Genesis' Folly (Part 4: Face the Crescent !)

Atheism is just about not believing in a god or gods, but most atheists criticize religion. But remember, criticism is different from just being stupid.

Before answering this, I just like to present to you this article that I found in a very interesting atheist blog.

When atheists criticize Christianity, we get accused of being cowards for not criticizing Islam. But when we criticize Islam, we get accused of cultural insensitivity.

Why this is untrue and unfair: And I say yet again: It's neither fair nor reasonable to assume that the atheist critique you're reading right that second is the only one this atheist has ever written. If an atheist is criticizing Christianity today, that doesn't mean they didn't criticize Islam last week.Most American atheists do focus our attentions largely on Christianity -- mainly because it's the religion that's most in our face on a daily basis. But I don't know of any serious atheist writer who hasn't criticized Islam...

As for cultural insensitivity in criticizing Islam... well, given how Islam and Islamic theocracies have historically treated women and gays, I'd call it culturally insensitive not to criticize it...

(Hey...you can visit Greta Christina's Blog to read her witty but very educational posts.)

Now let us start the ball rolling...

Genesis (Written: 2009 December 30)

I just wonder why Atheists are so much enthusiastic to disprove God and attack only the Biblical and Christian belief system? I haven’t seen anyone so boldly scrutinizing other religious books like the Qur’an.. in the first place.. Muslims are the second largest denomination in the world and are god believers too, except that their god has a different name, sets of prophets and doctrinal laws.

If Genesis is asking for atheists like me to do the same stunt Mr. Eliseo Soriano did – calling Muslims as “murderers”, well forget it. That’s not criticism, that’s just being ought right foolish.

Now look at how Genesis here is trying to portray Muslims in general. Why would Muslims wipe out all atheists in the earth in a jihad just because an atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of Allah? Is Genesis implying that Muslims are savage, animalistic, back-stabbers who rely on wanton killing just to prove their point?

Could it be that Atheists are afraid that an attempt to do so will spark strong condemnation in the Muslim world, eventually resulting to a Jihad to wipe all Atheists on earth?

Genesis, for your information, a jihad is not about killing atheists. Al- Jihad or holy fighting is about fighting those who fight Islam and sad to say, even you and your religion are included (See 2:190, 2:191 and 2:193). In Islam, the term non-believer ("kaffir") doesn’t only speak of atheists but with Christians as well (5:51, 5:56 and 9:30).

But you must understand, jihad is only done to those who mock Islam (5:57)

According to the Qur’an, those who wage jihad are enjoined not to attack first (2:190). Also, Muslims are commanded to offer an unbeliever asylum so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security (9:6) or to pardon and turn away (5:13 and 7:199) which is a likely appeal for toleration and peaceful co-existence.

And…unlike what Genesis was implying, Muslims can even debate courteously with other belief-system (29:46). So I don’t think a Muslim will blow me out of my pants with bombs in his jacket, just because we’re discussing the existence of Allah.

Just try Atheists! Haha. Muslims have their way of defending their faith that is based on Qur’an. Al Qaeda believes in Allah too, remember. If Atheists are brave enough to tell the world that “There is No God, We can pRove It!”, then it wouldn’t be fair enough to target Christians only since there are even much larger god-believing denominations in the world that you can convert, as you hope so.

Your belief system lacks “balls”…. 

Now let us have enough of jihad and continue Genesis ravings.

Are atheists afraid of criticizing Islam?

Well…to prove my point all we have to do is to visit some large bookstores here in metro Manila like National Bookstore, PowerBooks and Fully Booked…Oh I forgot…we can also scan the Amazon.com website and look for the following books: End of Faith, god Is Not Great, The Portable Atheist and Atheist Manifesto. They have chapters regarding Islam. There are also books like Leaving Islam : Apostates Speak Out and Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq. You can also visit this website to see how atheists scrutinized the Qur'an.

Its really a matter of location. Since here in the Philippines, the most predominant religion is Christianity, a lot of Filipino atheists are more familiar with Jesus Christ and the Bible than Muhammad and the Qur’an. Only few got a copy of the Qur’an and the Hadith.

There are no Muslim TV evangelists. Philippine TV has more “Sorianos” and “Quibuloys” than “Barcelons” (Ahmad Barcelon is a known Muslim commentator in AM radio here in Manila.)

We have no bookstores that sell Islam related books, unlike these Christian bookstores (like St. Paul, Philippine Christian Bookstores, OMF Literature - Evangelical Christian Books Philippines and Philippine Christian Literature Inc.) around downtown Manila and…

Christianity (Roman Catholics especially) are more visible in politics and government meddling. That’s why Filipino freethinkers and secularists are more busy on them that in Islam.

So I guess Genesis’ accusation is baseless. We atheists got balls!

Genesis Folly ( Part 3: Unrevealed Revelation)

At least Genesis became more specific. She wants me to believe in the Judeo-Christian God by justifying her belief in their sacred literature – the Bible.

Uh…since this is a biblical topic, you can read it here.

Genesis' Folly ( Part 2: The Illusion of Design)

Only you can give meaning to your life whether you believe in a god or you attached that meaning to something else. Unfortunately Christians like Genesis seems to connect “meaning” to their own world view.

Genesis

Atheism cannot adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all things, the world in which we live cries out for an explanation. Why is it here?

Does the universe cries for an explanation? Well…it depends on what religion or world view you believe. In Buddhism for example, the universe doesn’t need any explaining. Buddhism doesn't bother with such things: they're considered to be questions outside of the legitimate scope of spiritual practice. The universe is there is because it is!

The whole existence of the universe argues for a designer, an architect that is creative and into different shapes, sizes, colors, details, and fashioning everything as unique. There is order and design, much like an artist paints a picture. This takes not only intelligence, but a superior supernatural intelligence for the size, quantity and functioning of the known universe. Even non believers like Julian Huxley have calculated the odds of a pure chance of life evolving are to 1,000 to the millionth power. That is a 1 followed by 3 million zeros. There are not many options either the universe itself is eternal or that the universe had a beginning. To go the latter means he must have an explanation for what caused it.

 

Genesis arguments came from ancient religious belief, old cultural traditions and faith in the so-called reviled truths of priests and ancient scriptures. The “design argument” was expounded by the Anglican archdeacon William Paley in 1802 and this…er…19th century argument still lives in people like Genesis.

 

All in all, this “argument” relies in an “illusion of design”. Since Genesis assume a design because, as she said, the universe shows order, it takes a “superior, supernatural intelligence to create it – hence a “Grand Designer”.

