Some Freethinker's chit-chats before the lights went out

March 28 was a very special day. It's the 2nd Freethinkers Forum and it was also Earth Hour 2009.

A more personal forum.
This was my second Freethinkers forum and I was a little hesitant at first to attend this. Well...another chit-chat with the "moderates". But I guess it won't hurt to attend huh?

The venue was a little off-place and the traffic is awful, so it's not a suprise to see few attendance (I think there are only 20 people). There are only a few familiar face and thank goodness there are new guys around.

Moderates vs. Millitant
So what's new...Well I'm gonna miss Teddy. He's going to Australia for 10 months and OK thanks to those books. Other than that...Red and his wife are again...such a good host.

But the thing that striked me the most was how strong moderate atheism here in the Philippines. I have to explore this some day.

To Miss Laani Sarmiento (Ms. Elove)
Hehehe...what there is to say about this huh?

Going to TRINOMA
So off to TRINOMA to celebrate Earth Hour 2009.

I was very glad to hear that the Philippines was number 1 in this Earth Hour celebration. TRINOMA is quite near to my house so after that meeting in Ateneo, I prefer TRINOMA comapre to MOA (SM Mall of Asia) so I can easily go home by 9:30 PM.

There is only a coundown and some fire dances...nothing much. But I think that's really not necessary. Personally I think we should celebrate Earth Hour every day. Naw...I'm not saying that we turn off our lights everyday for one hour...All I'm saying is that we think about our planet. DAMN! We don't need KLAATU to do that for us.

Here's what happened...courtesy of YOUTUBE.



And here's the TRINOMA Earth Hour:

Pinoy Atheist Supports Earth Hour 2009.

On March 28, 8:30-9:30pm, if you switch all your lights off for one hour that means a vote for Earth.


In 2009, Earth Hour is being taken to the next level, with the goal of 1 billion people switching off their lights as part of a global vote. Unlike any election in history, it is not about what country you’re from, but instead, what planet you’re from. VOTE EARTH is a global call to action for every individual, every business, and every community. A call to stand up and take control over the future of our planet. Over 74 countries and territories have pledged their support to VOTE EARTH during Earth Hour 2009, and this number is growing everyday.

So vote for planet Earth. Support Earth Hour 2009.

For more information log on to http://www.earthhour.org/

Invitation on evolution

I like to invite people here in Metro Manila area who wants to know more about Darwin and Evolution. Next month will be a big Cafe Scientifique session with geneticist, Steve Jones, author of Y Descent of Men: The Descent of Men.

This will be held on April 25 2009, 4:30 to 6:00 @ Fullybooked, Bonifacio High Street, Bonifacio Global City. Admission is FREE!

Filipino Freethinkers Forum 2 ( An Invitation)

Where: a conference room in Ateneo (ISO building near Xavier and Bellarmine bldg.)
When: 2-6PM - Saturday, March 28, 2009
What: Filipino Freethinkers Forum 2

"Practical Freethinking: Freethinkers in an Unfree World"
The problems freethinkers face in Filipino society and
the alternative solutions to cope or deal with it

Why:Free admission
Free food
Freethinking

Who:
Anyone willing to discuss issues relevant to the theme within the framework of
freethinking (reason, evidence, free inquiry).

Seats are limited so reserve your slot now! Deadline of reservations is on
Sunday, 12 MN.
To reserve, please visit:
http://filipinofreethinkers.org/fff2-registration/

*NAME:
*ADDRESS:
*EMAIL:
*TELEPHONE: (Preferably cellphone, for texting purposes)
NAMES OF COMPANIONS:

For questions, comments, or suggestions email me at
the address above.

Thank you, and reserve your seats soon!

Basic Evolution

Easily understandable and informative video on basics of evolution.

Atheism in Family Guy

Brian: Oops!
Girl: I'm sorry.
Brian: I don't think you want this book. It is all about atheism.
Girl: Oh, I know. I'm an atheist.
Brian: Really? So am I.
Girl: It's all yours, I feel bad taking the last copy.
Brian: There is one way to settle this. If there is a god send another copy! I guess that's our answer.
Girl: Tell you what. How about I take it and then send it to you after I read it.
Brian: Swear to God?
Girl: Stop it!
Brian: 'Cause... missing will... Hey, listen. Here is my address.
Girl: Thanks! See you later.

Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya (Richard Dawkins debunks the publication "Atlas Of Creation" by Harun Yahya (aka) Adnan Oktar)

by Richard Dawkins

In 2006, I was one of tens of thousands of academic scientists all around the world who received, unsolicited and completely free, a huge and lavishly illustrated book called Atlas of Creation by the Turkish Muslim apologist Harun Yahya. The thesis of the book, which was published in eleven languages, is that evolution is false. The main 'evidence' consists of page after page of beautiful photographs of fossil animals, each one accompanied by a modern counterpart that is said to have changed not at all since the time of the fossil. It is a large-format book, a thick coffee-table book with more than 700 high-gloss colour pages. The cost of production of such a book must have been extremely high, and one is bound to wonder where the money came from to produce it and then distribute it gratis in so many copies and so many languages.

Click here for the complete article.

*****

God is just a big word

A whale shark is not a whale, it’s a fish. Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) is a very big fish, that’s why we call it a whale. Human ideas and imagination creates words
– That’s the essence of etymology.


Etymology is the development of words…and like other words “god” evolved. Without Old English, the word god has no meaning. That’s because the idea of the word “god” reside on the origin the word.

God started from the Sanskrit word “hub” or “emu”. Later this will become the root of the Gothic term “gheu”. So the word god came from India, then it traveled to the Eastern Germanic Europeans and then to England in about 450 to 1050 CE. On that time, Bede and Adlhelm were translating the Bible from Old Latin to Old English.

So deus was transformed to god, not because that was the Supreme Being’s name but because that was the language of the Anglo Saxons. Most Latin words were of Greco-Roman origin. The Latin deus came from the Greek word theos. So where did the word theos (θεός) comes from? It was derived from the Proto-Indo-European root dhēs- which means to call, or to invoke.

It was also said that the word theos were derived from two Greek verb theoro (I see) and theo (to run)…All seeing and all moving huh? Well that’s according to John Scuttus Eruigena.

But the name Zeus (The top god of Olympus) was derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *dyeu- which means “to shine,". The notion of deity was therefore linked to the notion of the bright sky. Well may I add that for Indo-Europeans, the society of the gods was conceived in the image of their own society as patriachal.

Even the Filipino word diyos or dios came from the Spanish deos which can again be trace back from the Greek word theos. Another Filipino word for god is Bathala. Bathala is from Sanskrit bhattara which means something honorific, something venerable, and worshipful.

So the word 'god" is actually nothing but a label which embodied a being that supposed to be Almighty. Without human ideas, god is nothing but a meaningless, hollow word.

I think the best meaning of the word god is the personification of human ideas of human qualities expanded beyond human limits.

I SUPPORT THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL

I am sick and tired of hearing that more that 50% of all pregnancies in the Philippines are unwanted.

I am appalled by the fact that 1 out of 4 of these unwanted pregnancies result in an illegal abortion with complications that end up in the deaths of mothers and their babies

I am tired of the Catholic Church of the Philippines getting involved in affairs of the Philippine state.

I am a believer that contraception is NOT abortion.

