A Short Story

Here's a better version of the atheist vs. theist scientist. Enjoy!




theist scientist: do you believe there someone out there who made everything...

atheist scientist: That's begging the question. In the first place how can we be sure that "someone made everything"? Maybe before we look for this "someone", we must first ask if the universe does show "design".

theist scientist: so you really dont believe?

(one day the theist scientist made a simple planetarium in the laboratory they're both working at... the atheist scientist came and found this stuff hanging on their lab's ceiling...)

atheist scientist: Who made these nice stuffs?

theist scientist: nope i just found them up there that way, maybe its an accident....

atheist scientist:If it's an accident then the pattern must be as random as the natural world. Since the planitarium doesn't show randomness as the same with nature, then it is not by accident.

I thought you are a scientist?

theist scientist: Ah eh...I am a scientist! I graduated in a Christian school who teaches "Creation science". I took a two week seminar on Creation science and some Bible studies!

atheist scientist: I thought so...(sigh)



John the Atheist

President Obama included the non-believers.

President Obama included the non-believers in his inaguration address last Teusday (Jan 20, 2009).

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a
nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers.

Now that means in President Obama's government, atheists are considered as Americans (unlike Ex-President George "Dubya" Bush - Yeah I hope another size ten shoe will fly and this time, hit its mark!).

That's a breath of fresh air. Whew....

I hope to see more people like President Obama in the White House. There is hope in America after all.

You can read the complete transcript of President Obama's Inaugural Speech here.

The Folly of CFI -Philippines: An Apologia

There are some misconception about me and the Philippine base secular humanism. I think this letter from M_Y and a member of CFI Philippines has already taken my point.

----------------------------------------

I think there is a disconnect here. While it is true that CFI aims to promote and defend humanism, it is different from the current Philippine chapter. If you remember the first exchange in this forum about the foundation of the CFI-P, Lipana was warned about not deviating from the ideals of CFI. However, Lipana said:

“Norm and Paul Kurtz has given me the authority to take CFI in whichever direction I see best.”



Given that he has authority to take CFI-P’s direction to wherever he deems best and given his record of bigotry, intolerance, un-intelligent anti-religious polemic, one cannot be blamed for thinking that CFI-P, the organization Lipana represents, is a hate-based group.



While I agree that CFI promotes humanism, CFI-P is another story.



>>Your first case in point as a criticism is valid but not as an argument. Strong words by anyone doesn't mean evil intention, right? Richard Dawkins, the fiercest among Four Horsemen of New Atheism is a perfect example. His spirited debate with Francis Collins in TIME magazine was not an instructive way on how to deal with proper response in terms of mode of expression. Dawkins is way off and abrasive, he address fundamentalists as "CLOWNS" and several times accused Collins of presenting "COP OUTS". GOD DELUSION itself as a title of his book is straightforward / in-your-face description of faith. Christopher Hitchens also with his ultra-sarcasm remarks is another exhibition of this "un-humanistic" attitude towards religion. Do we crucify them and call them bigots or look up to them and call them brave? I think the key word here is being militant or perhaps over militant, in which Josh is guilty as charged, but then again so is Richard Dawkins. (Caveat: I know Dawkins and Lipana is hardly comparable)



It would be difficult to gauge the “true intention” of the speaker. If it were only possible to break open the speaker’s head and see the intention as an object, then perhaps this will not be so much of an issue. But not being the case, we can only discern intent from the speaker’s words and actions.



Yes, I would object to some of Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ (militant) words. I would even tag some of their words as an expression of their bigotry. When one is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, then yes… he or she is a qualified bigot. Dawkins and Hitchens fall under that category, if we go by the words they say. Lipana and Suzara are the same. The difference is… Dawkins and Hitchens are smart. ^_^



>>But to say CFI-P is bigot is careless overstatement.



I don’t believe I suggested that CFI-P is bigoted (If I did, that is not what I meant). I suggested that Lipana and Suzara are bigots but not the organization. We can probably argue that the CFI-P is an organization founded by bigoted characters like Lipana and Suzara or perhaps even argue that CFI-P is a hate-based organization, based on the words of its representatives, but to state that the organization itself is bigoted is not accurate.



>>The proper perspective in treating a believer or a religionists is compassion and respect for who they are and where they are at this stage of their intellectual development. The likes of Paul Kurtz and Sam Harris are good paragons of this type. But I will argue that considerate militancy and criticism of religion are necessary part and parcel of freethought philosophy. In a world where organized religions does not comfort themselves in their private horizon then we should publicize our opposition as well.



To suggest that religionists are inferior when it comes to their stage of intellectual development, I think, is arrogance. I have no problems with expressing opposition to views different from mine. However, to call for a revolt in the name of vengeance and self-righteousness for power, is another story. We can criticize religion, sure, but to act as “Crusaders” or “Inquisitors” of “freethought”, I don’t believe, is justified.

>>For the second criticism: Center For Inquiry is a global federation of concerned individuals guided by the philosophy of Secular Humanism. If CFI is relevant in the USA , then there's no reason to suppose that CFI-P is not relevant in the Philippines .

Like I said, I have no problems with the relevance of CFI. But CFI is different from CFI-Philippines, based on the mandates and words given by your authoritarian leader in the person of Lipana. I may agree with you in your take of CFI-P if the organization, through its representatives, show that it does live by CFI’s principles. But so far, with the current leadership of CFI-P, your words of assurance is hardly convincing.

>> Major issues like Reproductive Health Bill and Separation of Church/Mosque and the State and general fanaticism of Filipinos can be better address here if we have a practical network of coalition from pinoy atheists like you in the form CFI-P as an international commitment to freethought.

Sure, I have no problem with those (support for RHB and Separation of Church and State). But having a practical network of coalition leading to intolerance and bashing of religion (Christianity, in particular) is something I do not wish to have anything to do with. Like I said, bigotry… however secular (or atheistic) it may sound, is still bigotry.

>>Also, I will argue that CFI-P as a movement of reason is much needed in our country than any atheistic blog or web group combine. Its hightime now to "preach the gospel of freethought" in a wider audience of Filipinos. Forming an organization with a humane cause is NEVER a matter of being self-important, its taking responsibility or practical action and dedication to the pursuit of truth.



What truth are we talking about here? Are we to suggest that the non-theistic quest is the ONLY way to pursue Truth? Besides, how can we even consider CFI-P as a movement of reason if its leader, who is authorized to steer the direction of the organization to where he deems best, has a one track mind?



Now, I am with you when it comes to the promotion of freethought to the Filipino people. But this can be achieved even without organizations like Lipana’s CFI-P.

>>For the third criticism: Believers and religionists are not our enemies. It is the nature of faith itself in believing in something which has no sufficient evidence and does not recourse on reason. Instead we should treat them as a victim of mundane tradition with Medieval mindset. We were once like them we should remind ourselves.

John Paraiso and I differ in how we view this. I’m sure you are with John on your take regarding faith, based on how you described it. I can only respect that. However, I still believe that faith and reason can go hand in hand. But putting the arguments on the mechanics and definitions of faith and reason aside, I do not agree that we should arrogate upon ourselves to believe that all religionists are “victims” of mundane tradition with a Medieval mindset. Not all people who subscribe to deities or any supernatural thoughts are intellectually inferior to those who do not.

>>Dan Barker of Freedom From Religion Foundation, a former minister turned atheist puts it much better "Obviously, freethought often involves direct and strong criticism of religion, and many believers will take it personally, accusing us of being abusive or hateful. Remind the person that you are not attacking them. Tell them that you think most Christians today are good people in spite of the bible. They are smarter than Jesus. They are nicer than God. Many of them have risen above the brutalities of Christianity to become good, caring people because they (like you) possess a respect for human values". If we do not possess the proper perspective as an atheist oppose to blind faith and irrationality then the next thing we knew we're already a rebel without a cause. We should avoid that.

