Who made the watch...and how to stump an atheist?

Question: Do you have proof there is or ever was scientifically a god. I am an atheist so I'm just curious.

Answer from : Mail me your watch. I will take it apart and return it to you. Then you can decide if you believe the odds of a bunch of parts coming together in a functional assembly are more probable, statistically speaking, if assembled by a greater intelligence (a watch maker) or if you still believe in random chance - in which case you will just put them in a ziplock bag and shake them in hopes of a watch coming together.

We both know that you will chose the greater intelligence. Hence, the odds of "random chance" are just too great to be believed. So if the greater intelligence who assembled the parts of our universe is not God who is he?

Well that's how http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/ answered the question. Now let us discuss the answer...

This is basically a straw-man. The problem here is that the Christian web site assumes that atheists like me believe that the universe sprang up from random chance.

The universe is not a product of..er…random chance. There are what we know as physical constrains in Nature. You guys call it as “natural laws” but I like to call them as regularities in nature.

How two molecules of hydrogen and a molecule of oxygen makes water, or gravity, Boyle’s Law, inertia…those are regularities I’m talking about. These “laws” doesn’t necessary involves an intelligence.

Now take a look on the Christian demonstration…It seems he forgotten that the watch…or the parts of the watch were all made from pre-existing materials, right? So why is he comparing that to the Universe? The universe…well as Christian believed it was created ex nihilo. So statistically speaking, can this Christian give me a good example of a created thing that came directly from nothing…no pre-existing material whatsoever?

Now, can you tell me the odds of creating something tangible from nothing?

If I give this Christian guy a ziplock bag containing nothing, can he create a Bible out of it?

So the odds are slimmer compare for something that can emerge due to unintelligent regularities. Come on, just look at the beach, or a snowflake and you can see how nature create an illusion of design because of its regularities.

Now let us talk about the empty explanation of the so-called "Don Quixote Syndrome".

Most atheists have what I call the Don Quixote Syndrome. Let me explain. Cervantes wrote a book about Don Quixote a long time ago. Don Quixote would attack windmills as if they were his enemies. Of course a windmill is nobody's enemy. If what the atheist believes is REALLY his belief, then he would leave people like me alone. After all, if God did not exist, He and His followers would be no enemy to the atheist. We'd just be deluded people. Therefore IF the atheist REALLY believes there is no God and the fool attacks a Christian, then he has the Don Quixote Syndrome because the Christian is not his enemy. Nevertheless, God is real and THAT is why atheists have all these organizations and debates to "prove" that God does not exist. Atheist reader, if you would just be true to what you purport to believe, then you wouldn't have the Don Quixote Syndrome.

My old pastor once ministered to an old atheist who had been a card-carrying atheist for decades--but as he laid on his death bed, he wanted a pastor. I don't know if he got saved or not. When it's time to die, many atheists are understandably uneasy and those that aren't should be terrified.

Is this the best that Jesus can offer?

Anyway, Christians always assume that we are attacking them...thus the so-called "Don Quixote Syndrome", but atheists like me are not attacking them personaly (unless they attack me first). What we are "attacking"  or should I say exposing are the misinformation that they are trying to proclaim.

You see, unlike Don Quixote, our enemies are real...and they are the following: Superstition, ignorance, fear and that is the tripod that supports religion like Christianity.

Fear in death is one of the issue...really...just look at the Christians own post, "When it's time to die, many atheists are understandably uneasy and those that aren't should be terrified." See...

These Christian use death to sell their…er…salvation, their belief system. Then enters superstition and ignorance. Christians would first propagate a lie and harmonize it with their world-view. Superstition comes first and to make these false notions effective, they have to promote ignorance. Now, in order to shock their adherents from questioning those superstition-nonsense, they have to scare the wit of the believers with things like judgment, hell and the devil. It’s really a vicious cycle.

Simple isn't it: Believe God and Jesus or you'll  BURN IN HELL!!!! You call that something worthwhile to believe?

Now let us answer some of  David J. Stewart's way of "stumping an atheist"?

Ask an atheist if he or she believes in the existence of aliens? If they answer, "no," then ask them how do they know that? Have they gone to all the other galaxies throughout the universe? The truth is that no atheist can reasonably deny the existence of alien life. To do so would be utter ignorance. If an atheist answers, "yes," then they have contradicted their claim that there is no God. Is not God an Alien? By every definition of the word, God is an alien, i.e., He is not of this earth. For an atheist to profess believe is alien life, while simultaneously denying the existence of God, is utter hypocrisy and foolishness.

So what do aliens have to do with the Christian god? I don't know but this is quite funny. The problem here is that aliens are not supernatural beings. We can believe aliens the same way that we can believe that there are living thing beneath those glaciers in the South Pole.

Now do I need to go around the universe to prove that aliens exist? Not really...in the first place I'm not proving my believe in alien beings...it is not a faith. I might say that I believe that alien beings exist because there is nothing in the Universe that might prevent that for happening. Are biochemical reactions can only take place here on Earth? Are carbon and other biological chemicals can only be found in this planet? If you say yes...well...have you gone to all the other galaxies throughout the universe @ Mr.David J. Stewart?  Hey it's your call...try proving it.