Put the Bishops in their place. Show congress that there is truth to the survey that 90% of Filipinos (Catholic) want access to ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL METHODS.

PASS THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL NOW.

Sign the petition here!

Indonesia's nonbelievers find refuge online

JAKARTA - Chain-smoking at a trendy coffee shop while studiously ignoring the mosque's evening call to prayer, Indonesian atheists Didi and Dewi have little patience for the beliefs of most of their countrymen.

The two young women are defiant unbelievers in the world's largest Muslim-majority country, but they let few people in the real world know it.

Instead, the women have joined scores of young Indonesian atheists who have found refuge on the Internet, using web tools such as social networking sites, mailing lists, blogs and wikis to communicate with like-minded people in a country where declaring there is no God can turn someone into an outcast.

"For me personally (going online) is just to share my thoughts and to meet people who think the same way I do, because I don't see many in my real life," said Didi, a 29-year-old architect.

"It's easier to say that you're gay than an atheist."

Dewi, a 21-year-old student fond of sardonic put-downs of religion and superstition, agreed. In her life in the West Java city of Bandung, she keeps her lack of belief secret from all but her closest friends.

"If someone asks me 'do you want to pray?', then I pray. It's a political prayer," she said.

Both women, who refused to give their real names, go online daily to debate religion with fellow atheists -- and the few believers hardy enough to brave their barbs -- from safely behind their computer screens.

Asked what she would be without the Internet, Didi laughed: "I would be a full-closet atheist."

It is impossible to know how many atheists there are in Indonesia, a country of 234 million people that is nearly 90 percent Muslim, and where non-believers officially don't exist.

Every Indonesian must carry an identity card stating his or her adherence to one of six official religions -- Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Confucianism -- and belief in "one God" is the first tenet of the official national ideology of Pancasila.

The deaths of upwards of half a million people during the bloody suppression of the Indonesian Communist Party in the lead-up to the 1966 rise to power of former dictator Suharto have also left their mark.

Anti-communist propaganda during Suharto's 32-year rule mean atheists are often conflated with communists, a stinging charge in Indonesia, where Cold War paranoia has never fully subsided.

It was such a stigma that prompted a 35-year-old teacher from West Sumatra, known online as "XYZMan," to start an email mailing list in 2004 to allow atheists to discuss their beliefs. The list now has more than 350 members.

Despite the success of the mailing list, XYZMan said he is forced to keep his own atheism secret in the real world, and has already suffered the breakdown of a marriage with a Muslim woman due to his non-belief.

"If everyone knew that I'm an atheist, I could lose my job, my family would hate me and also some friends," he said in an email interview.

"It's also more likely that I could be physically attacked or killed because I'm a kafir (unbeliever) and my blood is halal (allowed to be spilled) according to Islam."

Although small in number, Indonesia's online atheists have been quick adopters of the so-called "Web 2.0" innovations of blogs, wikis and social networking sites.

"We use every means possible (Facebook, Friendster, Multiply etc.) to show our existence, gather people," Karl Karnadi, a 25-year-old Indonesian student studying in Germany who is behind many of the web projects, said in a Facebook message to AFP.

Apart from connecting atheists, the web presence also serves to break the language barrier that leaves Indonesians unaware of prominent English-language atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, Karnadi said.

The Ateis Indonesia (Indonesian Atheist) wiki -- where, like Wikipedia, users collectively contribute and edit content -- carries Indonesian-language articles on topics varying from evolution to arguments for and against religion and "deconversion" testimonials by fellow Indonesians.

"The wiki is some sort of collective knowledge, something that we (hopefully) can use each time we are discussing religion, debating creationists," Karnadi said.

The web presence also acts as a kind of support service. The Facebook group also has discussions on how to broach the subject of religion with friends and family, with most members confessing they think it wisest to keep "wearing a mask".

Karnadi, a former church pianist who recently turned his back on Christianity, said the eventual goal was to create a central website to coordinate atheists and reach out to Indonesians who have doubts about their religion.

It is a task that he conceded is much easier to do from abroad.

"I have my freedom here... and I can do anything, (create an atheist website, groups, criticise religion etc.) openly, without being afraid of any jail sentence or any fundies (fundamentalists) that would kill me," he said.

Source

In a news article from  The Times February 11, 2009

Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin

Richard Owen in Rome

The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.

A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.

To see more of the article, click HERE.


WOAH! First evolution, now condom. What's next?

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

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

Sarcasm proves nothing.

I notice that a lot of detractors uses sarcasm to defend their position. Hmmmmmm...Is it effective? I don't know...but sarcasm doesn't intimidate me. Now let see...

Let me posts what I mean.

Here's an example:

Nice try for giving the distinction between strong atheist and weak atheist. But the same thing, it afflicted with semantic problem and albeit, the very definition is arbitrary. Try harder???

Notice in this example, the sender said that there is a semantic problem between my definition between a strong and weak atheist. So? Where's the problem? Is it as imaginary as the detractor's claim?

Second:

Little knowledge is a dangerous thing because of the inherent tendency to mislead others.

Hmmmm maybe he has more knowledge than me - that's OK? The thing is I don't need his excesses.

So does he think that my readers don't have their own beliefs and ideas that my "little knowledge" can affect their thinking and judgement? Nah I don't believe that my readers are that dumb. They can always agree or disagree to my points, what is important is that I have shared to them a piece of my mind.

Continue:

As guardian of knowledge, we have the paramount responsibility to rectify your mistake. So much for the sermon.Anyway, you said that the burden of proof or the responsibility to prove such case always fall on the affirmative side, and conversely, the negative position is immune from proving its case? You even said to the effect that that's what the rule is all about. Seriously though, have you been reading the rules of argumentation and debate? It makes me wonder why you are not well aware that the negative side is also duty bound by the rules to present and prove its case. Such rule is what you call as "counter proposition."

So now I'm talking to a "guardian of knowledge" (chuckles). So this guy is a security guard huh or maybe he thinks he's Voltron: Defender of the Universe. Enough of the puns...

First, a counter-preposition is a proposition made in place of or in opposition to a preceding one. It is not the opposite of the burden of proof.

Do we need to change the rule on burdening the proof to suit this guy's belief? Sadly...I can't change the rule. The Burden of Proof is on the one who affirms. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The reason that a negative claim does not have the full burden of proof is because of the fact that they are claiming something to be not true. Remember: If one rejects a claim, one is not necessarily holding it to be false. One is merely saying that the claim is not true.

Shifting the burden of proof is a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. It is a logical fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion.

Now on the negative side, what we have is presumption. The presumption is the opposite of the burden of proof. My responsibility is to defeat the proposition (in this case God exists). It is generally agreed that the best manner in which to proceed a debate is to present a logical negative case which refutes the affirmative and supports the status quo.

The burden of proving an assertion is the responsibility which all parties have of, at least potentially, backing up any assertion that is made on their part, whether their position carries the presumption or not. The burden of rejoinder is simply the responsibility to carry the debate forward.

So it's like this: The theist has the burden of proof in proving that a god exist since they have the positive claim of its existence. Once the theists has made his prema facie case the burden shiffs to the atheist (burden of rejoiner). The atheist then have his presumptions - he must counter the theist's evidences with his persuasions and rebuttals.