Yes, I am with you on this one. I hope your leaders like Lipana (and especially Suzara) would heed your call. Calling people “religious morons” just won’t cut it.

>>This one I think is not as valid as the other as an argument, as it is based on mere assumption.


Well, I never intended to present it as an argument. What I said was that I just find it interesting. Adolf Hitler was a demagogue. Hitler was influenced by the works of those notable men mentioned. Lipana’s influence include Machiavelli, Darwin, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Lipana is also a demagogue. I find the similarities interesting. Of course it is a different story when one is to claim that everyone whose influence include the 4 noted men, would make an Adolf Hitler.

>>By the way, Machiavelli, Darwin, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche are foundations of better understanding of historical evolution of philosophy and its diverse polemics- as much as Thomas Aquinas, David Hume and Rene Descartes. Next to Darwin , Friedrich Nietszche is the one I have most inclination in terms of Philosophy, after all he is self-proclaim "Anti-Christ" or Anti-Messiah. His declaration of Christian morality as inferior or slavish amply describes it, compare to Secular Morality which is base on naturalism and rationality.

Good to know. Thanks!

>>This has to answered. Center For Inquiry doesn't merely attack religion for attack sake but it offers an alternative that is Secular Humanism. An outlook that upholds reason, ethics, and justice. specifically rejects the supernatural and spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision making. It is life stance that center on the way people may lead a good life with guidance of reason and compassion. We are bigot and intolerant in a sense that we are bigot and intolerant to the religious notion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old or it is flat. Its a healthy intolerance fueled by intellectual honesty.

Sorry, I don’t believe you are describing CFI-P. I may agree with you if you are describing CFI… but if you are describing CFI-P, no… I’m sorry… CFI-P is a totally different story. As per your leader, the CFI-P is about delivering the blow that will end religious monstrosity. The CFI-P is about revolting against the religious establishment and about taking the non-religionists’ right in the halls of power. The CFI-P is about crushing religious infamy while doing it laughing. The CFI-P is about attaining the sweet satisfaction of vengeance. Your leader has the authority to steer the organization to where he deems best. With your leader’s words, it sure puts some doubts to how CFI-P equates to the mandate of CFI.

>>Last, admittedly we are few in numbers and leadership is not something you associate the one say, with a religious leader. We are all freethinkers in the group and we are after all human being, faulty in characters. Advocacy to promote reason and not delusion is the ties the binds us all. Again, anyone here is not expected to worship CFI-P but support CFI-P in a way you will support the advocacy of Center For Inquiry itself. We are all philosophical comrades and we have a common vision of less superstitious Philippines , we should consolidate our intellects and efforts to bring "New Atheism" in the Philippine context a reality.

We can advocate reason without supporting CFI-P. I do not find any appeal in having to do with an organization run by a narcissistic demagogue brat and a septuagenarian rabid anti-theistic fundamentalist. Perhaps with a different leadership and perhaps with a different inspiration, I would find CFI-P worth considering. Hey, you seem like a nice level headed guy, why don’t you assume leadership of your organization? You seem to be more in line with the true mandate of the CFI.

Anyway, with the current mindset of the leaders of CFI-P, I find no inspiration to support it. I would, however, support the efforts of others who promote freethought without necessarily vilifying religion and its adherents all the time. I think John Paraiso's Radyo Humanista was a good one (too bad finances were too much of a burden to maintain it). His web-based advocacies (through forums and blogs) also bring inspiration. I have supported John's efforts in spirit, action, and even finance. If CFI-P can bring a similar inspiration John gives, then I would be glad to support it as well.



Anyway, let’s talk again when the brat and the old geezer are out and when the CFI-P comes up with something inspirational and intelligent. Perhaps if CFI-P can come up with sound and concrete alternatives to fill in what religion seems to fill regarding all the needs of people, then you may have something here. Mere assertions of “Science being the Savior”, as per Suzara’s words, won’t cut it either. It has to touch people's hearts as well, not just their mind.



Cheers,

M_Y

--------------------

As I always say, atheism is not about hate and bigotry, it's about the freedom to doubt and to learn. Its a path of knowledge without the walls of dogmas and religious doctrines. Our legacy in this nation is not anger but a sound mind.

Until next time,

John the Atheist

Who’s Afraid of Religion?

Okay, let’s talk about the very thing that causes tension and stress to most Filipino atheists other that the belief in a god. Let us talk about religion.

Most of us Filipino atheists are…er…come on don’t be shy and let us be a little truthful here…Most of us started as god believers. I remember when I was a kid; I was once a born-again Christian. I believe the Bible, I believe that Jesus will save me, I’m afraid of making God angry, I believe in heaven and I am afraid of hell. I trust everything that my pastor told me in the church without questions.

Before that I was a Roman Catholic. On those times I remember that I was playing with my “Kuya” (older brother) and I accidentally hit a Jesus statue in the face with my slippers. It took me at least 2 weeks to have a good night sleep. I kept asking Jesus forgiveness and I was afraid of going to hell. Well, there isn’t too much to tell on my Catholic years other than praying and bowing my head on figures of god and saints made from Plaster of Paris and eating tiny round wafers every Sunday. Roman Catholicism offers nothing much.

I sometimes ask myself, “Why do I believe in those things before?” I never even bother myself to question my religious beliefs as if I just accepted all those doctrines and dogmas for granted. The most religious person does act like robots huh? Let me illustrate. I have the chance to talk to a member of ADD Church (Eliseo Soriano’s Church). She was telling me about the benefits of joining her church (I think she doesn’t know I was an atheist because if she did, hmmmm…maybe we are be talking of a different subject).

She thinks that Eliseo Soriano is the best person qualified in explaining the Bible and before she entered Eliseo’s church she does not even bother to read the Bible.

If you never even read the Bible then how do you know if Mr. Soriano’s Bible expositions are right or wrong? It looks as if there is a hypnotic effect in religion.

There are several perceptions when it comes to religion.

William James, defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand on whatever they may consider the divine." William James definition makes religion dependent to human actions and experience. That makes religion quite relative - a matter of individual taste and very much subjective.

The philosopher Allan Menzies says, “Religion is the worship of higher powers from the sense of need.” He continues, “It involves the element of belief. No one will worship higher power unless he believes that such power exists. Should there be no belief in a higher power, no religion can continue. Religion has respect not to beings that men regard as on the level with themselves or even beneath themselves but to beings in some way above themselves and whom they are disposed to approach with reverence. Religion is not only the belief in higher powers but is a cultivation of relations with them. It is a practical activity continuously directed to them.”

I think I do not have the same opinion as Allan Menzies. How about those religions without the belief in gods or higher beings? They are also called “religion."

Some say that religion is not dominated by the belief of supreme beings. They define religion as the compilation of all noble things. It is not just about temples, relics, churches, doctrines and martyrdom but also of discoveries in science and art. It is the fruit of learning and it refers not on sects, church or denomination but of spirituality.

In an anti-religion analysis, there is really no truth in religion. Most Filipino atheists agree with this point of view. For them, religion only conceals truth and asserts that “God did it” - this is really some admittance for lack of knowledge dressed cunningly as enlightenment.

Answers from religion are merely assurances and assertions. It also hides its shortcomings by coercion, terror and warfare. Religion also belittles the human ability. Religion asserts that humans are too puny to achieve full comprehension to embrace the ultimate source of complexity which is “god”.

