The Pinoy Atheist in Friendster

When Christians are confronting the Argument from Evil, they often use the Free Will Defense as an excuse.

 

According to Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, freewill is the ability to desire between alternatives. It is the ability to make an unforced decision between two or more alternatives (When Skeptics Ask p. 63).

 

The Free Will Defense therefore state: God, through his gift of free will, gave man the ability to distinguish and choose between good and evil, right or wrong. As a free agent, man has the potential to reach a higher degree of perfection and goodness than if he were a mere robot programmed to behave in a given manner. Thus, it is good that man has free will. However, men used this good power to bring evil into the universe by rebelling against their Creator. Evil did arise from good, not directly but indirectly, by the abuse of a good power called freedom. Freedom in itself is not evil. It is good to be free. But with freedom comes the possibility of evil.

 

This sounded like what Uncle Ben told Peter Parker, “With great powers comes great responsibility.” Anyway, notice that the Free Will Defense only explain moral evil and not natural evil – earthquakes, typhoons, natural flood, tsunamis, hereditary diseases, wild animal attacks and worm infestation – evils that are not covered by having free will.

 

The Free Will Defense falls short on solving the Problem of Evil. It even contradicts with some common Christian beliefs.

 

a.)    Bible

The Bible has some verses that say men are predestined. Here are some samples:

 

(1) “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,…. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ himself, according to the good pleasure of his will” (Eph. 1:4-5)

(2) “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,…. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called….” (Rom. 8:28-30)

(3) “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48)

(4) “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13)

(5) “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:11)

(6) “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10)

(7) “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you” (John 15:16)

(8) “For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:9 RSV)

(9) “A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps” (Prov. 16:9), (10) “He will carry out what he has planned for me, and of many such matters He is mindful” (Job 23:14 Mod. Lang), (11) “Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him” (1 Cor. 7:17 RSV)

(12) “…your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:16 NIV)

(13) “Man’s goings are of the Lord; how can a man then understand his own way?” (Prov. 20:24)

(14) “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt. 24:3l) (15) “…whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,….” (Rev. 17:8)

(16) “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15), (17) “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44)

(18) “…no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father” (John 6:65)

(19) “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39)

(20) “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails” (Prov. 19:21 NIV)

 

We also have the story of the hardening of the heart of the Pharaoh in the Book of Exodus and how God was tempted by the devil to test Job as reference.

 

b.)    Prophets and Prophesies

If free will is true then every events are just random outcome of events. If that is true then future events does not exist. Therefore, prophets cannot prophecies any future events.

 

c.)    The Law of Cause and Effect is not compatible with freewill.

If everything, including every act, has a cause, how will it be possible for a person to have free will? If you believe that everything has a cause, then you accept causal determinism. According to the concept of determinism, all events, including human choices are determined or caused by another.

 

The principle of causality stated: Every effect has a cause. Majority of Christian agree to this since one of there proof for the existence of a God rest in this.  It is undeniable! If it is true, then humans are bound to everything that happened to the universe since the sequence of cause and effect runs throughout the whole universe.

 

The famous lawyer, Clarence Darrow (1857–1938) used this argument to defend Nathan Leopold Jr. and Richard Loeb. According to Darrow, even if they (Leopold and Loeb) committed the hideous act, they never had any real control over their lives.

 

d.)    The problem of divine pre-ordination.

If God already knows the future and no alternatives are possible, then every event is preordained. Free will has no place in a pre-ordained universe.

 

According to the Christian apologist Norman Giesler, free beings are the cause of evil (When Skeptics Ask p.64) and it seems he is suggesting that freedom from free will will be destroyed if we destroyed evil. But Christian believe that God also have freewill and it is impossible for God to do anything evil.

 

That means possessing free will and freedom does not necessary cause evil. Having free will and a guarantee against committing evil are metaphysically compatible. Rational beings are always attracted by what is apprehended as good.

 

Giesler noted that it is impossible for God to create free creatures that could not sin (When Skeptics Ask p.71) It is also impossible for God (who is an omnipotent being huh?) to guarantee humans will never sin because it will tamper their freedom. In addition, a world without evil is morally inferior.

 

So are these Christian apologists suggesting that God is inferior? Giesler said that the highest virtues and the greatest pleasures are impossible to achieve if there is not opposition as precondition.  But God never faced these “evils” yet we considered Him as the epitome of all virtues.

 

Now is it really impossible for an omnipotent God to create a world without evil but still compatible with character building? Is evil necessary to build one’s character? An athlete can develop his potentials without facing any form of catastrophes.  Surely, a world where humans can show their greatest potential without harm is possible for an omnipotent God.

 

What about for the greater good? What goodness does a child suffering from retardation brings for humanity? What does the death of thousand of people in natural disaster does to the goodness of an American watching the news on his TV while contemplating of beating his wife senseless…a thousand miles away?

 

Evil is not brought by human free choices and freedom. According to Daniel Dennett – to have freedom, we want self-control; we want to be rational, to govern our conduct by reason, to influence our own action – that is freedom.

 

If a person uses his freewill to challenge the Christian’s god claim…that is not evil, that is freedom.

 

If the Christian god will bring an atheist to hell for questioning his existence or if he will judge you because of your non-belief (John 3:16; 36, 5:39-4,0, 8:24, 12:48 and Luke 10:16) – that is coercion, and remember, coercion is evil.

 

Until next time,

John the Atheist

 

“If the universe requires a maker because it undergoes change, even God needs a maker because he sometimes creates, sometimes destroys.” - Flower Offerings of Arguments

Now we’re going to talk about those claims presented by the article “History and Analysis of Atheism”  on the existence of a god.

According to the said article, the Nyaya (logic) Vedic philosophical system offers three proofs of the existence of God. They are the following:

1. Existence of order in nature and man (teleological argument)

2. Existence of different conditions for different living beings (different karma of individuals must come from higher intelligence)

3. Existence of revealed scriptures, which speak about the same topics and one God

Ok…so now let’s take this one at a time. First according to the article, the existence of order in nature and man is some sort of a teleological argument. It establishes intelligent design but it is not clear how many beings were involved in creating the order and if they were supreme or not.

OK…ok so according to this we really do not have any idea in the numbers of being or if the beings that created everything were supreme or not. But may I add, if we can’t be sure what kind of beings are involve, then how can we be sure if a god or gods were responsible in the first place?

How can you refute atheism with this?
It seems statement #1 fall short in proving the existence of a god.

In addition, as discovered by modern physics, our universe neither is fine-tuned nor is it designed for human life. Yes, we know that the universe seems to have certain order as the ISKCON article assert, but thought we should also keep in mind that there are allot of disorder and chaos in the universe. The empty vastness of this universe for humans to explore speaks against the ISKCON claim.

Second, ISKCON uses the Law of Karma and reincarnation as proof of God’s existence. It implies that the existence of different conditions for different living beings because of the karmic law is a proof that there is a higher intelligence somewhere out there.

So what is Karma?

Etymologically speaking, the word “karma” is based on the Sanskrit verbal root kr, meaning “act, do, bring about,” the idea being that one makes something by doing something; one creates by acting. According to this doctrine, every human being gets the fruits of his actions either in the present or in some future life. Whatever a human being is in his present life is the result of his own actions in the past life or lives. Buddhism and Jainism also use this doctrine yet as we already know, both religions don’t worship a personal god.

So does the Law of Karma prove the existence of a god? It doesn’t. Before ISKCON can utilize statement number two as a valid proof of the existence of a god, they must first prove the existence of the following: immortal soul, afterlife and past lives.

As Carvaka have already stated, the law of karma merely serves the rationale of legitimizing the unjust varna-vyavastha by making the Shudras and the “untouchables” submissively acknowledge their degrading position as a “result of their own deeds” in imaginary past lives, and by assuring them “better” birth in “next life” if they faithfully perform their varna-dharma in their present lives.

How about reincarnation?

