous with god – belief. Maybe the best question is “if a society without a belief in a personal God an improvement?”

Well…we can study statistics of secular nation like Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. Now these nations do have religion yet they seem to be too secular to bring God in their everyday issues. Happy, successful and almost crime-free even if these countries do not care what Jehovah has to say.

Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism , ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005).

Religion is not the only reason why people kill other people…I agree, but it is “the reason” why a religious fanatic will blow himself together with innocent civilians as ordered by his “Holy Scripture.” As what Baise Pascal has already said, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction” and as Nobel-Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg observed, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

Religion can impose a certain action in which believers think of it as a duty the pious has to perform in order to please their gods. That is why good Christians blow-up abortion clinics, good Muslims can destroy and vandalized national heritage sites (like what the Taliban did to the Bamiyan Buddha in Afghanistan) and good God believing families can attack and kill AFT agents (like what happened in Waco, Texas).

Morality Requires God

Does atheism means relative morality as what Law Professor Philip Johnson (who is he?) says? Well according to this certain Mr. Johnson, “No God means no accountability to a divine authority, as well as no objective values which we are obligated to respect, morality thus becomes relative, with each person determining his own standards-if he chooses to have any.”

Now, it seems this Johnson fellow thinks that the standard of morality can only come from divine authority. That is not true. Before humans have invented religion, we already have a standard source of ethics…if not our ancestors may have already killed each other. Such a standard is significant in the formation of a working society.

Not every atheist in this planet believed in a relative morality. Good examples are Paul Kurtz, Michael Martin and Wielenberg. Other says that the structure of moral theory is objective, yet its practice requires an input of subjective values (Steele 2008).

Yet by looking at it, the view that “morality” is objective seems to suggest that what is right or wrong can be ascertained by purely factual investigation, and if that is true, that would imply that a divine authority is no help in determining what’s right and what’s wrong.

Now the problem with Philip Johnson’s accountability to a divine authority is that he knew that God is all-good by a standard of God’s own decree thus making mortality arbitrary.

To convince their readers that believing in a god is somewhat scientific, scientific they have to place a certain celebrity – a guy who converted from being an atheist then converting to something else. Therefore, what is the best weapon to used? Why THEN, it is ex-atheist Anthony Flew (applause! applause!)

According to the article, Flew was convinced that there is a God because of science. What? Well…he was convinced that the universe, the law of nature, and life itself could not have arisen merely by chance. That is according to the JW article, but not from Flew himself.

The obvious reason why Flew headed to that direction is that he was a philosopher and not a scientist. Because of his ignorance with chemistry, physics, and biology, Flew was convinced by the so-called irreducible complexity. This has nothing to do with science. (See: Flew’s Flawed Science – Victor J. Stenger February/march 2005 Free Inquiry Vol. 25 No. 2)

The JW article is implying that an intelligent first cause was the start of everything. Intelligent…that means it is a person perhaps. According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses booklet entitled “Is The Bible really the word of God?” (Watch Tower Bible 1969) on page 17, “Interestingly, there seems to be one point on which most modern scientists agree following Einstein’s equation, the hold that just as matter can be converted into energy, so energy can be converted into matter. If this is so, it would mean that an Intelligent Source of tremendous energy would have no problem in producing a material universe…the Bible speaks of that One as Jehovah God.”

OK, so all the energy in the universe came from an outside source, which is a god-person, called Jehovah, right? Yet the JW article did not explain to us what the proofs that this Jehovah was the source. It can be many things. In addition, the Law of the conversation of mass-energy simply state that mass and energy cannot be created nor destroyed and the total energy in the universe is constant. That means energy can become mass (matter) and vice versa yet the total energy in the universe remains the dame. It is fixed.

If there is a so-called “source” outside the Universe, then that means, there will be an increase of the amount of energy every time the “source” released it, but that will contradict the laws of physics and…oh wait, the Intelligent First Cause can break any physical constrains in nature by making a miracle. Yeah, right…good science indeed!

