Pinoy Atheist: My journey as a Filipino atheist in Manila.

More Fun in the Philippines.

2012-01-14T23:40:00.000+08:00

Just for Laughs!

2012-01-13T22:49:00.002+08:00

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

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

2011-12-29T22:46:00.000+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Albert Einstein is a scientific pantheists.

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

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

2011-12-07T22:04:00.003+08:00

Exodus 20:8 vs. Romans 14:5

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

Teka...ano nga ba ang kontradiksyon dito?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nabura ba ng talatang kasunod ang problema?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheista ka ba? Opo Atheista po ako.

2011-12-07T03:17:00.131+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

Malinaw ba?

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

Eh papaano naman sa mga tinatawag na Fundamentalist Christians?

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

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

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

The Awful Truth!

2011-12-06T18:12:00.000+08:00

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

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

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

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

Ito po ang Atheist.

2011-11-05T00:17:00.004+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What makes people afraid of atheists?

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

Let us continue...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace and Love to all of us.

Pinoy Atheist: Only existing, sentient beings can forgive.

Until next time.

Art against God?

2011-08-12T18:48:00.005+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

According Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code:

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

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

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

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

That where blasphemy enters the picture.

Blasphemy!

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

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

Majority Rule?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Night God Ran Away From Me

2011-07-17T10:51:00.001+08:00

by Ilving Tabios-Zamora

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

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

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

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

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

Goddamn you God, what kind of God are you?

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

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

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

Relihiyon, Moralidad at Ano pa?

2011-07-15T09:32:00.001+08:00

(Written in Tagalog)

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

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

Tama ba ito?

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

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

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

Kunin natin itong halimbawa.

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

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

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

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

Ating suriin ang pagbibintang na ito.

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

Tapos ibibintang nya sa mga ateista ang ganitong uring kaisipan?

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

Mali!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hanggang sa susunod,

Pinoy Atheist

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

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

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

2011-07-07T12:00:00.001+08:00

By Newo F. Nash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Folly?

2011-05-12T09:25:00.000+08:00

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

Now here is a good example:

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

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

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

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

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

Being Reasonable or Being Rational?

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

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

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

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

Empiricism Do Not Enter!

Why this allergic reaction to the word “empirical?”

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

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

Until next time,

Pinoy Atheist

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

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

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

2011-05-04T09:24:00.001+08:00

Going back to the magazine article

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

These anti-atheist articles came out last September 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

Whose Side Do You Think Time Will Vindicate?

The JW article poses two questions:

1.1. Is the belief in a Creator intrinsically harmful?

2.2. Would universal atheism makes for a better world?

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

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

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

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

In any case, the issue here is religious atrocities.

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

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

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

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

Is there a connection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morality Requires God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who’s Blind?

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

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

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

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

Is the First Cause Intelligent?

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

Ok, according to this argument:

1. Everything that exist has a cause

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

3. This First Cause is Jehovah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought so.

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

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

Atheism on the march...and JW's were pissed.

2011-05-04T08:54:00.001+08:00

Have you ever encountered those annoying people who will knock on your door in a peaceful Saturday morning to convince you to…er… nope I’m not talking about Electrolux salesmen and Avon ladies. I am talking about those members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Now, these traveling salesmen of faith are saying to atheists to keep their ideas on themselves. What? Wait a minute there buddy, who’s the one tapping on windows to give (or sell) those nifty little magazines and pamphlets?

In their November 2010 issue it seems the Watchtower Society have a lot to say about atheism (really?). Oh…yes that is on the Awake! Magazine. You know…that magazine who said that the Bible has 50,000 errors…I think it is their September 8, 1957 issue. Anyway, let see why atheism is pissing them off.

Let’s talk about what this Jehovah’s Witnesses are first.

Like those other Christian church, JW (I’ll just call it this way) claims that this church will restore Christianity to its original doctrines and practices. The organization adopted the name Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1931 to emphasize the belief that the most accurate translation of the personal name of God in the Hebrew Scriptures is “Jehovah” (Ps. 83:18), and that as believers they are his “witnesses” (Is. 43:10; Acts 1:8). Charles Taze Russell and his associates (whoever they are) founded the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1872. Russell’s church was called Millennial Dawnism and later as The International Bible Students.

Russell’s doctrines were heavily influenced by G. Jonas Wendel (1815 - 1873), a zealous Adventist who believed that Christ Second Coming would happen in 1874. In Chapter 5 pp. 43-44 of his book Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914) Russell said, “The twig, though, had been trained by God-fearing parents; it was inclined "in the direction of the Lord."

While he was searching for the “truth” in 1869, something happen that reestablished Charles’ faith. According to the story, while walking along near the Russells’ store on Federal Street, Charles heard religious singing coming from a basement hall. In his own words, this is what took place: Seemingly by accident, one evening I dropped into a dusty, dingy hall, where I had heard religious services were held, to see if the handful who met there had anything more sensible to offer than the creeds of the great churches. There, for the first time, I heard something of the views of Second Adventists [Advent Christian Church], the preacher being Mr. Jonas Wendell . . . Thus, I confess indebtedness to Adventists as well as to other denominations.”

So that it how it all started…then came those prophesies.

It seems Russell has this habit of not keeping his doctrine straight – he keeps changing his prophetic claims. He claimed that believers would be ‘called away bodily’ in 1878 but when this didn’t happened he corrected his ‘explanation’, saying what he really meant (?) is that believers that die in the year 1878 and onwards will go straight to Paradise instead of waiting for the Second Coming of Christ un their graves.

He also said that you could gain enlightenment just by reading his 6-volume Studies in the Scriptures – Yes! You do not need to study the Bible.

In 1908 to 1916, he sold his ‘Miracle Wheat’ through the pages of his Watchtower Magazine. For your information, this Miracle Wheat was 60 times the price of ordinary wheat (at $60 a bushel!). The Brooklyn Eagle exposed this fraud.

In a court case that Russell filed against Reverend J.S. Ross of Hamilton, Ontario, he claimed (under oath) that he understands Greek, but it was proven in court that he did not even know the Greek alphabet.

Russell (again) claimed that Christ will return in 1914, and the resurrection of the ‘heavenly organization’ will follow in 1918 (and believing that the “Great Pyramid of Gizeh” was “God’s stone witness” which proved Russell’s claims that “the time of the end”). Again, nothing happened but Russell was a very stubborn man. He again insisted that Jesus did return…invisible to human eyes (Oh for crying out loud!). Nevertheless, he keeps on yapping about the end times that will occur in 1915 and 1916. In fact, Watchtower has a history of proclaiming the end of the world on several dates: 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1940’s, and in 1975.

Russell believed that all 144,000 members of the JW have a place in heaven. This caused a problem when church membership swelled. New York attorney Joseph Rutherford who replaced Russell after his death in 1916 wrote a ‘new’ seventh volume of Studies in the Scripture announcing that once heaven is full, the excess members of the church will re-populate the new Earth.

When Rutherford died in 1942, he was succeeded by Nathan Homer Knorr who commissioned a new translation of the Bible – the New World Translation that incorporated all the JW doctrines.

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

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

A-Week in Manila

2011-03-24T13:17:00.002+08:00

Last Saturday and Sunday, we celebrated A-Week…not by virtually changing your Facebook profile picture, but by going to Rizal park, set up a booth and tell everyone that we are atheists! And it was successful!

ABS-CBN was there to get a report on this monumental event in Philippine atheism.

Ilving Tabios-zamora

Four centuries, nine decades and four days ago (March 16, 1521), an alien ideology inundated the Philippines like an un-ebbing tsunami -- depositing alluviums of fanatical superstition -- that continues to shackle the nation to this day.

But March 19, 2011 marks the dawning of a new day in the Philippines reminiscent of the Katipunan's Cry of Balintawak in 1876 and that of the Kabataang Makabayan of the Anti-US Imperialist Propaganda Movement in 1964. On this day, emerged the Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society Inc. (PATAS) and ignited its own torch of liberation. This time, against clerico-fascism and its cassocked charlatans -- to unchain the people from the grinding poverty, the decadent culture and the fatalism that feed the oppressive and exploitative status quo.

The members also valiantly declared to all and sundry their severance of their allegiance to a ghost with the monicker "God" and renounced the so-called "Bible" --a tome of fraudulent history interlaced with lies and canards deodorized by mantras of seemingly wise-sounding parables.

Yes, indeed, "We can do -- and we can be good -- without a 'God'!"

Long live and forward the struggle against clerico-fascism!

Expose and oppose all forces of reaction and superstition!

Mabuhay ang masang Filipino!

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

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

Atheist's Rights?

2011-03-09T09:05:00.000+08:00

There is this interesting article in the Internet that I recently read and what made this article by Stephen Prothero (titled "Atheists need a different voice") interesting is that...well...at least I can now differentiate the "moderates" with the "militant" atheist...well...sort of.

According to Mr. Prothero, "I heard two very different arguments at this event. The first was the old line of the New Atheists: Religious people are stupid and religion is poison, so the only way forward is to educate the idiots and flush away the poison. The second was less controversial and less utopian: From this perspective, atheism is just another point of view, deserving of constitutional protection and a fair hearing. Its goal is not a world without religion but a world in which believers and nonbelievers coexist peaceably, and atheists are respected, or at least tolerated.

These competing approaches could not be further apart. One is an invitation to a duel. The other is a fair-minded appeal for recognition and respect. Or, to put it in terms of the gay rights movement, one is like trying to turn everyone gay and the other is like trying to secure equal rights for gay men and lesbians."

Do Mr. Prothero’s statements hit the nail right on the head?

Ok...Mr. Prothero seems to be more interested in...eh...a more peaceful approach, which reminds me of that Gandhi caricature in an old Time magazine where he was depicted in his common fashion...trying to stop incoming Japanese tanks with threads.

It's Not a Civil Right Issue
According to Mr. Prothero's article, moderate atheists compare the issue with the gay right movement (or it just Mr. Prothero?) anyway, he continued that there are atheists who only want public respect and protection against discrimination (equal rights… right?).

Discrimination against what?

I don't think atheists are discriminated with their civil rights. There are no issues of non-religious being denied with their health care, housing loans or employees compensation benefits because of their unbelief.

Side by Side?
So, can the atheist live side by side with the pious? There are allot of criticism against the "New Atheism" and majority of the critics says that it is impossible to eradicate religion...but...is it possible for the non-believers to live in a religious world without making any issues?

For majority of believers - especially the Christian variety, skepticism on religious claims is a sin. The Bible is clear on that issue (John 8:24) and Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic angelic doctor said, "Unbelief is the greatest of sins".

But wait...some may say that it's not an issue. Remember; in Quiapo, Manila Christians and Muslim live side by side and in harmony with each other. But remember that both are believers.

Believers (like Christian and Muslim) believe that God will punish you collectively for the sins of some on the members of the community - by using natural calamities for example - so when calamities like earthquake, flood or pestilence happened, guess who will be on the top of the A-list to be blamed.

You Can Be Good Without Religion

2011-02-16T15:10:00.001+08:00

This was the "You Can be Good without Religion" Advocacy of the Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS) with the help of Do It Right Advocacy.

The first project was feeding in Cavite.

There will be more to come!

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

Atheism is...

2011-02-07T10:36:00.000+08:00

Atheism offers nothing to me,
It never has and never will,
It doesn't make me feel good or comfort me,
It's not there for me when I'm sick or ill,
It can't intervene in my times of need
It won't protect me from hate,
It doesn't care if I fail or succeed,
It won't wipe the tears from my eyes,
It does nothing when I have got no where to run,
It won't give me wise words or advice,
It has no teachings for me to learn,
It can't show me what's bad or nice,
It's never inspired or excited anyone,
It won't help me fulfill all my goals,
It won't tell me to stop when I'm having fun,
It's never saved one single soul,
It doesn't take credit for antyhing I achieve,
It won't make me get down on bended knee,
It doesn't demand that I have to believe,
It won't torture me for eternity,
It won't teach me to hate or despise others,
It can't tell me what's right or wrong,
It won't tell anybody that they can't be lovers,
It's told nobody where they don't belong,
It won't make you think life is worth living,
It has nothing to offer me, yeah, that's true,
But the reason Atheism offers me nothing is because I've never asked it to,
Atheism offers nothing because it doesn't need to,
Religion promises everything because you want it to,
You don't need a religion or to have faith,
You just want it because you need to feel safe,
I want to feel reality and nothing more,
So atheism offers me everything,
That religion has stolen before.

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

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

Gay For A Day

2010-12-19T15:47:00.005+08:00

I joined the Filipino Freethinkers in the Pride March last Saturday (Dec. 4) on Tomas Morato in Quezon City. It was my first.

