Sunday, June 28, 2009


What is morality? Why do we need morality? Where does morality come from? Is it from divine origin? What is 'my' basis of morality? These are the questions that popped into my mind when I think about morality. This is may seem, at first glance, simple to answer but it is more complicated than I (and maybe you) think.

I define morality/ethics as the set of codes and/or principles that guide a man's actions and choices. Morality is important because it guides us to live our lives efficient and enjoyable. Also, morality gives order to our life in a way that we can know what is good and bad.

The way I see it, morality do not come from a divine origin. Its origin would all boil down to survival. Think of the primitive humans (early humans who only thought of nothing but survival). They do not hurt their fellow humans because that would limit their chance of survival. Instead of killing or hurting each other, they work together (they hunt together) and find ways together to extend their survival. It is also the same with the basis of morality of Christians/theists. They do not do bad because they know they will burn in hell if they would. Same with atheists (at least me), I do not do bad to myself and others because I know that it can cause damage and hurt others and there are consequences if I would (I could hurt myself or I could go to jail). It will really boil down to survival. Not from divine origin.

Lastly, what is good and what is bad? For me, I consider an act as bad if it causes damage to myself and others. That is how I identify what is good and bad. But upon thinking about it, I found out that my basis for what is good and bad is, hmm I am not sure of the right word, a little bit flawed. I read interesting thoughts to ponder on my basis of morality at the Filipino Freethinkers forum (Yahoo Groups):

Morality is based too much on one's perspective (you'd be more offended if someone hurt your own family than an unknown person from far away, or better yet someone that you hate, people would even mutter "buti nga sa kanya, na-karma") that it's simply ridiculous to try to gauge or enforce it, I'd rather stick with what is legal and illegal.

Just going to add a few comments to your definitions while I try to come up with one myself, suddenly it doesn't sound so simple anymore when you add in extenuating circumstances :

- does this mean that there is no such thing as an immoral victimless crime? (cheating to pass a test, lying about trivial matters, sex fetishes and deviants)

- is it immoral if I sacrifice a few for the good of many? someone does get hurt in any case. does this excuse the sacrificer for directly harming the sacrificee if the net results saves more pain than it inflicts? (death penalty, torturing terrorists to extract information)

- what if the end justifies the means? (steal food for your family)

- what if the one being hurt doesn't mind or is very forgiving? does the action automatically make it not immoral?

- does temporary insanity, crimes of passion, and age give leeway to morality like it does in the penal system?

- if you're forced to commit a crime (children being used by syndicates) does that totally excuse you in terms of morality?

- if someone grew up on the wrong side of the fence with all the possible bad influences shaping his growth, is his actions more excusable than the same act done by a church-going person coming from a reputable family?

This guy (wcyaomuntek. I'm not sure of the name. Sorry.) is right. I guess it would be better to stick to what is legal and illegal. But I am still pondering about it (really). I just don't have enough time and enough brain cells to know it by now. Hmm..

Theist Morality vs. Atheist Morality

Theists say that atheists are evil and immoral because they do not believe in God. Theists' standard of morality is God (Bible/Quran). Since atheists do not believe in God (and Bible/Quran), then what is the basis of the atheist morality? Well for me, I simply consider an act as immoral (or bad) if it causes damage to myself and others. Simple as that. On the other hand, theists (mostly Christians) base their morality at their God's (Jesus Christ or Yahweh) laws which can be found in the Bible or Quran. Basically, theists do not do bad because they believe that if they do, they will end up in hell. Its like having a gun pointed at the back of the theists' head and the one who holds the gun is saying "Do this or that or else you'll be dead!". They are just afraid of hell and they just want to end up in heaven, that is why they don't do bad. If that's the case then I say that my morality is more superior than the theists'. It is because I know what is 'really' good and what is 'really' bad deep inside. Unlike the theists, they don't do bad because they are simply following commandments out of fear.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Kalam Argument

This is one of the famous argument for the existence of God. This is what usually believers use to prove God's existence because it looks sound and because it is consistent with the Big Bang theory (which is accepted by many). This looks like a good argument and I once believed in the Kalam Argument. The structure of the Kalam Argument is this:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

And the one who caused the existence of the universe is God. Therefore God exist.

One of the common objection to this argument could even be asked/raised by a (wondering) pre schooler. Who caused God? God also begs for a creator. If no one caused God, then God can't exist. God must have a creator/cause too. This would lead to infinite causes of gods. This is also how I counter the First Cause argument which is very similar to the Kalam Argument.

