The Pinoy Atheist in Friendster

“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

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.