I have a confession to make, I was a homophobic when I was a Christian, but I do not just blame it on my former religious beliefs. They say that Filipino has this "macho culture" so to be called a "bakla" is something to be ashamed of. In those times, I never really taught that gays are being discriminated. Who cares! They’re already a plague in our media and fashion industry, right? But that's just plain stereotyping - Screaming faggots (that what I used to call them) are better off working in beauty parlors and hosting trashy gossip shows anyway.

I was angry with gay people. I don’t know why, but maybe I just took it for granted that these confused perverts are just a product of a sexually deviant, evil society. My homophobia was the result of a culture and religion that already judged them base on some “moral standard.”

In this “macho culture” I was made to believed that only a man – the father, the man of the house, is the symbol of strength. It is the man who gives the rule and demands to be obeyed. He is the provider. Well, this is quite archaic, but that's how people that were born in the time of the “baby boom” were raised to believed.

So it is a shame in the family to have a gay son or a gay daughter. A homosexual man or woman is a shame, an oddity. He’s a mistake in somewhere…maybe a screw-up in his growth. Men are expected to act as men and women to be women. That’s how society depicts them. I told you, it’s a stereotype.

Gayness is a sickness. Remember an old folk remedy that say to cure a homosexual son, you have to place him head first inside a drum filled with water. Most often, gay people retaliate by saying that if you place them inside a drum with water, they’ll just become mermaids. Funny, but it is just a reflection on how society in the early 70’s and ‘80’s look at homosexuality.

But it’s not only here in the Philippines. Sometimes in its history, society has considered homosexuality a deviant. The term 'homosexuality was coined by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert in 1869 and the first attempts to classify homosexuality as a disease were made by the fledgling European sexologist movement in the late 19th century. In 1886 noted sexologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing listed homosexuality along with 200 other case studies of deviant sexual practices in his definitive work, Psychopathia Sexualis. Krafft-Ebing proposed that homosexuality was caused by either "congenital [during birth] inversion" or an "acquired inversion”. In 1952, when the American Psychiatric Association published its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality was included as a disorder. It was removed in 1973.

Now, thanks to modern science, homosexuality was discovered to be a natural behavior that is surprisingly, not only confined to humans. It was documented in over 400 species of animals. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl ( Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999) shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species of animals and other new researches have found it common to animals like chimpanzees, birds, lizards, hyenas, dolphins, giraffes, bison, sheep and even in insects. According to Bagemihl, “the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity— including homosexual, bisexual and non reproductive sex — than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept.”

Modern thinking has transformed most Filipino family to accept homosexuality as normal, but society is still cruel. Gay people are still being discriminated. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals are still being marginalized by society. They have no legal recourse when they are the victim of public or private sector discrimination, whether at school, in the workplace, or health care settings since sexual orientation is not included in the Philippine civil rights code. What’s worst, the Philippines did not sign the United Nations declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity, which condemns violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Also, do you remember the issue concerning The Ladlad Party List? The Philippine Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the Filipino LGBT political party Ang Ladlad's petition to be allowed to run in the May 2010 elections, on the grounds of "immorality".

Religion

If you’re going to look at it closely, both Christianity and Islam connect homosexuality with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. That’s why we have the word “sodomy” which literally means the act of "unnatural" sex. Sodom and Gomorrah are that twin city in the Book of Genesis that becomes synonymous with carnal banality and moral blasphemy. It now used by Christian as a metaphor for homosexual deviation.

Conservative Christians blame homosexuality as the sin of those ill-fated cities. That’s why God destroyed them by raining down burning sulfur on both cities. According to an article by David J. Stewart (Jesus Is Lord.com), “God destroyed Sodom because of fornication and homosexuality.” In the Christian website GotQuestion.org, it stated that, “homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants.” In Stand to Reason, Gregory Koukl said, “The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but foremost among them was the sin of homosexuality. In this section of Leviticus, God gives directives not just for ritual purity, but commands to be observed by every Jew, and even by every visitor."

Homosexuality was wrong for the Jews. It was wrong for gentiles who visited the Jews ("aliens"). It was even an abomination that defiled the land when practiced by pagans who inhabited Canaan long before the Jews came. Homosexuality is a defiling sin, regardless who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, then or now.”

In the Christian New Testament, the Apostle Paul considers homosexuality as a punishment given by God to those who fail to worship Him properly (Romans 1:21, 26-27) and here he was specific even to lesbianism. So I guess Fundamentalist Christians are wrong when they say that gayness is a personal choice.

In Islam, homosexuality and sodomy (Al-Fahishah) are considered synonymous. It is stated in 7:80-83 that it is sinful and perverted deviation from the norm that even jinns didn’t dare to commit. Many Hadiths discuss liwat (sexual intercourse between males). Ibn al-Jawzi records Muhammad as cursing sodomites in several hadith, and recommending the death penalty for both the active and passive partners in same-sex acts.

Two examples are:

"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes."

"Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)

There is at least one mention of lesbian behavior mentioned in the Hadith: "Sihaq (lesbian sexual activity) of women is zina (illegitimate sexual intercourse) among them."

Different Islamic schools deals with homosexuality differently. The Hanafite school (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted. The Hanabalites, (widely followed in the Arab world) teach that severe punishment is warranted. The Sha'fi school of thought (also seen in the Arab world) requires a minimum of 4 adult male witnesses before a person can be found guilty of a homosexual act.

The al-Fatiha Foundation estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in Iran since their revolution in 1979. 10 public executions of homosexuals have been performed in Afghanistan by the Taliban army.

Bigotry Continues

Religious bigotry continue, surprisingly even in a modern society. The Christian TV show The 700 Club on its December 24, 1973 telecast, Pat Robertson urge the US Government to discriminate homosexuals on the same basis that they discriminate “kidnappers, murderers and thieves” because of the homosexual agenda to “destroy all Christians.” Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Enrique Rueda emphasized that homosexuals should never be considered anything less than human.” Dr. Paul Cameron, an anti-gay propagandist even link gay to mass-murder and child molestation in his brochure entitled “Murder, Violence and Homosexuality.”

Death is the worst. Hate crime against homosexual are violent. On March 14, 2007, in Wahneta, Florida, 25-year-old Ryan Keith Skipper was found dead from 20 stab wounds and a slit throat. His body had been dumped on a dark, rural road less than 2 miles from his home.

And who can forget the story of Matthew Shepard? He was a 21-year-old student at the University of Wyoming who was tortured and murdered on the night of October 6–7, and died at Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado, on October 12 from severe head injuries. The worst of the story was the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, led by a certain Fred Phelps, picketed at Shepard's funeral as well as the trial of his assailants, displaying signs with slogans such as "Matt Shepard rots in Hell", "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" and "God Hates Fags".

Homosexuality is not the disease. Gayness don’t kill, it’s those hate crime fueled by religious and cultural bigotry that does. As I now understand them – their real issues, the discriminations, the personal suffering, of both mental and physical harm that bigotry and prejudice have been doing. I got rid myself for this homophobia and I now say to myself in that Pride March that I was gay even for a day.

Atheist

2010-12-13T09:01:00.001+08:00

Atheist
Follow my videos on vodpod

One of the best atheist short feature I have seen so far. the video says it all.

How Jesus Stole Christmas

2010-12-07T18:13:00.010+08:00

According to newly retired bishop Teodoro Bacani Santa Claus is stealing the true spirit of Christmas. He said Filipinos should remember that Christmas is meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

What?

Jesus wasn't born on December 25, so why will it be his birthday?

According to Robert A. Sungenis , in the year 532 the monk Dionysius the Little stated that Christ was born on December 25, 1 BC. Other Catholic apologists connect Jesus’ death at Passover to his birthday. This view was first suggested by French scholar Louis Duchesne in the early 20th century and was fully developed by American Thomas Talley (Louis Duchesne, Origines du culte Chrétien, 5th ed. (Paris: Thorin et Fontemoing, 1925), pp. 275–279; and Talley, Origins.) According to this theory, somewhere in 200 C.E. Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus died was equivalent to March 25 in the Roman (solar) calendar. March 25 is of course, nine months before December 25. This was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation—the commemoration of Jesus’ conception. Thus, Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25.

Nevertheless they are Catholic apologetics. Most Christians don’t even agree with Roman Catholics that Jesus was born on December 25. For them, it was a way for Roman Catholics to connect pagan tradition to Christianity.

The Bible is silent over the issue of Jesus’ birthday. The only Gospels who recorded Jesus birth were Matthew and Luke, yet they did not give any specific date.

So when was it?

The Gospel of Matthew claimed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the reign of King Herod the Great (ca. 73 BCE - 4 BCE). You can find it on Matthew 2:1. Anyway, according to the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius Herod died after a lunar eclipse. That eclipse was said to occurred somewhere between 4BCE to 1 BCE. If that’s the case, then Jesus was born within those dates, according to Matthew.

The Gospel of Luke (Luke 2:1-3) said that on the time of Jesus’ birth, there was a world-wide census ordered by Ceasar Augustus (27 BCE – 14 CE). Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was then governor of Syria in that time (which is mentioned by Luke in Gamaliel’s speech recorded in Acts 5:37). Quirintus was governor from 6 to 7CE.

Now, Matthew said it was between 4 to 1 BCE while Luke says it is between 6 to 7 CE – That’s almost ten years apart!

And what month was Jesus born?

Reading the nativity stories from Matthew and Luke it is impossible to imagine that it took place in December. The Hebrew’s “Tevet” the ninth month of the ecclesiastical year on the Hebrew calendar which corresponded to November–December is subjected to windy cold weather and chilling rains. Reading the Old Testament can give us some evidence that the weather is chilly (Jeremiah 36:22) and rainy (Ezra 10:9, 13). So how can shepherds heard their sheep in a cold, rainy evening and do you think the Wise Men can see a bright star in a cloudy night?

Pagan Origin?

According to Werner Keller's book The Bible as History, “December 25 is referred to in documents as Christmas Day in A.D. 324 for the first time. Under the Roman emperor Justinian [A.D. 527-565] it was recognized as an official holiday. An old Roman festival played a a major part in the choice of this particular day. December 25 in ancient Rome was the 'Dies Natali Invictus,' 'the birthday of the unconquered,' the day of the winter solstice and at the same time, in Rome, the last day of the Saturnalia, which had long since degenerated into a week of unbridled carnival...”(p. 331)

G.J. Whitrow said that the first mention of Christmas day in the Roman calendar was in 354 CE. December 25 was chosen to be the birthday of Jesus Christ to exorcise the festival of the solar solstice (Time in History pp. 69-70).

What ever the reason, that was the time when Rome has found the practical use of Christianity and started replacing paganism. Well, it’s really more like “just changing its clothes.” Most pagan traditions were copied by Christians and used them as their own. Tertullian (160 – 230 CE), one of the early Christian leader, even complained that too many fellow-Christians had copied the Pagan practice of adorning their houses with lamps and with wreathes of laurel at Christmas time.

Happy Birtday Mithras.

Before Christians started celebrating Jesus “birthday” on December 25, another god was celebrating it on the same date. Mithras precedes the Christian Jesus by at least 600 years and his festival was celebrated every December 25.

Mithraism became very popular in Rome, especially to Roman soldiers. Roman worship of Mithras began sometime during the early Roman empire, perhaps during the late first century of the Common Era (hereafter CE), and flourished from the second through the fourth centuries CE. At the time of Emperor Hadrian (76 – 138 BCE), Mithraism was an important religion to the Romans.

According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Mithraism was emphatically a soldier religion: Mithra, its hero, was especially a divinity of fidelity, manliness, and bravery; the stress it laid on good fellowship and brotherliness, its exclusion of women, and the secret bond amongst its members have suggested the idea that Mithraism was Masonry amongst the Roman soldiery (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm).

Mithra is said to be the god of light and justice. Independently of the Zoroastrian reform, Mithra retained his place as foremost deity in the north-west of the Iranian highlands. After the conquest of Babylon this Persian cult came into contact with Chaldean astrology and with the national worship of Marduk. Mithra became the divinity of the Sun.

Here Comes The Sun.

December 25 also correspond to the Feast of the Natalis Solis Invicti – the Roman Sun festival.

In 274 CE, the Roman emperor Aurelian (215-275) adopted the Sun as the Supreme God of the Roman Empire and called it the Unconquered Sun – Sol Invictus.