Is God an alien being? Oh...is David J. Stewart a member of the Raelien? Hahahaha!

As I have said, comparing God with aliens is like comparing a dog to a petunia. Aliens are not supernatural in nature. Also, alien beings doesn't have the so-called "divine attributes". Aliens are not omnipotent nor omniscient...Aliens are just the same as the different life form you can see in our planet - of course, they're just living outside planet Earth. Oh and by the way, if we said that God is outside our planet, then what happened on his divine omnipresence? I thought God is everywhere @ Mr. Stewart?

Gosh...Is this the best argument Jesus Is Savior.com can offer?

God and the Pope under attack (Part 1)

I found this article in Inquirer Opinion/ Columns and I would like to share this to all of my readers as well...

God and the Pope under attack (Part 1)

By Rigoberto D. Tiglao

Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 22:38:00 07/07/2010

THAT CERTAINLY IS AN ATTENTION-GRABBING headline that, some critics say, is this newspaper’s flavor. But I assure you, it’s accurate. And it is certainly news in a country where Masses are held even in malls, where prelates pontificate on politics, and where a jogging cleric’s rants are news sound bites.

The 21st century is seeing the most intense attacks on belief in God in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular. The siege is both on the intellectual level, the subject of the first part of this column, and on the cultural and institutional level, next week’s topic.

In high school, practically the only intellectually rigorous argument against the existence of God was Bertrand Russell’s essay, “Why I Am Not a Christian” (published 1967), which during those times you couldn’t even find in local bookstores.

Not anymore, the first decade of the century has seen a slew of books by the planet’s most respected intellectuals debunking religion, and arguing that God is simply in the genre of Santa Claus, Zeus, or the sky-god Bathala—fairy tales necessary in humanity’s infantile phase, but now unnecessary. Not only that, these have become bestsellers, so widely in demand that they are mostly now in paperback, a sure sign that a lot of people have read them and a lot more are likely to buy the cheaper edition.

UCLA neuroscientist Sam Harris probably ignited current interest with his short “The End of Faith” (2004). It argued that the rejection of reason, which is what religious faith is, has led to humanity’s monstrosities—from the brutal wars waged by the tribes of Israel to the medieval crusades to the latest jihadist car bomber. Even the Holocaust is said to have been justified by the anti-Semitism that the Good Book bred when one Gospel blamed the Jewish mob, not the Romans, for the Messiah’s crucifixion.

Several top-caliber intellectuals and scientists stepped out of their specialized fields to write books debunking religion, among them, particle physicist Victor Stenger (“God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist”), biologist and consciousness-research pioneer Daniel Dennet (“Religion: Breaking the Spell”); Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (“The God Delusion”); and respected intellectual and journalist Christopher Hitchens “God is Not Great.”

One of the memorable trivia (at least for me) in Dawkins’ book was his ridicule of the pantheon of Catholic saints: “The Catholic Community Forum helpfully lists 5,120 saints, together with their areas of expertise, which include abdominal pains… anorexia… bowel disorders. ” (Fortunately, the Filipino faithful now has its patron saint, St. Lorenzo Ruiz, martyred in Japan in 1637, the sole Filipino saint after five centuries of Christianity, and for a country with the planet’s fourth biggest Catholic population.)

On the other hand, many of Hitchens’ points stupefy this Jesuit-educated columnist. Example: If the Ten Commandments were the word of God, how come it didn’t prohibit slavery and rape, among the heinous crimes all humanity abhors? His answer: The Commandments were simply a tribal code—as all tribes have in one form of another. Slavery and rape were acceptable 4,000 years ago, if inflicted on a conquered tribe.

There have been, of course, a slew of counter-attacks against the atheist books by scholars of Dawkins’ or Dennet’s caliber, notably from University of Cambridge professor of mathematical physics and former priest John Polkinghorne (“Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship”), former nun and professor of religion Karen Armstrong (“The Case for God”), and perhaps one of the most respected philosophers of the past century, Anthony Flew (“There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”).

These, however, actually would give little comfort to Catholics. For instance, it turns out that Flew’s “conversion” means he still does not believe in “the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations,” but rather in “the God of Aristotle or Spinoza.” That’s an abstract god; you might as well believe in Yoda’s “The Force.”

The rise of atheism and agnosticism do not seem to be a fashion, but the result of the triumph of science starting in the past century as the only tool to attain objective truth. Even 200 years ago, the story of Adam and Eve would have been so easy to believe. Impossible now after Darwin and the reality—not theory—of evolution by natural selection. Science, with mathematical elegance and rigor, is going to the very depths of reality (super-string theories) and to the start of time (the Big Bang). There is no need for the childish creation myths of religion.

And I do not mean only natural sciences. Without the development for instance of anthropology and linguistics, the following claims could never have been brought up:

• That the word “virgin”, as in Jesus borne out of a virgin, is a mis-translation from the Hebrew almah of the Old Testament which only means “young woman.” And after all, virgin births are almost always a feature of ancient Mediterranean religions, from the Egyptian god Horus to Greek heroes to even the Roman Emperor Augustus. (Cf., James Still, “The Virgin Birth and the Childhood Mysteries of Jesus.”)