The question here is can order be achieve without intelligence?

Genesis seems to be having some difficulty regarding the difference between order and design. Is order synonymous with design?

A “design” is to form or make something intended to a purpose. A car for example was formed that way to serve a purpose; to carry passengers and travel on roads or streets. An aluminum can was design as a food container and a can opener was design to open cans.

Now…Genesis design argument doesn’t really tell us much about her idea of a “Designer”. How many “designers” created the universe? What were their goal and are those designer already dead?

Hmmm…so if the universe was designed as Genesis speculated, what was it designed for? It seems Genesis rhetoric has forgotten that issue. But for the sake of argument, let as assume that Genesis believe that the universe was created for mankind. If so, well, then Genesis God is the most stupid, the most inferior supernatural dumb-dumb in the universe.

For one thing, everything is too far away! Fourteen billion light-years to the edge of the universe, and still getting father every second? What benefit will that give us? God seems to have wasted an awful large amount of space.

Also, only 2 percent of atomic matter is composed of elements heavier than helium. One-half of 1% of this is carbon – the main element for life. That means 96% of the mass of the universe is not even associated with life. We have a serious problem here.

Pattern formation in nature (you know…those different shapes, sizes, colors and details that Genesis is talking about) can be er…”created” from mindless natural process. Those beautiful and unique snowflake patterns were formed by the direct freezing of water vapor in the atmosphere. The double spiral patterns seen in a sunflower are cause by polarization of magnetic fields. The distribution pf pebble sizes on a beach are “created” by gravity and wave actions. Self-organization in nature are purely reductionistic physics and chemistry.

Speaking of chances and Huxley…Obviously Genesis used eh…this article from Let Us Reason Ministry. *sigh* anyway, here’s Sir Julian Huxley’s statement in its original context.

“A little calculation demonstrates how incredibly improbable the results of natural selection can be when enough time is available. Following Professor Muller, we can ask what would have been the odds against a higher animal, such as a horse, being produced by chance alone: that is to say by the accidental accumulation of the necessary favorable mutations, without the intervention of selection.” (Evolution in Action, 1953, p. 45)

Huxley continues after this calculation to show how "thanks to the workings of natural selection and the properties of living substance which make natural selection inevitable" (p. 46) "rare and abnormal events" become "common and normal" (p. 47) and "all objections to a selectionist explanation of evolution that are based on the improbability of its results fall to the ground" (p. 48).

Thus, Genesis (and Let Us Reason Ministries) are shamefully abusing this quote when they use it to claim that it refers to the odds with natural selection--that is claiming the exact opposite of what Huxley wrote.

Remember Genesis,  the fallacy of appeal to authority doesn't contain an ounce of truth.

Atheism has made a secular belief system (religion/philosophy) of having no God and their focus is usually nature. God’s creation has replaced the one who made it. An atheist must assume that personal unique intricate living organisms arose from impersonal disorderly chaos. Something had to come from nothing. They have no explanation for a beginning of when or why. There is no purpose in what we see and call creation. Atheism assumes that the potential gives rise to the actual. Reality shows that something actualized the potential itself. All Potentials have an actualizer. Scrap iron from a junk yard does not form itself into an airplane or a building without some thing that is able to put it to order. All designs have a designer, and the universe has proven to be incredibly designed. Even the minutest organism is more complex than the space shuttle.

Now who said that there are only two options?

First, the universe may not be eternal, but it may have existed sempiternally – that means if the universe had existed at each time prior to the present and will exist at each time after the present, then its existence is sempiternal. Second, quantum mechanics tells us of “uncaused” events like the decay of a radioactive nucleus or when an atom emits a proton.

But is that mere chance?

Complexity doesn’t come from pure chance alone. We have some principle of nature that scientists called “Laws” – which by the way, are not restrictions on the behavior of nature but rather restrictions on the way scientists describe that behavior.

Speaking of "potentials" and "actualizers". I guess Genesis is talking about Aristotle’s principle of Being, but why cling to ancients and medieval philosophies and metaphysics? The whole principle was already demolished by Sir Isaac Newton. According to Newton’s First Law:

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

According to Aristotle, a moving object requires a continual application of force to keep it moving: once that force is no longer applied, it ceases to move. Yet Newton discovered that an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will remain in motion, at a constant velocity unless or until outside forces act upon it. Hence it is as natural for a body to move (in a constant velocity) as it is for a body to be at rest.

Thus there is no need for Genesis’ actualizer at all.

Since we already discuss the issue of a universe without a designer, let’s talk about chaos.

Everything arose from impersonal disorderly chaos. Now what’s so good about this statement is that it can be demonstrated. In quantum mechanics, the universe is “perfectly” random but within chaos, tiny pockets of complexity naturally develop. That’s how nature works. In a sea of random letters we can select letters that form words. Take these words together and replicate some of it and connect them together and we can form small sentences.

Unlike Genesis junkyard, airplane, building and space shuttle nature is very simple. The universe contains no information and it has on the whole no structure. Living cells are really just a box full of slime and jelly. Atoms are composing of nothing. But simplicity has its wonders. Remember, as physicist Frank Wilczek had said, “The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that ‘nothing is unstable’.”

So why assume that nothing is a default? How does Genesis define “nothing”? Now let us ask a different question to Genesis, “Why is there God rather than nothing?”

Nothing-to-Something is a natural spontaneous phase transition. Simple forms of matter/energy can emerge spontaneously from quantum fluctuation from nothing.

But the thing is, there is always “something” and this something has nothing to do with Genesis’ God. Simplicity begets complexity and a perfect vacuum is simpler than Genesis’ God.

Genesis' Folly (Part 1: Proving the Unprovable?)

More rants from Genesis...Hmmmm very interesting. The problem with these people is that every time they try to refute atheism, the always begin to construct a stawman. Obviously, the reason is quite simple - they don't know what atheism is. Most Christian even throws their own guilt, that's why they accused atheism as a philosophy, a world-view or worst...a religion. "No thanks, I enjoy my place outside your trash bin."

The same problem haunts Genesis...Oh Genesis, remember her (or him...whatever)? Anyway, it seems Genesis here is in the dark, not only in the issue of evolution, but also on a lot of things.

Well better read the following rants so you'll know what I mean.

Genesis (Written: 2009 December 30)

There are numerous logical problems inherent in the atheists belief system. Consider these examples.