The Philocalian calendar of 354 AD gives a festival of "Natalis Invicti" on 25 Dec. As the Sun travel south it reaches its lowest point in the sky. That’s winter solstice and it occur between December 21- 22. The ancient believed that the Sun dies in that time since they always notice that it “stop moving.” By December 25 the Sun will be returning northward thus it is again reborn - that’s the time when Romans celebrate the feast of Sol Invictus.

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, article on Constantine the Great:

"Besides, the Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Christians in a Christian sense, as demonstrated in the Christ as Apollo-Helios in a mausoleum (c. 250) discovered beneath St. Peter's in the Vatican."

The date for Christmas may also bear a relation to the sun worship. According to the scholiast on the Syriac bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi, writing in the 12th century:

"It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day." (Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, Ramsay MacMullen. Yale:1997, p. 155)

So with this kind of a rap sheet about Christmas, I think Jesus and Bacani have a lot of explaining to do.

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

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

Atheists in South-East Asia

2010-12-06T13:05:00.003+08:00

I never even imagine that it will happen but it did: Atheism in Indonesia. In a Muslim predominant nation, a 27 year old student named Karl Karnadi stand up for reason.

Indonesia has its shares of religious fundamentalism that is deemed to be dangerous. Fundamentalism give birth to extremist and you know what these extremists care capable of. But now, some of Indonesian’s educated youths like Mr. Karnadi are starting to voice their stance against what they perceived as an “archaic and repressive system.”

Rational thinking doesn’t have any boundaries. So kudos to Karl, Qosbil Alc and all the members of South-East Asian Atheist.org. May we all live in a secular community free from archaic religious doctrine and dogma where reasons prevail.

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

The Rise of Indonesian Atheism

Marcel Thee | December 05, 2010

Embedded within Indonesia’s constitution are the following two lines: “all persons have the right to worship according to their own religion or belief” and “the nation is based upon belief in one supreme God.”

Placed side by side, it’s almost as if those two lines take on a new meaning. Feel free to worship however you choose, but make sure you choose to worship.

However one interprets it, there is no question that inter-religious conflict is on the rise in Indonesia.

Recent confrontations over faith have been allowed to turn the ideal of tolerance on its head with violent and ugly results.

And while finding common religious ground among those of different faiths has always been a delicate dance, it seems there are some people who are interested in changing the tune entirely. I

n greater numbers than ever before, they are standing up and doing the unthinkable: they are proclaiming that they no longer have any religious faith at all.

They are members of a small community of non-believers, otherwise known as atheists, and it seems that many of them are no longer content being silent.

More and more Indonesian non-believers are taking a stance against what they perceive is an archaic and repressive system.

Of course, this being Indonesia, these outspoken non-believers are still relatively few and many choose to mull their rational queries quietly in their own minds rather than submit themselves to becoming outcasts and freaks in their own neighborhoods, communities and even among their own families and friends.

Still, despite the overwhelming odds, the rank of non-believers is growing — largely thanks to the Internet which offers an anonymous meeting place where non-believers can gather without the fear of reprisal.

By utilizing social networking tools such as blogs and Facebook groups, Indonesian non-believers are discovering that there is a considerable amount of like-minded people in the country.

Some of these social networking-based collectives include Indonesian Atheists, Indonesian Freethinkers and Indonesian Atheist Community, just to name a few.

For more of the article, click HERE.

Interested to know more about these Indonesian atheists? Visit their Facebook Page: South-East Asian Atheists (SEA-Atheists.org)

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

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

Sign the petition!

2010-12-02T09:04:00.002+08:00

By signing this document, we, Filipinos of various creeds and beliefs, express our full and unwavering support to our legislators who believe that social development transcends religious dogma.

Please sign and let it be known that we Filipinos don’t tolerate to be pegs of certain church dogmas.

SIGN HERE.

Thank you.

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

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

Becoming human

2010-11-27T16:11:00.000+08:00

Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 22:34:00 11/26/2010

Filed Under: Churches (organisations), Family planning

LAST NOV. 20, a group of about 20 people calling itself Filipino Freethinkers went to the Manila Cathedral where a “Prayer Service for Discernment with Holy Mass—Point of Discernment: RH Bill” was being held. They went there, they said, to express support for the bill. The church bulletin board said, “Everyone is cordially invited.”

The prayer service had been organized by Pro-Life Philippines, led by its president, Eric Manalang, one of the RH bill’s most outspoken opponents.

The Filipino Freethinkers group acceded to the request by Marita Wasan, executive director of Pro-Life Philippines, not to enter the church. They stayed on the courtyard, where, after the service, Manalang and his group approached them and heatedly chided them for their presence. In the video that has been posted online, Manalang can be seen losing his cool and yelling at the group: “Satan, get away from us! You should have asked your mother to abort you!”

The Freethinkers group has also reported in its blog that “They [Pro-Life Philippines] distributed pamphlets claiming, among other things, that even mere condoms—which they wrongly consider abortifacients—could give cancer, heart attacks, stroke and disabilities to the user and their offspring. They claimed that there was universal evidence that condom use increased the spread of AIDS. There is absolutely no evidence that supports any of these claims—and plenty of evidence that contradicts them.”

For more on the article, click HERE.

Anti RH Individuals harass RH Supporters

2010-11-27T08:50:00.000+08:00

Members of Pro-Life Philippines, led by President Eric Manalang, harass RH Bill supporters, which included mothers from the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP) and members of the Filipino Freethinkers (FF).

This video clearly shows

1) that although the RH supporters were denied entry, Marita Wasan, executive director of Pro-Life Philippines, told them that they could wait outside while the mass was going on. They were not asked to leave (at least not until Manalang's outburst.)

2) that there was no "exchange" of harsh words -- all the insults and violence came from the Anti-RH side.

3) that the RH Supporters were respectful -- they were silent and calm even when Manalang and others insulted the RH Supporters and even shoved and tried to take away the cameras of some.

4) that Manalang and Pro-Life Philippines, aside from calling RH Supporters "Satan" also resorted to the following insults:

* "[A Catholic supporting the RH Bill] is an oxymoron" (in response to one of the DSWP mothers saying that she was still a Catholic despite her support for the RH Bill).

* "Your mother should have aborted you" (several Pro-Life members were recorded shouting this while the RH Supporters were leaving Manila Cathedral)

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

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

The Ontological Argument: Pulling a rabbit out of a philosopher's hat.

2010-11-07T14:34:00.003+08:00

I thought Christians are not using this argument anymore.

Anyway...

On the 13th of July 1087 after finishing his breakfast, Anselm (1093-1109) Bishop of Canterbury, claimed that God send him an argument in a vision and it goes like this:

That God Really Exists Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God'"

(Ps. 13:1, 52:1)? But certainly that same fool, having heard what I just said, "something greater than which cannot be thought," understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that I thing exists. For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality.

The truth was, by the early part of the 10th century, most Christian theologians defend their religion in matters of faith. The Arabs were beginning to translate most of Aristotle's work making them available to Jewish and Christians. Induction and systematic testing have entered religious thoughts. Reason have influence medieval theology.

Because of these developments, Anselm claimed that it is possible to affirm God's existence through reason as he was noted in saying, "It seems to me a case of negligence if, after becoming firm in our faith, we do not strive to understand what we believe."

In Proslogion 2 Anselm wrote his argument. The argument can be summarized as:

(1) On the assumption that God is the greatest object of thought. Nothing can be greater than that. Even the fool understands this.

(2) Now a God who exists in the real world is greater than a God who only exists in the mind.

(3) Since it exist in the mind of the fool and God is that which nothing greater can be conceive must also exist outside his mind. Therefore God exist!

Since even fools (or atheists) agrees to the definition that Anselm gave about God, he will be facing a contradiction (reductio ad absurdum) If it is possible to think of a being that is nothing greater can be conceive, does it follow that it will be greater to exist outside of the mind rather than just inside the mind?

The ontological argument is an attempt to prove God exists by definition.

There are other versions of this argument.

Rene Descartes stated the argument in a slightly different way. Descartes wrote in the Fifth Meditation:

But if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something that entails everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in the early eighteenth century, attempted to fill what he took to be a shortcoming in Descartes' view. According to Leibniz, God is at least possible since the concept of Him as the infinite implies no contradiction. If He is possible then He must exist because the concept of Him involves existence.

Ok…ok…nose bleed?

The ontological is really this simple: God is the perfect conceivable being. Now since God is perfect it will be some sort of a defect if it doesn’t exist, right? That will be a contradiction. If the most perfect conceivable being doesn’t exist, we’ll be able to conceive of a more perfect being, namely the one who does exist. It follows that the most perfect conceivable being must actually exist. VIOLA! God just pop out of the philosopher’s magic hat!

The ontological argument is an A Priori argument. That means the argument comes purely from reasoning. No experience necessary.

Anselm’s argument was parodied by another monk in the name of Gaunilo of Marmoutiers (1033-1109) who said that the argument is an example of a reductio ad ansurdum – an argument that could be only valid once proved by means of an actual experience.

He used an imaginary island which he called the fable Isles of the Blessed, as Gaulino wrote on “On Behalf of the Fool.”

For example, they say there is in the ocean somewhere an island which, due to the difficulty (or rather the impossibility) of finding what does not actually exist, is called "the lost island." And they say that this island has all manner of riches and delights, even more of them than the Isles of the Blest, and having no owner or inhabitant it is superior in the abundance of its riches to all other lands which are inhabited by men. If someone should tell me that such is the case, I will find it easy to understand what he says, since there is nothing difficult about it. But suppose he then adds, as if he were stating a logical consequence, "Well then, you can no longer doubt that this island more excellent than all other lands really exists somewhere, since you do not doubt that it is in your mind; and since it is more excellent to exist not only in the mind but in reality as well, this island must necessarily exist, because if it didn't, any other island really existing would be more excellent than it, and thus that island now thought of you as more excellent will not be such." If, I say, someone tries to convince me though this argument that the island really exists and there should be no more doubt about it, I will either think he is joking or I will have a hard time deciding who is the bigger fool, me if I believe him or him if he thinks he has proved its existence without having first convinced me that this excellence is something undoubtedly existing in reality and not just something false or uncertain existing in my mind.

Anselm replied that the argument is not intended to finite ideas but only to the strictly infinite. In short, the ontological argument is applicable only to God.

But suppose Gaulino’s island is some kind of a God island, a super island where all other islands came from…Come on guys, we’re just rationalizing herew. Is that what philosophy is all about?

Anyway, given that Gaulino’s Isles of the Bless is the most perfect island that which no greater island can be conceive, does that follow that this island must exist in real life to be…more perfect?

Is Existence a Property?

Base on Alselm’s argument (and the other derivatives of the Ontological argument), existence is a property and is part of the intrinsic greatness of God.

What does that mean?

Let us ponder a little...is existence a property of an object?

Is it true to say that my dream house will be more perfect if it exist compare than if it does not?

Well…for God not to exist means an imperfection to the idea of God since perfection is a part of God’s definition.

It really doesn’t make any sense? Existence is taken as fact by perfection and imperfection. If something exists it then acquires properties whether it is perfect or imperfect and if something doesn’t exist or loses its existence it is not an imperfection of anything.

You must have experience knowledge of something first before we can talk about its properties…simple put it; Exist first before you have a property!

Immanuel Kant chose to criticize the Ontological Argument on the grounds that it treated existence as though it were a characteristic of an object. He believed existence was not a characteristic of anything. According to Kant, to say that a thing exists is not to attribute existence to that thing, but to say that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world.

Also, there is the problem on the Fallacy of Equivocation. The guy who is using this argument is just switching the meaning of some terms in the course of the argument. In this case, the magic word is “greater than” or “perfect”.

Let see…is the word “perfect” (or greater than) here means “…compare to the most perfect thing to be imagined or is the word “perfect” (or greater than) here means that an existing God is perfect (or greater than) a purely imaginative God?

Greatest Conceivable Thing?

Remember when Anselm created this argument he was thinking of the Western God concept. You know...the omni-all God of the Christian lore. But what will happen if we asked those Asian philosophers who believes that perfection is unconceivable? In Zen Buddhism for example, as soon as God was given a name he ceases to being God. Now what if the greatest conceivable thing is the one that cannot be conceived?

How about if the greatest conceivable thing is a God that can create the Universe in a blink of an eye compare to a God that took Him six days to create a universe? There are a lot of “perfect gods” we can produce with our mind ya know.

In a different argument against Anselm, David Hume used the difference between the relation of ideas (abstract ideas, logic and mathematics) and matters of facts (what exist in the world inductively known through experience). Hume argued that questions regarding the existence of God are matters of facts that require empirical evidence. All assertions about existence of things are matter of facts - and it must be empirically demonstrated.

As Arthur Schopenhauer wrote in his The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, “…without prejudice, this famous ontological proof is really a charming joke.”