However, one is in danger of believing something false that is true, for this reason, there is some burden of proof on the belief in the negative. Again, the burden is to establish a prima facie case in support of ones position. Once one has done that, then one has established at least a reasonable reason for ones position. A prima facie case means a case that is sufficiently developed to require a response.

Let us continue.

"...prefer a logical evidence" and "...rely on logical explanation"...to disprove the existence of God? Are you serious? So, let's see? What you actually mean is atheism is contingent on the proof being presented for the existence of God, right?

Sure it does.

Remember, before you create your anti-thesis there must be a thesis first.

So for example if you disprove through "logical evidence" and "explanation" as you so put it, then God does not exist. Is that so?

If negative atheism (that's disproving the theist claim) is justified, then positive atheism is a rational position.

Do I have to correct you always? Appeal to authority is a fallacy?

Nah...I don't have to hire you to be my "corrector", beside if I accept your corrections as valid...I might lost my readers. Now let's see...Yes... appeal to authority is fallacious.

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:


Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

religion and religious faith is illogical? Good God! I can accept that remark had it been your personal opinion, but if you meant it as though it's valid and sound reasoning. No way...Try to think it over for you to reconsider, otherwise all the logic left in you will be gone with the wind. Or you become illogical yourself. Unless, you understand religion and religious faith in the context of the phenomenon of religion, you can never come to terms with the truth about religion.

So you don't agree with me that religion and religious faith is illogical. That's OK ...I'm not here to please anybody.

Religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth...that's according to Clifford Geertz. So tell me the logical value of a supernatural claim? Remember that religion is fostered by belief and belief is NOT required to be logical. It is a personal matter, beside, truth in matter of religion tends to become relative.

If we will allow this guy's reasoning about logic and the truth of religion then anything could be logically sound, regardless of the premises.

Just because the phenomenon of religion may be good doesn't mean it is logically sound. Besides, the rants says nothing about the logical truth of the belief in the context of the phenomenon of religion. So I think I don't need to elaborate further.

And lastly:

Tell me when you already have a conclusive proof that God does not exist, until then, you have no business being an atheist, because you do not live by what the name atheism stands .

"Live by what the name atheism stands"? I seems this guy think that atheism is a way of life. Atheism is not a philosophy, a belief system or a world vioew so I think the statement doesn't give us much about what atheism is.

Again, negative atheism justify positive atheism. If you still haven't figure it out nor proven to me that a god exist, then that is my proof of my atheism.

And as long as I don't believe in a god or gods, then technically speaking, I'm an atheist whether you like it or not.

So...until next time,
Same bat time...same bat channel

John the Atheist

Brain Differences Found Between Believers In God And Non-believers

From ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2009)

Believing in God can help block anxiety and minimize stress, according to new University of Toronto research that shows distinct brain differences between believers and non-believers.
In two studies led by Assistant Psychology Professor Michael Inzlicht, participants performed a Stroop task – a well-known test of cognitive control – while hooked up to electrodes that measured their brain activity.

Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake. The stronger their religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they made.

"You could think of this part of the brain like a cortical alarm bell that rings when an individual has just made a mistake or experiences uncertainty," says lead author Inzlicht, who teaches and conducts research at the University of Toronto Scarborough. "We found that religious people or even people who simply believe in the existence of God show significantly less brain activity in relation to their own errors. They're much less anxious and feel less stressed when they have made an error."

These correlations remained strong even after controlling for personality and cognitive ability, says Inzlicht, who also found that religious participants made fewer errors on the Stroop task than their non-believing counterparts.

Their findings show religious belief has a calming effect on its devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making errors or facing the unknown. But Inzlicht cautions that anxiety is a "double-edged sword" which is at times necessary and helpful.

"Obviously, anxiety can be negative because if you have too much, you're paralyzed with fear," he says. "However, it also serves a very useful function in that it alerts us when we're making mistakes. If you don't experience anxiety when you make an error, what impetus do you have to change or improve your behaviour so you don't make the same mistakes again and again?"

The paper, appearing online in Psychological Science, was co-authored by Dr. Ian McGregor at York University, and by Jacob Hirsh and Kyle Nash, doctoral candidates at the University of Toronto and York University, respectively.

Word meaning and evidences.

entonces27 said, on March 6th, 2009 at 10:40 AM

I have not yet encountered a “Dictionary of Atheism” available either in any libraries in the Philippines or throughout the internet. Besides conventions will tell that “theos” is an accepted Greek equivalent for “god.”

G2316 theos the-o’s god, god, godly, god-ward, misc .

I guess you have a fragile thoughts regarding the usage of “god” by the Bible writers and by the King James Translators. Vide:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/lexiconc.cfm?Criteria=god&st=any

And are you really “atheos”? Atheos is without GOD.

http://dict.die.net/god provides this:

God \God\ (g[o^]d), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got, G. gott, Icel. gu[eth], go[eth], Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup, prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. h[=u], p. p. h[=u]ta, to call upon, invoke, implore. [root]30. Cf. Goodbye, Gospel, Gossip.]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/GOD?qsrc=2888

Danish: Gud , Dutch: God, Icelandic: guð, Norwegian: gud , Swedish: gud

I guess if you’re not able to accept those etymologic meanings, then dig up more. If you are questioning the GODHOOD of the Creator the FATHER, then it’s up to you. Most atheists agree that there are strong and weak atheists and that they REQUIRE christians the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, meaning they want to see the SHAPE of the Creator. Sorry, HE IS IN SECRET.

Enton Ces

Hi entonces27,
Let see...nah you don't need to consult any "atheistic dictionary" when trying to established the meaning of the word "atheism". It's just a matter of prefix and suffix.

As I have already demostrated...a+theo+ism = atheism...easy isn't it.

Now am I'm atheos? Without God. Hmmmmmm well since I am a free moral agent, yes I am without any gods. But I prefer to be called an atheist (without god belief).

Etymologically speaking the word "god" is an old English word derived from Old Saxon which means "something that is given your unfettered devotion". Gosh @ entonces27, you don't need to copy-post Internet articles for that.

Speaking of strong and weak atheism...a strong atheist is an atheist who accept that the proposition "God doesn't exist" is true while a weak atheist is a person that don't have any god belief. That distinction is not about objective evidences but on how atheists respond on the god question.

Atheists don't rely only with empirical evidence when they talk about god. Some like me prefer a logical evidence since empiricism is valid only on existing physical entities. God concept is more fitting with metaphysical hogwash so...to disprove its existence we only need to rely on logical explanations.

Now is god a secret...or a gossip? It's up to you to explain this.

Causa est supremus fides,
John the Atheist

New rants...new replies.

Frank Lopez
Atheists always asked theists to prove that there is a God which theists are always doing. Why don’t atheists prove that there is no God and lay their arguments instead?

John the Atheist: That's because atheism is a negative position @ Frank. It is always the one who with the positive claim who has the burden of proof. An atheist never say that god doesn't exist, fortunately it always begin with not believing the theist's claim.

Let see...If I say that there is a secret covert ops named G.I.Joe in the US military, I have the burden of proof to prove that this "G.I. Joe exist. If you don't believe me, well you are not obligated to give me proofs why you don't believe me. If I failed miserably to prove my positive claim then my doubt becomes a positive position.

