Discreet Infidel

Einstein's God

2010-04-02T07:44:00.000-07:00

Most Christians try to misquote and misinterpret Einsten's God. Their logic usually goes like this: "Einstein, who is one of the most intelligent person of our time, believed in God. Therefore, God exists and atheists are wrong. Checkmate atheists!"

Really? Did Albert Einstein really believed in a personal God? Did he really believed in theism? Unfortunately, the answer to these two questions is NO. No, Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal God. Yeah, he believed in a god but not a personal god. He believed in Spinoza's God. And there's really big difference between the theist's god and Spinoza's God. And even if Einstein or any other famous and intelligent scientist or person believed in a God, that does not mean that we can already conclude that God exist. It simply does not follow and it is a very weak way of proving God's existence.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -Albert Einstein

Anti condom nuts

2010-03-22T06:28:00.000-07:00

Anti condom nuts in our country strikes again. One of them says "We have to admit that using condoms is equal to legalizing free sex." What the?! Maybe he meant something?

Anyways, I can't really understand why they, specifically the CBCP, cherish and care more their doctrines rather than the negative realities our poor country face (like poverty/corruption). They and some of its followers claim that the Church are just "guiding" our country to the right "moral" path but they are not really. Some of these primitive thinking priests believes that an ideal family would be a family with 5-7 children, they think that contraceptives/RHB is worse than corruption, the Vatican compared it to the Holocaust, Papa Ratzi said that condoms spreads AIDS, in Brazil they excommunicated a rape victim, her parents, and the doctor who decided to abort while they take no action to the rapist, they (CBCP) condemns our health department for giving free condoms and educating our fellow countrymen, and just recently the quote above. The CBCP have already done and said a lot of stupid and ignorant things against contraceptives and RHB. They already exerted a lot of effort and resources fighting and condemning the RHB while the majority in country suffer hunger, poverty, and corruption to name a few. Instead of spending their resources on stopping a bill that could help and educate us more about sex and health reproduction, they should spend their resources on things that could really improve the ugly situation our fellow countrymen face.

I am not saying though that all priests in our country are "primitive" thinking, there are also those (some Jesuits) who are very in tact with reality. And I really admire these priests (or this one in particular) for knowing what is really best (and not best) for our country. I hope that these CBCP priests will evolve like that of the Jesuits.

Ressurrection

2010-03-08T04:43:00.000-08:00

Hi. It has been a very long time since I write something here. I stopped blogging for some reasons but now I "think" I miss blogging. I am really reconsidering blogging again. Hopefully something will pop out in my mind. Or if nothing pops, I guess I'll tell some stories just for the sake of writing something.

Google: Now Serving Cowardliness

2010-01-06T21:17:00.000-08:00

Reason Enough?

2009-12-28T17:05:00.000-08:00

You can have your own truths but you cannot have your own facts.

Someone gave me this link and said that the six reasons in that link shows that God exists. I want to reply because some of the content of the link shows some misconceptions (or maybe lies?) regarding some issues. And most importantly, I want to speak my mind regarding this topic. So here's my reply and my reasons as to why that six reasons are not enough reasons to show that your brand of God exist. (so many "reasons" there)

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

The complexity of life can be explained by Evolution by Natural Selection (More about evolution here http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/main_issues.htm) Now as to the universe, the universe do not show any design. Design implies purpose. Look at the trillion of stars (most of them bigger than our stars), the lifeless planets, the vast empty space, asteroids, comets. What do you think are the purpose of these? Again, design implies purpose.

As to the fine tuning of the earth, if the earth were a little further or closer from the sun, there would still be life. But not the kind of life we have today. Remember that we evolved within the universe and its parameters. Even if one law, say gravity, is taken or absent there can still be life.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Scientists, cosmologists, and physicists are not really certain as to what really happened before the Big Bang. Yes, time and space started almost 14 billion years ago but we cannot really explain what happened before it. We simply do not have data to conclude/say beyond reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning or that it is eternal. It could be eternal one way or the other or it could be otherwise.

Now, even if i'll warrant that cause, there is still no point to give that cause the attributes of your Theist God (all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, and other all-something). A cause of the universe do not show that that cause is all-knowing or all-good. That cause could be anything. It could be aliens or some energy or another universe (multiverses). The cause could be anything.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

We know these laws because people (Einstein and other scientists) name and identify these laws. And not because god or some deity gave it to us. But why does these laws exist? We (including you) do not know. All we know is that we can identify natural laws, observe them in action, and use them to explain and predict natural phenomena. Saying that God gave us these laws simply because we can't think of any answer shows a god of the gaps (argument from ignorance).

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

Argument from ignorance.

Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. (Claim CF003)

Also natural outside influences (like Sun, or something from the earth's interior) can also help assemble these information.

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

Which god are your referring to? Allah? Hindu gods? Zues? Thor? Which god from these list and this?