I think he’s right.

Science vs. "Science"

2010-11-05T14:44:00.002+08:00

Is science a religion? Is it biased or relative? Well…most theists, post modernists and relativist will agree.

From the Christian apologetic book "When Skeptics Ask", there are two types of science: Operational Science and Origin Science. Operational science seeks answers that are testable by repeating the experiment over and over. Now, it is falsifiable if the cause does not yield the same effect. Its conclusions should allow one to project what will happen in future experiments. That makes operation science predictable. So there’s no room for a supernatural Sky Daddy in its findings.

Origin science on the other hand studies past singularities, not present anomalies. It looks at how things began, not how they work. There singularities are things that happened once and by their nature, won’t happen again.

According to Norman Giesler this origin science is not empirical and its conclusions are not falsifiable (When Skeptics Ask pp. 214-215).

Base on these “definitions” of science I bet Creationists and theists can now squeeze Creation Science as science, right?

So origin science since it is not restricted to secondary causes (those consider as natural causes), we can now posit a “supernatural” first cause as evidence.

Science is Dead
A lot of those who’s into post modernistic view believe in the end of science as a method of acquiring knowledge. They accused scientists on being dogmatic or worst, even bias. They claim that scientists always bring their emotional predispositions to their studies – Darwin formulated his Theory of Evolution because he was an atheist and a materialist. Newton rejected Descartes position because it might challenge his religious belief.

Paul Feyerabend viewed science as a religion for it rests on certain dogma that cannot be rationally justified. The Nobel Prize winning physicist Sheldon Glashow even admitted that his belief in the objectivity of science is simply a matter of faith.

Dr. Lyall Watson pointed out in his book "Beyond Supernature" that the only contradiction between science and pseudoscience are the culturally accepted view of reality. That means science was given an absolute authority to decide what is real and what is not real. Dr. Watson continued, “Science decides what is possible by reference to its definition of reality. Anything which fits the definition is acceptable. Anything which doesn’t fit is impossible and must be rejected.”

A good example of this is how the United State National Academy of Science describes science as “a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exist or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

Wait…Christian say science can look at supernatural possibilities as evidence. Feyerabend says that science is a religion and a faith and New Age practitioners believe science is bias on supernatural issues.

Whatever.

Anyway, let’s take a closer look at what we call “scientific procedure” (that’s scientific method silly!).
Let’s begin with observation. According to Karl Popper the notion that scientific inquiry begins with an observation is absurd. Observation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view and a problem (The Growth of Scientific Knowledge p.46)

Well…as Fredrick Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, just interpretations.”

Now does this imply relativism?

Sure it does.

Thomas Kuhn seems to think that scientists don’t discover the nature of reality; they create it. It has something to do with “paradigm.”

Paradigm?

According to Kuhn, science is like a puzzle solving exercise. The rules of a certain “puzzle” are contained in a paradigm. These paradigms give the scientist what task he must do to solve the puzzle – something like a manual or a rule on how to play the game.

Anyway, certain anomalies arise beside the paradigm from time to time that can’t be solved. When these anomalies become too many to be contained, the scientific community undergoes a “paradigm shift.” (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions p.111)

Going back to Popper, he believes that a scientific procedure should begin with a hypothesis.

So what makes a hypothesis?

It must be falsifiable to empirical statements (er…sorry folks…strict or pure existential statements are not included). If, according to Popper, there isn’t any possible observation that would count against it, it is not scientific.

Karl Popper created an atmosphere in science that falsify rather than verify hypothesis…well he thought that by doing that we can avoid the problem of induction so we can differentiate science against pseudoscience. It turns out to be a BIG MISTAKE!

According to the supernaturalists and to some skeptics, if Popper was right then every theory becomes scientific as long as it can be refuted. Creationism, parapsychology, UFO, Psychic studies and even divination can be a scientific theory!

Induction or Deduction?
There is still a debate in the philosophy of science whether it must use induction or deduction.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) believed that induction is better than Aristotle’s deductive method.
So what he did was to make experimentation first before having a hypothesis. This resulted to the buildup of too many unwarranted extrapolations…in other words; the experiments are just going nowhere.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) introduced enumerative induction to strengthen Bacon’s process. In this method, the process of extrapolation was made sound by the Law of Universal Causation (Cause and Effect). The problem here is that enumerative induction is not a logical guarantor of truth because it is based on assumptions.

William Whewell (1794-1866) thought that scientific investigation must start with hypothesis which has heuristic value in guiding an inquiry. When a hypothesis is confronted with the data, one knows if it is true because of the feeling of harmony generated by the match between the data and the hypothesis.

Mill doesn’t like Whewell’s idea…blah…blah…blah. So the issue still rages on and on and on and on.

So what can I say to all of this?

Well, I suppose scientists are just poor philosophers. They are not philosophically sophisticated in defending their turf against the onslaughts of the theists, the post modernists, the relativist and the deconstructionists. Damn! Scientists can’t even justify their method.

Others think that scientists are such arrogant bastards that there are just in for the money and fame as what Fererabend observed, “Scientists have more money, more authority, more sex appeal than they deserve, and the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence.” (Against Method p. 304)

Some even say that scientists are bias that they even alter their finding to fit a politically desired conclusion (in the case of Nazi and Soviet scientists).

Science or Hidden Agenda?
Let’s go back to Norman Giesler’s origin science.

He went as far as comparing his origin science using a 70’s TV series Quincy M.E. and forensic to prove his point.

According to Geisler, each week Quincy tries to find out what and/or who caused a past singularity (a person’s death) by examining the effect and deciding what kind of thing could have cause that event. This is what origin science seek to do.

Now origin science works on different principles than operation science does. Since the past events that it studies cannot be repeated today, it uses analogy between the kinds of cause/effect relationships that is being studied. (When Skeptics Ask pp. 214-215)

So according to Mr. Giesler origin science studies things that only happened once and by their nature, doesn’t happened again. Hmmmm…it seems to echo Christian theologian Richard Swinburne definition of a miracle as a non-repeatable exemption to the Law of Nature. (The Existence of God p.229)

If Quincy M.E. as Giesler suggested, decides his case by using analogies, I think Dr. Gim Grissom and the rest of the CSI team’s method is more probable. CSI creates models to re-create the crime scene. Unlike Quincy, they used a combination of rational and empirical observation to create a theory (the why and how the victim was killed and a crime was committed). Each case are compared to past cases (so there is not thought of a singularity) with help to different scientific disciples: forensic pathology, crime laboratory, ballistics, forensic anthropology, forensic psychology, forensic entomology, odontology, print identification…you name it. The result (conclusion) is 98 to 99.9% accurate…compare to crime-solving in the 70’s. Forensic science is more that Giesler’s guesswork.

Going back to the subject…
Repeatable events provide more information that may lead to eventual natural descriptions whereas so-called mysterious, unrepeatable event is likely to remain mysterious or it may provide you fantastic results. If “origin science” is positing for a unrepeatable violation of the Laws of nature then it must supply us a good evidence for such violation.

Norman Giesler also said that conclusions made by “origin science” are not falsifiable.

Really?

Then “origin science” not a science.

Science is not about answering questions but rather questioning answers. As David Hume noted enumerative inductions and self-evident conclusions are not science. If science rest on enumerative inductions it rest on a dogma and if it rest on a dogma, it is not a purely rational enterprise.
So why would theistic science shy away from falsification?

So they can more science away from methodological materialism and allow supernatural explanation especially on issues with theological implications. (Science and Religion by Euginie C. Scott, 1998)

Bias?
There are no walls that separate science against pseudoscience claims. Methodological naturalism doesn’t discriminate supernaturalism. It is just a rule to limit objective observation against sciolism. Today scientists are looking on the claims given by “Creation science”, ESP, UFO and other supernatural declarations.

If maybe those into supernaturalism can provides us some reliable evidence…as they say, “extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.”

“Relative Science”
Kuhn and Feyerabend claimed that observation in science is bias since all of it are dependent of the theory (remember Kuhn’s paradigm?). Since each theory is described by a paradigm, then there are no neutral data that can be used to determine a theory.

Oh wait?

If Kuhn and Feyerabend are correct then it should be impossible to look at anything that doesn’t fit our paradigm? If it’s impossible to perceive anything that doesn’t fit our paradigm, then it’s impossible for there to be any anomalies. And if it’s impossible for there to be any anomalies, it is impossible for there to be any paradigm shift.

Unlike Kuhn’s paradigm shifts changes do occur in science. For example, Ptolemaic geocentric universe was replaced by Copernicus’ heliocentric system and Curbier’s catastrophism was replaced by Chales Lyell’s uniformitarianism.

Speaking of observation, Karl Popper was incorrect to say that all observations are selective. There are two types of observation: Recognition and Discrimination. Recognition may involve the use of concepts but discrimination doesn’t for if it does then we would never perceive anything new (See: Hundert 1987, 413, 420—21).

Post Modern Relativism
Kuhn’s idea seems to suggest conceptual relativism – that the world and truth are manufactured by conceptual schemes.

If that’s the case…then Kuhn’s and Feyerabend’s findings are also in a paradigm which makes it non-universally accepted – it is only correct on their own observation and not on other observations. That will also make a conclusion that Kuhn and Feyerabend created their observations, their theory and their scenarios…so they are biased because of their own paradigm! Ah…the wonder of relativism.

Science vs. “Science”
We can throw every philosophical gerrymandering to science, but that doesn’t make science least scientific. We say that scientists are bias…but that’s it – scientists are not science. Science still is superior to other methods of inquiry because it provides better explanation and result. Come on guys…postmodernism didn’t eradicated smallpox and relativism didn’t invent your PC.

So how does science work?

It starts with the brain and…oh come on! Are you gonna accused me of being a positivist again? Anyway, it always starts with “I don’t know.” As a sense-perception organism, we experience in our senses what our brain is told by…yes…the senses! Sounds empirical? Nah! You’re just philosophizing again.

Going back to your brain, you can now discover what’s out there by observing things. In observation we gather data through the senses or sensory enhancing technology, as Arthur Stanley Eddington said, “For the truth of the conclusions of science, observation is the Supreme Court of Appeals.”

You are now ready to build a theory…We are now entering what we called “scientific method.”

Sometimes you find a contradiction with your observation and your reasoning so you create a hypothesis (a working guess) that would eliminate the contradiction. You test it by standards of experiments and you can share this by replication the same experience in another person.

You explain to other people your observation and the contradictions you found. Induce them to experience it. Help them, stimulate them. They may even create a new hypothesis.

OK, you now have two working guess. Let see which hypothesis is right or maybe both of you are wrong.
Now you have two, or three or five or a whole classroom of minds experiencing what you have experience. As a matter of fact you can imitate Erostosthenes experiment and get the same result.

You will find a lot of answers…start questioning them.

We can call it what we want…yes these Christians, post modernists, nihilists and relativist can use all their philosophical mumbo-jumbo to discredit science and its methodological naturalism…but again it’s really a waste of time. It’s just plain rhetoric against science as Max Perutz said, “a piece of humbug masquerading as an academic discipline.” Remember, the problem are the scientists, not science.

What can I say? In philosophical examinations the truth as so often lies somewhere in between.

So as philosophy was reduced to personal ethics and language game and as some philosophers announced its death and while others are still trying to figure their way out on some philosophical mess they’ve themselves created, I can always rely to science to show me the wonders of this universe. It is still the best we got so far compare to rhetoric, dialectics, beauty and revelation from God.

As the late Carl Sagan have said, “Because science carries us toward an understanding of the world is, rather than how we would wish it to be, its findings may not in all cases be immediately comprehensible or satisfying. It may take little work to restructure our mind sets.

Some of science is very simple. When it gets complicated, that’s usually because the world is complicated – or because we’re complicated.

But then we pass beyond the barrier, when the findings and the methods of science get through to us, when we understand and put this knowledge to use, many feel deep satisfaction.”

That explanation is good enough for me.

Ciao!

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

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

Is this Necessary?

2010-10-28T10:42:00.000+08:00

When we talk about any form of cosmological argument whether it’s from Thomas Aquinas or something as sophisticated as Dr. Craig’s Kalam Argument, the issue about “necessary” will always enter the picture.

So let us just talk about what most theists meant when they use the word “necessary.”

A Brute Fact?

I’ve notice that whenever God believers talk about the cosmological argument they always start the conversation that God as a necessary Being is a brute fact. That prompts Prof. Richard Dawkins to say, "They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress" (The God Delusion, p 101). That means before everything else, I have to accept the fact that God exist.