Jun Paras: So you are after logical and rational facts that can be presented for you to believe? Do you ask yourselves that you have also logical and rational facts that you can present to us in order for us to believe that God doesn’t exists? Just like I said, atheist only ended up asking questions and doubts but if you will undergone cross examination regarding your principle, then I think you cannot stand firm on your belief. We have laid down our side that through logical thinking, God does exists. Because God, is being characterized in the Bible as THE CREATOR. If you don’t believe that everything in this ever-glorious universe was created, or being planned by a very powerful Creator, because you have intentionally blind-folded your hearts, then what is your explanation? Can you give us your side for us to compare whom is handling the true logical and rational facts?

John the Atheist: As I have already said to Mr. Frank Lopez, an atheist (since its a negative position) is not obligated to give any claim. It is the one who claim the positive who has the burden to give proof. Remember that positive atheism is a result of negative atheism. If believers cannot give any proof of the existence of a god, then positive atheism is justify. Now since you guys are the one who is making the claim (God exist), it is up to you to support it.

Sorry guys, I didn't made the rules.

Now claiming from a holy book is really not much of an evidence. Remember that an appeal to authority is really a fallacy. If you keep your bet in a book...well remember that you are talking to a non-believer, so the Bible as an evidence doesn't apply here.

To claim propositional knowledge from the Bible is ah...well useless when talking to an atheist - because before you can claim knowledge from the Bible you have to prove it first that the Bible is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism. So Bible verses and Bible claims are a no-no when it comes to logical discussions.

Jun Paras: CLAIMING IS ONE THING, BUT PROVING IS ANOTHER THING. I observed in your comments, mostly of you atheist, is that you are playing safe, don’t just comments and look for loop holes for what we believe in, you must lay-down your belief, YOU MUST STAND FIRM THAT GOD DOESN’T EXISTS, WE ARE LOOKING FOR YOUR SIDE, YOUR LINE OF REASONING, if you don’t mind. Then we must compare each other side, who has a logical reasoning. I’m waiting for your answer.

John the Atheist: Nah...It's not playing safe. We just play by the rules...rules of rational discourses. Now let see...Loop holes are everywhere when it comes to religious discourses...As I have already stated, "Religion and religious faith is illogical".

I have already told you that believers are the one who are obligated to lay their reasons for believing. When dealing with an atheist, you must first lay your reasons why believing in a god is a rational position. If you have done that then I will try deconstructing your thesis. That's where we start comparing. So are you willing to lay down your cards?

Jun Paras: By the way, I just want to clear some things, I don’t agree that culture is a part of faith that I’m trying to imply. I’m talking about a scientific and logical faith. Most faith in this world are nonsense. And these faith cannot be used as evidence, sometimes it is against the law of man especially in the law of God.

John the Atheist: Faith is not a part of culture...I was talking about conscience.

Jun Paras: I’m just wondering, you are looking for some logical reasons, but you doesn’t include faith and conscience as an evidence. Do you know what is the meaning of logical reasoning? The best logical reasoning lies primarily on one’s conscience. For example, is it logical to steal for you to be rich? or to rape a girl? or to kill? Of course its very illogical, a man who’ll say that these are logical is out of his stupid mind. But how do we know that it is illogical? Do we need to research for some law books or engineering books for it to say that it is so? Or we simply ask our conscience? If you study our law, it is based primarily on good conscience, we are prohibited to kill, to steal, to rape… etc.

John the Atheist: Let me illustrate my point regarding faith and conscience as evidence - According to the definition conscience it is the awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong. Now let's talk about those Islamic terrorists that rammed their plane in September 11. Do you think that those who killed all those people believe that what they did was wrong? Now suppose you believe that they did it for the name of their god, do you think that they will feel bothered by their conscience?

As Thomas Aquinas have already said, conscience is affected by someones doctrine or belief. Another good example to this is the treatment of Jews in World War 2. Civilian populace in Nazi Germany were apathetic in the plight of the Jews because they were led to believe that what happening to the Jews is just a punishment on their crime against Jesus Christ.

In most holy books for example, we can see commandments that prohibit stealing, right? But if you will also notice, in the same books, their god orders his people to plunder their enemies. That's conscience for you.

Jun Paras: An animal, even though not having a mind the same as we are, but if you observe them, they’re doing some logical things beside the fact that they are not being instructed step by step, they know how to do good. Its their nature to take good care of their siblings. So what’s my point? Dont exclude conscience if you want to study reality.

John the Atheist: Instinct is difference from conscience. But conscience is a product of instinct. For atheists, ethics is a result of sociological-biological evolution. Instinct pave the way for the development of ethics. So VIOLA! Culture and ethics = Conscience.

From a certain dominik
To all atheists….

I raise this question:

The blood circulating in your body without the aid of any machine, at a precise time and speed for you to exist….
The way the Earth was distant and revolve around the sun at exact measurement and time…

And so on and so forth for things that cannot be explained by men…

Don’t you ALL think that there is WISDOM behind all these things???

John the Atheist: To dominik

Begging the question. Now before you ask a so-called WISDOM behind all these things, first let us ask...Is there a proof that the mind is independent to a material brain? Remember that wisdom is a faculty of the mind and the mind is connected to the activity of the brain. If you can give me a sample of an independent mind that can operate without a material brain then I can ponder on your question @ dominik.

Until next time,

John the Atheist

Faith as evidence and False Analogy

If I post my answers to these following messages from that ADD article, chances are it will be deleted or worst. But thank Darwin for the Internet.

So the best thing to do is to place it and answer them in my blog.


The first letter came from a certain Jun Paras:

@pinoy atheist,
I don’t expect you to have faith as evidence, because like I said, you have no faith (a logical and good faith). But I never said that faith is an evidence, faith is A PART of an evidence that God really exists. What kind of faith? A scientific and logical faith. You have also your faith, but your faith of not believing in God is only a result of your somewhat rebellious comments and questions like “If there is God, why is there evil in this world”, “Bible is not an evidence, it contradicts each other, and full of factual errors”, “I don’t believe in God, because I never see Him”, “Why do other religions kill while they’re confessing that they are of God?”… These questions and comments drives you to conclude that there is no God. But, did your belief regarding God and the bible undergone deep and logical cross-examination? Do you really study the bible? Do you really study God’s will? Or you just conclude it in that way as you feel? For you to say that a thing is lacking something, you must know what is complete, right? So what’s your basis? You don’t believe in life after death, but you have no belief what will happen after death, right? You dont believe in God, but you have no explanation on how we are created, right? (If you belive that we are created)Your faith is very illogical and brings no hope to people. Our difference, I think, is that we, as a Christian, don’t just judge according to what we like to feel, but we study His will. We are not stupid to conclude that there is no God because we can’t see Him. That’s stupidity. Because if I will follow that stupid principle (to see is to believe), then I will not belive that I have a mind, that love exist, or I am born by my mother, etc.. because these things are not visible by our human eye, stupidity huh? But we believe in these things because of faith, or we actually feel these things. Even though you shout whole day in your backyard, “GOD, PLEASE SHOW US YOURSELF! SO I’LL BELIEVE, ELSE, I WILL NOT BELIEVE YOU!” do you think He will follow what you want? I don’t think so. Because God knows every heart of mankind. It is no need for Him to show up for you to believe, because if you deeply ask your conscience, and your conscience never lies, GOD REALLY EXISTS. Do you saw a broken statue of a man with no hands and feet? Now, ask yourself, did that statue that you saw is being made by man? If your answer is “NO, IT JUST POPS OUT THERE…” then you must go to the very nearest mental hospital, you are really out of your mind. But if your answer is “OF COURSE YES, IT IS BEING MADE BY MAN”.. then my second question is, do you see how it is done? or do you saw the maker of that statue? probably NO, but you still believe that it is being made, right? Then, IF THAT BROKEN STATUE OF A MAN WITH NO HANDS AND FEET, IS BEING MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE EVEN THOUGH YOU YOU DON’T SEE THE MAKER, HOW ABOUT MAN THAT IS FAR GREATER AND GLORIOUS THAN THE STATUE? WE JUST POPS OUT IN THIS WORLD? DO YOU GET MY POINT? And that is faith, I hope you pinoy atheist include a logical faith as an evidence. So that in one day, you are in your right track of being a man. Don’t fool yourselves atheist!!!