Every culture have its own god, heaven, hell, and religious claims. You claim that your god 'pursues' you while other also claim that their god also pursues them. Does that mean that your god and other's god simultaneously exist? This is by far one of the weakest argument.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

I beg to disagree. Your evidence that JC exist are the Gospels. Unfortunately, these gospels (and others that were not included in your Bible) contradict each other BIG TIME. Also these gospels (at least 4) were written long after JC died (at least 60 years after) and that some of them were only passed through by mouth (since some of them were illiterate). The point is that your evidence, the Bible, is just a hearsay upon hearsay.

Further, using the Bible as an evidence to prove God exist would result to circular reasoning which is related to begging the question.

All in all, the six reasons given were not really enough to prove that god (or your God) exist. Also, no offense, but the reasons were really outdated and old (and tiring). There are much better arguments (out there that I know) for god's existence than that six. These were already debunked by so many times.

...And that is why I don't believe in your God.

Proving a Negative

2009-12-25T22:15:00.000-08:00

I always thought that proving a negative is impossible. I just learned and read that it is not. It would be difficult though to prove a negative because one must have omniscience to do so. But "proving" in proving a negative does not necessarily mean proving beyond reasonable doubt or a mathematical proof. One must only need reasons or evidence (or maybe the burden of proof) to prove a negative and not necessarily a proof beyond reasonable doubt. There are two (plus one below) ways in which one can prove the nonexistence of something. One is to prove that it cannot exist because it leads to a contradiction (incompatible properties argument) and the other is by carefully looking and seeing (empirical evidence).

Incompatible properties arguments attempt to show a logical contradiction in the concept in question. It shows that an entity (or something) cannot exist because of a certain contradiction. A good example of this is the properties of the Christian God/Theism. One can prove that this god does not exist by showing contradictions in some of its properties. For example, Omniscience and Free Will. A being/entity cannot be omniscient and at the same time free (acquires free will). It shows that that entity can't simply exist because of the two contradictory properties. Another example is the Transcendence and Omnipresence properties of the theist god. The incompatible properties argument can also show that two objects cannot logically exist simultaneously. For example, the god of Islam cannot co-exist with the God of Christians.

Another way to prove a negative is by carefully looking and seeing. The idea is that if a thing exists, one must be able to detect its existence directly or indirectly (not directly observable but the object causes effects which are directly observable). For example, suppose a friend of mine claims that there is a dog in my room but when I went to my room I found no dog. Since I found no dog, then I can conclude that there was no dog in my room. This same method allows us to know that things such as unicorns, Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot do not exist. Of course one could argue in my example above that that dog may have left when I arrived in my room. But based on the lack of proof/evidence that there was a really dog and that based on the limits of my understanding of anything (I could be mistaken on what I saw) I still proved a negative in such a case. Again, proof here is not the same as mathematical proof.

Lastly, another good way (found also here) to know that a person is justified in believing that a thing, say X, does not exist if all of the conditions below are met:

the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined, and
all of the available evidence that X exists is inadequate, and
X is the sort of entity that, if X exists, then it would show.

So all in all, based on the three ways above one can really prove a negative or that prove that there is no god or Santa Claus or Loch Ness Monster or a planet between Earth and Venus.

Funny and Confusing

2009-12-25T02:15:00.000-08:00

I am You? You are Me?

In Defense of the Problem of Evil and Suffering

2009-12-08T02:19:00.000-08:00

The fool hath said into his heart "There is no God". The wise said it to the world.

I have been tagged in a note by a friend of mine in Facebook titled The Problem of Pain: Atheism's Most Potent Weapon Against The Christian Faith and the one who tagged me wants to know what my reply is. I really wanted to reply there right away but the space in the comment section is not enough for my reply. Also, I thought that it is much better to reply here so that more people can see the defects of the arguments in the note. The whole content of the note can be seen here.

I will be quoting the some of the important parts of the note and post my reply below the quote. I will also include some points that is not related to PoE. So, here goes nothing!

All through science and history, if rightly understood, support the fact of God. This evidence is so strong that, as the Bible says: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1).

Most atheists, therefore, without any objective evidence on which to base their faith in “no God”, must resort finally to philosophical objections. And this problem of suffering is the greatest of these.

Science and history supports the fact of God? This statement is not really supported. This is baseless. Simply saying that "science and history supports the fact of God" does not mean it is true. The author should've backed it up with, er, evidences/proofs from science and history. Also evidences from science (Evolution), history(atrocities/sufferings), geology(date of volcanoes/lava) even shows that there is probably no God.