It is quite amusing for a Cambridge professor to appeal to his ignorance in the subject of evolution. Anyway, the JW article seems to fail to mention what are those “many ways” in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment. Since this Awake! article didn’t mention them, we may look at what the Jehovah’s Witnesses believed in.

The Jehovah Witnesses believe that the 6 days in Genesis means a thousand years per “day” (base on Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8) They are even that specific to say that each “day” was 7,000 years in length. This is known as the Concordist Interpretation and its first proponent was Hugh Miller (1869).

The real reason for this is to reconcile science with their doctrine. How is that possible? Since geology has been proving the fallacy of a 6000-year-old Earth, the Jehovah’s Witnesses took this interpretation so that it can settle Genesis with recent scientific discoveries.

Yet even with this interpretation in the scriptures, they must explain to their readers the following problems:

1. Did planet Earth come first before the starts, the moon, and the Sun? Reading Genesis 1, we see that Earth came first and other heavenly bodies followed on the fourth (or should I say, after 28,000 years) day.

2. Vegetations came first before the Sun, so did green plants survive even without sunlight for 7,000 years? According to one of their booklets, plant life survived on planet Earth through “lightless photosynthesis” – for 7000 years?

Who’s Blind?

What does “blind chance” have to do with atheism?

If Jehovah does not exist, does it follow that everything existed because of chance?

Contrary to the Jehovah Witnesses suggestion, there are many options.

Bear in mind that the questions of existence are answered by “the best guesses” we can come up. We can assume that a supernatural, intelligent being named Jehovah created the material universe or we can assume that a natural event formed it. However, a natural explanation of cosmology is not blind chance as renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking said, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” He also added, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

Is the First Cause Intelligent?

In the Awake! article, the First Cause is brought up on the issue of the origin of the universe and the evolution of life on Earth. Now, is First Cause a good argument to prove that Jehovah exists? Is it good science?

Ok, according to this argument:

1. Everything that exist has a cause

2. There is no infinite regression of causes; therefore there is an uncaused cause (a First Cause).

3. This First Cause is Jehovah.

Notice that the First Cause argument does not really answer the question. Why is the “First Cause” Jehovah? What is the explanation for that? That is not scientific. In fact, it only reflects the ignorance on scientific methodology.

True science requires explanations. As philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) have pointed out that what we assume to be the first cause may just as well be due to the ignorance of the cause and explanation of an event. It is a flaw of utilizing a principle beyond its valid range of application. The same issue was deeply expounded by Bertrand Russell in a debate with Father Copleston. According to Russell, the contingency argument rest in the misconception of what an explanation is and does and what makes it intelligible.

It is not surprising for the Jehovah Witnesses to use quotations from the Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton to discredit evolution. Dr. Denton was an influential proponent of Intelligent Design and was a former Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, hub of the Intelligent Design movement. So that is self-serving huh?

They also forgot to say that Dr. Denton is known on recanting his own words. In his second book “Nature’s Destiny ”, Denton took back his earlier anti-evolutionary stand. He now believes that the Fine Tuning argument does not only imply cosmological evolution, but it also implies biological evolution (I wonder why the Watch Tower did not quote from Dr. Denton’s new book?).

The issue here is not faith but about natural or supernatural origin. Did the natural universe started to exist via natural method or with a help from a supernatural being named Jehovah? Maybe the Awake! article has a lot more to explain.

New scientific discoveries by prominent physicists and cosmologists are pointing to a direction that a natural origin of the universe is plausible. (For more discussion of the subject (see: Atkatz, David and Pagels, Heinz. "Origin of the Universe as a Quantum Tunneling Event," in Physical Review D, 25 (1982), pp.2065-2073. ... "Birth of Inflationary Universes," in Physical Review D, 27(1983), pp. 2848-2855).

So after reading the whole magazine...well...where's the beef? Where is the refutation against atheism? Oh I know...it is invisible to human eyes...

I thought so.

Read more: From The AWAKE! Magazine: IS ATHEISM ON THE MARCH? by The Atheist Geek

================================================

If you have some questions or comments on the article, send the author an e-mail at pinoy_atheist@yahoo.com. Thank you.