Getting a little bit technical, that means God is a necessary truth – if you conceive of it as false, you’ll end up contradicting yourself, because its truth is built right into the concept that composed it. To know that it is true, you don’t have to know anything but the meaning of those concepts; you don’t have to know any other facts about the world. So it is either God exist or the whole universe is unexplainable. This has something to do with the Principle of Sufficient Reason. According to this principle, nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence.

This is an advance form of Anselm’s ontological argument. According to Norman Malcolm what we have to accept in talking about God is the following: (1) Either God’s existence is logically impossible or (2) it is logically necessary for God to exist. But we can’t select the first option since God is the greatest conceivable being we can think of. For God not to exist is a defect which contradicts the concept of God’s very nature. (Not a very good selection to choose eh?) So when we apply the Principle of Sufficient Reason, then VIOLA! God exist!

And what is the “sufficient reason?”

Bertrand Russell explained that the contingency argument rest on a misconception of what an explanation is and does and singularity on what it is that makes phenomena “intelligible.”

Suppose we have been asked to explain why Benigno Aquino III won the 2010 election. Do we have to look for his genealogy or to go back to Prehistoric Philippines to answer this? We can always answer things like his popularity on his rivals or the fact that because of his famous mom and dad, he became too popular to most Filipino voters. We can think of different reasons (causes and effects) but what matter is that we understand the reason. As stated by Russell, in order to explain a phenomenon or to make it intelligible, we don’t need to posit a necessary being.

God believers says that the Principle of Sufficient Reason can’t be wrong since it has been a part of the scientific worldview for a long time in the sense that scientists are committed not only in figuring out the way the world is but also the reason why it is that way. That’s true…but science is controlled by rules of discourse. In science necessarily entails objectivity whose propositions are constructed from data.

Going back on the issue, the facts of the matter in the issue of “necessary” is that there really aren’t any established reason to say that the existence of anything (including God) as necessary. Can you tell me one?

Necessary truths are not established on the basis of sense-experience. They are either intuitively analytic or deduced from intuitively acceptable premises. Logical and mathematical truths are generally regarded as the paradigms of necessary truths. It is a difference between “matters of logic” from “matters of facts”.

Want to know the difference?

OK…It is matters of logic to say that a triangle is an angle with 3-sides…Now to say that it doesn’t you are contradicting yourself. But it is a question of fact which logic alone cannot settle whether there’s a giant triangle standing in the middle of EDSA near Cubao’s Farmer’s Plaza on October 27, 2010 at exactly 7:30 AM.

Necessary truth can only be applied to statements because logic applies only on statements. So to accept that God is the most perfect, conceivable being I can imagine is a necessary truth and to say that it doesn’t exist will lead me to a contradiction. But to say that this “most perfect, conceivable being I can imagine” is here, talking to me right now and He’s wearing a pink boxer short…well…we’ll have a problem with that.

Ciao!

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

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

Faith as a Virtue?

2010-10-21T08:45:00.002+08:00

October 25 will be election time again and this time we’re going to elect local candidates that will represent our baranggay. Funny that most of these aspiring candidates include Bible verses or the name of God on their campaign slogans and printed materials as if belief in God is a plus. It was not surprising that when Mrs. Aquino died in August 1, 2009, many reporters and articles (on newspapers, magazines, TV talk shows and the Internet) have pointed out her being faithful. The former President in known to her devotion to the rosary and the Roman Catholic Church.

I won't criticize her on her personal devotion to God. That's her business. What I'm after is how the common masses assume that when a person is devoted to God that makes him/her a good leader. As if faith is a positive virtue.

Believers assume everyone (even atheists and agnostics) have this er…faith. They say that non-believer have faith in the books that they read. They also say that we used faith daily in our lives. When we ride a taxi or a plane, we have faith that the driver or the pilot knew what he or she is doing. And so on.

So is this the same faith we used when talking about religious belief?

If you try looking in the dictionary, we see that faith is sometimes expressed to be synonymous with the word ‘trust’. Maybe that’s what some believers meant when they assume that even non-believers have faith. But we’re talking about faith in a religious sense. Trust or confidences about a high degree of belief are used for some certain claims or products. Well…your trust may be ill-based or inadequate. Your confidence from something or someone might be reasonable or unreasonable – but this is not the faith we are talking about. Trust or confidence doesn’t make a worldview. The faith that we are talking about doesn’t require any empirical evidences unlike some advertisements that show us data or statistics perhaps…Nope. This type of faith creates gods.

When our leaders rely in this kind of faith it means we as a nation are wishing for a Divine Providence to fix our problems by using His divine will for us…as if we can’t do it without the aid of a supernatural wishy-washy!

Hey! Believers will still insist that faith can strengthen or will. Just look at what happened in those miners that were trapped for two months in Chile, right?

Really huh? Remember that the will to survive is stronger that the will of God. If those miners surrendered their fate to the will of our Lord, I don’t think there will be any survivors left. Those Bibles and prayers just served as an inspiration to their will to live and even without those religious paraphernalia, the love to family and friends (plus the nature of the cave-in, air pockets, etc.) will also serve the same effect.

But was it an act of faith?

If we will define faith base on how religious believers define it then the answer is no. Even if those miners believed that God will save them, they still acted together to ensure their survival. The will to live is to cling on worldly matter, not on spiritual salvation.

Going back to the Philippine scenario. To believe that God will work a miracle to save your country is a different matter. When people start to believe that religious faith is a very important factor in selecting their leaders that spells trouble. Since God cannot (and doesn’t) speak certain people will claim to do the speaking for Him.

Bishops, priests, pastors and Ayatollah will imposed their doctrines and dogmas, their opinions based on their sacred writings to the rule of the land. Faith is now replaced by theocracy run by these “holy men.” Sacred books and divine knowledge will replace text books and science. Prayers will replace medicine and divine revelation will replace experiments.

The problems of this kind of faith are more than just believing, for this type of faith requires obedience and total control of someone’s life. Since this so-called “Supreme Being” is invisible, men will rely to the visible so-called self-appointed spokespersons of God, giving these “men of God” total power to control his life.

So this is what this faith can offer. It is an invisible shackle that some people are willing to place on themselves. It is a blindfold that believers willingly cover their eyes – a voluntary rejection of knowledge. A nation whose sovereignty wrapped by a thick veil of this faith is trap - it will never prosper and its people will remain ignorant. It will be ensnared in the doctrines of a few Ecclesiastical authorities.

Being a lifetime religious stooge is not a virtue.

Lack of Belief in Gods

2010-10-20T15:06:00.002+08:00

Explaining the concept, refuting common objections and giving a number of reasons that atheists are sometimes 'fervent'.

Morals Without God?

2010-10-20T10:31:00.001+08:00

By FRANS DE WAAL

I was born in Den Bosch, the city after which Hieronymus Bosch named himself. This obviously does not make me an expert on the Dutch painter, but having grown up with his statue on the market square, I have always been fond of his imagery, his symbolism, and how it relates to humanity’s place in the universe. This remains relevant today since Bosch depicts a society under a waning influence of God.

Critical Analysis of "Case for a Creator"

2010-10-08T17:18:00.002+08:00

More of these videos and others @ SupportExtantDodo's Channel

Damaso!!!

2010-10-08T15:57:00.005+08:00

Padre Damaso was a portrait - a perfect caricature of Roman Catholicism in the Philippines.

Dámaso Verdolagas was a perfect villain. Cunning, self-righteous hypocrite Damaso was a man of faith who hides a dark, immoral secret. A meddler with little concern to those he hurts.

Padre Damaso was an antagonist, just like today’s bishops (not only in Rizal’s time) – those who use religion not only as a shield, but also as a weapon, protection, citadel, fortress and armor.

It is not a new story, not even in the late 19th century Philippines. The Roman Catholic Church has been using it so-called divine right to meddle in secular affairs. Let us start from the beginning…no, not from Jesus who said to render unto Caesar what is Ceasars’ (Matthew 22:21).

Let us start from the Fathers of the Church. Ambrose (374-397 CE) was once a lawyer and the Governor of Liguria before becoming the Bishop of Milan insisted that the Catholic Church is supreme even to the Emperor. According to him, the emperor is within the church, not above it. Augustine (354-430 CE) wrote The City of God and on its pages he declared the infallible authority of the Catholic Church. According to him, if the state wants to be a part of the City of God, it has to obey the Church.

By the Middle Ages it was a tradition that only if kings walked the ways of righteousness, as the Church interpreted those ways, could they obtain felicity, good harvest and victory over their enemies. In that time, the king (which represents the state) gets his authority from the blessing of the Pope (Catholic Church) who believed to be the direct representative of Jesus here on earth…and that is not enough.

Lothario Conti who would later become Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) declared himself as the half-way between God and man. He imposed that everything in the world is the province of the Pope and that St. Peter has been ordained by Jesus to govern not only the universal church but the entire secular world.

And what did the Catholic Church gained? It acquired lands and riches that were given by kings that became patrons and this gave the Catholic clerics strong control over men.

Ekskommunikado Ka!!!

Because of these recent events in the issue of artificial birth control and responsible parenthood, the word excommunication was again resurrected from its forgotten slumber.

Excommunication was the Roman Catholic answer to those who defy their orders…well that was when most people still believe in curses and bad omen. In those times, excommunication is the most horrifying thing that can happen to a person. When a person was excommunicated he is persons are barred from participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity and from receiving the Eucharist or the other Sacraments. Well…your chances of going to heaven will be quite slim.

It was believed that social ostracism as form of a discipline can be found in the Bible (Matthew 18:17) but the idea originated in the pagan ritual of divotio. It was first described in detail in a 3th century Syrian document, the Didascalia. In 1078, Pope Gregory VII produced the Quoniam multus which was designed as a rule dealing with excommunicants. In fact, Gregory VII extended the idea and practice of excommunication.

In the Catholic Church, formal excommunication is normally resolved by a statement of repentance, profession of the Creed (if the offense involved heresy), renewal of obedience by the excommunicant and the declaration of the reconciliation itself during the act of confession.

Here in the Philippines, it is said that all Catholics who participated in the creation of an independent church in the Philippines, in 1902 were excommunicated. Also, Xavier Eubra de Borja was excommunicated by Bishop Honesto Ongtioco of the diocese of Cubao in the Phillipines. de Borja untruthfully claimed to be an ordained priest when he was a layman even offering Mass and hearing confessions.

Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication." This means that at the very moment that the abortion is successfully accomplished, the woman and all formal conspirators are excommunicated. There are no laws in the Roman Catholic canon that says using artificial contraception can lead a person to be excommunicated.

Responsibility

Dr. Jose Rizal (1861-1896) wrote the Noli to distinguished the true religion from the false, the superstitious from that commercialism that uses the sacred word to extort money, to make us believe in foolish things, of which Catholicism would be ashamed if it had known from them…that is his own words. Well, as we recall our history, Catholicism was used by Spain not just to…er…spread the Good News.

Even today, the Roman Catholic Church still insist that its stand against artificial birth control is a call against the moral implication of these methods. The church is adamant that it is only protecting the state against immorality. But is morality the only issue? How about doctrines…are that also a part of the responsibility?

The main reason why the Catholic Church is against artificial birth control is found in their doctrines that promotes Natural Law. Artificial birth control methods alter God’s intention – the natural consequences when man and woman form a union. Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae condemned artificial birth control methods as he said the following:

But the Bible gives clear and direct guidance on many topics of morality, but not on birth control. In fact, the Bible is clear in that matter that if a fetus died but still unformed, the person that accidentally killed it will not receive the death penalty (Exodus 21:22). The Bible is also specific that life came from the blood (Leviticus 17:11)…so does that follow that a fetus is truly human when he is 18 to 21 days after conception?

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Catholics believe that God gave humanity with stewardship to all of what He created. Does it also follow that it is natural for humans to seek all available alternatives?

Today the issue of over-population is turning our survival at a balance and the time has come for Roman Catholics to recognize that traditional dogmas can’t save us. Responsibility doesn’t end on conception, it starts there. Responsibility also includes thinking for your child and your neighbor’s welfare.

We must stop listening to Padre Damaso. All he did was to bring despair and hopelessness to Maria Clara and Ibarra. Personal theologies and doctrines are not solutions. What we must do is to throw Damaso and let the “Pilosopong Tasyo” re-kindle our rationality to save our own patrimony.

Kumakalam Nanaman

2010-10-08T08:38:00.003+08:00

In my recent article regarding the Kalam Argument on the existence of God, I have a...well...a reaction from a certain Christian reader. Ok…let me address his comments and at least the said comments can serve as an update on how Filipino Christian apologists approached the Kalam argument (as I have said in the last article, we all need an upgrade).