Oh, before I forget, there are things about religion that Filipino atheists should be aware of first before going to a state of irrational tantrum.

First, religion can do without a god. Remember Einstein’s religion?

Here in the Philippines, religion is accepted as synonymous to god belief, but there are religions that do not have to revere a personal deity like Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Unitarian Universalism. Hey! There is even Christian Atheism as proposed by Don Cupitt in his book, Taking Leave of God.

Second, religious people are not dolts. Most Filipino atheists think that all religious people have the mentality of a louse. Hmmmmm…well if you will read some Christians’ posts from Friendster, you might agree, but seriously… Remember that even smart people believe in irrational things. That is quite natural to humans.

So why do people want religion?

There are factors that attract us to religion. That’s not about the so-called God gene (I don’t believe in Gene number 99) nor that there is a God who is controling us mysteriously inside our head. Nope! There are some factors in the interplay of culture that make us er…religious.

1.) It fosters a sense of understanding and the ability to explain things that we think cannot be explained.
Where do we go if we die? Who or what created the universe? What am I alive? These questions seem to require an explanation. Well…we don't really ask these questions often in our daily life but sure…ask anybody and you will have an instant answer. “GOD”.

Religion explains things we cannot otherwise explain. Religious concepts are irrefutable and cannot be verified so it’s so easy to use them to answer tough questions that to use something that can be tested for verification using rigid scrutiny.

2.) It can foster a sense of control.
So you think you need luck in looking for a job? So you pray to God to give you this super job you saw in the classified ads page. You can even wear your lucky suit, a rosary and a Bible inside your attaché case. Have you also heard in the news why Manny “The Pacman” Paquiao always stayed in that certain Las Vegas hotel before a fight? He said that hotel gave him good luck.

Religious belief gives a person power or influence to control certain conditions or events. Religious people believe in some somewhat supernatural agents (God, spirits, divas, etc.) that can be appeased or bargain with by prayers or offerings. There are also objects like talismans, holy relics, statutes, crucifixes that are used to drive away demons which is believed to be the cause of misfortunes, disasters, sickness or death.

3.) It fosters a sense of social unity.
If you are here in the Philippines, chances are you will encounter the fight between Soriano’s “Ang Dating Daan” church and the Iglesia ni Cristo of Manalo. Obviously, members of the following churches are united to bring the other church down.

The schooling of fish and flocking of birds are certain phenomena involving grouping. That’s the same with church goers. But I guess this human group becomes as tedious as fish and birds.

Every religion has some communal sense and structure. Ritual is essentially a group exercise, except for magico-religious rituals geared to personal desires. Hence ritual nearly always involves professional ritualists and a group bound together by its experience.

Church fellowship brings unity to its adherents due to similar beliefs and doctrines. It also encourages group cooperation in the face of trials and enemies. Religions are indeed like corporations, as Rodney Stark and Roger Finke observed: "Religious organizations are social enterprises whose purpose is to create, maintain, and supply religion to some set of individuals and to support and supervise their exchanges with a god or gods"

As David Sloan Wilson said, “Religions exist primarily for people to achieve together what they cannot achieve alone.”

4.) It fosters a sense of salvation from death.
Every living creature will die eventually, but religion fosters a feeling that we can escape the inescapable. That’s why religion offers the concept of salvation in the afterlife. If you will notice all of these salvation doctrines, from reincarnation and resurrection cater the promotion of the idea of an afterlife.

A pervasive death anxiety has not been substantiated or found related to religion. Attitude toward death is multidimensional. Perspectives such as death as pain, as an afterlife reward, as courage, as unknown, or simply as an end has been found to vary in complex ways with aspects of religion. Perhaps the most robust finding is that fear and negative perspectives on death and dying are mitigated by belief in a benevolent afterlife, a feature common in many religious traditions.

At the primitive level of religion, salvation both “from” and “to” are achieved mainly in the realm of physical dangers and goods. The primitive seeks by his rituals to save himself from starvation, from death by storm, from disease, from wild animals, and from enemies and to sufficiency of food and shelter, to freedom from danger and disease, and to human fertility.

The development of environing cultures implies a change and expansion in the nature of religious salvation. Group values come to play a larger and more conscious role. The group whether tribal kinship-clans or nation-state becomes a sacred entity in its own right, perhaps the preeminent one in some cases.

5.) It reinforces traditional values and morals.
It is generally accepted that morality and religion, however intertwined, are at least conceptually distinct phenomena. Morality is thought of pertaining to the conduct of human affairs and relations between people while religion primarily involves the relationship between human beings and a transcendent reality.

So what is the connection between morality and religion?

God is the role model in which believers aspire to convey a moral point of view: God is believed the creator and king of the entire world, the righteous ruler in whom there is neither partiality nor injustice. He is also a parent who loves his creatures with tender mercy and concern. Modeling their behavior to that of Gods, Jews, Christians, and Muslims are thus called to distance themselves from selfish interests and to adopt an omnipartial point of view.

There is also the link between moral conduct and moral reward. Traditions tend to prevent its adherent on newer values by moral retribution. For example, in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam homosexuality is still in its strictest sense is an abomination. That’s why gay marriage here in the Philippines is not allowed compare to California or France. Well, that’s because the Philippines is predominantly Catholic. There are also issues about abortion, stem-cell research and family planning, things which Christianity or Catholicism to be specific, find abhorrent and immoral by their standards.


6.) It encourages or discourages radical changes.
Conservatives always rely on religion to discourage rapid changes. A good example is traditional beliefs that are still held by Filipinos living in the South. Islam is very strict when it comes to change. But majority of religion accept rapid change. Just look at the way Catholics pray and compare those 20 years ago. Charismatic groups are good examples on the rapid changes. It is really Catholic’s answer to try to be like the more modern born-again Christians worship services.

Most theistic communities recognize the legitimacy of what they call “progressive revelation.” In secular language, that amounts to the notion that each stage of human social and moral development makes us ready for a further one. The effect of this is openness to change and concern for growth. This has been called the “prophetic” tradition.

7.) It regulates important materials or natural resources.
How does religion regulate our natural resources? Simple…When a certain religion worships Nature, its adherents will protect it at all cost. One good example here in the Philippines is that Christian cult in Davao which protects monkeys because they think that protecting these creatures will give them a place in heaven. Naturally, the monkey population in Mt. Apo is higher to compare to those in other parts of the Philippines.

Just imagine if there are cults that will protect the sea, especially the coral reefs in their area?

8.) It gives a sense of justice to those who feel that they will never get it in this world.
Life is unfair, isn’t it? So when a person seems to feel that there is no justice in this world, he will automatically ask God to do it for him.

Here in the Philippines, political scandals have affected Filipinos’ confidence in our justice system. So where Juan dela Cruz will looks for justice? Well, if you cannot get your justice here, there is always the afterlife.

So I hope this article can give us a little idea what religion is, minus the cussing and bashing.

I urge Filipino atheists and free thinkers to study religion and find the real reason why people all over the planet still cling to it. Why is this phenomenon or set of phenomena means so much to so many people, and why—and how—does it command allegiance and shape so many lives so strongly? Remember what Daniel Dennett say, “Religions are among the most powerful natural phenomena on the planet, and we need to understand them better if we are to make informed and just political decisions.”

Until next time,

John the Atheist

Christian Persecution in India: The Real Story

We have heard about what the Christians in India have called the persecutions against them. However, there is much more to this story than we often hear, and there are certainly two sides to it. The following is a first-hand investigative article that relates what has really been going on with the Christians in India, much of which has been kept from the public. This shows the duplicity in the Christian activities in India. This article, by Francois Gautier, is reprinted from the "Annual Research Journal, 2001" published by the Institute for Rewriting Indian [and World] History.