Now there are other problems. According to most Hindus, Hinduism fulfills the following conditions and so is perfectly in harmony with modern science:
1. It must accept all proven scientific facts as true.
2. It must reject any view which is contradicted by science.
3. Its beliefs must be based on observation, logic and experience.
(Reference: Hinduism for Beginners, Srirama Ramanuja Achari p. 5 )

Unless of course ISKCON is not Hinduism, then they must also be in the same principle. Now…let see if reincarnation is true then it must be logical, coherent and it must not contradict science, observation and experience. Yet:

a. If reincarnation were correct, society should be improving. After all, we have had hundreds, even thousands, of chances to improve our past life, then we should already have improved it and then there should be some evidence of it.

b. If suffering in this life always results from evil done in a previous life, then there would have to be an infinite regress of previous lives. However, an infinite regress in time is not possible since absolute infinites do not exist.

c. Reincarnation depends on the premise that an individual had a highly developed sense of self-consciousness before birth, to receive and store information for later recall. It is a scientific fact that this ability does not develop until one is about eighteen months of age.

d. How about human population? If everyone alive today once inhabited a previous human body, how can the population, let say India, be explained? Today India has a population of 1,129,866,000. So where all those souls came from?

Now, we’re going to talk about revealed scriptures.
I was wondering why ISKCON think that all religious scriptures speak about the same topics and one God.

Anyway…

According to the article, the scriptures say that the existence of God can be inferred neither from sense perception (pratyaksa) nor from logic (anumana) but it can be understood from the revealed scriptures (sabda): “Supreme Truth is neither established nor refuted by logical argument.” (Vedanta-sutra 2.1.11 paraphrased).

Let see…according to this premise, “Supreme Truth is neither established nor refuted by logical argument.”. So the premise is neither true nor false (which makes it a logical statement) SO? Then by reason and logic, we already know that “Supreme Truth is neither established nor refuted by logical argument”. Did you get it?

The above statement from the Vedanta-sutra 2.1.11 is quite self-defeating. Logic and reason is surely an inescapable conclusion. If the so-called “Supreme Truth” is not establish by logic or logical arguments then it become balderdash. There is no ounce of truth in a child’s singsong.

Now on the claim on scriptures, does the Gita (Bhagavad-Gita) is talking about the same God of the Christian Bible? Well the answer is really a big NO. In the first place, the Hindu god in the Gita is very much different from the Christian God. The Christian God is a personal type not the same pantheistic, monist gods of the Hindu. In a more detailed sense, Krishna is a god who is both personal and impersonal, and can also manifest as an invisible form of energy, (spirit, soul, etc.), as well as in the physical through idols, animals, and humans. The God of the Bible, on the other hand, is always distinct from His creation. The God of the Bible is One God, manifested three ways (as in three persons, The Farther, The Son and the Holy Spirit) while Krishna is the supreme personality behind the Hindu Triad of Brahma, Visnu, and Shiva, a triad of different gods.

ISKCON believe “We are not our bodies, but eternal spirit souls, parts and parcels of God.” I think this was also on their scripture. However, Christian scripture is quite different. Christians know that they are created in the “image of God”. They are not part of God’s essence, rather, God is the Creator, and they are his creatures.

According to Hindu myth, Krishna is the 8th incarnation of Vishnu but Jesus Christ is the only incarnation of God according to the Christian scripture.

The Christian God is not an incarnation of Krishna nor Krishna’s son. The Christian Bible doesn’t teaches an illusionary world or an illusionary evil. It doesn’t teaches salvation through yoga. The Krishna devotee is taught that he can escape the age of Kali (present age) by transcending with his chanting, and thinking only of Krishna while Christians are taught that in order to be save one must have faith and believe.

So you see in claim number 3 it seems the God of the Bible and the God of ISKON are two different gods. It only given us more problems than proof of the existence of one God.

The article said: Theodicy (or “process theology”): theo - God, dike - (Greek) righteous God is either not all-good or not all-powerful because He is unable to stop the evil - Himself is subjected to natural laws. Universe is uncreated…

ekkkkkk! Wrong answer.

Before going further let me correct some terms in the ISKCON article. Theodicy is not the same as “process theology”. (Gosh, what kind of a dictionary did the author of this ISKCON article used?)

Process Theology is an idea that says God evolves. It is any theology strongly influenced
by the theistic metaphysics of Whitehead or Hartshorne that takes process or change as basic characteristics of all actual beings, including God. Theodicy (from Greek theos, ‘God’, and dike, ‘justice’) in the other hand is the a defense of the justice or goodness of God in the face of doubts or objections arising from the phenomena of evil in the world.

There is no variety of atheism that is called anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism means the representation of objects (especially a god) as having human form or traits. This is more conveniently used by believers than non-believers.

According to Finis Dake (you know the Dake’s Bible?)…Anthropomorphism is the ascription of human body parts, attributes, and passion to God. Further more it said, “God is a being (Hebrews 1:1-3) It is wrong to think that God has no body parts or passion like human beings. Ang it is a fallacy to think that God is a universal mind, conscience, love, goodness and power filling all space and matter.” (p. 280 Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible)

That’s not atheism.

I think ISKCON has a problem with other theists and not with atheists.

Xenophanes of Colophon, the pre-Socratic philosopher wrote: “But if oxen and horses and lions had hands or could draw with hands and create works of art like those made by men, horses would draw pictures of gods like horses, and oxen of gods like oxen, and they would make the bodies of their gods in accordance with the form that each species itself possesses.” – The statement was addressed to believers and it is not about atheism. Xenophanes criticized the Homerian concept of anthropomorphic gods. Homer’s gods, He complained, had all the immoral and disgraceful traits of flawed human beings and should hardly be the object of veneration. Xenophanes held some vague concept of a single deity that was ‘in no way like men in shape or in thought’ but rather ‘causing all things by the thought of his mind’. Therefore, he is not an atheist.

Xenophanes argument does not disprove the existence of gods. It only disproves anthropomorphism. Now if believers tend to reason out that individual perception is the cause of why people tend to worship different gods…then god belief is relative. Mountains painted by different artists still contain its basic nature (being a mountain). The problem of using this apology is that when people perceive a god…well one god may be very different from what others are worshipping (example: the Islamic god is quite different from the Christian triune god.).

So if you can’t beat an atheist, then what will you have to do?

Well…they can always say that you (the atheist) have no business sticking your nose in my theistic belief!

According to the ISKCON article, “If, say, in the field of biology, one affirms or denies the claim of a biologist, then one thereby claims to have a knowledge of biology. Similarly, to affirm or deny the claim of a historian is to claim knowledge of history, and one’s own right, thereby, to evaluate historical assertions. Exactly in the same way, TO AFFIRM OR DENY RELIGIOUS CLAIMS IS TO CLAIM FOR ONESELF A KNOWLEDGE OF RELIGIOUS MATTERS.”

Woah!

Remember that an atheist is a non-believer. Therefore, that means the atheist does not claim any knowledge. It’s the believers job to claim knowledge. An atheist just doesn’t believe what this knowledgeable theist is talking about!
The problem arises when this so-called knowledgeable believer is talking about claptraps and is trying very hard to convince other people to join his band. That’s where religious skepticism comes in.

Hey! I’m not an economics. But it’s my right to know what’s happening with my nation’s money. I didn’t took medicine, but I still look for second opinion from other doctors and I might even know if you’re a quack or not! I never study pharmacy yet I can still know if these food supplements do work or not. That is also the same with religious claims. I have the right to affirm or deny ISKCON claims by doing research…And you don’t need to have a degree on theology for that. You see…you do not study 4 years of theology class before entering a church. The doors of these churches are always open for new recruits. That is also the same with cults.

By the way, if the statement of ISKCON is true, well…they have to become a Buddhist to AFFIRM or DENY Buddha’s teaching about being without a soul. They have to become a follower of Carvaka to AFFIRM OR DENY its teaching AND they have to become atheists first to AFFIRM OR DENY the proposition that god does not exist.

Remember…according to them, your very salvation depends on this.

On part 3, I will be dealing on more ISKCON misunderstandings and smears about atheism.

Until next time.
John the Atheist.