Christian: on Premise 1, William Lane Craig has already answered the atheist’s question. (Link: Question 106: Is God Actually Infinite?)

Is that the answer of premise 1? Let see…

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

I don’t even see any question to this premise.

I think what the premise is saying is that everything that came to existence has a cause.

Now going back to the issue, it seems the Christian taught that I was talking about the infinite existence of God. The issue here is if actual infinity cannot exist and God is infinite then how did He have lived through an infinite number of hours. I'm not talking about God but on the infinite "hours" that God have lived His life in another dimension.

Well, the best response here that a Christian can used is that God is outside time.

So again, that brings us to the problem of a God that is outside time.

Another response is that God’s time is different from the time in our universe. God’s time is different than our way of viewing things. It is much larger. Really?

So how can we be certain of this “God time?” Well, Dr. Craig calls this a “God’s metaphysical time.” (For more about Craig’s metaphysical time see: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/metaphysical-time.pdf)

According to Dr. Craig, metaphysical time is tensed, dynamic, and non-relative. There is an ever changing fact of the matter about which events are future, which present, and which past. Future events become present, present events become past, and past events sink further and further into the past. Now does this metaphysical time have a beginning? Yes according to Dr. Craig and the very first event in metaphysical time must be a timeless person.

If I’m going to accept this God could have created this metaphysical time long before creating the space-time of our universe, it follows that there could have been something temporally prior to the earliest point in space-time, and Dr. Craig’s argument for creation ex nihilo would then be false.

Anyway, according to Dr. Craig, "denying that God is actually infinite in the quantitative sense in no way implies that God is finite. This inference does not follow, since the quantitative sense of infinity may be simply inapplicable to God." In short, only finite things are under that rule (pwera ang diyos).

So here's the problem. Actual infinite cannot exist, yet an absolute infinite time can exist (that’s the time when God created the metaphysical time of course)..weh?

Those who started the Kalam argument feels that time is finite...for example, al-Kindi felt that time was finite because an actual infinite is impossible and time is a quantitative thing that must be finite in measure (1979, 25). Saadia also felt that the concept of infinite time is reduced to absurdity because of the problem of regressing an actual infinite (Craig, 1979, 39).

So that's it...time is finite, yet God existed for an “infinite time”...oh well...

The Christian may not have been updated after all when he said: “God is outside our universe. He is also not subjected to time.” For WLC, God is “timeless, spaceless”(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5180), which is different from the Christian’s response.

Moreover, I wonder where the Christian got the idea when he said,“God created this ‘place’ on his own being.” Actually he was led into it by the previous answer of the atheist, because he himself gave the wrong answer to the atheist.

Additional:

On timeless and spaceless:

“For as the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions. Ockham’s Razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe out of nothing.” —WLC (http://www.euroleadershipresources.org)/resource.php?ID=51)

What are the problems to such claims? According to John R. Lucas, “To say that God is outside time, as many theologians do, is to deny, in effect, that God is a person.” (Concepts of Person and Christian Ethics by Stanley Rudman p. 154) He continues, "if I will try to resolve the problem of God's omniscience by making him timeless, I may create a worse problem by denying to Him the essence of what it means to be a person."

Ah OK...so a timeless and space less God is not a person. I can't make a relationship with a non-person, can you?

The western Christian God is a personal god. He is a deity who judge people. This god in not a mere impersonal being - he thinks, imagine, act, he has emotion - he can be jealous, happy, sad and angry (a lot)

Being outside time.

The guy to be blamed here is the pagan philosopher Plotinus (204-207 CE). Plotinus took the idea from Plato who took it from guys like Parmenides. So, if you guys want a God who is quite beyond intellectual discourses, you can always rely on Plotinus to do the job right (Yep, Plotinus is also the guy who invented the Trinity Doctrine).

Now, since God is considered immutable (cannot and does not change) it was deem to be compatible on being timeless (again...thanks to the Neo-Platonists). Immutability and being eternal are Greek ideas of a perfect god.

If you believe that God is a person, well...you might encounter some problems.

A timeless being cannot think since mental events and successions of thought use up time. He doesn't have any intelligence since thinking and planning requires time. Also, a timeless being is a block of stone since time is necessary for movement. In relation with space, a being who is timeless and space-less will be trapped in his own attributes.

On Premise 2:

With the introductory statement:

Pinoy Atheist just dumped Physics’ own definition of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe). I wonder how he could even start discussing about the universe with an atheist-physicist, if he could not even agree with the physicist in the definition of the universe.

With Pinoy Atheist’s question:

“Now if the universe is not included (or the same as) everything, then how can its beginning (the universe) the same with the beginning of everything?” he should ask a physicist, because that is physics’ claim.

Defining the Universe.

The Christian seems to define the word universe base on a physicist's definition...now, how can we define the word "universe?"

According to his own source, the Wikipedia, it defines the universe as commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all physical matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, although this usage may differ with the context. The term universe may be used in slightly different contextual senses, denoting such concepts as the cosmos, the world, or nature.

The word universe was derived from the Old French word Univers, which in turn derives from the Latin word universum.The Latin word was used by Cicero and later Latin authors in many of the same senses as the modern English word is used. The Latin word derives from the poetic contraction Unvorsum — first used by Lucretius in Book IV (line 262) of his De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) — which connects un, uni (the combining form of unus', or "one") with vorsum, versum (a noun made from the perfect passive participle of vertere, meaning "something rotated, rolled, changed"). Lucretius used the word in the sense "everything rolled into one, everything combined into one".

So what's the difference between everything and the universe?

Well just look at your dictionary folks. Everything means, "All things or all of a group of things."

Now again...is the universe included with everything or is it separate? If 'universe' is defined as the same as 'everything' (or vice versa) then a set should not be considered a number of itself. Now if the universe is not a member of itself, its beginning is not the same with the other beginning. Simple rule huh? And of course I don't need to bother a physicist about it.

Pinoy Atheist claimed he dumped Premises 1 & 2. I did not even see any falsification that “The universe began to exist” in his presentation/imaginary discussion. I can’t even trace what he believes about the universe: if it eternal or temporal or what? So how does this dump the idea that “the universe began to exist,” if Pinoy Atheist affirms spontaneous cause of the universe? Did he not just agree with Premise 2?

Hmmmm...Seems he doesn't have any idea about syllogisms.

Now let's see, did I agree with Premise 2? In syllogism, the axiom or premises are not independent with one another. That means each premise is in relationship with each other. Now let see... In premise one: Everything that exists has a cause must follow premise 2 that the universe began to exist so we can have the conclusion that the universe has a cause.

Let’s review the following syllogism:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.

So how did I eliminate those two?

In Premise (1) we found a problem in the word “everything”. 1.) It doesn’t include God. Remember that the Kalam argument is proving the existence of God, right? So why he is already excluded in the argument?

In Premise (2) I am questioning if the universe and “everything” (in premise 1) is the same entity?

So if Premise (1) and Premise (2) has a problem, how can we arrive at the conclusion?

If he says that I agreed to premise two that..."the universe began to exist in spontaneous cause” that violates premise one and that will have an effect with the conclusion. Oh, and why talk about what I believed? The article is not about me.

There are at least 10 possible interpretations of quantum mechanics, including determined and indeterminate. It cannot be conclusively said that quantum mechanics are spontaneous and accidents, not yet! Moreover, physicists are having a hard time proving that quantum mechanics can cause a universe. Probabilistic Causation is not WLC's own. It is part of Philosophy

Who's saying the term probabilistic causation is Dr. Craig's own invention? You can find some references about this on Dr. Craig and Dr. Smith discussion on that matter (Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology By William Lane Craig, Quentin Smith).

Dr. Craig claims that quantum events are caused in a non predetermined manner which he calls probabilistic causality. That means the cause could be accidental, spontaneous - not predetermined.

I've already wrote a response to this base on David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779)

According to David Hume, "In such a chain too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it, and causes which succeed it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct counties into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts."

That means when we speak of causes there must be an explanation for an event. Spontaneous events don't have any explanation. No explanation, no cause.

Let’s be a little scientific here… According to Quintin Smith, “The wave function of the universe in Hartle and Hawking's paper gives a probabilistic and noncausal explanation of why our universe exists. More precisely, it provides an unconditional probability for the existence of a universe of our sort (i.e., an expanding [and later contracting] universe with an early inflationary era and with matter that is evenly distributed on large scales). Given only their functional law of nature, there is a high probability that a universe of this sort begins to exist uncaused.” (Philo: A Journal of Philosophy, Volume 1, Issue 1, 1998, pp. 75-94.)

Until next time.

Defiance: No more Padre Damaso

2010-10-02T09:00:00.000+08:00

Yesterdays (October 1) rally in front of the CBCP was a success!

Carlos Celdran in Jail.

2010-10-01T08:11:00.002+08:00

RH advocate Carlos Celdran arrested for protesting inside cathedral. (From GMANews.TV - Friday, October 1)

(UPDATED 8:15 P.M.) Famed Manila tour guide and reproductive health advocate Carlos Celdran was detained by Manila police on Thursday for disrupting a mass at the Manila Cathedral, where he staged a protest action against the bishops' opposition to the reproductive health bill.

Dressed as Jose Rizal, Celdran stood in front of the Manila Cathedral altar during a mass, holding a sign bearing the words "Damaso." MARIZ UMALI

Dressed as Jose Rizal, Celdran stood in front of the Manila Cathedral altar during a mass with Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim and several bishops present, holding a sign bearing the words "Damaso" -- a reference to the villainous friar from the novel "Noli Me Tangere."

He screamed, "Stop getting involved in politics" before he was taken away by the police at around 4:30 p.m.

Manila Cathedral rector Msgr. Nestor Cerbo said that Celdran was guilty of "disruption of worship, which is a very sacred thing which should be given utmost respect."

At around 8:15 p.m. the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines filed charges against Celdran for violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits "offending religious feelings."

The exact text of the article says that "the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful."

Aside from leading popular walking tours of Manila's historical spots, Celdran is also a vocal advocate of the Reproductive Health Bill. He has used his blog, Facebook account, and Twitter account to criticize the Catholic church for its stance against artificial contraceptives and sex education.

Police said it was Mayor Lim who ordered that Celdran be taken into police custody.

"Nandoon si Mayor Lim sa misa eh. Nilapitan siya ng pari. Ang nagmimisa doon, sundalo at mga police. Kinuha (si Celdran) ng mga pulis na nakikinig ng misa," said SPO2 Ernesto Andres, desk officer of the PCP Intramuros.

In a telephone interview, Celdran told GMANews.TV that the police were treating him well. "I think I got them on my side, because I told them the reason why I did this," he added.

"The fact the police are in semi-agreement with my cause, although they cannot do anything about it, shows how much people want the RH bill to be passed and how much the church should stop getting involved in politics and stop threatening the president," he added.

Pres. Aquino said today that he was unfazed by threats from the Catholic church to excommunicate him unless he changes his position that the state should respect the choices couples will make when planning their families.

At around 6:00 p.m., Celdran was transferred from Intramuros to the police community precinct in Ermita. "Doon sila maga-areglo," Andres said.

Celdran was placed in handcuffs during his transfer to the MPD Station 5 in Ermita. MARIZ UMALI. At around 7:00 p.m., GMA News reporter Mariz Umali tweeted that Carlos was placed behind bars while waiting for charges to be filed. She later said that Celdran would stay in jail overnight and possibly into the next day.

This photo taken around 7:00 p.m. shows Celdran, still in full Rizal costume, behind bars at the Manila Police District Station 5 in Ermita. MARIZ UMALI.

Last Tuesday, President Aquino announced that he would continue to support responsible parenthood and informed choice in family planning.

"Even during the [the presidential] campaign the president already stated his position on the matter. It's more of responsible parenthood. We believe that parents should be the one to decide on the size of their family, the manner and the method by which the planning should be done," said presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda.

In response, Catholic bishops threatened to stage protests if the reproductive health bill is passed into law. - YA/HS, GMANews.TV

Rizal behind bars: the arrest of Carlos Celdran

Internet revolution spells death for religion

2010-09-15T08:49:00.000+08:00

by Mr. Ian Baltazar

I READ Rigoberto Tiglao’s column “God and the Pope under attack (Part 1).” (Inquirer, 7/8/10) I am glad someone from the mainstream media has finally caught up with the increasing rise of atheism and agnosticism in our country. I am a secular humanist/atheist and I am actively involved in the international humanist movement. I resigned recently as executive director of the Center for Inquiry Philippines.

Fror more of the article, click HERE.