WILL HINDUISM SURVIVE THE PRESENT CHRISTIAN OFFENSIVE?

By Francois Gautier



When Prime Minister Vajpayee was in the US in September (2000) , the National Association of Asian Christians in the US (whom nobody had heard about before), paid $ 50,000 to the New York Times to publish "an Open Letter to the Honorable Atal Bihari Vajpayee, prime minister of India."

While "warmly welcoming the PM," The NAAC expressed deep concern about the "persecution" of Christians in India by "extremist" (meaning Hindu) groups mentioning as examples "the priest, missionaries and church workers who have been murdered," the nuns "raped," and the potential enacting of conversion laws, which would make "genuine" conversions illegal. The letter concluded by saying "that Christians in India today live in fear."

The whole affair was an embarrassment (as it was intended to be) to Mr. Vajpayee and the Indian delegation, which had come to prod American businessmen to invest in India, a peaceful, pro-Western and democratic country.

I am born a Christian and I have had a strong Catholic education. I do believe that Christ was an incarnation of Pure Love and that His Presence still radiates in the world. I also believe there are human beings who sincerely try to incarnate the ideals of Jesus and that you can find today in India a few missionaries (such as Father Ceyrac, a French Jesuit, who works mostly with lepers in Tamil Nadu) who are incarnations of that Love, tending tirelessly to people, without trying to convert them.

But I have also lived for more than 30 years in India, I am married to an Indian, I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and I have evolved a love and an understanding of India, which few other foreign correspondents have because they are never posted long enough to start getting a real feeling of this vast and often baffling country (nobody can claim to fully understand India). And this is what I have to say about the "persecution" of Christians in India.

Firstly, it is necessary to bring about a little bit of a historical flashback, which very few foreign correspondents (and unfortunately also Indian journalists) care to do, which would make for a more balanced view of the problem.

If ever there was persecution, it was of the Hindus at the hands of Christians, who were actually welcomed in this country, as they have been welcomed in no other place on this planet. Indeed, the first Christian community of the world, that of the Syrian Christians, was established in Kerala in the first century. They were able to live in peace and practice their religion freely, even imbibing some of the local Hindu customs, thereby breaking the Syrian Church in two.

When Vasco de Gama landed in Kerala in 1498, he was generously received by the Zamorin, the Hindu king of Calicut, who granted him the right to establish warehouses for commerce. But once again, Hindu tolerance was exploited and the Portuguese wanted more and more. In 1510, Alfonso de Albuquerque seized Goa, where he started a reign of terror, burning "heretics," crucifying Brahmins, using false theories to forcibly convert the lower castes, razing temples to build churches upon them and encouraging his soldiers to take Indian mistresses.

Indeed, the Portuguese perpetrated here some of the worst atrocities ever committed in Asia by Christianity upon another religion. Ultimately, the Portuguese had to be kicked out of India, when all other colonisers had already left.

British missionaries in India were always supporters of colonialism. They encouraged it and their whole structure was based on "the good Western civilized world being brought to the Pagans." Because, in the words of Claudius Buchanan, a chaplain attached to the East India Company, "Neither truth, nor honesty, honour, gratitude, nor charity, is to be found in the breast of a Hindoo!" What a comment about a nation that gave the world the Vedas at a time when Europeans were still grappling in their caves!

And it is in this way that the British allowed entire chunks of territories in the East, where lived tribals, whose poverty and simplicity made them easy prey to be converted to Christianity. By doing so, the Christian missionaries cut a people from their roots and tradition, made them look westwards towards a culture and a way of life which was not theirs.

And the result is there today for everyone to see: it is in these eastern states, some of which are 90 per cent Christian, that one finds the biggest drug problems (and crime) in India. It should also be said that many of the eastern separatist movements have been covertly encouraged by Christian missionaries on the ground that "tribals were there before the 'Aryan Hindus' invaded India and imposed Hinduism upon them."

The trouble is that the latest archaeological and linguistic discoveries point to the fact that there NEVER was an Aryan invasion of India --it just was an invention of the British and the missionaries to serve their purpose. Aryanism is a synonym of Vedic culture.

Secondly, Christianity has always striven on the myth of persecution, which in turn bred "martyrs" and saints, indispensable to the propagation of Christianity. But it is little known, for instance, that the first "saints" of Christianity, "martyred" in Rome, a highly refined civilization which had evolved a remarkable system of gods and goddesses, derived from Hindu mythology via the Greeks, were actually killed (a normal practice in those days) while bullying peaceful Romans to embrace the "true" religion, in the same way that later Christian missionaries will browbeat "heathen" Hindus, adoring many gods into believing that Jesus was the only "true" god.

Now to come to the recent cases of persecution of Christians in India at the hands of Hindu groups. I have personally investigated quite a few, amongst them the rape of the four nuns in Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh, nearly two years ago. This rape is still quoted as an example of the "atrocities" committed by Hindus on Christians.

Yet, when I interviewed the four innocent nuns, they themselves admitted, along with George Anatil, the bishop of Indore, that it had nothing to do with religion: It was the doing of a gang of Bhil tribals, known to perpetrate this kind of hateful acts on their own women. Today, the Indian press, the Christian hierarchy and the politicians, continue to include the Jhabua rape in the list of atrocities against Christians.

Or take the burning of churches in Andhra Pradesh a few months ago, which was supposed to have been committed by the "fanatic" RSS. It was proved later that it was actually the handiwork of Indian Muslims, at the behest of the ISI to foment hatred between Christians and Hindus. Yet the Indian press, which went berserk at the time of the burnings, mostly kept quiet when the true nature of the perpetrators was revealed.

Finally, even if Dara Singh does belong to the Bajrang Dal, it is doubtful if the hundred other accused do. What is more probable, is that like in many other "backward" places, it is a case of converted tribals versus non-converted tribals, of pent-up jealousies, of old village-feuds and land disputes. It is also an outcome of what -- it should be said -- are the aggressive methods of the Pentecost and Seventh Day Adventist missionaries, known for their muscular ways of conversion.


Thirdly, conversions in India by Christian missionaries of low caste Hindus and tribals are sometimes nothing short of fraudulent and shameful acts. American missionaries are investing huge amounts of money in India, which come from donation-drives in the United States where gullible Americans think the dollars they are giving go towards uplifting "poor and uneducated" Indians.

It is common in Kerala, for instance, particularly in the poor coastal districts, to have "miracle boxes" put in local churches. The gullible villager writes out a paper mentioning his wish such as a fishing boat, a loan for a pucca house, fees for the son's schooling. And lo, a few weeks later the miracle happens! And of course the whole family converts, making others in the village follow suit.

American missionaries (and their government) would like us to believe that democracy includes the freedom to convert by any means. But France for example, a traditionally Christian country, has a minister who is in charge of hunting down "sects." And by sects, it is meant anything that does not fall within the recognized family of Christianity -- even the Church of Scientology, favoured by some Hollywood stars such as Tom Cruise or John Travolta, is ruthlessly hounded. And look at what the Americans did to the Osho movement in Arizona, or how innocent children and women were burnt down by the FBI (with the assistance of the US army) at Waco, Texas, because they belonged to a dangerous sect.

Did you know that Christianity is dying in the West? Not only is church attendance falling dramatically because spirituality has deserted it, but less and less youth accept the vocation to become priests or nuns. And as a result, say in the rural parts of France, you will find only one priest for six or seven villages, whereas till the late seventies, the smallest hamlet had its own parish priest.