Their declaration “There is no God.” Some atheists explicitly state that there is no God, and all atheists believe it. This rumor is ancient and the naïve continue to believe it. Yet this assertion is bankrupt and cannot be logically defended by any from their position.

Obviously Genesis only knew atheism uh maybe on gossips or misinformation drive hurled by Christian evangelists.

Ok...for your information, an atheist doesn't declare "There is no God" and using Genesis own words...to believe such a rumor is ancient and naïve. Atheism literally means "without theism" or to put it bluntly, atheism is the absence of theistic belief.

Let us continue...

To be a Atheist one would have to be omniscient, knowing all things, having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen. Things of matter or things invisible, to say unequivocally God does not exist. Can any atheist seriously hold to his position of no God with the logical inconsistency challenging his position?

He then would have to have a perfect knowledge of all things past present and future. Theirs is not a statement made on facts, since one would actually have to be God to claim this. So such a statement is based only on assumption not on the facts. A person would have to be God in order to say there is no God, therefore God would exist. It would be them. That’s not too comforting a thought.

Ok speaking of being omniscient, Genesis assume that an atheist should have a perfect knowledge of...what? The universe? WTF!

Come on, you don't need to be omniscient to not to believe in a god.

Genesis argument is quite too similiar with Hank Hanegraaff (The Folly of Denying God). According to Mr. Hanegraaff,

"Simply stated, a person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say "there is no God" from his own pool of knowledge. Only someone capable of being in all places at the same time -- with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe -- can make such a statement based on the facts. In other words, a person would have to be God to say there is no God. Hence, the assertion is logically indefensible."

Fortunately for me (and too unfortunately to Genesis) the argument has its drawbacks.

1. Genesis claims that an atheist must posses omnisience and omnipotence to say unequivocally God does not exist. Yet Genesis who make the claim that "a specific god exists" do not feel that she must be omniscient and omnipresent. Strange isn't it?

2. Unlike what Genesis seems to assume, you don't need to be "God" to make a negative statement. My papaya! Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist, and it seems Genesis here doesn't have the slightest idea.

Other than direct observation, logical impossibilities and contradictions can also be use. I know for a fact that square triangles in a two-dimentional plane doesn't exist, so does married batchelors and so does an omnipotent being that can create arock that he cannot carry.

Continue...

There are a numerous reasons why atheism is inadequate as a rational world view. This can quickly be exposed for the charade it is. By asking the atheist the question, are there some things that he knows that you do not? Most will admit to this. Can there also be some things that I know that you may not? He would logically have to admit this also. After all we all have different education and life experiences. So isn’t it possible that millions of people who claim to know God may in fact know him by experience and knowledge while you do not? After all, when you went to school you studied different subjects than me and I studied different ones than you! you would be more knowledgeable on some that I may not. So we see this reasoning already at work in our society and culture.

The point is clearly made and the only response he can take is to try to avoid seeming just as narrow minded and dogmatic as you are, is to admit it is possible. After all, things are supposed to make sense!

Let us used Genesis own argument against her.

"Hey Genesis, do you think it is also logically possible that there are things or experiences that disprove the existence of your God outside your knowledge and experience? Now if you call me dogmatic, does it also make you dogmatic to say you are 100% sure your right and I'm wrong that your God exist? And does it make you look narrow minded if you can't even support and accept the fact that the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim? After all, things are supposed to make sense!"

Good Without God

Looking at Mr. Daniel Razon's reasoning we can clearly see the problem: People like him have defined goodness equal to God. There are two version of this "argument" - One, Goodness and God is almost the same entity (base of some quotes from the Judeo-Christian holy scripture) and Two, As long as there is goodness and a person believe that goodness exist, there is a moral Lawgiver which is God.

I don't post biblical issues in this blog. I have another blog for that, but I will make this article an exception.

According to the article I have read regarding Mr. Razon's so-called refutation on the issue of being good without God, he used several Bible passages such as Mark 10:17-18 and Psalms 100:5. VIOLA! Case closed...or is it?

I don't know...Is Mr. Razon pulling us by the leg? Anyway, base on his..er...refutation..Uh what makes God good? Is it his love, his mercy or his sense of justice?

And what is meant by "good"?

Goodness is an action that purposely benefits the human organism or society. That's how I define it. The problem here is that people like Daniel Razon simply equate goodness to God, base on their holy scripture. Christian apologists like Giesler and Ravi Zacarias for example use this to connect God to the concept of a moral Lawgiver - So God must be good all the time. But is the goodness of God base on the Bible is just a perception of the writer on how goodness should be define? It seems like it. God is good because the author of a particular chapter in the Bible wants God to be good...base on his own definition of goodness. For example, God is good because He suppose to love the people of Israel. That's not a universal definition of "good". Is it?

According to the authors of Mark and Psalms only God is good. But do these writers include...well those other books in the Bible that Daniel Razon didn't include in his argument? Verses like: Numbers 31: 17-18, 1 Samuel 15:3 and Ezekiel 9: 4-7.

Tell me, are slaying infants, the elderly and women amount to goodness?

How about verses like Numbers 11: 1-2; 16:27-32, Lev. 10:1-2 and 2Kings 2: 23-24? Does this tell us of an onmi-benevolent deity that is full of mercy? Punishments that are shockingly harsh in comparison to the acts committed is not about mercy and justice.

Why do we need to kill innocent lambs, bulls and doves to appease a so-called good God? Surely an omni-benevolent deity does not need blood and death to calm his nerves.

There more of these found in the pages of the Old Testament which leads Thomas Paine to wrote, "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

How about the New Testament?

Sure the New Teastament contains some good moral value...but again the whole plot of the book is about blood sacrifices. Again, why is blood and death necessary to mollify the wrath of an omni-benevolent God?

Also, there are some stories and parables that were told by Jesus that betrays the concept of an omni-benevolent Father in heaven like that of Luke 19:27 and Matt. 15:22-28.

It is also interesting to note that Jesus believed that love could be commanded and that those who disagreed with him would be damned. He believed in compulsion to comply with his viewpoint. He also portrayed his Father in heaven as the instigator of a morality base on "promises and threats" - Too far from Daniel Razon's "Good God".

In the light of the following issues, it seems that Daniel Razon and others like him have failed to prove that goodness is impossible without God. In fact it seems that goodness is independent to God.

Besides, since God's goodness is prescribed by rewards...well it really doesn't tell us exactly what is "good". Goodness is good because it is good - not because of benefits or by force. People who do well solely for personal gain or to avoid personal harm are not about being "good" - it is self-interest.