Official Annual Atheist/Agnostic Door Knocking Day

2010-09-12T08:25:00.005+08:00

The Atheist Door Knocking Society (ADKS) is a non-profit organization committed to the spreading the word of common sense to everyone one door at a time. We hope to unleash mankind from the shackles of "religion" thus resulting in everyone everywhere taking responsibly for their own actions instead of hiding behind some omnipotent power.

Atheist_DKS@live.com

An Invitation...

2010-09-11T09:10:00.001+08:00

I just like to invite you guys on a meeting this September 18, 2010 in Shangri-La Mall, EDSA (6th floor near Starbucks) @ 2PM.

We will be planning to create a film about atheism in the Philippines (the very first) and we need minds to interact so this plan will be a success. It's time we show the world and those Christian evangelists

that we Filipinos are also capable of being rational.

We will be very much happy to see your presence in that meeting.

Thank you and see you there

REBUILD THE WORLD TRADE CENTER!

2010-09-11T09:03:00.001+08:00

The people who are building the mosque says it will be in memorial of the victims of 9/11. If you really want to help us remember the victims who died in that Islamic terrorist attack, REBUILD THE WORLD TRADE CENTER!

Time to lift taboo on atheism

2010-09-09T08:03:00.000+08:00

Fom Otago Daily Times. Online Edition

Thursday, 9 September 2010

Year 13 student Alex Black, of Mt Aspiring College, argues that it is important for atheists to come out of the closet, and that society treat them with tolerance and respect.

I like oranges. iPhones are cool. Money is worthless. Family is important.

Mountains are beautiful. Individuality is good. I am an atheist.

These are all simple statements which are mostly unremarkable and most of which should cause no offence or interest.

Except one: I am an atheist.

Atheism is not a philosophy.

It is not a religion. It is not a way of life. It is not a belief system.

It is not a moral code and it is not a political agenda.

There is only one thing you have learnt about me, and that is the simple fact that I do not believe in the existence of a God.

The problem I often encounter is people's assumption that knowing something a person doesn't believe in, tells you something about what they do believe in.

People often say to me, "You're an atheist? Not believing in a God, I'm OK with.

But can't you accept the moral teachings of religion?"I reply, "Of course I can. I'm an atheist; not a moral nihilist."

Unlike religious organisations, atheists have no community.

They do not have weekly gatherings; they do not have a building in which to discuss their opinions; they do not, as a group, have political influence or money.

All this makes atheists the perfect target for discrimination.

I believe the situation atheists are in at the moment is similar to the one which the gay community faced 50 years ago, before the Gay Pride movement.

Atheism is still a relatively unacceptable and taboo subject.

This was highlighted by an American study documented in Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion.

The study surveyed Americans from all walks of life and asked them whether they would vote for an otherwise well-qualified person who was: a woman (95% would), Roman Catholic (94% would), Jewish (92% would), black (92% would), Mormon (79% would), homosexual (79% would) or atheist (only 49% would).

It is remarkable that atheists have such a bad reputation, when you can look at a newspaper and read that a Shi'ite Muslim set off a suicide bomb in a market in Afghanistan filled with Sunni Muslims.

Yet how often do you hear about atheist extremists? The closest we have is Richard Dawkins, the Oxford professor who became famous for his revolutionary books on evolution.

Prof Dawkins made headlines last year - and was hated - for a privately funded bus campaign which displayed an advertisement saying, "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

I, like Prof Dawkins, am trying to encourage the wider acceptance of atheism.

In my vision of the world, I see people of all religions and all beliefs working together, because we are all ultimately human.

I am not trying to persuade you to become a moral nihilist or abandon your beliefs.

I am only imploring you to accept the views of others.

For now, I am content to live in the knowledge that some of the questions I ask have no answer.

As Douglas Adams once said: "Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it, too?"

Not an Ounce of Truth (My responce to truthfind123) Part 2

2010-09-08T11:44:00.001+08:00

Let us continue...

Here is an easy example to understand the justice and righteousness of God.

Suppose a thief stole a billon dollars from a bank, spent all of them, and later was caught. Is it just and right for the judge to release the thief if he confesses his crime with sincere remorse? No, then the justice would not be exercised the way it should be. The appropriate consequence for his sin must be paid by the thief or somebody else, and that is the justice everybody agrees.

Are you trying to compare the modern justice system to your Christian view point @ truthfind123? Well…if I will apply modern penology to that, we will not need Jesus. You see, we reform wrong doers, we don’t kill them. Criminals are brought to jail to be reformed and re-introduced to society. Punishment is not about death, it’s about being re-educated…Maybe you think that retribution is the same as justice.

The animal sacrifice devised by God reveals the characters of God, both his righteousness (The consequence of our sins must be paid) and his love (The consequence of our sins is paid by animals instead of us who committed the sins). In spite of God’s continuous forgiveness of their sins through the animal sacrifice, God’s people (Israel) again returned to the sin and rebellion after a short moment of remorse, revealing the persistent nature of sin in human beings. Temporarily restored relationship through the animal sacrifice lead again to their separation from the love of God. After the great fall human beings could not get out of the bondage of sins on their own in spite of their desire and effort.

Unconditional love, animal sacrifice? I don't get it.

Now why does a loving god, that is suppose to have an unconditional love with us, still has a need of animal sacrifice? Is God being appleased by butchering and mutilation? Where is the rightheousness and justice in forgiving someone's fault by slitting the neck of a defenseless lamb?

Animal sacrifice is just one of those ugly practices in ancient Palestine. Ancient men believed that the blood of an innocent, clean animal (without blemished) will somehow appeased their gods.

Despite the original intention of God (“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”: Matthew 19:26), the people of Israel continued trying to keep all the rules and rituals on their own in order to prove their righteousness before God. As I mentioned before, the old testament is a shadow of what would be fulfilled in the future by the Messiah for the whole human beings. If you have read the Bible, you may remember that there were numerous prophesies about the coming Messiah (Jesus Christ). Because some of them are so obvious even to Jews who still deny Jesus is the Messiah, they just skip reading those sections of the old testament such as Isaiah 53. Eventually the (incomplete) animal sacrifice in the old testament was replaced by the sacrificial death of Jesus to pay the penalty of all our sins once and for all. When we accept Jesus Christ into our hearts as our Savior and Lord, we are completely liberated from the bondage of sin once and for all by the help of God (not on our own). “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:32)”.

That concept is only applicable with Christians @ truthfind123. Since I already left Christianity, I think the belief of a self-sacrificing god is already out of my system.

Anyway, when Christians compiled the Bible, they included the Jewish Tanack in that book and called it “The Old Testament”, but that’s it…they just added it. You see @ truthfind123. The Tanack is not really a part of your religion. You see the Jewish concept of a messiah is very different from the Christian model. Jews are not waiting for a second coming of the ‘God-Man’. For the Jews, the Messiah doesn’t necessary need to be a son of any God - he is as human as everyone else. Also, it’s not the job of the Jewish messiah to save man from sin. He will come to gather all the Jews back to Israel, built the third temple in Jerusalem, restore the Throne of David and the Kingdom of God in Israel and finally will unite all people of this world.

Now what prophecies are you talking about @ truthfind123…ah Isaiah 53? Isaiah 53 refers to Israel. In Rabbinical interpretation the ‘suffering servant’ is the Nation of Israel. If we read the passages carefully…well Jesus will not fit the bill. The truth is, the Tanack does not have any prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. It is only Christians who interpret some passages in the Old Testament and say there are such ‘prophecies’.

There are two important features in our salvation from sin. First, it is a gift of God for all human beings. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8)”. Our God of love and compassion is just like a loving mother jumps into the water to save her drowning child regardless of the fact that the child is obedient or disobedient to her. Her loving heart for the child is far from the petty conditional love (If you will obey me, then I will save and love you. Otherwise I will not save you). This unconditional love is possible because she shed her own blood with pain when delivering the child. The love of a mother for her child is just a shadow of the love of God for all human beings.

Now whose fault was it @ truthfind123? It is not Adam or Eve’s fault since they were innocent.

Let us use your own analogy…If a mother already knows that her children will drown on a certain place, will she still bring her children to that place? Of course, not…Now…will a loving mother leave a poison inside her children’s playpen?

Again, who has the ability to stop evil before it entered the garden? Who has the omniscient and omnipotent powers to stop evil in its tracks? Adam? Jesus? Superman?

Nope…why it is your God @ truthfind123.

Therefore, what will happen if God…with all those omni abilities - prevented Satan from going inside the garden? There will not be any “Fall of Man”. However, what did he do to prevent it from happening? Now you’re telling me that we need to believe that his son was sacrificed to be save on something that he failed to accomplished 6,000 years ago? Give me a break! Is this the kind of loving relationship this god has to over? What I am, chopped liver?

A mother's love doesn't end on being unconditional @ truthfind123, there must be also responsibility to it.

Second, it is obtained by faith, not by works. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)”. Our salvation from sin is so precious that even selling all our possessions to give them to the poor would not be enough to earn it, although this is a good thing to do. This is what the people of Israel had done to earn righteousness by trying to literally and legalistically observe all the rules and rituals to be perfect before God. It is impossible to attain the high standard of righteousness by our own works (Matthew 19:26) so God provided for us another way of salvation, salvation by faith in Jesus Christ who fulfilled the whole righteousness on our behalf. Because salvation comes from faith in Jesus Christ who died to pay the penalty of our sins in our place, we are 100% sure of our eternity in heaven, free from the fear of our uncertain eternal future. This may not be the way you expected from your common sense (by speculation), but this is the way according to the revelation of God. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death (Proverbs 16:25)”. Then you may ask what is the point for good works. We do good works out of thanks for the grace we have received from our God, namely, the gift of the fulfilled life here and the eternal life in heaven which we do not deserve. Now you can see the difference. We do good works out of thanks to God, but not to compensate for our sins in order to earn salvation.

Are you trying to sell Martin Luther’s doctrine @ truthfind123? Gosh…is your article is but a marketing strategy?

Anyway, if you read the Bible your ‘salvation by faith’ will be gainsaid by no other than Jesus Christ himself. Remember that story…when a rich young man asked Jesus how to have eternal life, Jesus didn’t say to have faith but, “You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother… Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Mark 10:19, 21). In addition, James said in his letter…that faith without work is dead (James 3:26) So who’s telling the truth?

Therefore, you see @ truthfind123, your salvation is loosely base on how you and your denomination interpret an ancient document. It is not a revelation from a god.

Have you ever experienced the joy of freedom from the bondage of sin with the help of the words of God? I will give you just three examples. First, on one occasion I arrived at a free pornographic site while surfing on the internet. Seeing a few dozens of free pornographic images was very enticing because it was free and nobody was watching me. There was nothing to lose. Seeing them or not was just my finger tip away. Then I was reminded of two verses in Psalm (119:9,11). “How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to your word. I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you”. With the words of God I resisted the temptation successfully. What a joy of freedom from the bondage of my sinful desires of self-indulgent lust! The joy and freedom was hundred times greater than my temporary pleasure of seeing the images. Have you ever experienced this kind of joy and freedom? If not, you are missing your full potential as a true “free” human being. Second, on another occasion on the way to my work I passed a beggar asking for money. Although I already passed him a while ago, God’s words kept telling me inside my heart “When Jesus saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd (Matthew 9:36)”. I could not resist God’s words asking me for compassion on the beggar I had passed. I had nothing but to return to the station where the beggar worked and give him a few dollars together with handshakes. What a joy of freedom from the bondage of my sinful desires of selfishness! Third, yet on another occasion one of my colleagues started to spew several insulting remarks on me during the lunch time. Considering the circumstance and context, it was obvious that they were intentionally directed toward me. I was tempted to get revenge on him by finding faulting with his weaknesses which could be as humiliating to him as possible. Then I was reminded of the words of Jesus “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5:39); Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44)” What a joy of freedom from the bondage of my sinful desires of hatred and getting even!

That’s the difference between us @ truthfind123, you do good because a certain ‘holy scripture’ told you while I do good because it is the right thing to do. Now, I refrain myself to pornography because of my high respect to women…that is my reason… PERIOD!

Now since you said you get your high standard of morality because of the Bible…hmmm…let see…tell me what the following verses reminds you @ truthfind123.

Genesis 19: 5-8

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

Numbers 31:17-18

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Do these verses also suggest purity in heart? Reading those passages, I think it is better to look at the pages of FHM while wanking myself silly that to hand over my lovely daughters to be rape by an unruly mob.