• That “virgin” as in the dozens of “virgins” that a jihadist martyr would purportedly enjoy in the afterlife as his reward is a mis-translation from a word in Syriac (a language other than Arabic used in the Koran) that means “white raisins.” (Cf., Ibn Warraq, “Virgins, What Virgins?”).

So now you know why God is powerful...

I don't mind...

I really don’t mind those Google Ads that shows religious advertisements. If someone click it I still earn money. Google Adsense ROCKS!!!

Ignorance + Contempt = Atheism bashing

Amateur (or should I say “immature) and defenders of certain Christian cults have a peculiar way of confronting the issues posted by atheists. Instead of proving atheism as an irrational position, they cater more on emotions and rely mostly on insults. Maybe they think that by doing those things atheism will just go away.

After their “sugo” posted two articles to confront his problems toward atheism, which failed miserably to prove his points, it’s the members (suckers) time to salvage what their “sugo” have failed to accomplish.

Meet josepherdon, a typical guy who fits the profile of a fanatic. To save his “sugo” for further embarrassment, he created a “blog” to discredit Filipino freethinkers and non-believers.

It’s quite obvious.The intellects talk about ideas while dull minds castigate people, which remind me of Philippine celebrity gossips in sleazy tabloids. Anyway, since this dullard is a master of abusive, profane and obscene slanders, it also reflects his state of mind.

I wasn’t planning to give any critique to this dolt’s article (that's why it took a year or so before I've answered his rants), but as they say, “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing”.

Excuse me my dear readers if I didn’t gave any link to his blog. You see, I don’t intend to give him some free exchange link.

I understand this pathetic jerk for making his accusations and insults. Remember, he wanted desperately to please his cult master. Charles “Tex” Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Larry Layton have already done the same and look what it resulted so far.

You won’t really learn anything on something that was written from sheer hate. That’s a fact! So I am certain that I will not find even a morsel of enlightenment in his posts. But at least I’m offering the blogging world my free service by personally correcting some of josepherdon's deliberate misinformation.

Ignorance in the Meaning of Religion

Atheism is a religion. Atheism requires faith. Atheism also requires a strong conviction.

Atheists deny that Atheism is a religion but it is clearly being displayed by Atheists in different Religious forums that Atheism is indeed their religion.

So he still define atheism as a religion. That's means josepherdon still doesn't even understand what religion means. Religion is suppose to be the "ultimate concern on our life". Now, atheism is not a religion since it’s not saying anything that is ultimate regarding concerns on someone’s life. The rule is quite simple; atheism is about not believing in a supernatural being which people calls god or gods.

Let us continue...

Ignorance in the Meaning of "Faith".

Most of the Atheists believes that their existence was not based on Creation. They strongly opposed it.Christians have faith. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1 KJV)

Faith to things hoped for and the things that not seen.

Atheists also have faith. Atheists also believe in things that are not seen. Atheists also believe in things that are not yet scientifically proven.

My gulay….I’m too tired of explaining faith in my blog. Now let see…if I don’t believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, is that faith @ Mr. Joseph Perdon. Go figure it out…or maybe too much heavy metal rock music banging or squeeky anime on your brains eh?

Please naman po, tutal 30 years old na po kayo, eh pakilawakan po ng konti ang pang-unawa mo po.

I have this inkling that josepherdon doesn’t have any science background in his studies. Whether he made it on college or not – well, it seems he was not really been exposed to a lot of science subject, especially in biology and physics ( o baka naman natutulog sa library).

Now here’s some samples:

Ignorance in the Theory of Evolution

Missing Links in Theory of Evolution.

These links are yet to be found.No Scientific evidences of their existence.They believe that the link exists out there, it's just they cannot find them.They treats Theory of Evolution as their doctrine of faithin spite of growing number of scientists are abandoning the theory.

Also considering the great minds of the science communityDID NOT even believed that the humanity came from apes. Sadly, Atheists are taking the Theory of Evolution really seriously.

What missing link? Evolutionists are not looking to any “missing links”. My gulay naman @ Mr. Perdon, you’re so 1880’s hahaha!

Maybe you’re talking about transitional fossils? The term “missing link” po eh ginagamit ng mga taong naniniwala sa tinatawag na the great chain of being, a pre-evolutionary concept now abandoned. Transitional fossils are the fossils of transitional forms of life representing an evolutionary bridge between two recognized groups and I'm proud to say that the discoveries of these transitional fossils have just proved Darwin's theory is correct.

We now have hundreds or thousand transitional fossils available. Mr. Joseph Perdon, year 2010 na po tayo. There are many example of transitional fossils and all you have to do is to search the Internet (Remember, Google is your friend. Maybe you should use it to do some worth while research instead of looking for heavy metal bands and Japanese anime.).

Now you won't find "great minds" saying that humans came from apes @ josepherdon. Ganito po yan, apes and humans comes from a common ancestor. Evolution doesn't say that monkeys became human. It just say that homonids, simians and prosimians came from a common lineage. Great minds already knows the process and it seems the idea that monkeys or ape became humans only came from you and your "sugo's" mind...which I don't think to be that great.