John the Atheist: Dear Mr. Paras.
Faith cannot be an evidence Mr. Jun Paras nor a part of an evidence. An evidence cannot came from mere assumptions and trusts. For example, in a crime scene, you cannot just say that because you see a knife in the area base on your assumption...that is the murder weapon.

Now let us talk about this faith you are promoting Mr. Paras...Religious faith. You claim that this faith is both logical and..eh good faith?

Base on your opinion...well no, my lost of faith is not a result of rebellion. You see Mr. Paras religious faith is neither logical nor good. You see, when we talk about religious faith, you don't employ logic to it.

Example: Believers say that Jesus walk on water...and that they have faith that Jesus is really capable of doing that. Are they employing logic to this belief? No. All they did was to accept what they have read, hook, line and sinker. They didn't even try analyzing it if the said event is true. If I will use logic to it, I may began to doubt the issues of supernatural miracles. That's why religious faith is not logical.

In the issue of the Bible. Well again if I use eh...deep and logical cross-examination in studying the Bible, I might become skeptical to biblical claims. I might even do the same thing that Thomas Jefferson did in his Bible; Ripped all those pages that deals with supernatural miracles and events. If I will do that then all is left in the Bible are begat, begat, begat.

Logic can never become a part of religious faith and holy scriptures.

Now why ask me about life after death? May I ask you Mr. Paras...have you ever wondered what was life before life? If there's nothing to talk about before I was born then why would I bother on things after I was dead. Doesn't seem to sound logical, does it?

If you will read my post (or if it was already deleted)...I never said that I never believe because of empirical reasons so don't put words in my mouth @ Mr. Paras - That's stupidity in your part. I don't believe in a god because of logical reasons. So I guess you're making a stawman here. Making stawman argument is stupid.

Now let see...hmmmm just like Soriano's argument, yours also fell short of proving that atheism is an unreasonable position. That's what I'm waiting for and that's why I read your posts. Until you haven't given me a good reason, then your "argument" is a little bit ehhhh...poor and shabby.

Oh and that last rant about a statute...hehehe...That's an example of false analogy. Remember that a statute is man-made so I guess your analogy is fallacious if you are trying to compare a man-made object from something natural.

Did we just "pop out from nothing"? Well...If you guys insist that we are made ex nihilo, then technically we came from nothing. But atheistically speaking, how can you be sure that "nothing" is always a default position?




The next letter came from a certain "Genedie"

I’d like to believe that atheist are very intellectual people but come on… I mean, it is a well known fact that man invented computers, right?; super computers, thinking machines… if man can make such complex and intricately assembled machine then how much more of the vast universe is created by a powerful being who has far superior intellect and wisdom compared to man?! Isn’t but logical to think that this vast and more complex( than to a computer) universe and everything in it moves as it should because somebody made it so? Think for a while atheists… how can the stars, the moons , planets, galaxies move in an intricately precise order so as not to collide with each other be a product of an accident but not of a magnificent creation of a Supreme Being? Are atheist too proud to accept that there is someone far superior (in every aspect)than man? Since man had only been here what, a few thousand years, and you guys think you’re the only ones capable of reason , intellect, wisdom and even love? Yes, LOVE. Don’t you guys know that this whole existence, everything was created is based on THAT principle?No? of course, I forgot you don’t believe in God. A pity really, you’d lived and die holding to a very much flawed belief, a belief molded by pride and inanity under the guise of science and logic but in truth vile and hypocrisy. Sana bago pa man mahuli ang lahat, maliwanagan ang isip nyo at makita ang katotohanan.

John the Atheist: To Genedie,
Remember that sometimes common sense is not good sense. Now your example suggest that computers are made...how about us? The problem with this is that computers are man-made objects.

If you will use your head, the computer example is really not a very good example. You see Genedie, a computer is made by finite beings. Base on your analogy, are the gods finite? Also, each parts are made by different beings, so is the human parts made by different gods? So that's what happened with false analogies.

Logically speaking we cannot compare nature from man-made objects so...yes an atheist will never even use your kind of reasoning @ Genedie.

The movement of the stars and the orbits of other heavenly bodies can be explained without resorting to the supernatural. That's what the science of astronomy and physics are for. Remember, facts doesn't require supernatural explanations. There is still the realm of physical sciences @ Genedie. A good examples are the formation of snowflakes and the geometrical pattern of a sunflower. These are natural phenomena and will always form naturally without an aid of gods or demons. What is just happening to you @ Genedie is that you are just assuming design. Nature is really quite chaotic.

So...let see since the rest of Genedie is an assumption of being self-righteous. It really doesn't deserve an explanation. In the issue of LOVE...well for an atheist, love is still possible without the need for a god. Humanity and this grand universe surrounds you to be loved.

Until next time,
John the Atheist

The Other Isms? A Child's Play.

Word play is the must used techniqued employed by amateur apologists. According to Wikipedia, word play is a literary technique in which the words that are used become the main subject of the work. Puns, phonetic mix-ups such as spoonerisms, obscure words and meanings, clever rhetorical excursions, oddly formed sentences.

Now here's a good example from one of those ADD blog site:

An ism means a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school.

John the Atheist: Uhhhh not really. The suffix "ism" doesn't mean belief per se. "ism" is just a suffix that connotes action or of state. It's also a modifier that indicates action, manner, condition, beliefs or prejudice.

Have you noticed the “resemblance” of the word “Atheism”? By means of “syncope” “Athenism” became “Atheism”, or you contest me of linguistic creation of words? This is just probability but who knows? Atheists have no firm foundations; they don;t have any ground of “common” belief.

John the Atheist: Gosh the guy became a little bonkers here when he began talking about atheism. I wonder why? Anyway, atheism has nothing to do with Athens...unless you're talking about travel plans.

Atheism is a word that came from the prefix "A" + theist (theo = Greek word means God or gods if plural) and the suffix "ism" = Not a believer of god or gods. Easy huh?

In phonetics, a syncope is the loss of one or more sounds from the interior of a word; especially, the loss of an unstressed vowel. So let see...according to this dog-tale, there is a resemblance of the word Athens to the word “Atheism”? By means of “syncope” “Athenism” became “Atheism”. But there is no word "athenism" in eh... Oh wait...there's one: The mission of the IAC is to promote Athenism throughout the world and to lead the Athenic Movement.

Golly! It's about sport!