There are other sources of being good...contrary to popular Christian belief. For example, there is what we call our "common moral decencies" which is deeply rooted in us for our survival as a species as Joseph Fletcher wrote based in his studies in 1979:

1.) Our highest good is survival of the human race - Our posterity has a moral claim on us for the consideration, both as to its safety and as to its biological improvement.

2.) Look at how the consequences will, on balance, effect the total human well being.

A rational person needs no God belief to understand that murder or lying is bad. It's not because God oppose them, but because of the consequences these acts will produce in the human community. Morality as I have already said is deeply rooted in human experience for our survival.

Razon tried refuting the atheist with what?

Daniel Razon tried refuting the atheists’ quote that people can be good without God by reading Mark 10:17-18...What???

It will take more than a quote or two from an ancient document to refute secular ethics.

OK since we're on the topic...let me just share to you guys this wonderful article from Paula Kirby in the Washington Post.

Morality: no gods required

Q: Is there good without God? Can people be good without God? How can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some sort of belief in a being which is greater than they are? Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion? From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?

Can people be good if they don't think Charles Dickens was the greatest novelist in the English language? Or if they prefer cats to dogs? Or if they fail to resemble me in any other small detail? Ludicrously smug questions, of course, yet the religious never seem to blush when asking non-believers whether we can be good despite not sharing their peculiar beliefs.

And yet it is an important question for secularists to answer, because it is the myth that religious belief is somehow necessary for morality that is providing the life support for religion in many Western societies, long after we should have been reaching for the embalming fluid.

My sense of right and wrong comes from exactly the same source as yours: parental upbringing, society's norms, an evolved empathy with others.
There has been considerable research into this aspect of human existence, and what is emerging is a pretty clear rule-of-thumb: namely, in any community - of whatever race, social class or religious belief (or none) - 4 out of 5 people will generally obey society's rules and behave in ways considered to be 'moral', and 1 out of 5 won't.

There is an evolutionary explanation for this: we are dependent for our survival and well-being on the people around us. Most of us survive best when we are living harmoniously with others (i.e. not stealing, not killing, not harming them avoidably). Doing otherwise can have negative consequences: loss of life in some societies, loss of freedom in most, loss of respect and good standing in all. And most of us survive best when the people around us respect and like us, for the obvious reason that they are then more likely to help us if we need them to.

However, if someone is sufficiently devious, he may survive best by breaking, rather than obeying, the rules, because he may be less likely to get caught and less likely to have to face the negative consequences of his actions. This is the 1 in 5.

This has been tested in a host of different situations, environments and cultures, and has been found to be universally consistent. It is the same whether people are religious or not: there is no correlation between better behavior and belief in a deity.

Interestingly, the 4 in 5 people who are generally happy to obey society's rules cease being happy to do so if they see the 1 in 5 getting away with it. At that point, they become resentful and, significantly, less inclined to follow the rules themselves. Again, this has been shown to apply to the religious and non-religious alike. This is why most prison sentences carry an element of retribution and are not just intended to protect society from an offender's potentially harmful actions; it is why justice not only has to be done, but seen to be done.

From here it is not difficult to see where ideas about post-death retribution sprang from. 4 out of 5 of us feel the need to see wrong-doers punished for their actions. According to the Jewish biblical scholar Geza Vermes, in the earliest days of Judaism there was no belief in life after death, heaven or hell: they believed the claim in Deuteronomy that the righteous would be rewarded and the wicked punished during their lifetimes. It was only later, when it became patently obvious that this wasn't the case, that some Jews started to think that the promised reward or retribution must come after death. And so the Abrahamic tradition of heaven and hell was born - and was tremendously convenient to those trying to govern the masses, of course, because it declared: 'Don't even think of breaking the law, because even if we don't get you, God will.'

Convenient but superfluous, because all the research shows that atheists as well as believers all conform to the basic 4:1 ratio of moral vs amoral. Belief in divinely imposed rules and post-mortem punishment is not just silly in itself, but quite unnecessary in terms of upholding society's values. (Anyone interested in learning more about the 4:1 ratio will enjoy this lecture from the Cambridge Darwin Festival.)

But there's more. Normal, healthy human beings feel empathy towards others: it has evolved with us and has been shown to be present in a range of other animals too. We have an overwhelming dislike of suffering ourselves, and our imaginations - which developed for other, survival-related purposes - allow us to feel other people's suffering and vicariously suffer with them. So 4 out of 5 of us simply don't want to cause others to suffer. Nothing to do with being made in the image of God, and everything to do with evolution and survival.

Humans have been around in their current form for the best part of 150,000 years. Judaism emerged about 4000 years ago. How could humans ever have managed to survive so long prior to the invention of the Abrahamic god if they needed belief in God to give them a sense of how to live together in their communities? If there wasn't a strong sense of acceptable and unacceptable behavior? The simple fact is that humans are social animals and our chances of survival are greatly enhanced when we abide by certain basic social norms. That is more than enough reason for a basic understanding and acceptance of those norms to be hardwired into us.

We do not need God in order to be moral. In fact, our innate moral instincts tell us that many of the acts and commands attributed to God are themselves morally repugnant. And most immoral of all is the Christian teaching that even a newborn baby is steeped in Original Sin and deserves to burn in hell for all eternity. Any philosophy that teaches us to view our fellow humans as inherently evil, especially if they do not subscribe to our own belief system, is actively dangerous and works against our ability to live together in harmony - and it is our need to do this which underlies all genuinely moral precepts and behaviour.

It's all about faith and Jun Paras wanted me to have some of it.

Long over due (*sigh*)...too busy.

Enter Mr. Jun Paras rants against me. I have already posted some reply to this, but it seems somethings very "wrong" with the site...my replies were not published. (*sigh*) Good thing I have my own blog to answer Mr. Paras' ravings.

So without further adieu...

@pinoy the atheist,
You said religious faith is neither logical nor good. Wow! what a misleading belief. Do you know totally the meaning of religion? Or all you know about it is Jesus walking on water? Are your mind is set to supernatural miracle when it comes to religion? Thats why I’m asking you, Does your belief undergone deep and logical cross-examination or you just believe it as you feel? You must study your belief, pinoy the atheist, so that you will discover from yourselves that your “faith” comes from a “fool”-ish mind. You can ask some questions to bro.eli if you want, he’s always open to all people asking questions and having doubts.