Now it's your turn. maybe you can show as an evidence that human came from Adam and Eve for a change @ Mr. Joseph Perdon AKA josepherdon.

Ignorance in Cosmology

Missing Matter and Energy in Big Bang Theory.

There are still a lot of questions in the Big Bang Theory that needs to be answered.But still, Atheists believe them and holds the theory as true. A lot of things in the Big Bang Theory still needs scientific evidences. Like the mystery of the Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

"Every textbook in the planet earth,says that the universe is made out of atoms and sub-atomic particles.Well, all those textbooks are wrong"--theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku

Quote mining eh? OK let see…Dr. Michio Kaku is an American theoretical physicist specializing in string field theory. Do you know what is string field theory? String Field theory…wait…I thought you don’t believe in scientific theories? If you don't believe in scientific theories they why are you quoting a theoretical physicist? Are you contradicting yourself @ Mr. Perdon? Nasa Bible ba ang String field theory?

Anyway, if you have some idea on what quantum physics is…well you will understand what the String Field Theory is all about. It is like this…it says that the most smallest thing in the universe (quarks, atoms, etc) and the vastness of the very large universe is connected like a string in a musical instrument. That’s String Field Theory in a nutshell for you @ josepherdon. Naiintidihan mo ba? Obviously you can’t understand what I’m talking about.

You know why?

Because you can’t even tell the difference between Big Bang and Dark Matter.

Combined, Dark Matter and Dark Energy make up 96% of the universe.(That's a VERY BIG percentage for something you don't have a scientific evidence)The problem is, Atheists have faith about these things.(96% of the Universe [r.e.bigbang theory] is not proven scientifically)

Science has do not directly proven the existence of Dark Matter.They are still guessing about what the Dark Matter and Dark Energy really are.

By the way, they say that the Dark Matter is an invisible matter. Yes, believing Big Bang Theory requires faith.Faith about those unanswered questions and mysteries about the universe(e.g. Dark Energy and Dark Matter)

Are you talking about the candy bar or the sitcom that was created by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady?

So what does Dark Matter has to do with the Big Bang? For your information, dark matter is the large invisible matter that composed most of the universe. The term “dark matter” was coined by Fritz Zwicky who discovered evidence for missing mass in galaxies in the 1930s.

Dark Matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation and it is more important on the issue concerning state-of-the-art modeling of structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropies observed in the cosmic microwave background.

So where's the issue concerning the Big Bang?

Like The Theory of Evolution,Growing number of Scientists already abandoned the Big Bang theory just like the well-known scientists that believe that there is a God. If the scientific evidences about Big Bang Theory and Theory Of Evolution are really that great, How come that there are scientists have religion and believes in God? These Atheists are just hiding in the surface of science books which actually Scientists have already given up reading.

Like who? Can you please name names @ josepherdon.

Let see…according to the studies conducted by sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund, 38 persent of natural scientist doesn’t believe in God. In Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham studies they discovered that disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. (See: Victor Stenger's Has Science Found God? for more details)

Being an Atheist does not make you more intelligent than others

Ah so that's his problem...Atheists appear more intelligent than him and his "sugo". So that's why he's bitching in the World Wide Web.

Mr. Joseph Perdon. It’s not that atheist like me is more intelligent…nope. We just use our “coconut” more that you used yours. Remember, your mind is like a parachute, it is more useful when it is open.

Hmmmmm...I think josepherdon still has a lot to say...

I have talked, discuss and even debated with some self-centered Atheistang Pinoy and believe me, papansin lang sila. Tinatawag din nila ang mga sarili nila na THINKING PINOYS. As if, naman na sila lang ang nagiisip. They are just people wanting to be different from others. Oo nga naman, karamihan ng mga pinoy ay may religion at naniniwala sa Dios, kapag hindi ka nga naman naniwala sa Dios, instant attention nga naman yun. Pa-kontra-bida effect, pa-others, parang EMO, or talagang Pinoy EMO na nga talaga sila. At kapag naiipit na sila sa mga dahilan nila in denying GOD, they will demand respect. Ay teka,teka, magpapatawa pala muna sila, tapos aasarin ka. Kapag na-realize nilang hindi ka mabilis maasar or bumabalik na sa kanila yung mga pang-aasar nila, tsaka sila hihingi ng respeto sa paniniwala. Kung kakausapin mo sila ng masinsinan at napansin nilang may point ka, they will simply walk away at sasabihin nonsense makipag-usap sayo. "I am more intelligent than you". Feeling of superiority from others. Pride.Yes, may pride nga ang mga Pinoy EMOs este Pinoy Atheists.

You see, after nilang ipagmalaki ang paniniwala nila, pagkatuwaan ang mga naniniwala sa Dios at naiipit na sila sa takbo ng utak nila, tsaka sila hihingi ng respeto. Believe me, iyan po ang pattern ng usapan ng mga Christians at Atheistang Pinoy. Kahit mapa-saan man yang forum, Friendster or else, they will try to impress you first with their different way of thinking, carabao-english and then asking for respect of their beliefs. Emong-emo di ba

Kakaunti lang naman ang mga Pinoy Atheists, este Freethinkers pala, este Pinoy EMOs pala.Kukunti lang silang naniniwala masyado sa sarili nila eh.Tinanong ko dati yung mga nakausap ko,Willing ba kayong ituro sa mga anak ninyo ang paniniwalang Atheista?Anong klaseng values ang ituturo ninyo sa mga anak ninyo?Willing ba kayong i-share sa mga kabataan at ilayo sa Dios ang mga kabataan?Anong klaseng sosyodad ang handa ninyong i-offer sa mga kababayan ninyo?Sosyodad na hindi naniniwala sa Dios?