And where is Christianity finding new priests today? In the Third World, of course! And India, because of the innate impulsion of its people towards god, is a very fertile recruiting ground for the Church, particularly in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Hence the huge attention that India is getting from the United States, Australia, or England and the massive conversion drive going on today.

It is sad that Indians, once converted, specially the priests and nuns, tend to turn against their own country and help in the conversion drive. There are very few "White" missionaries left in India and most of the conversions are done today by Indian priests.

Last month, during the bishop's conference in Bangalore, it was restated by bishops and priests from all over India that conversion is the FIRST priority of the Church here. But are the priests and bishops aware that they would never find in any Western country the same freedom to convert that they take for granted in India? Do they know that in China they would be expelled, if not put into jail? Do they realize that they have been honoured guests in this country for nearly two thousand years and that they are betraying those that gave them peace and freedom?

Hinduism, the religion of tolerance, and spirituality of this new millennium, has survived the unspeakable barbarism of wave after wave of Muslim invasions, the insidious onslaught of Western colonialism which has killed the spirit of so many Third World countries, and the soul-stifling assault of Nehruvianism. But will it survive the present Christian offensive?

Many Hindu religious leaders feel Christianity is a real threat today, as in numerous ways it is similar to Hinduism, from which Christ borrowed so many concepts. (See Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's book: "Hinduism and Christianity")

It is thus necessary that Indians themselves become more aware of the danger their culture and unique civilization is facing at the hands of missionaries sponsored by foreign money. It is also necessary that they stop listening to the Marxist-influenced English newspapers' defense of the right of Christian missionaries to convert innocent Hindus.

Conversion belongs to the times of colonialism. We have entered the era of Unity, of coming together, of tolerance and accepting each other as we are, not of converting in the name of one elusive "true" god.

When Christianity accepts the right of other people to follow their own beliefs and creeds, then only will Jesus Christ's spirit truly radiate in the world.

[The author, who writes "The Ferengi's Column" in The Indian Express, is the correspondent in South Asia for Le Figaro, France's largest circulating daily. He has just published "Arise O India" (Har-Anand).]

[This article is found at: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/]

Science

Obviously we all know what a hammer and a screwdriver is. A hammer is a tool that is used to impel nails and a screw driver is use to drive screw. Both tools have specific tasks, but you can also use them to do other certain tasks. Hammers can also be use to ply metal or to crack stones. Screwdrivers can also be use to puncture holes. Sadly, both tools can also be use to destroy properties or even to kill people. That’s the same with science.

Recently, I’ve notice that a lot of religion today is starting to use the word “science”, especially Christianity and Islam. I think they’re using it to corroborate their religious claims. Some like Islam use science to claim the foreknowledge of the Qur’an as if it is a matter of great importance. In Christianity it is worst. We now have “creation science” which is trying to fit Genesis in science text books and public schools. There is also these so-called “science class” in some evangelical Christian services that teaches “science” on children while their parents attend Christian fellowships. There are also these pastors who use the word “science” on their Bible studies, saying that their Bible study is…er…scientific.

What is Science?
When we talk about science here in the Philippines the first thing that enters a typical Filipino’s mind are children age 4 and up wearing lab gowns and glasses – acting like annoying geniuses, while they look at microscopes, Plastic balls replicating the Solar System and Albert Einstein’s portrait - nothing much to start with. Here in the Philippines, the average Filipino virtually never heard about modern science. Sad to say, science here in the Philippines joins the rank of Sesame Street and Sponge Bob Square Pants.

I will not define science in a usual textbook manner. I think I’ll just share to you how the late Carl Sagan described it. In an article from Parade Magazine, Dr. Sagan summarized his thought on why we as a society need to understand science. According to him, “science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which best match the facts. It urges on use a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything – new ideas and established wisdom."

Science and Religion
When it comes to science, religion has two views: 1.) That science is compatible with religion and 2.) That science is a materialistic knowledge that takes away people from God.

Non-believers are also divided on the issue of science role with religion. Some believe that there is no conflict between science and religion because each subject has a legitimate magisterium or domain of teaching authority. Science only concern is the natural world while religion is only concern about morality. The problem with this view is that believers are not satisfied on defining religion just as a moral philosophy. They want more. To establish the superiority of their belief, they have to make basic pronouncements in the natural world. They have to enter science’s turf.

In the beginning of this article I said that most religion today is using science to justify religious faith. But science doesn’t care if its findings will jeopardize certain religious doctrines. The theory of evolution doesn’t give a damn abut the fall of man and Jesus Christ. So religion (especially Christianity) must appeal to their theology and try bending science to fit it.

If religion has placed God in the boundaries of the Natural world, then science is free to evaluate it. Religion has now no special immunity from being examined under reason and objective observation.

But can science step off religious turf? According to Karl Popper and Rudolp Carnap falsification is restricted to empirical statements. Philosophical theories or metaphysical theories will be irrefutable by definition. That means the question whether God exist or not is not a scientific problem. But if God entered the realm of the natural world via the pronouncements made by theologians and religious philosophers concerning God’s activities in the natural world, then He must be ready to lie down on the examination table in a laboratory and be examined.

Lame Religion, Blind Science
Believers often use Albert Einstein’s quote to prove the compatibility of religion and science – “religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind.”

But Einstein’s definition of religion is far different on how an average Christian or Muslim defines it. According to Einstein, “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.”

Here are some more quotations from Einstein about his religion. “I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.”

"I have found no better expression that ‘religious’ for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.”

Einstein’s religion is without an anthropomorphic conception of God. It has no dogmas, creed or a church. His is of a superior feeling – without fear or guilt, just a feeling of awe and inspiration – a “rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law”.

So what’s the difference?
The only similarity between science and religion is that both searches for the truth. But other than that there are no similarities. Science is a search for the facts and laws of nature, as Kant and Hume have said, science tells us what is, not what ought to be.

Science is based foremost on evidence not authority or revelation. Scientist doesn’t invoke the supernatural to explain how the natural world works.

Science is more open. Truth in science resides in putting the question to nature base on experiments and observations. Science is open to challenge. It abandons currently accepted belief when a better theory is proposed.

Let’s face it, science will not compensate God but science is a threat to God. As science fills the gap with knowledge, the God of the Gaps is being kicked out. The more gaps being filled, God is left without a home.

Until next time.
John the Atheist

More Questions and Misconceptions

Here are some common questions and misconceptions by Filipinos regarding atheism and other issues.

1.) In the issue of sin.

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 3:10

As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

Like anyone else, an atheist is not a perfect person. We all commit mistakes. Remember that atheism is not about refusing to acknowledge that we err.

But because atheists do not believe in any god or gods, they do not accept the concept of sin just like they do not accept the concept of karma. The concept of sin is pointless to an atheist. Sin is defined as the transgression of God’s law. Since atheist doesn’t believe in God, then the concept of sin is without meaning.


2.) If we evolved from Apes as science suggests. Why do we still have apes?

This is the most common question if the believer is too ignorant with evolutionary biology, taxonomy and genetics and I’m sure a lot of Filipinos are.
First, humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages.

Second, Christians assume that the theory of evolution presuppose some inbuilt tendency for advancement or progress. There is nothing in evolution that automatically makes a population ‘better’ or ‘more advance’. Humans and apes came from a common ancestry line but they diverged and become different. But one group was not superior to the other group. That’s why we still have apes in Africa.

In today’s basic knowledge of heredity, we now know that there is no barrier keeping evolutionary change within specific limits. With the discovery of DNA, we find that all living things – from the tiniest bacteria to the giant sequoia trees, to cats, whales, lizards, sponge, apes and humans, all share the same DNA information. With some other factors such as geographical isolation, natural selection and time, it is not impossible for modern apes to evolve into something else.