“If the universe requires a maker because it undergoes change, even God needs a maker because he sometimes creates, sometimes destroys.” - Flower Offerings of Arguments

It seems that Christians are not the only one who is to too nervy with atheists. In a Friendster group, someone copy-pasted an article from an ISKCON site entitled “History and Analysis of Atheism”.

I think the article was intended to show the errors of doubting god. Hmmmm…well the arguments in the said article didn’t really made much of a dent.

According to this article, Atheism is known since the Vedic times when its main proponent was philosopher Carvaka.

Who or what is this Carvaka.

We really don’t have much information regarding the Carvaka school of thought. Sadly, there were no surviving texts. Owing to the fierce opposition of the Vedic establishment, not a single document has come down to us, and we only have ideas of these ancient Indian materialists from the writings of their enemies and critics, particularly the philosophical treatises and compendia (darsana) written by their Vedic opponents between the 9th and 16th centuries.

Tradition attributes the ancient Indian materialism to Carvaka along with another sage called Brihaspati. According to the Puranic Encyclopedia: the name “Cârvâka ” can be traced to two places in the Hindu mythos. Certain Sanskrit texts refer to a philosopher named Cârvâka who began this school of extreme materialism.

In the Mâhabârata, Cârvâka is a rakasa (A goblin, evil spirit, fiend, and enemy of the Aryas) friend of the prince Duryodhana who disguised himself as a Brahmin and reviled Yudhiºþhira’s triumphant entry into Hastinâpura after the Great War, preaching profane, atheistic, and heretical doctrines. He was soon exposed by real Brahmins and reduced to ashes by the fire of their eyes. This description from the epic poem Mahabarata represents the indignation of religious schools in India against the materialistic philosophy of the Carvaka.

The Carvaka (which by the way they are also called Lokâyata, from loka, the Sanskrit word for “world,” since it holds that only the materialistic world exists and nothing more, such as the soul, heaven, or hell.) school of though teaches the following:

1. God is non-existant.
2. There is no pre-existence or after-life.
3. There is no such thing as salvation (moksha); death itself is salvation.
4. Happiness is the only goal of life.
5. The wise should seek happiness with productive work.
6. Pursuit of music, erotics, medicines etc., add comfort to life.
7. Distinction of class and caste are hypocrisy.
8. The term “chastity for women” is rubbish (men and women are alike as far as chastity is concerned).

They also rejected the authority of sacred scriptures and they believe that an immortal soul and the metaphysical spirit are impossible because there aren’t any non-material objects that survive death as afterlife. For them, the idea of retribution (”Karma”) and the concept of reincarnation are hogwash. Consciousness is view as a product of the material structure of the body, characterizes the body itself rather than a soul and perishes with the body. Consciousness and the senses were the result of a particular combination of atoms and the proportions in which they were combined. After the death of an organism, this combination disintegrated into elements that then combined with corresponding types of atoms in inanimate nature.

Sounds too familiar?

Like their Greek counterpart, the Carvaka regarded the elements (water, fire, air) or else time or space, as the primary substance of the universe. The Universe was formed by these 5 elements (Panchamahaabhutas) namely: Prithvi (earth or solidity), jal (water or liquidity), agni (fire or fieriness or brightness), vaayu (wind or movement), and aakaasha (aether or emptiness), These elements, in turn, were said to be composed of atoms, indivisible units that were conceived as immutable, indestructible and having existed for all time. The atoms that comprised it determined the properties of any given object.

The Carvaka criticize the Verdic priesthood, Brahmanism, rituals, and the caste system just how non-theists and anti-theists denounce today religions and churches like Christianity and Islam. They scorn the Vedic foundations upon which orthodox schools base their philosophies (Six of the so-called schools of Indian philosophy – Sankhya-Yoga, Nyaya-Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta – regard the Vedas as authentic).

Carvaka ethics urged each individual to seek his or her pleasure here and now. “As long as you live, live life to the fullest,” said Carvaka. “After death, the body is turned to ashes. There is no re-birth.” These words, so full of love for humanity and life, are strikingly reminiscent of the life-enhancing philosophy of Epicurus.

Since the afterlife, priesthood and those stories taught by the Vedas is considered worthless, the Carvaka recommend people to take up productive activities like agriculture, and other useful pursuits of the physical world. Stress was laid on justice in all lifestyles. Hence, inequality in the case of gender and caste were opposed. Contemporary Humanists share this basic idea - therefore, Carvaka is humanistic.

To paraphrase what the Carvaka believes here are some extracts from the verses collected by Madhava - an orthodox Sanskrit writer of fourteenth century CE - in his compendium of Indian philosophy titled Sarva-darshana-sangraha.

While life is yours, live joyously;
None can escape Death’s searching eye:
When once this frame of ours they burn,
How shall it ever again return?
The pleasure which arises to men from contact with sensible objects,
Is to be relinquished as accompanied by pain - such is the reasoning of fools;
There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world,
Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders, etc., produce any real effect.
There are four elements, earth, water, fire and air;
And from these four elements alone is consciousness produced -
The fire is hot, the water cold, refreshing and cool the breeze of morn;
By whom came this variety? From their own nature was it born.
The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic’s three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes -
Brihaspati says, these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense.
If a beast slain in the Jyotishtoma rite will itself go to heaven,
Why then does not the sacrificer, forthwith offer his own father?

Beyond the disputes on the issue of priesthood and ritual, the opposition against the Carvaka/ Lokayata is on the matter of its materialistic doctrine. The idea that leads to Cartesian dualism (The doctrine that the soul is distinct from the body) is not new. Since time immemorial, our ancestors have always thought that a disembodied soul leaves the body at death or that the soul gives the material body consciousness. This same idea also predominate most ancient Indian orthodox school of thought.

According to Vedanta-sutra 2.2.1,2,8 matter cannot cause creation because it cannot be shown how and why the passive dead matter started to act. The argument is how this can be the case, especially since the material elements are unconscious, while a human has consciousness. According to most orthodox school of thought, that is impossible without the use of some spiritual element.

The Cârvâkas defend their position in several ways.
First, they contend that stating that a new quality cannot emerge from a combination of base elements is an assumption – such cases exist. Their example appears in the above quote of the Sarvadaroeanasamgraha, where the new intoxicating quality appears in liquor when one mixes ingredients devoid of such a quality in a particular manner.

Secondly, the Lokâyatas posit that consciousness must be a product of the material human body. The fact that the body alone is material is admitted by all. The question becomes whether consciousness is a quality of the body and not a spiritual quality of its own. In Indian logic, a causal connection between two phenomenon is established by an anavaya, or uniform co-presence, confirmed by a vyatireka, or uniform co-absence. For example, fire can be established as the cause of smoke because the two are always together, and similarly the absence of fire also results in the absence of smoke. The same reasoning can be attributed to the body and consciousness. Where there is a body, there is consciousness, and wherever there is an absence of body, there is also an absence of consciousness.

Today, thanks to modern neuroscience, we now have a better idea that the “soul” and the mind are just a product of purely material processes. Traditional belief about the immortal soul, the mind and the issue of dualism are now just blather of archaic philosophies and religion…and the Carvaka/ Lokayata were right to doubt it.

On my next post, I will deal with some of the claims that the ISKCON article presented as proof of the existence of God.

Until then.

John the Atheist

 

As I travel this lonely road from plain skepticism to a more rational meaning of life…well…I sometimes stepped on crap. Here’s what I mean.

 

Recently CFI (Center For Inquiry) have created a Philippine branch and on my surprise it seem they gave all the responsibility to a 17-year old boy. This boy then claimed presidency on the said organization and called it CFI-Philippines (with the blessing of course of CFI in Washington…that is what he claim). Unfortunately, it looks as if this boy is using the name of CFI for his own agenda.

 

I find his philosophy quite different from that of CFI and Mr. Paul Kurtz. Different in the sense that he promotes church-bashing, religion hating, smear campaigns and fault-finding. This is quite removed from the principles of free inquiry and humanist ethics that CFI promote.