Fair judgement comes from deep learning of one’s belief, if you quickly judge according to what you see or what you feel, then your totally wrong!! For example, fever, most people has a negative thoughts about fever because it’ll bring man into uncomfortable condition, but when they study it, they found out that our body must have a temperature that is totally high in order to cast out the virus that enters our body, because virus dies in high temp. See what is the benefit of fever? So we can say that most people have an incorrent view regarding fever, until they study. That’s what we want from you guys, study first before you judge. Because a man who doesn’t want to be fooled, is never been fooled by his thorough study, so he will come up with a firm principle and living a hopeful life. So before you say that RELIGIOUS FAITH IS NEITHER LOGICAL NOR GOOD, investigate first. I may say that its obvious you have not learned religion based on your WEAK STATEMENT.

One thing, I’m not trying to compare man-made from supernatural, I’m just laying down a logical way of thinking, that, if you could say that a statue is being made, how about us which is far glorious than it? We don’t just pop out from nothing beside the fact that we have A VERY COMPLICATED FACULTIES. I’m not quickly trying to imply that there is God. But first, I want you to believe, that we are created.
Lastly, nature is chaotic??? As Genedie have said, its a lot of nonsense. Remember that you have lived because of these “chaotic??” nature as you’ve said.

Reply

So Jun Paras thinks my statement was misleading. In what grounds? I dunno. Maybe he just can't follow my arguments or maybe he's in a state of shock...a lot of "maybe"- a lot of questions, a lot of assumptions. Anyway, I will say it again...religious faith is neither logical nor good. First we must examine what religious faith is.

Religious faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition. A non-rational belief is one that is contrary to the sum of the evidence for that belief. A belief is contrary to the sum of the evidence if ...Oh so you want it as describe by a believer eh?

OK

Christians will define faith as a belief with strong conviction; firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof; complete trust; opposite of doubt.

The Catholic Encyclopedia define faith as objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church.

Boy! There are lots of rationalizations when it comes to defining religious faith and the worst part is Jun Paras seems to imply that I should have faith in Bro. Eli Soriano's teachings. My papaya naman! Obviously, for Jun Paras, faith was already been defined by Mr. Soriano's favorite book...TADDDDAAA! I'm talking about the Bible.

Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So, therefore faith (religious faith) is to believe on something which has not yet come to pass or for which one has no evidence constitutes evidence for its actuality.

Is it logical?

Religious faith is a claim on something that cannot be rationally demonstrated and is believe as an alternative method of acquiring "knowledge". Since its claims are not verifiable, it cannot be explained by experience or logic. Logic Mr Paras, is concerned with the principles of valid reasoning and correct inference. Logically valid conclusions are drawn from the evidence presented. It seems Jun Paras have excluded evidence as part of a valid reason.

Is it bad?

Well according to William K. Clifford it is. In his book The Ethics of Belief (1877) he wrote, "it is wrong a;ways, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence."
So what will be the price of believing on something "that ain't so"? It corrupts our character, undermines public confidence, it leads to irresponsible actions and foster self-deception.

A Chaotic Universe.

Have you seen the ancient Japanese game called "Go" @ Jun Paras...Oh and I'm not talking about the anime shown once in GMA 7.

Go is a simple game with a complex strategy. Games can be played on a 9 by 9, 13 by 13, or 19 by 19 line board. Go pieces, which are black and white "stones", are placed on the intersections of lines, instead of on the spaces between them that chess and checkers use. The game focuses on these points, which number 361 on a 19 by 19 board, and the player who has surrounded the most points by the end wins. Players may also capture their opponent's pieces by surrounding them with pieces of a player's own color.

As Sol Robeson in the show Pi compared it, “The Ancient Japanese considered the Go board to be a microcosm of the Universe. Although when it is empty it appears to be simple and ordered, the possibilities of gameplay are endless. So the Go board actually represents an extremely complex and chaotic universe. And that is the truth of our world.“
Max Cohen, the number theorist in the said show, assumed that a pattern is produce when the game progress. Well that's my point, everything begins in chaos and order only appear as time progress. That's quite different from assuming a so-called "Designer".

Is Jun Paras comparing living matter with a statue? That's why chaos is more of a probability than a "Designer" @ Jun Paras. You see, patterns emerge in chaos. Chaos theory is the study of nonlinear dynamics, where seemingly random events are actually predictable from simple deterministic equations. You don't create a statue in random, but the Theory of Evolution fits the bill. Nature is highly complex, and the only prediction you can make is that she is unpredictable. Nature is marvelous and mysterious and Chaos Theory has managed to somewhat capture the beauty of the unpredictable and display it in the most awesome patterns.

The Fever Analogy

It was quite funny for Jun Paras to used his eh..."fever analogy" on the issue of his belief system. In the first place a fever is not a belief...what is a fever then? According to the website Medical News Today, a fever, or pyrexia, is a rise in internal body temperature to levels that are considered to be above normal. Average body temperature is about 98.6°F or 37°C, and temperatures above 100.4°F or 38°C are generally considered to be febrile.

Fever is an important indicator that there is something wrong with the body, and it is often used in order to gauge the success of medical treatments. Fevers may also be useful because they increase the amount of antiviral and anticancer interferon in the blood, making it difficult for bacteria and viruses to replicate. But...A fever may be a cause of concern and patients with fever should be sure to remain hydrated. Since fever often causes discomfort and increases heart rate and metabolism, many people take antipyretics such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen (paracetamol). Aspirin is used as a treatment for adults but not in children due to the risk of Reye's syndrome. In cases where fever escalates so high that tissue damage is likely, the fever must be brought under control.

That takes care of the issue of what a fever is...now...

So what does it have to do with Jun Paras' belief-system? Well according to him, we (the atheists) should study his stand first before we criticize him or his belief-system...eh...but why do you think we are criticizing him in the first place? That's because we already studied his belief-system.

Wow...haven't he taught about that?

Criticism means disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings. Also, remember that a fever has an advantage...it warns the body against microbes or viruses. Now, what's the advantage of Eliseo Soriano's Bible Exposition to a non-believer? NADA.

So I think the fever issue of Mr. Paras won't work...his analogy fell short and...Uppppssss...Oh I forgot...according to him he just want me "to believe" that we were created, he just want me to believe Mr. Soriano's rants... In short...He just want me to "have faith".