3.) It’s so obvious that Atheists are people who lived an awful life. And so they blame God for it and try very hard to tell people that he doesn't exist. Well God gave you freewill so do what you want. And I feel sorry for you that you have to blame God for your terrible life.

Is atheism the effect of a bad childhood, a failed marriage, an unhappy life, failures, etc. etc…Well if that’s true then there must be more atheist in this world than God believers.

But seriously, belief or non-belief is not a factor that will affect someone’s life. In fact, there are even some religion that capitalized on human misery and guilt.

What makes believers to link God to happiness is this: Every human naturally desires the good, the object of happiness. God is believed to be the ultimate, self-sustaining good. Therefore, human seeks God.

If I don’t believe in the existence of elves, that will not make my life unhappy. That’s the same with god belief. Not believing in a God doesn’t affect my life. If I believe in evolution, that will not make my life sad and miserable.

Happiness, contentment and peace of mind is up to you and no one else can do it for you. But speaking of atheism, atheism is not against happiness and love, it is against the idea that happiness and love can only be achieve in the afterlife – when you’re already dead.

In atheism there is no God to think for you, to guarantee your happiness and to save you. These are all the sole responsibility of human beings. If you want knowledge, you must think for yourself. If you want success, you must work. If you want happiness, you must strive to achieve it. For those who rely on a god, this is a terrifying prospect, but for an atheist, it is an exhilaration challenge. As David Ramsey Steele have said, “Atheism is like a clean water supply: very elementary and purely negative. It doesn’t tell us how to conduct our personal lives or how to organize our social order. But then despite first impressions, neither does theism.”

So if a God believer attempts to defeat atheism by using emotionalism he accomplished nothing aside from revealing his disdain for an atheist’s ability to think.


4.) You don't believe in God, so you believe in nothing.

Atheism is without belief in a god or gods NOT ‘without belief’. Contrary to popular belief, an atheist can believe in almost anything. Atheist only agrees to fellow atheists in the issue against theism. Other than that it’s every man for himself.

Some atheists are communists while others defend capitalism. Some are against religion while others are neutral in the issue. Some are relativists, humanists, objectivist, feminists, compatibilists…all those “ist” and “ism” on the list!

There are honest atheists, thieves, neurotic atheists philanthropists, nationalists, psychotics, rapists or “tatlo dyes” (dime a dozen) atheists.

We have some friendly atheists, grumpy old atheists who call other atheists as “morons”. We have gay atheists and atheists suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

The only thing incompatible with atheism is theism.

5.) Obviously, there must be a Prime Mover since something cannot start from nothing? Just like in Newton's Law of Inertia, nothing can move unless there is an outside force that will move that thing.

Newton’s first law of motion is that property of matter which manifests itself as a resistance to any change in the motion of a body. Thus when no external force is acting, a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion continue moving in a straight line with a uniform speed.

So I really don’t know why this Christian used this law as an example to illustrate the Prime Mover. There’s nothing in Newton’s first law that says a body always starts at rest. It said that if there is no external force, matter will continue moving. If the object is at rest it will stay at rest until an external force acts on it.

So how will you prove to me that everything in this universe started at rest? Atoms are always moving isn’t it? Remember that the Newtonian laws are valid only for all mechanical problems not involving speeds comparable with the speed of light and not involving atomic or subatomic particles.

Let me add something here. How do you know that something cannot start from nothing? Why is nothing always a default position? Nothing is nothing…if “nothing” has something on it to start with, then that is not “nothing”. What is the property of “nothing”. Is it hard to imagine that there has always been something? That we don’t have to begin with nothing. Energy for example is something that wasn’t created. Maybe everything started to that. Believers believe that something started with something and this ‘something’ is God. Then, why is there God rather than nothing?

In today’s modern cosmology and physics, something is more natural than ‘nothing’.

But suppose we accept that nothing is the natural state of affair. Is it impossible that something came from nothing? There are a lot of examples that simple systems of particles are unstable and undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures. Since ‘nothing’ is quite simple, it is very unstable. So it is very normal for ‘nothing’ to undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something without any supernatural agent as Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek suggested.

That’s it for now.

Until next time.

Ciao!

John the Atheist

News: Poor women in Philippines yearn for birth control

Philippine Times
Monday 5th January, 2009
(IANS)

Manila, Jan 6 (Xinhua) Struggling with a daily food budget of less than $2 for a family of 12, Floriza Bacli said she was happy to spoil her children a bit on New Year's Eve with something special - half a kilogram of fried chicken and a quarter kg of hot-dogs.

Squeezed inside a tiny make-shift shack made of galvanised steel and wood with her 10 young children, 37-year-old Floriza said the family had fun on New Year's Eve, or the Noche Buena, meaning the good night.

'I wished my family would be far from sickness, even though we might not get rid of poverty,' Floriza said.

She said she had hid another seemingly far-reaching wish in her heart. 'Wouldn't it be nice if someone can pay the college fees for my two eldest daughters who are finishing high school this April,' she added.

College remains a remote dream for Floriza's family, which depends on her husband's meagre income of 350 pesos (about $7) a day as a cab driver. The husband sometimes return home with just 150 pesos (about $2) in the lean seasons when there are not so many tourists.

But Floriza said she remained hopeful for the New Year. At least there will be no more unwanted pregnancy to worry about. Last July, she wanted to go for tubal ligation, an operation that would cost around 500 pesos ($10) at a local clinic that would effectively buffer the child-feeding burden of the family.

'We really can't afford to provide more. The money we earn is barely enough for our daily meals.' Floriza said. Like most poor Filipino women, she had no idea of family planning until life became tough after the birth of her sixth child.

She thought about condoms, but they were not quite accessible; she thought about contraceptive pills, but was told that she had varicose veins.

In a country where a woman has at least three children on average and artificial birth control methods are frowned upon by the dominating Catholic Church, Floriza was not alone in wanting to plan pregnancies. However, she was lucky to get it done recently.

According to a UN Population Fund report, half of the Philippines' 3.1 million pregnancies every year are unwanted or unintended, about one third of which end in abortion. About 10 women in the Philippines die every day during birth.

Surveys also showed that over 60 percent of mothers do not want additional children while two out of five women who want to use contraceptives do not have access to them.

In Barangay Maisan, where Floriza lives, visitors may be overwhelmed by the number of children, virtually everywhere in the crowded poverty-stricken community.

'Women in this Barangay know about ligation but few can actually afford one due to its medical cost and other inconveniences,' Floriza said.

Carlos Celdran, a local advocate for women's reproductive rights who paid for Floriza's ligation, said every time he went to the poor communities to distribute condoms and birth control pills, people eagerly waited for them and the stocks that he bought on his own expenses would soon run out.

Blocks away from Barangay Maisan stands the compound of the Catholic Bishop's Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), the seat of the church authority in the country.

A banner declaring 'pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Family, No to Death bills, No to RH (Reproductive Health) bills' at the entrance clearly demonstrated that any progress in family planning in this Catholic-dominated country wouldn't come around without overcoming strong resistance.

Due to the church's strong opposition, a Congress bill promoting sex education, the use of contraceptives and accessible birth control medical services on the national level, has never gone out of the House of Representatives since the introduction of its first draft in 1988.

The church branded the bill as 'anti-life' and said it would promote abortion.

Lawmakers vying for a stable political career were reluctant to ire the church by openly and aggressively promoting birth control and family planning. Thus many remained private supporters of the controversial bill.

To Floriza, the bickering in Congress seems remote and not of her concern. But she thinks it will be a good idea for schools to provide proper sex education.