 

Because of this, a lot of Filipino non-theists and potential members were turned-off. I myself have decided to leave CFI-Philippines. I was disgusted by the outcome.

 

Freethinkers

It seems CFI-Philippines do not have any slightest idea what a freethinker is. Jose Rizal, the Philippine national hero and Mr. Poch Suzara’s idol have stated that God was the final arbiter of truth (Rizal-Pastells III,11) yet being a rationalist (Rizal was not an atheist as what other “Filipino atheist” want us to believe) he believe in religious indifferentism. In fact, Rizal was not even a non-theist (he believe in a personal God). Joseph McCabe still included Rizal in a list of past free-thinkers.  Therefore, free thought is not synonymous with atheism.

 

A freethinker is a person who arrives at conclusions, especially in religious matters, by reason and not by authority (p. 474 Atheism: A Philosophical Justification Michael Martin, Temple University Press)

And what kind of reason is he talking about? According to Mr. Arthur San Pedro (founder of The Enlightenment League and Moral Society, Inc. - ELMS) Reason that is principled by ‘critical thought’ and ‘ideals of objective verification’.

Hate based reasoning is not a freethinkers method. I even say that hate based reasoning is base in authority - The authority of pre-conditioned biases and judgments. If you cannot write a simple objective observation then you don’t have any right to call yourself a freethinker!

 

Humanism

Humanism is simply put as an outcome of a rejection of the belief in supernatural revelation. But rejection of supernatural revelation doesn’t mean contempt. Humanists criticized religious claims base on reason not insults.

 

Humanism doesn’t mean contempt to god-believers. John Dewey suggested that God can be redefined in a naturalistic terms. That is humanism. According to Archibald MacLeish, “God was the manifestation of the human capacity for empathy and altruism. Human love, created God.” If that’s the case, then humanism create the very thing that CFI-Philippines despise – Human love.

 

Promoting Humanism in the Philippines

To promote humanism here in the Philippines, a genuine humanist group must focus on problems base on the issues that were tackled by the Humanist Manifesto of 1973, 1980 and 1988 not on church-bashing. Its aims are for the ethical, scientific and philosophical improvement of the Philippines.

 

Here are the important issues:

1. Education and Literacy
2. Population Growth
3. Unemployment
4. Poverty
5. Corruption
6. Pollution and the natural resources

 

Speaking of religious concern, instead of religion hating and church bashing, Filipino humanist must focus on issues regarding the unrealistic spiritual attitude brought by religious fundamentalism which only encourage an unrealistic and escapist approach in dealing with social problems. There is also the problem of the separation of church and state and the problem in the issue of birth control and responsible parenthood.

 

In matters of philosophy, there is the threat of ideologies that attack the objectivity of science and belittle human rights and democracy. These philosophies are counter-productive and promote defeatism.

 

These problems are not just as easy as a two year plan…a child’s play full of unrealistic dreams of a 17-year old boy and a band of disgruntled anti-theists. But if legitimate and competent Filipino humanists will converge and work side by side, then Secular Humanism in the Philippines will be successful with or without CFI.

 

 

 

While reading some open books in the shelves of National Bookstore, I came across this article regarding one of Bertrand Russell’s paradoxes. It is called “the barber’s paradox”. It goes like this: Suppose there is a town with just one male barber; and that every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven: some by shaving themselves, some by attending the barber. It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule: He shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves.
Under this scenario, we can ask the following question: Does the barber shave himself?
Asking this, however, we discover that the situation presented is in fact impossible:
If the barber does not shave himself, he must abide by the rule and shave himself.
If he does shave himself, according to the rule he will not shave himself.
No one really understands what a paradox is. I heard one person in LU saying that paradoxes are nothing but semantic mistakes. I guess he hasn’t been reading a lot of philosophy books lately. Some dictionary define a paradox simply as statements that contradicts itself, but I think a paradox is more better understood as an argument that derives or appears to derive an absurd conclusion by rigorous deduction from obviously true premises.

Zeno of Elea (circa 495-430 BCE) is best known for his paradoxes that is said to be the first recorded examples of argument of ‘reductio ad absurdum’ (literally, reduction to absurdity) in which an opponent’s view is shown to be false because it leads to contradiction. The paradox of Achilles is perhaps the best known of Zeno’s puzzles. Swift Achilles is to run a race against a tortoise, and the tortoise is given a head start. Zeno argues that, no matter how fast Achilles runs, he can never overtake the tortoise. First Achilles must reach the point atwhich the tortoise started, call it P1. By the time he does so, however, the tortoise will have traveled some short distance further, to a point we can call P2. So Achilles’snext task is to run from P1 to P2. By the time he achieves this, the tortoise will have traveled a bit further, to P3. SoAchilles’s next task is to run to P3. But by then the tortoise will have reached P4, and so on.

Thus, according to Zeno, Achilles can never pass the tortoise and win the race, because, no matter how fast he runs, each time he reaches a point where the tortoise was, the tortoise will have moved a bit farther on.

Stating the conclusion more carefully, Zeno’s argument does not (and was most likely not intended to) show that Achilles cannot overtake the tortoise; rather, it demonstrates that there is a conceptual puzzle regarding how he does so.

Another famous  Zeno’s paradox is the runner, who, before she can reach her destination, first has to reach the point halfway there, and who, before reaching the halfway point, has to reach the quarter point, before which she must reach the point one-eighth of the way to the destination, and so on. The conclusion is that no runner ever reaches her goal, or even gets started.

Aristotle tackled Zeno’s paradox and said that it was not possible to partition Achilles’s path into infinitely many parts. Any segment of Achilles’s course can be divided in two, so that there is no finite bound on how many pieces the path contains, but the process of partitioning the path never concludes in a path with infinitely many parts. The number of segments that make up the path is said to be potentially infinite. The moral Aristotle drew from Zeno is that there is, in nature or in mathematics, no actual infinite.

This in turn was later use by the Arabs in their Kalam Argument for the Existence of God, which in turn was made famous by the Christian apologist William Craig Lane.

According to this Christian apologist, there are two types of infinite process: actual or potential. An actual infinite series is one that is completed. A potential infinite series is one that continues to go on without end. (I think Norman Giesler also promote this definition) Since it is absurd to imagine something infinite that can be completed, then actual infinites cannot exist. Potential infinite in the other hand, can only exist through ideas (abstract). Numbers are good example of a partial infinite.

Thanks to these wonderful Christian apologists, their god is now ensnared on their own ridicules explanations. God is said to be infinite. So is he partial or an actual infinite being? If you say actual, then he cannot exist, but if you say he’s a partial infinite, then he’s an abstract idea. In addition, if actual infinite does not exist, then how the Christian can god becomes “omnipotent” and “omniscient”. According to the divine attributes of omniscience, god has all the ideas of infinite knowledge because “he is the greatest being conceivable” (compare to worldly knowledge that is said to be finite). If actual infinite is impossible – then an omniscient being cannot exist. 

This brings us back to Russell’s Barber paradox. The puzzle about the barber has an easy solution. – Such a barber does not exist. Now does the Christian god also suffer the same conclusion as Russell’s barber?

John the Atheist

While chatting with some friends, I heard “Arthur Jacket” debating with Christians about the existence of god in Luneta Park. Arthur is one of the atheists who frequently stopover Luneta Park to engage on debates.

He was asking the poor fellow if god has a penis. WHAT??? He was also asking if what part of the brain is use to feel god’s existence, the right hemisphere or the left hemisphere. These kinds of arguments are… well…is good for laughs, but I do not think any educated atheist will swoop that low. Gosh, this is very amateurish. It will turn atheism into a circus and atheists as clowns.

There are other instances that some atheists throw bad questions. Most “practical” atheist seems to rely more on the issue of “to see is to believe”. That is the problem with practical atheism.

There is this certain fellow in Luneta who loves to joke around when engaging in debates. “Nasaaan na ang diyos na yan? Iharap mo sa akin at sesenelasin ko!” (Show me this god of yours and I will slap it with my sandals!). For 7 years, his argument always starts and ends with that phrase. There is nothing wrong with that if the discussion is not that intellectually conferred but there are times for telling funny stories and times to get serious about something. When some atheists rely on jokes, it gives an impression that the atheist’s position is not to be taken seriously.