Atheists have no firm foundations; they don;t have any ground of “common” belief.

Do atheists have no firm foundations? Not really. You see all atheists, regarding of what kind, don't believe in a god or gods.

Linguistic is a science, but if this useful knowledge was twisted by ADD apologist to fit their kind of mental function, it becomes a mind-less child play.

Hope that clears this ADD cant.

John the Atheist

Eliseo Soriano's "Chuwariwap" Boys.

Chuwariwap is a street lingo which means boot licker. Have you seen those variety shows from the 50’s and the 60’s? Is that the American Bandstand? Well…something like that, anyway, do you notice those people singing in the background while the singer sings. Yep that’s them.

Most Christian commentators like Mr. Eliseo Soriano are surrounded by boot lickers like flies in a piece of Butterfinger candy bar. I really don’t know the reason for this but I assume that these boot lickers have a positive effect on the commentator’s ego, that’s why he allows them to swarm around him. It’s really not hard finding boot lickers in a kennel full of fanatics.

Richard Dawkins once said that public debates only foster publicity. That’s a nice reminder but how about if these freaks are in the Internet? Do Mr. Soriano and his cahoots only utilize the Internet and blogs to gain publicity? Well it seems that way. I really don’t care if Mr. Soriano lambaste other Christians and especially the Iglesia Ni Cristo…it’s quite funny watching them throw mud at each other, but what if they began stepping on the atheist’s turf?

After giving a little piece of my mind in one of Mr. Soriano’s anti-atheist article, two of his lap dogs started to charge and believe me, their bark is worst than their bite.

First they ignored my criticism and if you will read their messages…well I think it’s more of a publicity stunt than a refutation. Hmmmmmm maybe you better read it yourself.


entonces27
Even the English propoents of “Atheistic” or “Agnostic” movements never realize the etymological meaning of the word “god.”

Congratulations to the Brethren, once again this blogsite of Bro. Eli topped among them all - THE MOST POPUPAR WEBSITE OF THE YEAR.

Pinoy atheist? Anyway, atheism is another -ism invented by men to dissolve the truth which is borne by christianism (the christian doctrine). Atheists ostentatiously display about their so-called “scientific” knowledge. In fact, they require the christians “objective” evidence. Why should I or the brethren provide these “fools” objective evidence when we are the subject of their “mockery”? The wish of one of their atheistic comedian was granted already but not according to what he proposed. Sabi panga niya, “if there is a God… blah, blah, blah, RIP NA KASI SYA. “And another man among them already commented regarding bro. eli’s comments on Richard Dawkins.

Since estonces 27 was asking for the etymological meaning of the word god, here is it: “god” - something worthy of unfettered devotion.

Now, on the issue of popular website (do we need to include this?) Well FYI, the most popular website is still Google.com. In Christian website it is http://www.answersingenesis.org/ The most popular blog in 2008 is Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Hope that settles it (For a more detailed and complete list of the Best Blogs in 2008, click HERE).

Let us do away with the trivia and tackle the other issue. The root word "ism" is not made to dissolve the truth which is borne by the word (christian-ism?). The suffix "ism" just means "a believer of a certain...whatever". The ism in atheism doesn't signify "a belief of"...the important word in atheism is the prefix "a" which means "without".

An atheist (or in your word "the fool") doesn't require believers (or theists) an objective evidence. Remember there is such a thing known as direct and indirect evidence. What we expect from a believer like you are...logical and rational facts that you can present. In fact non-believers mocks religious fanatics not because of their belief but on how they present their belief. If you will just be honest enough to admit that theism is just a belief...everything will be OK.

Again, faith is not an evidence (direct or indirect), it is an assumption.

Now about this atheist comedian (I assume you are talking about George Carlin), remember he said that it's better to worship the Sun and pray to Joe Pesci than your god because he can actually see the Sun and Joe Pesci is a good actor and "he looks like a guy who can get things done!". I think you're wrong when you say that George Carlin wish was granted when he died on June 22, 2008. On his comedy skit he said that if God is real, may he strike his audience or himself dead. Did your God granted his wish after 4 years? If so, then Carlin was right when he said that Joe Pesci is better than God because "he looks like a guy who can get things done!".

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you."-- George Carlin


On the issue regarding Richard Dawkins. I think Prof. Dawkins is too busy on his schedule to even comment on Eliseo's rants. Prof. Dawkin is a very busy man beside he doesn't need that kind of publicity stunt as bad as Mr. Soriano needs it.

dimitri
to john the atheist:

did you fully comprehend mr. jun paras’ comments? what evidence do you want? physical evidence? do you want us to provide you a photo picture of God Almighty smiling at you? on that case we cannot provide you one.

To dimitri
Mr. Paras' comments? What's it all about? Ahhhh the airplane and intelligent design. Hmmmmmm...conscience? The concept of conscience is too relative to become a proof of the existence of a singular god. Culture dictates conscience. Education, doctrines and propaganda can affect someones conscience. According to Thomas Aquinas, conscience is connected to the rational faculty and if this rational faculty is corrupted, conscience is no longer reliable.

Let's talk about faith. According to Jun Paras, "Faith is not being exempted in believing in God, atheist have no faith (good faith). They rely on things which are seen, if you shown to them what they want to see, then that is, for them, a valid proof/evidence that God exists."

For a theist talking about atheism and faith, this is hilarious.

Anyway, atheists also have faith...but not religious faith. Faith is the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. That doesn't mean being religious does it? I have faith that the Sun will rise on the east and set in the west tomorrow. That's faith. I still have faith with the Philippine Constitution and the Philippine Supreme Court...That's faith. Faith is synonymous with trust .

Atheist doesn't only rely on what is seen because we must note that the non-existence of something doesn't only fall on empirical evidences but also in logical conclusions. For example, I can say that a two-dimentional square triangle doesn't exist not because I haven't seen one but because a triangle cannot become a square base on logical contradictions.

Now the idea of a disembodied mind is cool...if you're into science fiction. But unfortunately, no believer can still prove the existence of a mind independent with a material brain.

Jun Paras continues,
"There are things unseen but you are forced to believe. And there are things that man cannot make, and man cannot reached by his knowledge. The atheist character is like a child that questions his parents even to the things that beyond his boundary or beyond his level, and he will believe if it will explained totally, else, he will not believe. But, a loving parent to his child doesn’t explain all things to his child because it is not of his capacity or maybe it will harm his child. If God explains to you all of these things, do you think you could input these in your little tiny head."

This is a typical Christian escape route. That God is beyond human understanding and reason. God is unknowable or beyond human knowledge. This is a sharp fall to theistic agnosticism. But may I ask, If Jun Paras is human and God is beyond human knowledge, then why is he explaing the existence of a god in the first place? Why do he know that there is a god?

Funny isn't it?

Do you want to give me a picture of god @ Dmitri? You can't take a picture of something that doesn't exist.

Have a nice day.

John the Atheist

Freethinkers in the Grassroots

If you try going to Luneta every Sunday night, chances are you’re going to see or even have the chance to participate with some debates that are commonly held on its grounds and with it you will be surprise to encounter someone who claim to be a freethinker.

The term freethinker and free thought is not a very common word heard from the Philippine grassroots since the word freethinker first appeared in 1713. In Rizal’s correspondence with Fr. Pablo Pastells for example, he didn’t use nor say that he was a freethinker yet Joseph McCabe included Dr. Jose Rizal in his list of past freethinkers.