Now, even if one would argue or reason out that God is infinite, God would still need a cause as much as the universe. Since God created time and places himself in it, then it follows that God exist at a time prior to which there is no time. Because of this God also needs a cause as much as the universe if "everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence". (Wes Morriston's reply to William Lane Craig's Kalam Argument)

Even if one would assume that God is infinite, this would still lead to infinite regress when he created the universe. Where was God when he created space and time? God must be in some place (be it beyond space and time) when he created space and time. Let us assume that God was in "beyond space and time" when he created the universe. Then, where was God when he created "beyod space and time"? Let us again assume that God was in "another beyond space and time" when he created "beyond space and time". Where was God when he created "another beyond space and time"? And so on... Infinite regress.

Lastly, the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy states that mass and energy are infinite. Since the universe is composed of mass and energy then the universe, in one way and form or another, is infinite. (I am not really a science guy and I am still currently doing my research on this.)

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Omnipotence Paradox

Omnipotence: Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power.

Paradox: A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition; or, it can be an apparent contradiction that actually expresses a non-dual truth (cf. Koan, Catuskoti). Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together.

Omnipotence Paradox. This is not really new. I have read this in forums and blogs many times. This argument is used to prove or show that God is not omnipotent. One of the most famous I read and know in forums and blogs is the Stone Paradox: Can God create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it? Both possible answers would tell us that God is not omnipotent. Another example I read is this: Can God create a being that is more powerful than him? Again, the answers (yes or no) would tell us that God's power is not limitless. Now I read at theAtheist blog some interesting examples about the Omnipotence Paradox. The examples I read there are:
  • Could God kill himself? One might question why God would have the desire to kill himself, but that is not a valid reason for dismissing the question. If God can kill himself, then he lacks the power of immortality (perhaps a poor choice of words, maybe ever-existence would be better), if he cannot, then he lacks the ability to kill himself.
  • Could God create a truly immortal being? Similar to the above but a step removed. If God can create a truly immortal being, then he lacks the ability to end the life of that being, if he cannot create a truly immortal being, or if he can create a truly immortal being that he can then kill, then either he lacks the ability to create a truly immortal being or that being he creates is not truly immortal.
  • Could God create a being more powerful than himself? You might also ask whether God can create a more powerful God? This is particularly interesting as it applies across multiple definitions of the word omnipotent (see below). If God can create such a being, then he is clearly not of unlimited power (for a being to be more powerful, there must, by definition, be something the new God can do that the old one cannot), and if he cannot, then that is an ability God lacks.
  • Could God make himself no longer omnipotent? Rather than questioning whether God is omnipotent, this dispenses with that and rather asks whether God can make so that he is no longer omnipotent, or such that he is no longer a God. If so, then what impact does that have on the established belief systems, and how would we know?
Is God really omnipotent?

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Why I am an Infidel?

"Why don't you believe in God?" or "What are your reasons not believing in Him?" or "What are your evidences that God does not exist?". These are the most common questions I face from my close friends (and a relative/s)who know the real me. Really, why am I an infidel (well I prefer the word infidel because I once was a faithful)? What are/is my reason/s?

These questions are not that really difficult to answer (at least in my part). I don't believe in God simply because no one can strongly prove God's existence. No one have a strong and enough evidence, both logical and scientific, to prove that there is a sky daddy up there who listens to our thoughts. Others would violently react to this (especially the religious) but if one would just think of the evidences of the pastors or priests or religious dudes or Christian apologetics deeply and critically, one would notice that their evidences for the existence of God are either flawed or illogical or irrational. I cannot really understand how these people still believe in that (forgive the word) crap (Genesis myth, virgin birth, heaven and hell, etc). Even if the glaring evidences of Science (which is based on reality) contradicts their claims, they still hold what they believe. They would still hold on to their truths even if the evidences are laid on their laps. Based on my search and experience in discussing this topic, the God of the theist would all boil down to the mystical and/or the God-beyond-space-and-time god.

Now as to the evidences that I have to conclude that God don't exist? Well it is not really my job to prove that there is no God. The burden of proof lies upon the claimer. My believer friends do not seem to understand that they are the ones who must provide proof and not me. It is illogical to shift the burden of proof to the other side.

Simple as that eh? Now, I cannot really say that I will be like this forever, but I cannot also say that I will be again a believer. It would all depend on the answers I would find on my journey in finding truth.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Just a theory

Picture from here.

Evolution is just a theory? So is gravity. Therefore both Evolution and gravity are just hypothesis.


Saturday, June 13, 2009

New Blogroll

Discreet Infidel has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Having a good laugh at Pascal's Wagers

source: Skeptical Eye
Pray to all gods to be safe. LOL.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Panatang Makabayan

Kasalukuyang salin mula sa Filipino:
Iniibig ko ang Pilipinas, aking lupang sinilangan
Tahanan ng aking lahi, kinukupkop ako at tinutulungang
Maging malakas, masipag at marangal
Dahil mahal ko ang Pilipinas,
Diringgin ko ang payo ng aking mga magulang,
Susundin ko ang tuntunin ng paaralan,
Tutuparin ko ang tungkulin ng isang mamamayang makabayan,
Naglilingkod, nag-aaral at nagdarasal nang buong katapatan.
Iaalay ko ang aking buhay, pangarap, pagsisikap
Sa bansang Pilipinas.