Floriza said she was too shy and had limited knowledge on the subject to teach her daughters about sex. She simply forbade her daughters from dating boys before their graduation.

'I often warned them not to follow my footsteps. I had learnt the lessons,' she added.

Nuffnang Philippines, Believable

This is not about atheism or skepticism...I was a little bit skeptic at first but hey there's really no reason not to try this. In the prevaling economic problems that will eventually reach the Philippine soil this year, I was fortunate to see the program GoNegosyo and heard about Nuffnang (whatever that means). Hey! It's not about the name of the establishment. Nuffnang.com is Asia’s first and leading blog advertising community. To date, over 80,000 bloggers have signed up with our platform in Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines and Australia.

Now we have Nuffnang Philippines (applause! applause! applause!)

Nuffnang was started 2 university students, Timothy Tiah and Cheo Ming Shen sat having a bento box lunch in London. Nuffnang.com.my was launched on 27th Feb 2007 and within the first 3 days, had signed up 300 bloggers. Nuffnang.com.sg was to follow suit 2 months later on the 30th of April.

Today, there are 80,000 bloggers in Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines and Australia and Nuffnang has received publicity from all corners, having been featured on mainstream newspapers like The Star Malaysia, and The Straits Times Singapore.

Thousands of bloggers have been served ads by numerous bluechip companies, such as Nike, Citibank, Nokia, F&N, Walls, AirAsia, Honda, and many more.

It's really easy to sign up. Just follow the following:

They even monitor and rate your blog.

Nuffnang are still accepting publishers. All you have to do is to visit Nuffnang Philippines and sign-up here: http://www.nuffnang.com.ph/blogger-registration. Registration are processed in 48 hours.

Hahaha! I never really good on sales pitch and this is not a spam. This is just my way of helping my fellow kababayan earn something this 2009.

So, what are you waiting for fellow bloggers here in the Philippines? Sign up now and please this is not a paid advertisment.

ciao!

John the Atheist

Did you know that God prefers atheists?

Atheists are Rascals! (Part 3)

In this post, I will be dealing with the ISKCON misinterpretation and smear of atheism from their article, “The History and Analysis of Atheism”.

1. The nature of atheism is degrading: its practice leads to bondage and suffering (duhkha) because of an attachment to matter, which degrades (entropy). Matter cannot be a source of anything higher - order, development, or life (which cannot appear by chance).

2. Happiness through atheism is impossible, as it is not in harmony with the nature of person, society, universe, and God (dharma).

The following statements have nothing to do with the nature of atheism. Atheism is about not believe in the existence of gods or a god. Slanderous remarks don’t answer the atheist’s question concerning the existence of a supernatural deity.

Unlike the average Hare Krishna cult member, the atheist has a sense of `his relative importance' in the great chain of Nature – and he doesn’t need to use drugs like LSD to feel it. Happiness can be achieved even if you don’t believe in a supernatural higher up. He is not ruled by guilt and suffering to enjoy his life. Well…suffering and sacrifice is really a part of religious life.

3. Atheism is a belief system.
A belief system consists of a mandatory philosophical system. Atheism does not have a mandatory philosophical system. In a layman’s language, a mandatory philosophical system means a philosophy in which a person lives.

Well…I am an atheist but the atheist who sits next to me may have a different view regarding morality. Some believe in an absolute morality while other atheists believe in a relative morality. Some atheists are communist, while others are objectivist. Some atheist abhors religion while others do not. There is no definite connection on what atheists believe…except they do not believe that gods exists.

4. Offensive atheism" and "defensive atheism"
There is no such thing as “offensive” and “defensive” atheism.

5. By definition, atheism is the world-view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world.

A worldview is a particular philosophy of life; a concept of the world held by an individual or a group. Since atheism is not a philosophy then we can say that atheism is not a world-view. It may be a part of a certain worldview but atheism per se doesn’t constitute the whole picture.

A worldview is also defined as the set of beliefs about fundamental aspects of reality that ground and influence all one's perceiving, thinking, knowing, and doing. Atheism doesn’t constitute a set of beliefs but rather it is just non-belief.

6. The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-defeating proposition.

The problem with this article is that it doesn’t have any idea what atheism is. Come on…to disbelieve something does not entail a person to be omniscient. In addition, in contrast to the article, we always prove negatives…we do it all the time. If I say that there are only bananas in my lunch box, I also prove that there are no apples in my lunch box. Remember, every positive statement implies negative statements.

There are two ways to prove the non-existence of something…like god or gods: i.) if it leads to a logical contradiction and ii.) by carefully seeing and looking.

Example: A mananaggal (vicera suckers) does not exist. Can I prove it? Sure, I can. We can prove it because of its impossibility. There are no known living thing that can fly by separating his lower torso and survive. Right? Moreover, we know that aerodynamically speaking, the body of a human being cannot fly using giant bat-wings.

Flying carpets does not exist because it is aerodynamically impossible.

Logically speaking, a perpetual motion machine cannot exist. There are no married bachelors and a four-sided triangle does not exist.

Negative existential proposition, a proposition that deny the existence of something is impossible to be proven.

That is according to Alder as promoted by the ISKCON article. However, there are ways to do it…and I bet the author of the ISKCON article has not discovered it yet…

As suggested by Adler in his book Truth in Religion, “articles of faith” are propositions that cannot be proved but can be “disproved by the proof of propositions that are their logical contraries or contradictories. For example, the belief of the Mormons that Joseph Smith received the golden tablets from God is an “article of faith” since it cannot be proven.

However, as said by Adler, it can be disprove by a contradictory. According to the Judeo-Christian Bible, there is only one God. The same claim can also be seen from the Muslim camp. Well that means the Christian God and the Islamic God cannot exist simultaneously. Thus, both religions are making a positive existential claim and both are making an implicit negative claim that gods contrary to their god do not exist.

The “nail in the head” of Adler’s claim that negative existential propositions cannot be proven is the fact that the claim that “negative existential proposition cannot be proven” is itself a negative existential proposition!

This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking the atheist if he has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. The library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. Then ask the following question: "What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?" The atheist will likely respond, "I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent." You can then ask: "Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?" Even if the atheist refuses to admit the possibility, you have made your point and he knows it.

This is quite very easy. The atheist could also simply ask the Hare Krishna cult member, “Do you think it is logically possible that God may not exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?”

If the theist is going to claim that all propositions having any kind of deductive relationship to “god exist” are outside of what we know, then that is his burden of proof to show he is right.

7. Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight proof that God does not exist. They often say something like: "I know there is no God because if He existed, He never would have allow all those atrocities in history to happen."
A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil?

The best way here is to define evil. What is evil? In a simple layman’s term, evil is that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune. Evil is morally objectionable behavior… Oh I forgot, ISKCON doesn’t believe in morality… (“But, in the highest sense, there can be neither good nor evil” - Bhagavad-Gita, 140).

To deny the existence of evil or to claim that evil is an illusion does not make the problem of evil go away. An illusion of evil is still evil therefore, if there is an illusion of evil, there is evil.

Remember that one can only know that all is an illusion against the backdrop of reality. Example, a mirage can be considered an illusion base on the effect of hot air in atmospheric refraction. The hot air in the atmospheric refraction is real. So if evil is an illusion then where did the illusion originate? How did the illusion originate, and how is it passed down to successive generation? Why does everyone experience it from his or her first moment of consciousness? Pain or evil is part of the human experience and is encountered by all. What happened in Hurracane Katrina, on 9/11 and on the tsunami that killed thousand in South Asia are not illusions.