Wala ka namang kabutihang mapapala sa pagiging atheista eh. Takbo ng buhay mo wala. Baka nga mayaman ka, baka nga may maganda kang trabaho pero after that wala na. Ang pagtulong sa kapwa tao ng mga atheista is pakitang tao lang, plastic. Bakit? Kung wala ngang Dios, ano ngayon ang difference ng paggawa ng mabuti sa paggawa ng masama? Kung mamamatay kang isang atheista na magnanakaw, pumapatay ng tao, o rapist, may difference ba?

Kung mamamatay kang isang atheista na feeling proud sa sarili?There's no difference, walang LIFE AFTER DEATH eh.Logic lang naman ang kailangan eh, which is sad to say na wala ang mga atheista.

With the slow rise of Scientology wannabes, Atheists are endangered species.Actually, habang kumakaunti sila, lalong lalaki ulo ng mga yan. Feeling elite.Pa-others lang talaga. Feeling important. Feeling genio.The Big Bang Theory + Theory of Evolution = Existence of Atheists

So in the following statement that was written in the tagalog language (maybe because josepherdon ran out of English words…) he just started spilling his own viscera. Hmmmm….sa makatuwid eh sinuka na nya ang talagang sinisintir nya (He just vomited out his issues).

It’s quite obvious (base on his seethe) that he was crushed on a debate. We can perceive that on his writings. Now what happened here is that when this guy ran out of arguments, he started spewing venom.

He had this feeling (which really bothers him) that atheists are more superior in knowledge, ideas and arguments than his “sugo” and himself. Naturally the guy was hurt and he’s just licking his would like a dog and well…sour-graping.

Mr. Joseph Perdon AKA josepherdon, here’s my advice to you. If you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you don’t have any logical arguments against atheism, then don’t debate. Also don’t dwell too much on fantasies. Please let us at least have a little honesty in our part – you never even tried facing us for a debate, so how can you defeat us? Seriously, you never posted any comment in the Filipino Freethinker Website and forum; you never posted any comment on my blog and even on my shout box. You don’t have any posts on the Pinoy Atheist Group in Friendster, Multiply and Facebook. Are you a phony just like your “sugo”?

Come on…give us the real deal here.

And what do the EMO and the Scientologist have to do with your beatings @ josepherdon? Bakit, wag mo naming sabihin sa akin na natalo ka ng EMO at ng isang scientologist sa debate?

Life after death? Philanthropy? My goodness is this a special pleading? Mr. Joseph Perdon, even without “dios” humans can still be good. Look at me; I can still do good things even if I don’t expect any life after death in heaven. Kaya mo ba yan o baka naman kaya ka gumagawa ng mabuti eh para mapunta ka sa langit?

Look, I know of a story of a man who believes in a “dios” and his followers claims he is a walking Bible encyclopedia yet was still charged of raping a guy...sodomy eh? Think about it. (Oh, you can also look at that story here.)

Now we non-believers don’t believe in brainwashing and “indoctrination” especially with kids. We don’t teach something and strongly encouraged not to question or critically examine what we taught.

Diba you have indoctrination in your cult...este coordination centers pala @ josepherdon?

Ew….How repulsive…parang may sapilitang ipinapasok sa ulo mo. Only cults do that @ josepherdon.

In the issue of respect…well respect is earned @ josepherdon and it seems you and your “sugo” still have to work harder to attain it.

Oh and another thing, atheism is different with Scientology…wait a minute…don’t tell me you don’t know what Scientology is? Man…(lol)…Scientology is a religion that was created by L. Ron Hubbard that teaches people are immortal spiritual beings who have forgotten their true nature. Maybe you think that Scientology are people that worshipped science…hahahaha! Gosh, your lack of knowledge disturbs me. Mr. Joseph Perdon, John Travolta and Tom Cruise don’t worship science.

So instead of bitching here in the Internet and exposing your dirty underwear, why not work on your arguments and start focusing in reality. I would love to invite you on one of our meet-ups if you want. You could be one of our “special guess”.

Also, before you engage a debate with any member of the Filipino Freethinker or an atheist like me, please review the following subjects: Philosophy (especially logic), science, religion and in your case English Grammar. Review your subject-verb agreement.

And please: THINK FIRST BEFORE YOU WRITE!

Ay my papaya…as they say, to an ignoramus nothing is impossible.

Ciao!

Just My Remarks on Pastor Orlaer’s Comments (Part 3)

We are now in part 3 on my comments and I’m now going to tackle some of Pastor Vince issues using the Christian Bible.

Suffering (A Question on Job’s Theodicy)

There was this site that Pastor Vince recommended that we Freethinker should read regarding why do good people suffer.