God's Calamity

Eliseo Soriano's blog post is quite typical...a common Christian response with calamities whether it is natural or man-made. They always look for something to blame other than God. Pestilences are believed to be a punishment from God, wars are wraths of God and calamities are blamed on women's right, homosexuality and atheism.

Earthquakes, flood, storms are natural calamities - what bother people like Mr. Soriano is the fact that if his God exist, why natural evil also exist?

Just thinking on his recent post, I can't understand Mr. Soriano's accusations. If God want to punish the atheists and the agnostics, then why will God put the pressure on Haiti? Why not make an earthquake that will strike Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchin, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris or Hemant Mehta right in their own living room? Yeah! A 7.9 magnitude quake right into their own backyard and a tsunami on their own swimming pool!

What is God's purpose for natural evil?
Christians will always point out that God has a good reason for doing calamities - like the one that happened to Haiti. As they always say, "It may seem like a high price to pay, bu it will bring about greater good."

This typical excuse...er...explanation used by different Christian apologists (For example, see Giesler, When Skeptics Ask pp. 64-68) is called "The Greater Good Defense" - God permit evil to occur to achieve a greater good.

When face with the problem of evil in the issue of natural calamities, Christians will try explaning it in 3 different ways:

1. Defence From Ignorance
Even if we don't know God's purpose, He still has a good reason for allowing evil in our lives.

- This is a case of an Appeal to Unintelligibility. If we cannot understand God's purpose, the why assume there is any purpose at all? If used, then all the Christian’s assertions are in vain. The answer doesn't provide us with any real answers, just a reassurance - a 50/50 chance that God may or may not have any good purpose for suffering.

2. The Counterpart Defense.
You will never appreciate good without evil.

- Is it impossible for an omnipotent/omniscient being to reduce the amount of actual evil without endangering the conceivability or the existence of good?

Maybe instead of performing useless miracles like walking on water, raising the dead, weeping statues or angelic visitation God could use His "miracles" more efficiently to lessen the harmful effects of natural disaster yet still make us appreciate good.

3. The Opportunity for Good Defense.
God allow evil to occur to warn us of greater evil and permitting some evil actually helps defeat evil.

- Is the amount of evil sufficiently paid for by the noble actions it evokes? Is the heroic efforts of rescuers already paid the great death toll on the Haiti earthquake?
An omnipotent/omniscient God could warn people through dreams or by sending His angels instead of warning people by seriously injuring or killing them in natural disasters. Beside, a victim of a calamity won't even have any idea that what happened to him and his family was a warning from God.

And the cause of the recent earthquake in Haiti are...the atheists?

Eli Soriano's made a blog post condemning the real cause of the Haiti earthquake. Gosh...wow!

Its Not God’s Fault; Blame the Hypocrites! (2010 January 15)

I thought Soriano knows the Bible inside out? Have he not read what was written in its pages? Uh...let me remind him:

I form the light and create darkness,

I bring prosperity and create disaster;

I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

And now he blame us? Good grief!

Seriously, the recent Earthquake in Haiti was nobody's fault. Earthquate is just one of the activities of a living, dynamic planet. An earthquake is the shaking of the ground caused by an abrupt shift of rock along a fracture in the Earth, called a fault. Within seconds, an earthquake releases stress that has slowly accumulated within the rock, sometimes over hundreds of years.

According to Dr. Gerard Fryer, "The surface of the Earth is in continuous slow motion. This is plate tectonics--the motion of immense rigid plates at the surface of the Earth in response to flow of rock within the Earth. The plates cover the entire surface of the globe. Since they are all moving they rub against each other in some places (like the San Andreas Fault in California), sink beneath each other in others (like the Peru-Chile Trench along the western border of South America), or spread apart from each other (like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge). At such places the motion isn't smooth--the plates are stuck together at the edges but the rest of each plate is continuing to move, so the rocks along the edges are distorted (what we call "strain"). As the motion continues, the strain builds up to the point where the rock cannot withstand any more bending. With a lurch, the rock breaks and the two sides move. An earthquake is the shaking that radiates out from the breaking rock."

What Mr. Soriano (like Mr. Pat Robertson) is actually doing is just taking a free ride with someone's tragedy...Gosh...
Well I can't blame him and people like him. Christians have been doing that since...whatever. They just want to point their finger to everyone, except God. Or maybe Mr. Soriano just want to have a free publicity stunt.

Maybe instead of making such a free publicity stunt, why don't he just call people to help the survivors?

Comments from Mr. Soriano's site.

Another bash of new comments from no other than the Mr. Eliseo Soriano's site (applause! applause!). Hohum...I guess I have to answer these rants again.

Here's from someone named "thevictimareyou".

To All Atheists:You are no better than any other great and dignified person that contributed much in this world we live in..who are you compared to einstein,bacon,isaac newton,galileo etc.,who believe in the existence of God.The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine. Atheism is just the result of insufficient depth of philosophy.Observe the constitution of your body and see how they works. Atheism is rather in the lives than in the heart of a man.Hope you consider this,we have nothing against you just observe what bro.eli is telling.A little bit of philosophy will inclineth a man’s mind to atheism,but depth in philosophy will bring out a man’s mind to religion..no doubt!!!

Now "thevictimareyou" thinks that these great people (Einstein, Bacon,Isaac Newton and Galileo)believed in the same god he believed...Geeezzz...

Let me skip the issue of the so-called "divine order" that this guy is talking about and let me just go to the issue concerning philosophy. Obviously "thevictimareyou" thinks that opinion counts huh?

The quote "A little bit of philosophy will inclineth a man’s mind to atheism,but depth in philosophy will bring out a man’s mind to religion" was Francis Bacon's opinion. There are almost 6 billion people in this planet and we have atleast 6 billion different opinions.

Second, did "thevictimareyou" know the context of the said quote? Probably not. What does Francis Bacon mean of the word "religion", "philosophy" and "atheism"? Maybe "thevictimareyou" can enlighten us a little more about it.

It is always a mistake to base very much on one sentence taken out of context, no matter who uttered it.


And here's a good laugh from someone named Genesis:

Hi Atheists.. what are those scientific evidences that does not point to the existence of any God? I need facts not theories..

I also have a question that keeps bothering me.. I was in the verge of believing that all humans came from monkeys/apes as Darwin “theorized”… The Theory of Evolution as what we call, when I suddenly thought of something.. if apes/monkeys have evolved to become humans, why is it that there are still apes and monkeys in the present time?