I have seen many articles from different Christian apologists about the so-called “modern atheism” and it seems they all have one thing in common. They all agree that atheists are becoming too war-like. Now here’s an example from the book “The New Atheism”. “Anyone who reads its literature or debates its leaders finds that modern anti-theism is fueled by such ignoble motives as bitterness, rage, and hatred. Its spokesmen manifest an angry spirit which rages first against God and then (because they cannot confront God directly) against those who dare believe in Him.” (p. 27). To be quite honest, there are some factors why most Christians feel this way to atheism.

Speaking of atheism and anti-theism, in the BBC docufilm, Atheism – A History of Disbelief, British philosopher Colin McGinn has given the difference between anti-theism and atheism. Atheism is about not believing in a god while anti-theism is more about the opposition to theism. Well…let see, as an atheist I don’t believe in a god – that’s the end of the story. I also criticized religion. That makes me an anti-theist. To be more specific, my arguments against Christianity (for example) reflect the anti-theists side of myself. That is not about atheism. An atheist really does not care about it – remember, he does not believe that a god exist so why bother. Anti-theism in the other hand is more concern on the effect of religion.

Most Filipino atheists (or other Western atheists) think that religion criticism is a part of the atheist’s package. In recent books that became available to the market about atheism, we find a lot of them having articles about the ill effect of religion (notable are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchen and Sam Harris). Most atheists nowadays use these arguments. Come on guys…does these arguments prove that god doesn’t exist?
So what if you critized our religion? Does your fume about our church prove that our god does not exist? Maybe you just building a stawman argument? Maybe you just can’t understand our church because you are being made a fool by the Holy Spirit.

I found a book that tackled this issue and even called them as bad or feeble arguments against god. The book was Atheism Explained: From Folly to Philosophy written by David Ramsey Steele.

It was really a very interesting subject matter because I committed some of these follies. Yep, GUILTY AS CHARGED!

One of the most common mistakes is to believe that religion is the number one cause of mayhem in this planet. The argument seems to be very convincing, but sad to say…it is really an empty argument. You see, religion might be guilty but there are other belief systems who share the same crime. A good example is ideology. War in ideology can also bring havoc to society. The cold war was not from religion issue. The Bay of Pig incident that nearly plunge the United State into nuclear war was not religious…so does the prevailing war with the NPA here in the Philippines.

How about those suicide bombers? Well… religion is not their only motivation. According from the studies done by Robert Pape, there are other beliefs that may prompt a bomber other than Islam. Suicide terrorism can also be cause by political issue. Their hate with the Jews for occupying the Gaza and West Bank and the extreme hatred in American imperialism can be a cause. Look at the Tamil Tigers…They are not doing it for the Hindu cause. In the Philippines for example, the MILF issue can also be considered political and territorial (they want to have an independent state of Mindanao). Oh sure…you may say that their religion stimulate them to be separatists, but even without religion, certain group of people can still be motivated by territorial concern (just look at what happened in the American Civil War).

The prevailing issue that I have found so far, here in the Philippines is the extreme resentment of some atheists to anything that is religious. Yep…the anger is so much that atheists themselves become as close-minded as the average theists are.  Religion does not always represent the delusional and not all believers are morons, stupid and half-wits. Remember, a believer discovered the Big Bang and Genetics. We also own much of our philosophies from believers. Art and Humanities have been some of the great products of churches.

If you will remember, I have said that I am also an anti-theist especially when it comes to Christianity and the Bible. That’s because I find Christianity quite far-flung from the ethics that it want to express. I also resent the violation of the separation of church and state and I find some biblical teaching quite repulsive. Again, that is not about atheism. However, that does not mean that I will destroy Christian icons nor rip the Bible in front of a crowded park. That is not atheism. That is a street sideshow.   How about pissing on some Jesus’ pictures, or vandalizing churches? GOSH! Are you still convinced that these activities represent atheism?

As an atheist, you pride yourself for being rational, logical and scientific. So is pissing on Jesus’ face a sign of rationality? I think this is a sign of immaturity. An atheist does not have that kind of agenda. I am an atheist because I don’t believe in the existence of a god, PERIOD! Speaking of agenda, I wrote this blog to tell to the world why I do not believe in a god or gods, but I’m not goading others. I created a group so people like me can share ideas but not to provoke detestation and willful devastation. We make dialogues to believers to establish certain points, but that is for intellectual discussion not to cuss them and their belief system.  Creating an agenda is a different matter. We create an agenda for non-believers to do a certain action, actions that will benefit both the non-believer and the society in which he is included. We act against discrimination. We act in opposition to the violation of the separation of church and state. We act against politicians who seem to give more importance to the church than to the general welfare of the public. We act to the enrichment of education through secular means. We act to the promotion of science. We act against the division produce by ecclesiastical interpretations.  However, we do not act to spread destruction, damnation and doom. We are not promoting vandalism or irrational, emotional hatred against the church and religion. Let see…I am promoting Secular Humanism in the Philippines as an alternative to communism so non-theists will have a voice – that is my agenda. To promote mutual respect and admiration to society even if they do not have any god-belief – that is my evolution from atheism.

The “A” in atheism doesn’t mean anarchism, anti-law and to think of a better word “an asshole”. We are not a bunch of social misfits, deviants and misanthropes whose disbelief has grow to total hatred to culture and society.  We are not narrow-minded meathead or biased faultfinders who cannot even see something beautiful in this society.  Loathing is not the fruit of atheism. We are always reminded that atheism has brought “thinking” back in our brain, but thinking does not mean irrational cynicism. We must now show the world, that after retaining our “thinking ability” we as atheist are now challenging ourselves on using it properly.

Believers must always insist that there is a “first cause” and a “prime mover”. Naturally, they must rely on these ideas to bring their god into the picture. It really is more of a philosophical idea but sometimes they always stem out of the line of science to make their claim…eh…realistic.

The idea of a “prime mover” is base on a person’s worldview. If you believe that everything started static, well then you will have a pre-conditioned belief about the Prime Mover – just like Aristotle.

It is considered that the Big Bang is the starting point of matters, space and time - that the Big Bang is space itself, as well as everything contained therein, sprang from a single point of infinite density and temperature, and grew to the volume observed today.  (Note: Notice that the Big Bang does not say that energy started before or after it – You have to remember this one.)

Mind stretchers (that is what I called theorists) have some new ideas about the Big Bang. I heard one that says this present BB is just one of an infinite number of BB that has occurred. Yet on its present state, cosmologists can now say with confidence that the universe started out in a very hot and very dense state somewhere between 8 billion and 25 billion years ago (whew! And believers says that the universe is just 6 thousand years old. Shame on them!).

Speaking of believers, they think that the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics is a contradiction with the Big Bang. Since the BB is the starting point of matters, space and time, matter was created in the BB. Therefore, it is erroneous to say that it needs no “Prime Mover” since movements of matter have started after the BB. Therefore, a Prime Mover started the ball rolling.

According to believers (especially Christian believers) matter had a beginning since matter cannot cause itself. Therefore, the material universe has a cause. Other than this, God (the Prime Mover) just hit everything with a cue stick to start it moving. That is ancient physics. Thanks to modern physics and quantum mechanics, we are now looking at things in sub-atomic levels. Today we now know that there are probabilistic causes. Atomic decay and molecular movements are good example of causeless effects. Probabilistic causes are now the talk of the science town. In fact, the Christian god idea is a good example of probabilistic cause and if probabilistic causes are impossible, then that is synonymous to the impossibility of a God that is consider as a “causeless first cause”.

Going back to the issue of a “Prime Mover”…since matter is created it is now…eh…wait a minute…So do I believe that matter was created?  I once believe that matter, can be neither created nor destroyed (Conservation of mass), yet the special theory of relativity of Albert Einstein have demonstrated that matter can be eh… created  for instance, by the materialization of a photon (quantum of electromagnetic energy) into an electron-positron pair; or it may be destroyed, by the annihilation of this pair of elementary particles to produce a pair of photons. Matter can be created out of energy and can disappear into energy.