Typically speaking, Philippine grassroots is connected with the problem of poverty. We seem to think that an impoverished person is more concern with basic needs – food, shelter, and clothing. He is more worry about redeeming himself from his economic failures and some quick relief to satisfy his hungry stomach than to buy book or spend his time and money doing research, reading in a library or surfing the Internet. Some even say that free thought are only for the privilege few.

But remember, a poor man still thinks. In every thinking man, the seed of free thought slumbers and every time he began to use reason within him or try practically and scientifically solve his problem, the seed of free thought starts to germinate in his mind.

Sadly this seed may not grow for it lacks the needed physical and mental nourishment. But that doesn’t mean a poor person cannot become a freethinker.

Baruch Spinoza was a poor man. He is just a lens grinder. But that doesn’t prevent him to write “Ethics”. Poverty didn’t prevent him to see the world in its fullness.

The common person can also think…So what’s the use of it? What is the practical use of free thought for the common man?

In the light of such question I always refer to the Greek philosopher Thales. Here’s a man who dare to think about the world without first thinking of the supernatural, the mystical and of course God. In the time of need, instead of praying or consulting an oracle, Thales studied the beneficial effect of renting an olive press earlier than the other patrons. Naturally, he earned more money because of it.

A common freethinker face his problems base on objective realities and free from religious superstitions and dogmas. Objective verifications is use to separate truth from church dogmas. In relation with the Philippine experience, a freethinker knows how to plan his family and is not influenced by church beliefs – disguised as “God given morality”.




Practical freethinkers’ greatest obstacle is poverty. The lack of resources stunts his growth; the lack of finances makes him indifferent. But the similarities from other destitute end there. Most Philippine urban poor for example have already surrendered their fate to divine hands. “Bahala Na” became a common expression of people living in the gutters. The poor folks are made to believe that they will inherit Earth and rich people will enter heaven like a camel entering the eye of a needle. But a practical freethinker sees poverty not as a virtue or a sacrifice to become favorable in the eyes of God. He looks at it as a social problem and if not properly addressed, it may even become the problem of future generations. A practical freethinker looks at his poor life neither as a curse nor a punishment. He sees his predicament cheerfully, which was according to Epicurus, an honorable state. He looks at poverty not as a punishment from neither past sins nor a test of faith. He looks at it as a result of indolence. Solutions from poverty are not divine blessing but results from careful planning and hard work. Thinking result tangible solutions so instead of being idle waiting for divine intervention, freethinkers will solve their problem…ala Jack Bauer…in real time.

So when free thought did entered the common Filipino? Did it start with Rizal? Did it started when Damian Sotto reprimanded the church in his radio program back in the sixties? Did it started at Plaza Miranda or when a small book store opened in a small place in Doroteo Jose St. in Sta. Cruz, Manila and started selling progressive books for the masses?

Did it begin with a group of debaters in Luneta or a group of rich folks in Makati or a group of yuppies from the Internet?

I don’t think it started that way. Every common Filipino is capable of free thought if he will only try.

Practical freethinking is not an advocacy and it is certainly not a call for any kind of revolution. Practical freethinking is a challenge. It is a challenge for the common man of any society to use an alternative in finding solutions. An alternative that focus on real life, not an after life - an alternative that uses objective, practical and scientific reasoning not prayers or mantras – an alternative that offers goal-oriented solutions not supernatural promises of salvations from holy ghosts, saints, amulets and holy books – an alternative which offers rationality not rationalizations from different scriptural interpretations.

It is a challenge for you and me to start thinking right.

Horton and the Who Evangelical

“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living, It’s a way of looking at life through the wrong end of a telescope. Which is what I do, And that enables you to laugh at life’s realities.”- Dr. Seuss

In a place known as Whoville the folks got distraught
When Horton the elephant said what he thought.
“The oddest of oddities isn’t as odd As people believing that there is a god.”

The Who Jews and Muslims and
Hindus and Buddhists
The Who Vegetarians, Wiccans, and Nudists,
The Who
Presbyterians, Baptists, New Agers:
All spread the sad news on their cell
phones and pagers.

A Who Evangelical fell to his knees
And he said,
“Oh no, Horton! I beg of you, please!
We always have liked you. We all think
you’re swell,
And we can’t stand the thought that you’re headed to hell!”

But Horton just laughed and he wiggled his trunk.
The bible to him
was a big bunch of bunk.
He meant what he said and he said what he meant,
“Religion is silly a hundred percent.”

The Who Evangelical let out a
snort in
A very snide way most insulting to Horton.
“You say you’re an
atheist? Here’s what we’ll do —
We all know that atheists are anti-Who —

We’ll drive you from Whoville; we’ll send you away.
Or else we will
force you to worship and pray.
A person’s a person, no matter how small
But an atheist isn’t a person at all!”

But Horton just laughed once
again even louder
And told all the Whos he would not take a powder,
Nor
worship some stupid nonsensical being
That no one was hearing and no one was
seeing.

“I will not be threatened,” he said. “It’s not funny.
I
won’t trust your god with my flag or my money!
I will not allow him to
influence science.
An elephant thrives on his own self-reliance!”

The Who Evangelical said, “My dear chap, sure
You think you’re so
smart, but just wait till the rapture.”
The anti-Christ’s coming and then
you will find,
That your friends are in heaven but you’re left behind.

“We cannot allow that to happen to you,
Because, after all, Jesus
loves ev’ry Who.
You must accept God for the good of us all.
A person’s
a person no matter how small.

“And though you’re no Who (you are just a
big elephant),
God loves you, too. What you are is irrelevant.
He can
destroy us if someone’s defiant.
A sinner’s a sinner no matter how giant!”

The Whos approached Horton, began to surround him.
If some of the
Whos had their way, they’d have drowned him.
Some others thought maybe they
might build a fire.
And stoning was mentioned among the Who choir.

But Horton was huge and avoided the crunch of them,
Picked up his
foot, and he stepped on a bunch of them,
Hoped the survivors would give up
their mission,
So here’s what he told them about superstition:

“The
oddest of oddities isn’t as odd
As people believing that there is a god.
There isn’t a heaven, or hell you should dread.
A person’s a person —
unless he is dead.”

From: The Radical Atheist

The First Filipino Freethinkers Forum...and all I got is a lousy shirt!

So what can I say to that forum? Hmmmmmm…if I’m going to scale it from 1 to 10…I give it a 9.3. That’s not bad.

Personally I find it quite a success…if only we have more time. But a first is a first isn’t it? So I expect more on future forums. The venue was great! It’s a book store and what best suited freethinkers than a book store. The host was also great. Redtani is not a boring person.

Another great thing about the forum is seeing old acquaintances like Cris Vega and that science writer from …eh…whatever.

So there I was, together with 60+ wild cats, oh and did I mention that I have brought some friends from Luneta? – Mr. Rico, Mr. Noel and Mr. Vale.

There was this game of guessing some pictures of past freethinkers. I think that was an ice breaker. Then Red read some greetings from other freethinkers like Mr. Hemant Mehta (AKA The Friendly Atheist), Mr. Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Mr. Daniel Dennett, American philosopher and author of Breaking the Spell. I like Daniel Dennett’s greeting. That’s the best!