After reading it, I notice that it is quite typical for Christians to use the Book of Job to explain this theological dilemma. The Book of Job seems to be a good case in point why God allow good people to suffer…or does it?

Unfortunately to Pastor Vince, the Book of Job fall short in accomplishing such task.

In the first chapter of the said book, we find Satan have tempted God in an issue regarding Job and his faith. Well…well…well…I thought God cannot be tempted? Now, in the first part of the test, God killed Job’s family…that I think is test one.

I thought God is omniscient? God perfectly and eternally knows all things which can be known, past, present, and future. So why do he need to give a test to Job? Surely he does not need to test Job’s faith because He already knows the entire outcome.

Why would God kill the herdsmen, the shepherds, the camel care-takers and Jobs’ sons and daughters? What did they do to be killed? Job is the one who is the subject of the test, is he? These other people have their own lives and family.

Christians will quickly answer this by saying that since God gave us life, he has the right to take it back to us. Really? Is that a moral thing to do? If I gave someone something…like a gift, or blood…can I just demand to take it back? Are Christians telling me that God is such an “Indian giver”…there’s always a string attached on his gifts?

What is shocking on the Book of Job is that the whole story is really not about Job’s fidelity. Nope…the so-called test is not about Job, nor his faith, it’s about a conversation between God and Satan. God is just proving to Satan that he was right, so he allow Satan to inflict harm to Job and his family. Good grief!

Somewhere in the middle of the story, Job was allowed to see God and to ask the reason of his suffering. But instead of giving a clear answer, this braggart (that Pastor Vince called “God”) did is to boast his inflated ego all over the pages of the book…Wow! Talk about a bigheaded son of a bitch!

So why will I worship such a jerk?

According to Bro. Tom people suffer because of these five reasons: Adam’s sin, other people sin, our own sin, satanic oppression and God’s chastening hand.

Ok…

Now why am I being punish for Adam’s sin? After all he and his wife are the one who ate the “apple”, not me. (Note Deuteronomy 24:16 says: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.)

Why will God harm others on the sin of someone? Why will God send famine and pestilence to kill innocent children to punish other people? Why would God send storms or flood to some impoverish community in Bangladesh to punish a sinner living in a large penthouse in Beverly Hills, California?

Oh and now we must blame Satan? Base on Job’s story Satan needs to get God’s approval first before he can make any damage, right? So why blame the “Yes Man”. It’s God’s call, not Satan’s.

So just like these pastors, theologians and parishioners both Pastor Vince and Bro. Tom is still struggling to find the answer to their own question and by using the Book of Job, the issue in “why do good people suffer” became more problematic that ever.

Who’s Right?

Pastor Vince: Yes, the Bible will be contradicting to itself my friend espcially if the one interpreting the Scriptures interprets it all literally and as is without understanding the Bible itself.

I will not explain more of the Bible since it will be a one BIG GIANT topic to discuss. But I can assure you that most

 if not all of the passages quoted by the article you cited are simply a bunch of misinterpretations.

(The guy was reacting on this site.)

Who’s making a bunch of misinterpretations?

Ah…the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit eh?

Pastor Vince, if I will put you in a police lineup, together with the Roman Catholics, the Mormons, the ADD, the INC and the Pentecostals all of you guys will claim that you are “right” and everybody else is wrong. All of you are claiming certain knowledge on theological or biblical hermeneutical background.

Just an illustration: Let us look at your Matthew 16:17.

Your interpretation here is that it is telling us that faith is enough to be in heaven…Let me refresh your memory:

Biblical teaching says from Ephesians 2:8-10

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Matt 16:17; Eph 1:19;

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Rom 3:27; Col 1:29;

10 For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.

To summarize this:

Grace (Coming from God) + Faith (coming from man) = Salvation

Totally different from what Catholic Church teaches:

Grace + Faith + Works = Salvation.

Roman Catholics interpret this differently. For them this is a proof that that Peter should be the first Pope. According to the notes on the New American Bible, “[13-20] The Marcan confession of Jesus as Messiah, made by Peter as spokesman for the other disciples (Mark 8:27-29; cf also Luke 9:18-20), is modified significantly here. The confession is of Jesus both as Messiah and as Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Jesus' response, drawn principally from material peculiar to Matthew, attributes the confession to a divine revelation granted to Peter alone (Matthew 16:17) and makes him the rock on which Jesus will build his church (Matthew 16:18) and the disciple whose authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven, i.e., by God (Matthew 16:19)”.

Beside, the Bible also justifies faith with works. Jesus says that we need to do certain actions before we can be in heaven (see: Mt 5:16; Mt 13:3-9; Mt 16:27; Mt 25:34-36; Mark 10:17-25). You should also read James 3:14-26). Base on these passages…Roman Catholic can justify Grace + Faith + Works = Salvation.

Let’s face it; Christian interprets the Bible to fit their agenda. Martin Luther (1483-1541) created Sola fide to free him on his guilt so he can find inner peace. That is why most evangelical Christians teach the same doctrine…it all boils down to Martin Luther...to the Protestant Reformation.

There is really no truth in biblical hermeneutics or these so-called interpretations. It’s not interpretation but rather justifications of a certain denomination’s doctrine.