Scientists believe that crocodiles have evolved from some sort of pre-historic amphibians.. which believed to have descended from psuedosuchians who walked on their hind legs, and lived during the late Triassic period.. there may be truth in it and it is evident that there are no such pre-historic creatures anymore as evolution have changed the crocodiles’ features and appearance. The result: “modern day crocs”..

Now, if primates have evolved to become to humans… why are there still so many species of primates in the present time? Can any intelligent scientist reading this blog explain to me this? Why oh Why that of all creatures that are deemed to have evolved from pre-historic creatures (which are now gone, because of evolution of course!).. why is it that primates did not take the same course as the other creatures? Facts pls.. not theories.

Obviously Genesis here doesn't know a thing or two in the issue she's (I assume she's a girl) talking about.

One reason is that evolution doesn't necessary mean atheism. There are theologians who seems quite comfortable with evolution and there are scientists that promotes theistic evolution like Kenneth Miller, Francisco Ayala, Ian Barboun, Howard van Till and John Polkinghorne. So why would Genesis used evolution as an argument against atheism?

Fact vs. Theory?

Genesis (like other Christian fundies and...as Ricahrd Dawkins called them - history deniers) always insist that evolution is only a "theory". That's because these people doesn't know the word theory in a scientific sense.

When used by scientists, theory doesn't mean speculation. Theory in a scientific sense means a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principle, or causes of something known or observed.

Uh...that's why we call some scientific facts as theory, like the "cell theory", "theory of relativity", "many-particle theory" and "theory of metallic conduction".

Amphibian to Crocodile?

So did the amphibians changed into an alligator or a crocodile (...which believed to have descended from psuedosuchians who walked on their hind legs, and lived during the late Triassic period?) Well...that will be your idea about it if you are too..eh should I say "ignorant" (or too lazy to even study) evolution.

In Genesis' message, she seems to imply that change from one species to another is impossible.

Really?

Most paleontologists agree that from a group of amphibian-like tetrapods in the late Carboniferous period, the amniotes separated into...wait a minute. So why and how did the amniotes changed?

Easy! By natural selection of course!

As Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace saw it in 1858, all species over produce their kind, causing a struggle for the limited resources that support existence. Adaptation follows and those organism whose variation and improvement cause it to survive will generate more offspring and these new adaptations will be the new features of their descendants in which in time will produce new species.

Back to the amniotes...eh for your information @ Genesis, crocodiles are not related to amphibians. They are more kin with birds and dinosaurs. In the rule of cladism, crocodilians shares a more common lineages with the extinct dinosaurs and birds.

Now...amniotes transition from amphibian-like ancestors to reptiles was not about having cold-feet from water. It was about the amniotic egg. It's all about the shelled egg you now buy in the market! A hard shelled egg made land existence possible!

Human Evolution in the Jiffy!

The same with crocs @ Genesis, monkeys, apes and human came from a common ancestor. That's why we share at least 95 percent genetic material with the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes).

Eh...what?

Ah...if apes/monkeys have evolved to become humans, why is it that there are still apes and monkeys in the present time?

Well let see...if the Indonesians and the Malaysians once entered and colonized this land you now called The Philippines, then why are there still Indonesians and Malaysians? Silly isn't it?

Man and monkey evolved from a common ancestor...but monkeys are in a different lineage. That's why there are still monkeys in the Manila Zoo.

Anyway, the problem here @ Genesis is that you assume that evolution implies some inbuilt tendency for advancement or progress. That there is a so-called "Great Chain of Being" in which everything in life sat on a staircase or a ladder.

Biologically speaking, evolution of a new form always develop within the architectural constrain of the phylum's ancestral pattern. But remember, there is also no barrier keeping evolutionary change within specific limits.

Sounds contradicting?

Not exactly, you see @ Genesis, the major body plan becomes a limiting determinant of body form. That's why a dog doesn't turn into a cat, a fish into a bird or a monkey into a human being.

Yet a monkey and a man share a common ancestor. Well...a common ancestor would look more of a monkey than a man...Yet as they say...a gene is a gene is a gene. A dog, a cat, a fish, a bird, a monkey, a man and even a papaya have exactly the same basic chemical composition, the same DNA/RNA components and the same hereditary mechanism - It's purely a matter of chemistry!

Intelligent Design and Creationism/Evolution Controversy

In this University of Michigan program, Eugenie C. Scott, executive director at the National Center for Science Education, explores 'Intelligent Design' (ID), a new form of creationism that emerged after legal decisions in the 1980s hampered the inclusion of 'creation science' in the public school curriculum. In the 20 years since ID appeared, there has been no evidence of it being used to solve problems in biology. Although the scientific/scholarly part of ID has been a failure, the 'cultural renewal' part of ID has been a success, as supporters of ID seek 'restoration' of a theistic sensibility in American culture to replace what they consider an overemphasis on secularism.

CREATION: The True Story of Charles Darwin

From director Jon Amiel (The Singing Detective, Entrapment) and writer John Collee (Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World) comes CREATION. A psychological, heart-wrenching love story starring Paul Bettany (A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World) as Charles Darwin, the film is based on “Annie’s Box,” a biography penned by Darwin’s great-great-grandson Randal Keynes using personal letters and diaries of the Darwin family. We take a unique and inside look at Darwin, his family and his love for his deeply religious wife, played by Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind, Requiem for a Dream), as, torn between faith and science, Darwin struggles to finish his legendary book “On the Origin of Species,” which goes on to become the foundation for evolutionary biology. The film co-stars Toby Jones (Frost/Nixon, Infamous) and Jeremy Northam (Gosford Park, Amistad), and was produced by Jeremy Thomas (The Last Emperor, Sexy Beast) at Recorded Picture Company with BBC Films and Ocean Pictures.

Visit the Website.

Let Us Help Haiti

The resent earthquake that shook the lives of a lot af people in Haiti now needs our help. Let us try giving donations like food, clothing, water and blankets. Immediate aid will be medical, clearing rubble from roads, and getting Port au Prince’s already crumbling infrastructure (roads, electric, water) operable. Monetary donations can also help.

You may donate by sending a check to:

S.H.A.R.E.
c/o Center for Inquiry
PO Box 741
Amherst, NY 14226

or at: Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science


11605 Meridian Market View

Unit 124 PMB 381

Falcon, Colorado 80831 USA

Please support the relief efforts.