We also gave the credit where the credit was due. Cheers to Dr. Jose Rizal for being a freethinker. I consider myself lucky as a Filipino for we have a freethinker for a national hero.

Then there are the speakers.

The first speaker was sooooo dull. Damn! That nut case was so boring he must be put to sleep!

Uh...hey wait a minute, that’s me?

OK so we proceed to the next speaker (Mr.Geri Villas).

I think the topic was about secular humanism. It was OK…but I got a little uncomfortable when that speaker began to contrast atheism with his secular humanism. Does he want atheists in the audience to be converted in his philosophy? Woah…is there really a comparison between atheism and secular humanism in the first place?

Hmmmmm…Something’s not right. Anyway, before the program, Red told us that if there’s a problem or a debate, we should bring it on the parking lot. So, it was my mistake for not dragging that speaker in the nearest parking lot (Grrrrrrr!).

The third speaker (Ms.Maria Isabel Garcia) was an old acquaintance. It’s a long story so its better not to tell it here (baka mag-iyakan pa tayo!). Anyway, hatchets were buried, right?

I like her speech about science and free thought and how freethinkers must not worship science. That’s good since a lot of atheists here in the Philippines are into science worship. Science is a tool not a divine idol.

I also like the topic about science in the Philippines. Holy crap, are we that low when it comes to science?

Unfortunately, my colleagues from Luneta didn’t get the picture and they thought that she’s saying that freethinkers must not only rely on science because science lacks the capacity of showing us everything that we need to know. OK…OK I also think she’s too moderate to be in conflict with religion, but the forum was about free thought not atheism.

Break time and thanks to Tanya for the cookies and that catering service that Redtani’s wife provided. TSALAP!

The next speaker (Ms. Dr. Sylvia Estrada-Claudio) tackled the Reproductive Bill. Now here’s a real agnostic that is fighting the battle front. I was glad that a lot of people today have accepted the pros of the Reproductive Health Bill and glad she talk about issues and information that have been smeared by the church. She still looking for more volunteers to disseminate the information of the benefit of the Reproductive Health Bill. Hope that someday this Filipino freethinkers group will become active to these kinds of endeavors.

The last speaker (Mr.Benjamin Espina) introduced us to the usefulness of the Internet to the free thought movement here in the Philippines. The issue wasn’t that too techkie...but I doubt if my Luneta friends were able to catch up. I hope someday he will talk about monetizing your blog and how to make Google Adsense more effective and faster (sigh...).

So then…the forum was finish and…hehehe for 15 years of being a freethinker, all I got is this lousy shirt (Joke!) But seriously, I think this was the first time a group of freethinker exposed themselves so other freethinkers will have the courage to come out of the closet. I just hope the next forum; the number of attendance will be doubled.

Mabuhay kayo Filipino Freethinkers!

Thank Darwin for YouTube! Hahaha!

This is me talking about Freethought and the Filipino Grassroot.





More on the First Filipino Freethinkers Forum...Click here!

Until the next forum,

John the Atheist

The First Filipino Freethinkers Forum was a success

It finally happened!

The First Filipino Freethinkers Forum that was held last February 28 in Taguig City was a sounding success. Thanks to guys like Redtani, Benj, Danny Boy and the rest of the speakers and guess, everything went smoothly. Oh and let us not forget all those who help for this event to become successful.

For more photos, click here.

Eliseo Soriano’s Imaginary Argument

If you’re a Christian or to be specific a member of Eliseo Soriano’s “Ang Dating Daan” or ADD for short, chances are you’ve already read Soriano’s triage against atheism.

Using Soriano’s blog post (The Claim That There Is No God Is An Escape From All Realities), well what can I say…maybe instead of making a rebuttal I think it would be fitting to make an article about “How not to debate an atheist” instead. Using Mr. Soriano’s article we’re going to talk about poor methods employed by amateur apologists in dealing with atheism.

If we read the entire article there really isn’t any argument presented. Most of his blather doesn’t embark upon the issue of atheism and believe me, quoting Bible verses is really a poor tactic when dealing with atheism. Remember, to face an atheist Mr. Soriano should gave us a good reason why atheism is not a rational position.

So if we remove all the useless Bible verses in the article that tell us nothing about atheism, we are left with…eh nothing to talk about.

Stalin, Pol-Pot and Hitler?
After writing nothing about atheism, Mr. Soriano then included some infamous character to enhance his so-called argument.

So may I ask, “What’s the connection?”

Ah…these people were “atheists” so they killed a lot of people. Is that it?

But Joshua and Samson also killed a lot of innocent people? In fact, if you read the Bible, God’s generals also find it irresistible to do wanton killing of women, old folks, children and even cattle and live stocks.

Those Islamic terrorists that crashed jumbo jets in buildings, they believe that a god exists. Jim Jones, Mussolini, Franco and Saddam Hussein, these people also believe in a supernatural Supreme Being as Baise Pascal quoted, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

But unlike Mr. Soriano, I will not say that since some theists are capable of killing, therefore all theists are killers. Guilt by association is a poor way to male a valid point.

How About Hitler?
What does Hitler got to do with atheism?

Did Mr. Soriano know that Hitler is also a believer like him?

There is no evidence whatsoever that Adolf Hitler was an atheist. In fact, on his book Mein Kemp and his speeches, Hitler always mentioned God. Not only was Hitler a Christian, but he used Christianity to justify his acts against the Jews.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It
points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers,
recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them
and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In
boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which
tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive
out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for
the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it
was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have
no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for
truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we
are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I
have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these
men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I
would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did
not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day
this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his
speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

[Note, "brood of vipers" appears in Matt. 3:7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the money changers (adders) from the temple. The word "adders" also appears in Psalms 140:3]

This is probably the first time and this is the first country in which
people are being taught to realize that, of all the tasks which we have to face,
the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must
preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it....

The greatest
revolution which National Socialism has brought about is that it has rent
asunder the veil which hid from us the knowledge that all human failures and
mistakes are due to the conditions of the time and therefore can be remedied,
but that there is one error which cannot be remedied once men have made it,
namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the
race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which
are God's gift and God's handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of
why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize the fact that it
punishes those who disregard its work of creation....

As I look back on
the great work that has been done during the past four years you will understand
quite well that my first feeling is simply one of thankfulness to our Almighty
God for having allowed me to bring this work to success. He has blessed our
labors and has enabled our people to come through all the obstacles which
encompassed them on their way....

Today I must humbly thank Providence,
whose grace has enabled me, who was once an unknown soldier in the War, to bring
to a successful issue the struggle for the restoration of our honor and rights
as a nation.

-Adolf Hitler, before the Reichstag, 30 Jan. 1937

Mit Uns' (God is with us)

I hope I'll find better arguments on Mr. Soriano's continuation of his article, but for now, all in all, his first part was rather dull and boring. It seems Mr. Soriano is just a beginner when it come in dealing with atheism.

Remember, when a God believer face an atheist or plans to disprove atheism, the issue is not to slander the atheists but to show that not believing in a god or gods is unreasonable.

Until next time,

John the Atheist

FLASH REPORT:

I have seen his part 2 and boy...the sequel is more useless compare with the part 1. *yawn*

I think a Part Two reply is inappropriate.

John the Atheist