Ciao!

Just My Remarks on Pastor Orlaer's Comments (Part 2)

In my last post I discussed the difference between belief, trust and faith, but before I go on, I would like to dive deeper into the subject.

We now know that belief encompasses anything that we accept as true – yet it doesn’t follow that before we arrive in a certain belief- system we accept it without any evidence. As I have already said, not all beliefs are categorized as “faith”.

To illustrate this, maybe you guys have any idea on those people who are into NWO or “New World Order”. Conspiracy theorists believe on things like secret societies, that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen, or that the moon landing never happened, but they believe such things not on faith but on what they believe as evidences. They have “reason” to believe. Their “evidences” are: big, contemporary newsworthy event which may suit their “theory”; some so-called “anomalies; and of course big organizations. But whatever wacky ideas that come to their mind, it is still “evidence”.

Evidence is anything that increases the estimate of the probability of the truthfulness of the proposition.

I believe that the Sun is going to rise in the East and will set in the West tomorrow and that there is an “invisible” thing we called wind. Is that faith?

Nah…Knowing these things rely on evidence. We use data to predict an outcome of something – like the rising or setting of the Sun for example. Unless something beyond natural event happened tomorrow, we expect the Sun to rise in the East and set in the West base upon and limited by repeatable, objective experience.

Pastor Vince: That’s right, you cannot see it. But you can see other things being moved by it. You can see the clouds being pushed by it, etc… But the question is, can you see the wind? Molecules??? You felt the matter, but not the molecules my friend.

In the issue of the wind for example, we can felt it but we can’t see it. But again that is not faith. The reason that we can “feel” the wind is a proof that it exist. When we talk about feeling in an empirical context, we don’t assume its existence because we have the “conviction” it exist…nope, we’re not talking about being euphoric.

We don’t see air because the molecules that make up air (nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide, argon) just don't happen to absorb light in the wavelengths our eyes can see.

Oh and molecules doesn’t exist?

Actually you can see a molecule. Since molecules move too fast and our eye can only see around 100 frames per second, if you saw a molecule it would be just a blur maybe a sphere. But thanks to specialized microscopes, like a  device called scanning tunneling microscope (STM) we can use it to see molecules (neat stuff eh? Any device out there that we can use to see God? @ Pastor Vince...just kidding).

There are other evidences of the existence on molecules. Just pick up your physics and chemistry text book (Do you have a copy Pastor Vince?)

If you hit a crystal with a beam of rays, the rays diffract into patterns which can be used to tell exactly where the atoms in the crystal are located. This technique, which was proposed by Sir William Bragg in the late 1800's, only works if matter is made of atoms.

Botanist Robert Brown noticed that tiny objects like pollen grains shook and moved erratically when viewed under a microscope. Nearly seventy years later, Albert Einstein explained this "Brownian motion" as the result of bombardment by molecules. Einstein found his main clue to the size of molecules: how far the suspended particles move should depend on the number of molecules it takes to make one "mole". Each time a fluid molecule bounced into a suspended particle, the particle would be moved a little, so after many bounces the particle might wind up in a quite different place. Einstein found that, if one mole equals so many molecules, the suspended particles would wander, on average, so far in one minute. If a mole only equals one fourth as many molecules, so that each fluid molecule is four times as massive, the fluid molecules would hit hard enough for the suspended particles to wander, overall, twice as far in one minute.

Avogadro's number is the number of molecules in one mole of any compound. There are dozens of different experimental methods for measuring Avogadro's number. All give the same result. The fact that Avogadro's number seems to be independent of any particular method implies that it actually has meaning- and so is strong circumstantial evidence that molecules actually exist.

Pastor Vince seems to forget, because of science, we can now see the wind.

Pascal’s Bad Bet

Pastor Vince: As for me, I would rather believe in God. For if I die and then there is no God, I will lose nothing. But if I believe that there is no God, then when I die I found out that there is God, then I lose everything.

Let’s talk about Pascal’s Wager.

Now, isn’t it funny that Christian evangelists like Pastor Vince always use Pascal’s Wager? Doesn’t he know Pascal wager was intended for Roman Catholic use? (Come on…give me something original)

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) lived in a time when religious belief in Europe was simple; whether you’re a Roman Catholic or a non-believer. – There are only two choices. In today’s Christianity for example, the wager can’t be that useful…let me explain.

How many dogma and doctrine does Christianity have today? Some Christians believe in the trinity while others don’t. Some believe in a human Christ, Biblical inerrancy, additional gospels (from the Gnostics)…whatever! Now what if Roman Catholicism turns out to be right and Born-Again Christianity is wrong. What will happen? What if “Sorianista” are right or the Iglesia Ni Cristo was right? This is becoming a very bad bet.

Speaking of which, I’m just wondering…why would an omni-being punish those who doesn’t believe its existence? Does non-belief sucks the very life-force of this “God being”? Does lack of worship weakens this “God”? It is really quite odd for a perfect, omni-being to require a need of worshippers and believers.

It seems this so-called “God” will wither and dry-out if people stop believing in its existence. So! It appears this God need me that I need Him.