English version:
I love the Philippines, the land of my birth,
The home of my people, it protects me and helps me
Become strong, hardworking and honorable.
Because I love the Philippines,
I will heed the counsel of my parents,
I will obey the rules of my school,
I will perform the duties of a patriotic citizen,
Serving, studying, and praying faithfully.
I offer my life, dreams, successes
To the Philippine nation.

source: wikipedia

I used to memorize these lines when I was still a kid. We recite these lines everyday after singing our national anthem. Now, I don't think I can still memorize it (by heart and mind). I even barely memorize our national anthem. But it does not really mean that I don't love my country. I just believe that actions are much way important than just memorizing some lines. A lot of politicians and government employees recite these verses every Monday yet some of them (if not most) are corrupt. I guess it is better to show one's love to a country (or to others) through actions rather than just words.

I also wonder if the people I see today who wore the 3 Stars and a Sun shirt memorize the Panatang Makabayan or they just wore it for the sake of being noticed (false patriotism).

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Day Dreaming

I am stuck here in my bed day dreaming of her. It seems my actions are dictated by my emotions especially when I see her.

Nuff said.

Spectrum of Belief

1. Strong Theist. 100% probability of god. In the words of C. G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in god and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in god."

4. Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I don't know whether god exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no god, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

(Extracted from Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)

I am at number 6. I am 99% sure that God does not exist. I leave the remaining .5 percent of the remaining one percent to the very low possibility that God may exist and the remaining .5 percent to the existence (concept) of God in the mind of the theists (LOL). Although I am not 100 percent sure if he exist, I live my life on the assumption that he does not.

How about you?

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

New Blog Name

I have changed my blog name from the original to Discreet Infidel ( Please do update your bookmarks and your bloglists. The reason I changed my blog name is because I want to maintain a certain image as of now. Me being labeled as atheist is not really a good idea for now. Its not that I am ashamed of being one but my job (as a sales representative with mostly Catholic Schools as clients) requires me not to be an infidel/atheist. I do not really see this change as a cowardly or shameful act but rather I see this as a rational action.

New name and image but same old me. Hope to hear from you my dear readers again.


"Omnipresence" is the property of being present everywhere. According to eastern theism, God is present everywhere. Divine omnipresence is thus one of the divine attributes, although in western theism it has attracted less philosophical attention than such attributes as omnipotence, omniscience, or being eternal. (wikipedia)

If God has this attribute, if God is present everywhere, would this also mean that God can also be found inside a nudist bar? Or in a room where two lovers make love? LOL. Joke time!

This is really my question: If God has this attribute (plus with God's omnipotence of course), where was God when the MV Princess of Stars sunk? Where was God when Hurricane Katrina strikes New Orleans wherein many were slowly and painfully drowned and killed? Was God really on these situations but he just chose not to help or use his omnipotence? Or was God really not there?

Hmmm.. the problem of evil again. No one really gave me a good defense or theodicy on this.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Blog Lists

It's been a while since I write some stuffs here in my blog. I have been really busy in the last few weeks and top of that the screen on our PC at home is dead plus the internet in our office is on and off at the moment. I have to borrow the laptop of my cousin first if I have to go online which I can't do all the time since he is also using it. I am really sorry for keeping you, my dear readers, bored. Fortunately you can browse all of my favorite blogs in my blog list for your entertainment or for your search for truth. :D You will really enjoy all of them altough some of them are quite sensitive. So here is my blog list..

1.)Inner Minds - Attempts at uncovering the underlying simplicity beneath apparently complex concepts as well as the core complexity within seemingly simple thoughts.

2.) Verbal Razors - one of my favorite. Just pay a visit.

3.) Confessions of a Partyphile - all about partey!

4.) Thoughts to Provoke Your Thoughts - a lot of thoughts that will provoke your thoughts.

5.) Babling Barbarian - Brains, brawn, beauty and some other brutally frank bitchings.

6.) Beincent is Vincent - my friend's blog at Ateneo.

7.) The Entropy Blog - Thinker, writer, skeptic, spy. That is what the author of Entropy Blog.

8.) Science for Life - a blog that is devoted to Science that has been given copy rights by 'New Scientist'.

Please visit these sites. You will surely enjoy reading them. :D Hopefully I could post another entry here one of these days.

Until next time,
Jobo the (not) Bored