So therefore, there is a first cause and a prime mover. Viola God exist!

Eh not exactly. So it seems to appear that matter emerge after energy. That matter is just a by-product of energy. The principle of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, although it can be changed from one form to another. If so, then there no reason to conclude a so-called “first cause”, since energy in infinite (without beginning nor end).

In the issue regarding the so-called “Prime Mover”. , since matter can be created via the materialization of a photon into an electron-positron pair – then why would I believe that matter started in a non-moving position? According to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, particles behave in some respects like waves: they do not have a definite position but are “smeared out” with a certain probability distribution. Protons are positively charged particle, right? They are always spinning around. If mater developed in these moving particles, then they started as moving particles. We do not need someone to push the strings.

But where does all that energy comes from? The First Law of Thermodynamics states energy must come somewhere.

The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a close system remained fixed. According to Prof. Stephen Hawkins, [i]“In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. This does not happen in the normal expansion of the universe in which the matter energy density goes down as the universe gets bigger. It does happen, however, in the inflationary expansion because the energy density of the supercooled state remains constant while the universe expands: when the universe doubles in size, the positive matter energy and the negative gravitational energy both double, so the total energy remains zero. ”[/i] (A Brief History of Time p, 129).

So if quantum mechanics have counteracted the premise of the First cause and the Prime Mover argument, they what is the need to posit the god question?

That wraps it up.

God believers have always misinterpreted atheism and atheists. You can’t blame them, atheism was always slandered and until now we can still find a lot of articles in the Internet that vilify atheism.

So today, I will just mention a few.

About God
Majority of god believers get the wrong impression of the atheist position about god. Instead of defining an atheist as a person that doesn’t believe in a god or gods, they intentionally label atheists as people that deny the existence of God. I think the word “doesn’t believe” is quite different from “deny”. Maybe because believers assumed that a certain god exists so it is quite hard for them to comprehend.

Atheism is really a negative stand. Now most Christian articles I seen so far states that an atheist declare that there is no god (which automatically justifies Psalms 14:1 and 53:1). Well sorry to burst the Psalmster’s bubble, but an atheist stand is clear, an atheist doesn’t say there is no god. Atheists will never utter something base on faith and assumptions.
An atheist will says that for a god with the characteristic of so and so to exist is quite improbable.

Believers might ask why atheists believe in the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. These things are not empirically observed.

That’s because the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are explained in the natural way and they doesn’t rely too much on so-called supernatural explanations. A friend of mine describes an atheist as a person who doesn’t believe on supernatural claim so base on his description we can say that an atheist relies on natural clarifications. Remember, there are observable, natural evidences that support the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution - powerful, independent data that corroborate them.

There is also the “word play” issue. Filipino believers sometimes delineate atheism as “atheo”. That is simply wrong. In a debate, my opponent insisted that an atheo and an atheist are just the same. This guy who boasts himself as an English professor seems to be too ignorant on root words. The root word “theo” and theism may be related but it’s not the same thing. Theism means a doctrine or belief in the existence of a god. So a theist simply means a god believer. Theo on the other hand means “god” as in “theology” – from the root word theo = god and logos = study. An atheist therefore means “not a theist” or someone that doesn’t believe in the existence of a god from the root word a = not and theist = a believer of a god, while the word “atheo”, well it just mean “not a god”.

So then what is this god atheist doesn’t believe?
The next common question I always encounter is this, “What God does an atheist doesn’t believe to exist?” As if there are some gods an atheist might believe and there are other gods an atheist doesn’t believe.

Here’s the answer: An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of any types of gods…PERIOD!

New Age followers and Neo-theism (yep I just invented this word…sounds cool eh?) try to re-define god. I don’t know…maybe they feel that the traditional god-concept is too unsuitable in the 21st century. So they just have to dress god with a new costume to fit the party.

With this new gear, some presume god becomes acceptable with atheists. WRONG!
God is god, whether we like it or not. I don’t know to you guys, but I’m not even buying the pantheist’s explanation. Is nature the same as god? Well…if you can give your 100% unfettered devotion to nature, then it’s a god. But can you do it? I remember the late Carl Sagan said that’s it’s not fulfilling to pray to gravity.

In the Philippines, I’ve met some so-called “atheist” who surreptitiously deems that rocks and other inanimate objects also have life, so the idea that nature is “god” appears to be OK. I was even surprise to find out that some professing Filipino atheists agree to pantheism. There are even atheists who said that they are only atheistic in the issue of the personal, classical definition of god. But deism or pantheism is not atheism. Most think that pantheism and atheism is just the same. Hmmmmm…I have also committed such mistake…but now…I disagree. It’s the same with La Veyian Satanism, which also claim to be atheistic. So maybe pantheism is atheistic, but it’s not atheism. A pantheist still believes in the existence of a god, he just called it Nature.

Agnostics
So why did I become an atheist and not an agnostic? Many consider the agnostics position much better that an atheist position. That’s because an agnostic suspends his belief because of lack of knowledge.

Agnostics believe that no one can really have 100% knowledge to disprove the existence or non existence of something. I think one of the best examples was Russell’s teapot, as proposed by the philosopher Bertrard Russell.

The best explanation is found on Richard Dawkin’s book, “The God Delusion”

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened (The God Delusion pp.51-52)

So we really don’t know if there is this teapot circling the orbit between Earth and Mars, right? We only know this teapot exist because ancient books have taught it to us. But no empirical evidence, what so ever can ever prove its existence.

So that’s the same with god-belief. An agnostic will insist that such knowledge is quite impossible: we cannot prove, for sure, that there is no celestial teapot or a god. Yet here’s where the agnostics were proven wrong. What matters is not whether God is disprovable but whether its existence is probable.

Let me put it this way. Old folks here in the provincial regions in the Philippines believe in the existence of dwende (or dwarfs) that resides inside large “balete” trees. Legends say that their castles are made of gold and are invisible to human eyes. Mostly these castles are found inside large tree trunks. Dwendes are known to fell in love to human maidens whom they kidnapped. The dwende will bring the maiden in his kingdom to be his spouse and will remain with him in the interior the balete tree’s large trunk forever.

So are we 100% sure that dwendes doesn’t exist? Do you have 100% knowledge that dwendes doesn’t exist? The answer is no. We don’t have 100% knowledge that dwendes doesn’t exist. That’s where the agnostics cash in. But, is there by any chance from a range of 1 to 10 probabilities that we can find a castle inside a tree? Is it probable that a sort of a magical little person can take a woman and place her inside a palace inside the trunk of a balete tree? Is it possible that there are gold invisible to human eyes? Hmmmm now that’s where atheism or should I say “adwarftism” sets it.

That’s it for now.

John the Atheist (AKA Pinoy Atheist)

A cheerful poverty is an honorable state - Epicurus

When you’re rich and an atheist, most Christians will say that you’ve become an atheist because money is your God. You will be accused of forgetting Jesus because you spend more time making money than praying or going to church. People here in Manila stereotyped atheists as filthy rich, collage kids or intellectual snobs who seem to be too pompous of himself, that’s why he deny the existence of God.

But how about if you’re in a state of poverty yet you’re an atheist?

Not everyone here in the

Philippines

is financially stable. A lot of people are struggling to make ends meet. Our government’s promise of an economic boom is still quite unattainable, even though our president keeps on bragging about her so-called rise in Philippine economy. I’m not blaming everything in the Philippine government. I’m just saying that here in the

Philippines

, the gap between the rich and the poor is very wide.

Unfortunately for me, I’m in the other side of the pole. I’m not really in a very worst state of desolation. I can still afford paying 3 to 5 hours Internet time. Seriously…I still eat 3 times a day, I can still pay my electricity and water bill on time, etc. That means I still have time to ponder on issues concerning belief and non-belief. Living one day at the time gives you moments to reflect on these issues.