Enjoy it till it lasted

Pastor Vince: Do you think your life is wasted when you enjoy something doing it? Do you believe that your life is wasted for trying to prove that there is no God? I am pretty sure that you will answer that your life is not wasted for you have already judged my life that I already have wasted it.

 

But then again, going back to my question. Do you think your life is wasted when you enjoy the things you are doing and that it is with a purpose?

So according to Pastor Vince, if a person enjoys something, that won’t waste his life. Hmmmm…eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die eh?

Let me tell you a story of a person who enjoyed his youthful life going to sleazy bars and “beer houses” to have fun. Sure, don’t tell me he’s not enjoying every minute of it. Drinking all night long to drown his problems and his mundane existence with whiskey and beer.

Now that he’s 75 years old…what happened? What did he achieved?

The same reason can be heard on kids who waste their time “enjoying” leisure with their friends instead of going to school…(Have you heard Nonoy Zuniga song “Sa Panaginip Lang”?)

Pastor Vince: Well, as a Christian myself, I don’t think that it is a waste of life to believe in God, just as you believe that there is no GOd. I enjoy excercising my faith with a purpose and with the hope of second life while you enjoy searching and reasoning that there is no GOd with the hope that there is no second life. What life have been wasted then? I simply believe that I have made a better preparation of what it is to come or “if there will be no second life at all.” It’s not a waste of life my friend.

Drug addiction also does the same effect. You enjoy being a “junkie” You enjoy all the euphoria while speed-balling or injecting or snuffing methamphetamine on your system. Something like what belief in a so-called “promise of an after-life in heaven” can do. So, to say that it is not a waste of time to prepare an after-life in God is the same excuse a blotter-user would say when he’s “high”.

Until next time,

John the Atheist

Just My Remarks on Pastor Orlaer's Comments (Part 1)

Before I start, I would like to thank these Christians who visits the Filipino Freethinkers website and grace its pages with their…er…”reasonable” comments.

To make it more interesting, I would like to share a little of my mind…a personal analysis perhaps on Pastor Vince Orlaer’s comments on religion, faith, atheism and his defense on the Bible and Christianity.

Religion

Yes it NEVER requires religion; but that religious faith produces religion.

Religion is the way you practice your faith.

It’s like “You can give without loving, but you cannot love without giving.”

Therefore, “You can practice your religion without faith, but you cannot practice faith without practicing religion.”

Uh…I think religion is not only the way to practice your faith but religion is synonymous with faith. The word religion can be inter-change to faith. That’s why we call it Buddhist faith, Hindi faith, Jewish faith, Islamic faith and Christian faith.

Now, defining religion can really be nose-bled since there are many ideas, interpretation or “what-nots” about it. But we can at least narrow it down to something coherent.

Christianity is not all about religion. Religion will in no way gets you to heaven. It may be an instrument in understanding the underlying principles of true Christianity, but it’s not enough to get to heaven. Our relationship to Christ is what matters.

Narrowing what is common to all religion will displace the myth that Christianity is not one of them. Most books will agree with me that different faiths have the following concepts in common:

(1.) Belief in some kind of a supernatural being (sometimes called gods, devas, etc.).

(2.) Rituals

(3.) A moral code given by supernatural means (or a Supernatural being).

(4.) Prayers

(5.) A belief on a certain world view that gives an individual a so-called purpose or meaning.

Come on! All these concepts are present in Christianity, do they? Fundamentalists/Evangelical Christians may deny it but it won’t make the facts go away – whether it’s true Christianity or not.

Belief and Faith

It seems Pastor Orlaer got a little confused between “belief” and “faith”. OK let’s clear the mess that he just did.

First, let’s do some defining:

A belief is how you accept something as true. Easy huh? So base on this simple definition we can say that faith is also a kind of belief. But not all beliefs are the same as faith.

But hey! My pocket dictionary says that both faith and belief are synonymous with the word “trust”! Hay my papaya! That’s the problem with pocket dictionaries.

As I have said, not all beliefs are categorized as faith. Why? Because not all belief are without, or in spite of, reason.

Why? What is faith?

Faith believes without proof or evidence.

Now that we already know the difference between that two, we can now look at Pastor Orlaer’s statements.

Religious faith is just one form. But you yourself exercises faith like sitting on a chair. You sit on a chair because you believe that the chair can comfort you. You drive a car because you believe it can bring you somewhere.


Faith, Trust, Belief/Believe …. all these were synomous terms my friend. How can you say you trust yet you do not have faith that you can definitely sit down at the chair? Hope you are getting my point. You sit because you trust that the chair is stable. And because you trust, you have faith that it can carry you. Trust and Faith (the real meaning) cannot be separated from each other.

Sitting on a chair or driving a car doesn’t require faith. First, we all know that chairs and car exists. Second, we also know what chairs and cars are for.

Trust is not blind belief. You trust something or someone because you see particular characteristics on that something that will win your confidence. That what advertisements are for.

Trust is something you come to after a long process of give-and-take. Trustworthiness is confirmed by observation. It’s a learned process while faith is something that doesn’t requires knowledge. Faith is about something that has not yet come to pass and its actuality has no evidence. It depends on the unknowable, the incomprehensible and the claim that it is beyond reason and logic. Therefore, trust and faith can be separated.