What is that bragging on giving a dollar to a beggar? Tell me what you brag about and I'll tell you what you lack. Anyway, do you know that if you give a beggar a fish, he will just eat for a day, but if you teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

Speaking of Jesus, do you know that this...eh...verses…Matthew 5:44 and Matthew 5:39 can also be seen in other sages and philosophers. By the way, with such love and forgiveness isn’t it odd for this Jesus character to cursed an innocent fig tree for not having fruits (Mark 11:12-14, 20-21), by killing innocent pigs and destroying a man’s livelihood (Luke 8:28-33), calling a Gentile woman a dog (Matt.15:22-28) and scorching legitimate entrepreneurs (Mark 11:15) – Yep! Hitler loves this one. It seems to me that this Jesus fellow always contradicts what he teach.

Overwhelmed by the mighty love and grace of God, I am 100% satisfied with and thankful for everything, absolutely everything. I even thank God for the cancer I struggled with recently. Because of the disease, I learned to love and trust my God more, learned to be more thankful for everything, learned to have more compassion for other people, learned to resist better the temptation of lust and selfishness! Overwhelmed by the unconditional love of God, my joy, thanks and freedom have exploded like a volcano everyday. Why do I leave Christianity? Why do I abandon my God who has made me what a true human being is meant to be? If some of you may argue that all my wonderful experiences are just from wishful thinking and self-motivation, you are free to think whatever you want. As many of you wish I leave Christianity to atheism, I wish you return to the love of God again. We live in a free and democratic society. Although you have left God due to some unpleasant reasons, you can come back to him anytime. Nobody in your current community should not criticize or condemn your decision to return to the love of God again. God always loves you no matter who you are now or no matter what you have done, just like a loving mother who does not hesitate to jump into the water to save her drowning children.

Some of you might have left Christianity because some Christians are hypocrite, selfish, arrogant and ungraceful. You became a Christian because of the love of Jesus Christ for you, not because of good behaviors of other Christians. Please do not be distracted by the behaviors of other believers although it may not be so easy to you. I do admit that our spiritual forefathers did many cruel things to humanity in the name of God through such as the Crusades and the Inquisition, indicating the danger of institutionalized beliefs. They were in stark contrast to the unconditional love of Jesus for all human beings. On behalf of our spiritual forefathers I sincerely apologize to all humanity. Many of you including even some Christians might suffer from negative psychology. Students study hard to learn new things, not for fear of dropping out of the school. We eat food to stay health, not for fear of starving to death. We do some Christian activities (worship, fellowship, prayer and Bible study) to enjoy here and for eternity what our God of love is offering us (joy, thanks, freedom and so on). We do not and should not do them for fear of something. Some Christian leaders may use the fear of hell or punishment to get their messages across to others more effectively, but this is not a healthy approach and is absolutely wrong! Fear is the opposite of love which is all about the whole message of Christianity. “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment (1 John 4:18)”. If you feel hurt or offended by them, I am sorry and truly apologize you on their behalf. Many of you may see the salvation with the eyes of negative psychology. Because we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), the entire human beings were doomed to the eternal separation from God and that was our destiny in the first place. But through our faith in Jesus Christ we were rescued by God from the eternal condemnation. On the other hand, the negative psychology says that we were doomed to the eternal separation because of not believing in Jesus. Now you can see the difference. The eternal condemnation was caused by our sinful nature, not by our rejection of Jesus as the Savior and Lord.

So why will I pray to a god who created cancer in the first place? Now, not all who has cancer can relate on your testimony @ truthfind123. You see, what happened to Steve did not happen to Jack. Try giving cancer to a father whose daily wage is enough to feed his family of five. What about a single mother of two children whose only means of livelihood is washing clothes? Will she be as happy as you if she will have cancer? So, what is the point of your cancer testimony? Always remember, your testimony is different from my testimony @ truthfind123

Ok I get the picture; you want me to return to Christianity @ truthfind123. What for? To justify your straw men? Let me clarify my points…it seems to me that you are just placing words in my mouth. I become a Christian because of tradition. I was just a toddler when they baptized me as a Christian…I have no free will! I left Christianity not because of some Christian issues, sickness or unanswered prayers…that’s cheap! I left it because of Christianity itself. Your doctrines create what you are @ truthfind123. Christianity may teach us love, forgiveness and compassion but there is always an evil face behind the mask. It also fosters division, racism, sexism, cruelty, war, and hate. That is why we have things like the Inquisition, burning of heretics and the condemnation of knowledge and science. Your history book is your reference.

Christianity also teaches us to lie and to have fellow men because of differences in religious belief. It also degrades women for blaming them as the cause of sin (remember the Eve story @ truthfind123). It uplifts ignorance in the disguised as faith. It is not even about being free…it distorts the real meaning of freedom.

It is but vulgar ignorance and the belief of things that are impossible. It degrades us humans an also give us a permanent state of guilt. As Percy Bysshe Shelly (1792-1822) wrote, “Christianity peoples earth with demons, hell with men and heaven with slaves.”

Now what makes a person truly human? That’s easy…and you won’t have a hard time looking for the answer @ truthfind123. Now here’s a clue, you won’t find the answer in the Bible. It is in our basic human rights - our natural, constitutional and statutory rights. This includes (1) our rights to life, liberty and property fully protected by law, (2) our rights to be secure, (3) our right of privacy, (4) our freedom of speech and to express our ideas and grievances, (5) our right to information and (6) our freedom to believe or to have lack of belief. I bet your God does not even know or understand these basic human rights @ truthfind123.

Without these rights, man will never enjoy his full potential as a free human being.

So do not apologized @ truthfind123, you are just a victim of that religion and you will not be able to pay all the damages and atrocities Christianity did to humanity.

Hell…your metaphysical prison. Well what can I say? Despots need a dark dungeon. Before Christians try sending us non-believers to hell, I think your God will fit that place perfectly @ truthfind123. Yep…your God @ truthfind123, the creator of evil (Isaiah 45:7) and the source of evil spirits (1 Samuel 16:14). As Clark Pinnock once said, “the idea that a fully conscious creature would undergo physical and mental torture through endless time is plainly sadistic and therefore incompatible with a God who loves humanity…In terms of justice, the traditional view of hell is simply unacceptable. It is a punishment in excess of anything that sinners deserve…beside, no purpose is serve by the unending torture of the wicked except vengeance.” Nothing is clearer than that. When people worship evil they themselves become evil.

Sin? What sin? Well sorry for busting your doughnut @ truthfind123, atheists like me do not sin. You have to be a believer to sin.

No hell, no sin, no eternal damnation. So what is left in your comment @ truthfind123? Sartre once said, hell is other people…but I think in this scenario, it will be more appropriate to say, “Hell is Christian evangelists.”

If you have left Christianity due to some unpleasant reasons, I kindly ask you to come close to God to enjoy his unconditional love and grace. If you do not come close to your Creator, you could end up being the older son in the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32, who kept grumbling and complaining due to some petty reasons without enjoying the true love of God.

I left Christianity not because of your petty reasons @ truthfind123 but because I found out it is just a vessel to hurt and accused people using a doctrine of endless guilt. In addition, it is also a doctrine that promotes superstition and the fear of knowledge so people will remain ignorant. It fosters intolerance and division. It is against reason, women and indigenous people. These are not just petty reasons @ truthfind123 and after I have read your ‘comment’…well it still fell short in answering these issues.

About a few years ago I was going through difficult times and about to leave Christianity because God did not answer my earnest prayer for more than 10 years. My anger and bitterness kept building up to the point that I shouted to my God, “You are only interested in bringing me into your family. After then you do not take care of me any more!”, “In contrast to your promise that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; character, hope (Romans 5:3-4), I am getting more angry, disappointed and sour toward you instead of getting closer to you as a result of the current trial!”, “Those who are far less qualified than me get a better job and faster promotion. Surely this world is not fair!”. Although I went to the church every Sunday and read the Bible regularly, I did not really come close to God in order to know and meet him personally. I myself was the older son in the parable of the prodigal son. I kindly ask you to come close to God to know and experience how good and gracious our God is.

Ah, so now I know who’s disgruntled between us @ truthfind123. That means you did not…not once been an atheist. You are just an angry Christian. No wonder you cannot relate to my post.

Your prayers were not answered, right? So you’re upset with Christianity…you’re having a rough time with your work, your promotions, right?

That’s so easy – find a better god or goddess that can do the job right.

I admit that I still do not understand several things about God and the Bible such as the literal interpretation of the first few chapters in Genesis and some bloody scenes in the old testament. How can I, a tiny creature, understand every detail of what the Creator of the universe has been doing? God has no obligation to tell his creature every detail of his world. God is not my personal Genie. Of course we should avoid this kind of attitude: “Because A said B, B must be the absolute truth. Period. Do not ask any question”.

It seems strange that a tiny creature like me can piss off an omni God huh? An insignificant, finite creature like moi giving God an eternal headache.

Anyway…since you admitted that you still do not understand several things about God and the Bible…well maybe that’s the reason why you still cling to that Christianity like a monkey in a tree.

Hmmmmm something is just bugging me. Remember that you told me that this god of yours would like to make a loving relationship with me. Now you’re telling me that this god has no obligation to tell. That’s not how relationship works @ truthfind123 Relationship is a two-way street. I have the obligation to love him and he has the obligation to tell me his side of the story. Only despots and tyrants avoid answering questions. If this will be the case, then I have to place God together in a line-up with Adolf Hitler, Pol-Pot, Idi Amin, Ferdinand Marcos and Saddam Hussein.

Let see, because A said B, B must be the absolute truth? Weh?

Are you really a theoretical physicist @ truthfind123? OK, because truthfind said he’s a theoretical physicist, then that is an absolute truth. However, what if truthfind123 is lying? What if A statement is a lie?

By the way, have you ever heard about the cosmological constant problem in physics and astronomy? According to the most recent observation of the universe, the expansion of the universe is accelerating contrary to our perception. The universe does not show any sign of slowing down of expansion, but instead expands indefinitely. To be consistent with this observation, the Einstein’s field equation should include the cosmological constant of the order of 10^(-120) in reduced Planck unit. However, the calculated value with the best theory available now is of order of unity in the same unit, in other words, 10^(120) larger than the observed value! This is the greatest disaster in the history of physics which has been known and praised as accurate science. As a former theoretical physicist, I do not want to easily give up the best theories physicist have developed so far. I believe that there would be still some things we do not understand, with a hope that someday we may be able to put all pieces together to get the complete picture.

Woah! What does this have to do with God, Jesus and Christianity? WTF!

Might as well answer this to...Who said scientific claims are that “accurate”. Gosh I’m really having some doubt on your “theoretical physicist” claim @ truthfind123.

Truth in science is provisional. When a new evidence id presented, scientists abandons, discard or replace out dated hypothesis or theories, even if how ‘dear’ this theory may be. Science always welcomes change.

Now just like any other fields of natural science, physics is a experimental science (not accurate) and no theory in physics is regarded as an ultimate truth. There is always new observations that will revised or even discard a theory in physics. Speaking of accuracy in physics, we use accuracy in terms of reliable measurements, something that do not change and can be duplicated by other observers. So accuracy in physics stays on the issue of measurements.

By the way, that issue about “the expansion of the universe is accelerating contrary to our perception” is not new.

If you have left Christianity for similar reasons with some unanswered questions, I kindly advise you to exercise more patience instead of giving it up easily. In spite of our efforts to know all the answers, there could be still some unanswered questions about God and the Bible. How can mere creatures demand the Creator to explain every detail of his world? How can we declare there is no God, simply because we do not have a full understanding of his world? How can an ant claim that there is no internet, simply because it does not make sense to him or it is not logical to him? Let us not jump to a conclusion in haste!

In summary, Christianity is not about keeping man-made rules, rituals and traditions out of duty or out of fear of punishment. Christianity is also not about seeking peace, comfort and happiness through wishful thinking. Christianity is all about a loving relationship with the Creator of the universe and our very souls, experiencing explosive joy, thanks and freedom here and for eternity.

As I have already said, we only make loving relationship with existing beings…so the real relationship is between society and the church. Therefore, I forged my relationship with other people or group of people…like the church, the church…with all its intolerance, racism, bigotry and hate. Nah…I don’t want to return to a relationship that gives me negative vibes.

Freedom? Freedom from what? Anything that cultivates guilt is not about freedom. No one that is being required to give absolute obedience is free. I live in a democratic state and thank Darwin for that…and I understand the meaning of freedom, respect and love from secular laws and philosophies. The Bible is not about freedom and love…it is about guilt, total obedience, ignorance and subjugation…Nah! If you want your Christianity then keep it to yourself @ truthfind123. I’ve just been liberated from that poke and I just don’t want to lose my real freedom again.