I once had a debate with a member (I think he is the president) of a certain Roman Catholic society from Quaipo. Before the debate started, he informs the listeners that he knows where I reside. On that time my family was renting this small house in this “god-forsaken” neighborhood and I was quite surprised why this guy would have to announce that he knew where I live. Hmmm so the guy knows where I live…big deal. What does it have to do with the debate about the existence of a god? Does living in a small house a dead giveaway why I’m an atheist? Well, his ploy in no way worked, he didn’t prove the existence of his god and was crushed in the debate.

So when a person is poor, there is a good reason why he doesn’t believe in the existence of god…that’s according to Christian believers. He doesn’t believe in god because he is angry at God. Because he’s poor…Is that it? So you think a pitiable atheist doesn’t believe in a god because he blames god? A guy who doesn’t believe on something blames this something on his miseries. That’s not atheism.

Frankly, as an atheist, being financially deficient is a hindrance. First, you really lack the resources to buy books. Books are really an indispensable tool in an atheist’s arsenal. Unfortunately most atheists’ books (or May I say “all”) are foreign made. Geewizz! Foreign books are too costly! Thank

Darwin

that I have a photographic memory when reading books. There is this book store here in

Manila

, yep Power Books, that’s the name of the shop. Luckily for me, this book store allows shoppers to read the books off their shelves.

Another problem is that there are very few books about atheism available in the

Philippines

. There are even no books about biblical errancy, criticism in Christianity and a very few books about the theory of evolution. In order to have them…you have to buy it on Amazon.com or eBay…AND IT COST DOLLARS! Woah! $1.00 is equal to 41.00 Philippine pesos! Give me a break!

Luckily I have some books and a computer…tools that I used on facing religious superstition and ignorance and I would like to show appreciations to friends and relatives who gave me copies of these precious literatures.

Your financial status is not an obstacle in knowing the truths about the meaninglessness of theology and god-belief. You may lack certain tools like books, computer or money to splurge on posh coffee houses to chitchat about philosophy, but that doesn’t make your rational mind inactive. There are other ways.

Before I have my own PC and some of my books and before I had my own blog, I used to hang out on forums. Forums are good place to start. I started with Yahoo groups.

I’m not really good at typing so I have to write down questions from forums in a piece of yellow paper, and file them for further used. Then I go libraries around Metro Manila area to do research. Libraries are the best place to start looking for the answers. There was no Wikipedia on that time. My salary is enough for our monthly family budgets and for small leisure expenses, so I can’t afford staying for 4 hours renting Internets on computer café. So…I have to write it down on papers. I used to store copy-paste articles on floppy disks…but they have a very short shelf life.

There are good libraries here in

Manila

. You only need to pay P50.00 for a library ID at the National Library (that’s near

Rizal

Park

) and you can use their books. Well…unlike those libraries in the

United

State

, public libraries in the

Philippines

do have few collections, but I think they don’t have the latest books available. I enjoyed doing research in the Thomas Jefferson Library inside the U.S.Embassy. They have a copy of a Jewish encyclopedia there. In subjects like the occult and eastern religion, I go to the Theosophical Society in España (It’s in

Dapitan St

.

in

Manila

). They have a small library inside the building. I don’t have any problems when I making inquiries about Christianity and the Bible, the Bread of Life Christian church in

Quezon City

have a nice library. I also borrow books from friends.

There are also libraries from certain campuses where you can use. The University of the

Philippines

library for example charges P50.00 and they sure have a good collection of books, especially their Filipiniana section. You can also go to the library of the

University

of

Santo Tomas

,

La Salle

and at Ateneo de Manila, yet I think they will charge you P200.00.

If only Filipino atheists and non-believers will unite and create a small library…You know…like bringing together their different collections of books, audio/video tapes and magazines and letting other atheists have access to it (*sigh*). If only there will be an atheist’s organization here in the

Philippines

, I think that will be the first project they should do. A lot of atheists here in

Manila

, especially the underprivileged ones, are still in the dark in the issues of atheistic philosophy and science.

Today, Internet is quite common here in the

Philippines

and it become cheaper. There are even some computer cafes here in

Caloocan

that charges P10.00/hour Internet use. Younger Filipino non-believers are luckier. At least they can now surf the Net…as they say here in the

Philippines

, “If you’re looking for something, I-Goggle mo.” There are even more atheist sites in the World Wide Web compare to…lat say 5 years ago.

Yet it doesn’t replace hard-earned research.

I do not believe all “Filipino non-believers” out there today are privileged to own books nor do they have any computer. Sad to say I cannot reach out for their needs. I’m also in need, yet happily, friends help me. But not everyone is fortunate to have buddies like mine. That’s why I created this blog and my Yahoo and Friendster group…to get in touch with other Filipino non-believers out there. It’s my “message in the bottle”, a seed of hope that someday, maybe someday, Filipino atheists will unite their resources and help each other. A single voice will never be heard yet a multitude of voices will bring change.

I’m not losing hope. The tip of the scale is now on the atheist’s side. In the

United

State

for example, we now have books from Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and a lot more. Atheists’ ideas are passing from one place to another and the questions are now being asked. People like that of the Rational Response Squad are now challenging the tradition of religions. It won’t be a surprise to find religious skepticism in the Philippine shores. Sooner or later, Filipino non-believers will be holding hand and hand with one other to pass the torch, whether you are a poor atheist or a rich one.

Who said an atheist doesn’t dream?

Until next time,

Ciao!

John the Atheist

Ray Comfort (AKA the Banana man) is up to his dirty tricks again. The master of straw man and bad science is back. This time…since his so-called banana spit (AKA “atheist nightmare”) didn’t made any blow against atheism, he is now hallucinating in giving atheists some kind of a spiritual test.

Yep! That’s right folks! Mr. Comfort is publishing propaganda leaflets entitled “The Atheist Test” – now on sale in your local Christian bookstores!

I really can’t make out the disturb mentality of an evangelical Christian fundy. It seems their sole purpose here in planet Earth is to eat, drink, sleep and spread rumors, gossips and false information. Wow! And just think what the Internet is doing to spread their idiocy to the whole wide world. The problem is that people buy these kinds of stuffs. Maybe Einstein was right when he said that there are two infinite things, the universe and human stupidity.

Nah, I’m not offended with Ray Comfort’s shaggy dog stories about the Bible and Jesus H. Christ. Actually there’s nothing wrong when Christians share their delusional beliefs…but please, don’t shove it on other people’s ass.

So for the sake of fun and wholesome entertainment, let’s take a look at Ray Comfort’s test.

Test 1 and 2

The first thing you will read in Ray Comfort’s test is his “banana argument”

Is shaped for human hand

Has non-slip surface

Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.

Has a tab for removal of wrapper

Is perforated on wrapper

Bio-degradable wrapper

Is shaped for human mouth

Has a point at top for ease of entry

Is pleasing to taste buds

Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

Notice his ignorance about the Musa paradisiaca sarpientum.

That’s what happened when the only banana you know came from the grocery shelf. I wonder why he didn’t include that those bananas have a small sticker that says “Dole”? The banana that Ray is talking about here is the banana that was already been tampered by human selective breading. That’s the banana that you see on supermarkets and groceries.

What! Those bananas are already mess about by humans? So unfortunately to Ray, the banana that he’s trying to promote is not…eh God designed. Wild bananas are quite different. They are small and they shape like plantains (Saging na saba in Tagalog.) Unlike Ray Comfort’s banana, they are not yellow in color and they have these large seeds all over the flesh. They got this hard flesh that you need to cook so it will become soft. Thanks to modern science of selective breeding, we now have Ray Comfort’s edible, yellow banana. I wonder why Ray Comfort’s god didn’t think about that before he created the banana. One thing is certain; I think Ray Comfort’s god is going bananas.

Now since he knows a banana from the grocery, his next sample is another type of grocery “wildlife”. Maybe Mr. Comfort should go to the libraries more often than the groceries.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

Yes folks! He’s talking about Coca-Cola can.