A simple torment of a toothache is not imaginary. The experience is real and the damage (cavities) is present. These are not subjective hallucination. Dentists do not extract figment of the imaginations.

Then point out to him that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good.

The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one can judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.

Secular ethics does not require god belief. The problem here lies that the article’s “infinite reference point” is a god who is said to be “an absolute”. In atheism, there is no need for an “infinite reference point” to distinguished good and evil. Good and bad actions are objectively based on the biological nature of human beings and are definable in absolute terms. Those objective standards are independent of any opinions or creeds.

It’s really this simple: Without living beings with needs, there can be no good or evil. Without the presence of more than one such living being, there can be no rules of conduct. Morality, then, emerges from humanity precisely because it exists to serve humanity.

Therefore, any chosen action that purposely benefits the human organism or society is morally good and any chosen action that purposely harms the human organism and society is morally bad.

8. Many sophisticated atheists today are fully aware of the philosophical pitfalls connected to offensive or dogmatic atheism. Prominent atheists such as Gordon Stein and Carl Sagan have admitted that God's existence cannot be disproved. This has led such atheists to advocate skeptical "defensive atheism". Defensive atheism asserts that while God's existence cannot be logically or empirically disproved, it is nevertheless unproven. Atheists of this variety have actually redefined atheism to mean "an absence of belief in God" rather than "a denial of God's existence". For this more moderate type of atheism, the concept of "God" is like that of a unicorn, leprechaun, or elf. While they cannot be disproved, they remain unproven. Defensive atheism's unbelief is grounded in the rejection of the proofs for God's existence, and/or the belief that the concept of God lacks logical consistency.

Atheists can logically disprove the existence of a god. One known method is called The Argument of Incoherence (AKA Incompatible Properties Argument). The argument attempts to derive contradictions in the concept of God.

How about empirically disprove the existence of god? The argument from Physical Minds is a nice argument on the impossibility of a disembodied mind without the association of a material brain.

According to Gordon Stein, “Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God.” (Gordon Stein, "The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism,” in G. Stein, editor, An anthology of atheism and rationalism, with introduction (Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY 1980)

Now here’s a quote on what Carl Sagan thinks about God, “The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”

So when Dr. Sagan and Gordon Stein do said that god existence couldn’t be disproved? I don’t know…maybe it was an illusion of the ISCKON article.

Oh and by the way, atheists don’t re-invent the meaning of the word atheism as this ISCKON article allege. Atheism is not a denial of the theist’s claims; it’s skepticism of the theist’s claim.

9. Atheism cannot adequately explain the existence of the world.
Neither do theists.

10. An atheistic world is ultimately random, disorderly, transitive, and volatile. It is therefore incapable of providing the necessary preconditions to account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic, and the human need for absolute moral standards. In short, it cannot account for the meaningful realities we encounter in life.
The theistic world-view, however, can explain these transcendental aspects of life. The uniformity of nature stems from God's orderly design of the universe. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God Himself thinks, and would have us to think as well.

A so-called transcendental aspect of life is an illusion. Supernatural and spiritual explanation only acts as a temporary break from inquiries that enters the human mind. Speculations regarding transcendental aspects are empty. There are really no answers to something that claim beyond natural.

That wraps it up.

Until next time.

John the Atheist

Is Atheism a Belief?

There are a lot of misconceptions from believers about the nature of atheism. One of the most used is the claim that atheism is also a belief.

Critics define atheism as a “belief that there is no God”. Yes, the statement does appear in some categories of atheism but it doesn’t give the basic nature of atheism.

Theism is defined as “belief in a god or gods”. The suffix “ism” is a give away, just like in the word Marxism or objectivism (there are a lot of "ism's" out there). If we place the prefix “a” which means “without” in the word theism you now have the word "atheism" (simple isn’t it?).

So the basic form is not a belief but the absence of belief. To believe in nothing is not, de facto, to believe in something. An atheist is not a person who believe that a god doesn’t exist, rather a person who does not believe in the existence of a god.

Just like theism, atheism is a descriptive term. If a person is an atheist this tells us that the person does not believe in a god, not why he/she does not believe. Atheism is also a privative term, a term of negation, indicating the opposite of theism. There are no claims or denials – atheism is just about being “not a theist”.

So why do believers insist that atheism is a belief that “God doesn’t exist”? Well…it’s possible that believers are playing basket ball. Since atheism is simply the absence of belief in any gods, then the burden of proof lies solely with the believer. It is easier to claim that an atheist and a god-believer are in the same boat than to admit the believer’s failure to demonstrate that their god-belief is reasonable and rational.

There is also the tendency among god-believers to claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with their belief system is claiming the opposite. This is a gross error to logic.

Until next time,

John the Atheist

The Philosophy According to …

I’m an atheist, well that’s very obvious. But atheism is neither a philosophical position nor a world view. So then, what’s my stand?

In the resent event that causes my dissolution with secular humanism here in the Philippines, I don’t think this philosophy fit my position. Personally, I think that it’s better; you see as an atheist, I really don’t have any agenda. Agenda always shows up when a person is connected with a certain worldview.

I also don’t need a creed or certain rules to live by. I don’t need Poch Suzara’s Code of Living for atheists and Paul Kurtz affirmations of Humanism which can be found inside every front cover of his Free Inquiry magazine, just as I don’t need the Apostle’s Creed and the 135 Jewish laws.

As an atheist, I don’t need to follow Sartre, Russell, Nietzsche, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and Kurtz. They are not saints; they are susceptible to errors like you and me. They are not infallible authorities and I can question their position and challenge it if I can. Atheism is fueled by free inquiry and free inquiry is about “knowing” not “imposing”.

Philosophies can be corrupted. I believe Mr. Paul Kurtz has a positive vision when he created this “Secular Humanism”, yet as membership grew corrosion sets in. We cannot stop people with personal schema. Sooner or later they will insert their seed like weeds in an orchard, destroying the orchard’s beauty as it grow. Secular Humanism is non-religious but secular humanism in the Philippines became a haven for bigots and anti-religion. I doubt if anything positive will come out of it.

So now I have to find something better…and while contemplating I have decided that instead of finding a replacement, it’s better to create your own philosophy. As Sally Brown said (You’re A Good Man Charlie Brown) My Own Philosophy…So now I’m a proud adherent of the philosophy according to “Sam I Am”. It’s really fun to create a philosophy base on some cartoon or TV character like The Philosophy According to 24 or The Philosophy According to Star Wars.

So what’s this “Sam I Am” philosophy all about? It’s about Green Eggs and Ham. The rule is simple…just like Murphy’s Law. The more you hate something, the more you’ll love it once you’ve tasted it. That’s why I never said that “I hate religion”. Abhorrence is not the same as skepticism. I am more into doubting religious claims and skepticism in the supernatural, but I don’t hate them. I always remember what my friend Mr. Hector Gamboa (M_Y) told me…People who have too much hatred in religion are those people who are really craving for it.

Hate is not an atheist’s arsenal for the search of truth…and I doubt if these hate mongers are really atheists in the first place. I think these people are just depressed theists. Most of them are victims of unhappy childhood and some are now entering their sad twilight years. They label themselves as “atheists”, “freethinkers” or “secular humanists”, flashing it like a badge so that the gods in heaven will pity them for their ignorance and pride. They are afraid of death so they’re challenging their god-belief, hoping for God to response for all the blasphemy they wrote or uttered and hoping for God to forgive them so they will die in peace. This is non-belief according to C.S.Lewis.

That’s the best thing about having no affiliation what so ever. I can always accept or throw out ideas which I see fit or unfit. I can always challenge every belief being peddled in the street.

I am free.