In addition to providing emergency relief, these organizations are providing the following aid to those in need:

Providing Basic Needs:• American Red Cross • CARE • United Nations Foundation/CERF • World Vision • UNICEF USA • International Relief Teams • Save the Children • Catholic Relief Services • Samaritan's Purse • American Jewish World Services • Clinton Foundation • Yéle Haiti • World Concern • Mercy Corps • Operation Blessing International • Mercy & Sharing • Oxfam America • International Rescue Committee • United Way Worldwide • Episcopal Relief & Development • Evangelical Lutheran Church in America • Love a Child • Project Hope

Providing Shelter: • Shelterbox • Habitat for Humanity International

Providing Medical Aid: • Direct Relief International • International Medical Corps • Medical Teams International • Doctors Without Borders • Operation USA • MAP International • World Health Organization • Americares • Project Medishare • Partners in Health

Providing Food: • World Food Programme • The Salvation Army • Compassion International • Food for the Poor • World Water Relief

Organizations accepting international currencies: • The International Committee of the Red Cross • UK: The Disasters Emergency Committee • Oxfam Great Britain • British Red Cross • The French Red Cross

Also, the group NEW LIFE FOR HAITI is also accepting donations to buy cement to help rebuild homes in Haiti.

In times like these, belief is not necessary, it's cooperation that counts.

Critical Thinking

A look at some of the principles of critical thinking.

Here's my answer to "Isang Kaibigan" (Atheist ethics)

I received some eh...comments from a certain "Isang Kaibigan" in one of my articles from the Filipino Freethinkers website:

He said,

...I will do that if he will present first his foundation for morality. The best I could find from his article is “According to the dictionary, evil means morally objectionable behavior.” This seems to me just a matter of taste.

Well anyway, I presume that he assumes that objective moral values and duties exist. If my presumption is wrong, then he probably believes in relative morality.
My question is, if atheist is true, on what ground does atheistic morality stand on? This is a question of ontology. If this is settled, then I can move on to the epistemology of morality, which is actually his issue here.

For example, he suggested that God should have abolished slavery. If atheism is true, will slavery be objectively evil? Why?

I also think he did not understand what Geisler meant when he asked “But does that statement just tells us that Christian ethics is arbitrary in nature?” God’s commandments flows from His nature. It is not arbitrary for God but rather natural for God to command such and such. He cannot command otherwise. He unchanging nature means He is consistent with His rules.

Moreover, granting without conceding that God is morally imperfect, that does not necessarily mean that atheism is true.

Let me go back to my main question: what is the foundation of the morality of atheism? (How can evil be evil and good be good if atheism is true?)

First let me again stress this fact: Atheism itself has nothing to do with ethics. Are we clear on that? Atheis does not logically entail any theory of ethics. Atheism is just about not believing in a god or gods. But, as an atheist, I can always rely on various secular theories of ethics like Secular Humanism for example.

Since we are clear with that, let us proceed:

Ok...so what is the foundation of morality in atheism? Before we answer this...as always, I rely to definitions (Sorry @ Isang Kaibigan, that's my style).

morality (m-rl'-t, m-) n. pl. moralities1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

So there must be a standard, right? What standard are we going to use then? Does religion synonymous with virtue? Do the belief in God synonymous to a better ethical standard? Again, we are just running in more questions huh?

Then can there be "good" atheists or "bad" atheist? What will be the atheist's standards?

Atheist ethics comes from those ideas that fills in the blank with something in this world. The fact that atheists have their choice of what to value makes atheist ethics relative. The fact that an atheist ultimate value is something in this world has the advantage that they can choose to value objective things, making their personal ethics objective. Atheists have the objective experience of living in this world that they see in front of them. Morality would then not emanate from a supreme being; but rather from their own belonging to a world larger than themselves.

Now that I have set up my standards...then it is possible for an atheist to have his foundation of morality!

Epistemology of Morality

It seems "Isang Kaibigan" would like to lecture me on the epistemology of morality...hohum...sorry...not interested.

Anyway, since this guy is obviously a believer, it is my assumption that he believed that morality came from a supernatural source...hence a god. Yet the candidates for possible objects of moral knowledge are divided into three categories: natural (objects that are knowable only through experience), non-natural (but not supernatural), and theological (or supernatural). I don't need to elaborate, but base on my first answers, it's obvious that my source rely on something that is not...eh supernatural.

If atheism is true, will slavery be objectively evil? Why? (How can evil be evil and good be good if atheism is true?)

I was wondering what atheism has to do with slavery here. We are talking about ethics from a so-called Christian God ...but if Isang Kaibigan insisted...

Well...it is quite difficult to be objective about something something that's purely subjective...anyway, let us assume for a while that morality is objective. Now given, that still doesn't follow that morality, if objective, must be handed by a supernatural agent as Ravi Zacharias admitted in his book " Can Man Live Without God?" - " For a philosophy (for Zacharias, atheism is a philosophy) that define life apart from God, there is a plethora of options." (p. 56)

In your case @ "Isang Kaibigan", if atheism is correct, slavery is still evil (objective) because its value is derive from empathy from other conscious beings. Since humans are social animals, it is not surprising that a sort of morality will emerge naturally in human population. That's why our species survived in the first place.

Servitude as evil, is not only defined by religious morality @ "Isang Kaibigan". Rational morality - morality based on human values for his survival, well-being and happiness - is also capable to create an objective structure of moral theory. In essence, morality is a natural feature of humans and we don't need a god to dictate or imposed his divine fiats in order for us to understand what is good or evil.

It is presumptuous to think that our own moral standards should judge God and tell Him what is right and wrong. God’s unchangeably just nature is the standard of justice.

So according to "Isang Kaibigan", what Giesler is saying is that God’s commandments flows from His nature. It is not arbitrary for God but rather natural for God to command such and such. He cannot command otherwise. He unchanging nature means He is consistent with His rules...better yet...God is good all the time.

But that doesn't tell us anything about what goodness is. Isang Kaibigan (or Giesler) argument presumes that moral values proceed from and are defined by God. Then may I ask, "Why is God's nature good? Is it because God says so, or because it mindlessly conforms to a standard greater than God?"

Now if God did choose to change his mind on what is morally allowed (Example: to make killing acceptable) then there is no way Isang Kaibigan nor Giesler could complain: what was bad is now good, by definition, with no other justification needed.

If they will say that “God wouldn’t change his mind and make killing okay, because God is good and killing is wrong,” then they are attempting to hold God to a moral standard beyond or independent to Himself.

Hope I have answered "Isang Kaibigan" querry and uh...misconceptiona about atheist ethics.

Until next time,

John the Atheist