Here’s a sample of what Mr. Comfort is good at…fallacies. And this fallacy is what we know as false analogy. We recognize that the Coca-Cola can was designed because we know that Coca-Cola cans do not occur naturally but are instead the product of purposeful design by human beings. We can even find out who were the actual designers of the can. However, the same cannot be said for the universe.

So another fallacious analogy is given by Mr. Christian Evangelist…Hmmmm should I call people such as Ray Comfort as “Fallavangelist”?…but if Ray will insist, then:

1.)    The can was created by finite humans, so does the universe created by a finite god?

2.)    The can was created by mortal men; does that mean the universe was created by mortal gods?

3.)    The raw materials that created the can were not created by humans; is that the same with the universe?

Also, Ray Comfort got the wrong idea on the word "creation". Remember, when we talk of something being created, we are referring to the making of one thing from the raw materials. It is an error of logic to apply the word "creation" to the raw materials themselves.  Coca-Cola can was created from different raw materials; we cannot say that aluminum, where the Coca-Cola can came from was created. That is an insult to someone’s intellect.

So Ray Comfort’s squabble, which is in a typical Christian idea, was inspired by a Holy Spirit, seems to be “canned”.

Test 3

A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?

___ YES ___ NO (None of the above)

B. Did it happen by accident?

___ YES ___ NO (None of the above)

C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?

___ YES ___ NO (none of the above)

D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ____________________ (none of the above)

Do you know why I put “none of the above” as my answers? That’s because the above questions are not the atheist position. Well-established scientific laws and scientific cause-effect interactions are not accidents (nice going there Mr. Christian Evangelist).

Just look at the beautiful pattern of the snow flake. Do you think Nature needs a so-called “designer” to produce all those unique designs? Contrary to Mr. Evangelists claim, you don’t need a so-called intelligent mind to create them. The effects of water vapor to cold is not sentient, yet is still produce beautiful unique patterns of snow flakes.

Now Ray Comfort asked, what are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ” Well may I ask him, “What is the chance of an immaterial, disembodied entity to have an intelligent mind?” If he believes that a brainless being can become intelligent…well he can believe in anything…even falling oranges.

Bear in mind that a supernatural intervention and straw-man tactics are not explanations.

Test 4

The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.

Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in

China

."

"C" is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in

China

, or the statement is incorrect. To say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock…nothing is hidden from my eyes…I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean’s great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn’t one.

But does declaring that “There is a god” is also an absolute statement? So for an absolute statement to be true, Ray Comfort must possessed absolute knowledge? Here’s the thing about people like Ray Comfort, they claim that atheists declare omniscience by saying god doesn’t exist yet they also claim omniscience by declare that god exists.

Let us use Ray Comfort’s own test question…but this time, with a little twist.

Here is another absolute statement: “There is gold in

China

.”

“C” is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is gold in

China

, or the statement is incorrect. To say “There is God,” and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

So let’s turn the table a little…If Ray insist that god exist then an atheist can ask him if he is 100 sure of it. If he says yes, then he’s also making an absolute statement which unfortunately, according to Ray himself, that there is no such thing as “absolute knowledge”.

Ray Comfort pretends to know the atheist position. That’s the problem with made-up stories. Mr. Evangelist should bear in mind that an atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods. However, if Ray Comfort insists that atheists state categorically that "there is no god." Well that means he has forgotten that absolutes require faith and only believers like him rely on such mentality.

Second, we have faith in plenty of things we don’t understand. Did you understand the mechanics of television before you turned it on? Probably not. You took a step of faith, turned it on, and after it worked, understanding how it worked wasn’t that important. We accept that there are unseen television waves right in front of our eyes. We can’t see them because they are invisible. For them to manifest, we need a receiver, then we can enjoy the experience of television.

Here’s an example of how Christian evangelists like Ray Comfort love to twist words and ideas. Or maybe he just doesn’t know what the meaning of faith is?

According to the Christian definition of faith, it is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. So that means it is the belief of things that not yet come to pass represents evidence for it actuality. Let’s try fitting Ray Comfort’s way of thinking and use “faith” when we turn on the TV set. Hmmmm…Should I plug it first? Well I don’t know the use of the plug…wait a minute…there is no plug. I don’t even have the slightest idea what a plug is…wait a minute? I haven’t even seen a TV set in my entire life! Well Sony 22:14 says that TV sets exist, and II Zenith 21:16 says that it needs a plug to operate. I have read in RCA 17:12-25 that television waves makes a TV operate but TV waves are spirits…you can’t see them or touch them. But I believe they exist. I have faith in my TV Bible. Well I know that someday TV set will exists…I’m hoping to have a TV…I believe that a TV exists…Hmmmm maybe by praying hard I will have a sign that a TV exists and I can operate it…whatever that is .

We don’t use faith when we turn our TV on. We already know what will happen when we turn it on. If in doubt, we can ask technicians or electricians. With an aid of a TV repairman, you can ask him to open the TV and tell you how it operates. It can be explained. Come on, try it. Read the blue print if you have a copy of it. The problem lies that not every person who owns a TV set wants to know how it operate. That’s not faith, that’s just being lazy.

We cannot see radio waves and satellite signals as Ray Comfort suggest, yet we use apparatus to catch them like your TV antenna for instance. If you have cable TV, you know you’re getting cable because you can ask your friendly cable guy what those cables for.

I’m just thinking…maybe Ray Comfort thinks that to get some Playboy Channel on your cable, you got to have faith and pray to God. 

Or maybe Christians can have faith and pray to God so they can watch re-runs of Kirk Cameron’s defunct sitcom.

Faith is about unseen assumptions and assurances that believers use as evidences. Now turning a TV on is quite different from the belief that bread and wine turns to blood and flesh, that the Pope is infallible, that Allah is the only true god and Muhammad is his prophet, that Felix Manalo Sr. was the last prophet, that Eliseo Soriano knows everything about the Bible and that Jesus Christ was born in a virgin and he will return to judge the world. Now that takes faith.

If you have even broken one Law, then you have sinned against God and therefore will "surely die," for the "wages of sin is death."

We are all guilty of breaking the Commandments. Listen to the voice of your conscience, and let it remind you of some of the sins of the past. We are not perfect as we are commanded to be (Matthew 5:48), neither is our heart pure. On Judgment Day our transgressions will be evidence of our shame. Think of it: God has seen every sin we have ever committed. We share our thought-life with Him.

We are guilty of violating His Law a multitude of times, yet if we repent, God can forgive us because Jesus stepped into the courtroom 2.000 years ago and paid the fine for us.

His death on the cross satisfied the Law we so blatantly transgressed, and at the same time demonstrated how much God loves us—"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." His shed blood on the cross can make you clean in the sight of a holy God…as though you have never sinned.

God doesn’t want you to go to Hell. Please, forget your arguments, repent and put your trust in Jesus and be saved from God’s wrath. Make Psalm 51 your prayer, then read your Bible daily and always obey what you read; God will never let you down. Thank you for taking the time to read this booklet.

And now the test stops here. It’s time for Mr. Evangelist to use “scare tactics” to wipe his foaming mouth. Gosh how naïve!

So Mr. Christian Evangelist talks about sin. Believe me; sin is only applicable when you believe in the Christian god. Remember, the test was designed for atheists. So do you think an atheist will wet his pants if some Christian dork says that he sinned to God? Give me a break here! Hey Ray, this is not one of the episodes of “Growing Pains”.

So before you start yapping your mouth about guilt, Judgement Day (are you talking about The Terminator and Sky Net?), hell and heaven, sins and that dead Jew on the stick may I suggest that you straighten your act a little bit and go back to the basics?

PROVE TO US THAT YOUR GOD CONCEPT EXISTS.

Simple isn’t it?

Maybe Christian evangelists like Ray Comfort always lurks in the dark corners of ignorance, fallacies, supernaturalism, fear and superstition to win converts. Who can blame him, even Apostle Paul admitted this crime.

“But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.”

That finished this test…well with this kind of a test; atheists will always score an A+.

Test passed!

John the Athiest