Now atheists do not really need evidence to show that there is no God. That would be illogical. (I mean, do you need proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist?). It is impossible to prove the negative. The burden of proof lies upon the claimer and transferring the burden of proof would be illogical. Since theists claim that there is a God, then they need to show proofs. If the theists can't show any proofs for their fact of God or that their evidences are logically invalid, then atheism stands. Also, the intelligent theists (these are mostly number 2 in Dawkins' Spectrum of Belief, not the fundamentalists) I know shows that their God is true using philosophy.

That is, they say, how can a God of love permit such things in His world as war, sickness, pain, and death, especially when their effects often are felt most keenly by those who are apparently innocent? Either He is not a God of love and is indifferent to human suffering, or else He is not a God of power and is therefore helpless to do anything about it. In either case, the Biblical God who is supposedly one of both absolute power and perfect love becomes an impossible anachronism. Or so they claim!

Yes, how can there be a loving, powerful, and omniscient God if evil and suffering exist? There are also other much better version of the Problem of Evil than the one above.

Logical Problem of Evil

God exists
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good
A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction)

Evidential Problem of Evil (version by William L. Rowe)

There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

Another version here.

I can think of three possible answers to the problem. Either (a) God don't exist, (b) God exist but he is not loving and powerful, or (c) God exist and he is loving and powerful but don't want to help. You know what item (a) means. Items (b) and (c) would tell us that God (Christian) is not worth of worship. Simple as that.

This is a real difficulty, but atheism is certainly not the answer, and neither is agnosticism. While there is much evil in the world, there is even more that is good. This is proved by the mere fact that people normally try to hang on to life as long as they can. Furthermore, everyone instinctively recognizes that “good” is a higher order of truth than “bad”.

If atheism or agnosticism is not the answer then what is the answer? Christianity? The thing is that the problem of evil and suffering really shows that a loving, powerful, and omniscient God (Christian God) doesn't exist. We can see this from the atrocities(wars/terrorism), calamities(floods/hurricanes), biological defects(autism/down syndrome), confusions, (and many more) we, including believers, experience every year.

There is more good than evil? I think not. We could have our own interpretations though of how much evil and good in the world but I have never known any evidence that shows either both is better than the other. The fact that people normally try to hang on to life as long as they can still do not show that there is more good than bad. It is just normal for human to cling to life as long as they can and I cannot see any relationship between them.

We need also to recognize that our very minds were created by God. We can only use these minds to the extent that He allows, and it is, therefore, utterly presumptuous for us to use them to question Him and His motives.

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25).

"Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, why hast Thou made me thus?" (Romans 9:20).

Whose God from the thousands created our mind? :D Again, baseless. Ok, so let's assume that God created our minds. But why would God not allow us to use our minds? Why would he not allow us to question him and his motives? Just because it is written in the Bible? Why should one believe in a book full of errors and contradictions? God telling us that we should not question him or motives would show that he is taking away our freedom to think for ourselves.

We ourselves do not establish the standards of what is right. Only the Creator of all reality can do that. We need to settle it, in our minds and hearts, whether we understand it or not, that whatever God does is, by definition, right.

This is the first theodicy, or the attempt to justify evil and suffering. This is called The Standard Response (from William Lane Craig vs Walter Sinnott-Armstrong debate). God's goodness is different from human goodness. He is good by His own standards according to this theodicy. It admits that God could not be good in our own standards. This is not really good for anyone who wants to have a model to guide his life. It is hardly a God worth worshipping, except out of fear. Will he allow or cause more evil? Will this show that He is even better than before? Nobody can tell, if we cannot understand the standards by which God is deemed good.

Also this response justifies atrocities. Imagine a human tyrant who kills or rapes or lets babies die painfully when he could just save them easily. His followers claim that he is still a good
person, because he has a divine right to rule without being subject to common moral standards. Whatever they say, however, we have plenty of reason to believe that this tyrant is not a good person. God is no better if He lets babies die painfully for no adequate reason. (Walter Sinnott-Armstrong).

Theists could argue that God is not subject to our moral standards because God created us so we owe Him everything. But that does not give God the right to abuse or neglect us any more than it gives human parents the right to abuse and neglect their children.

Having settled this by faith, we are then free to seek for ways in which we can profit spiritually from the sufferings in life as well as the blessings. As we consider such matters, it is helpful to keep the following great truths continually in our minds.

But we can seek more profit spiritually and mentally from more effective, efficient, and fair ways like education. Letting babies die, for example, would be very ineffective and unfair because it would just result to more losses (families will be broken for example).

THERE IS REALLY NO SUCH THING AS THE "INNOCENT" SUFFERING

Since "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), there is no one who has the right to freedom from God's wrath on the basis of his own innocence.

As far as babies are concerned, and others who may be incompetent mentally to distinguish right and wrong, it is clear from both Scripture and universal experience that they are sinners by nature and thus will inevitably become sinners by choice as soon as they are able to do so.

In general terms innocence is a term used to indicate a general lackof guilt , with respect to any kind of crime, sin, or wrongdoing. According to the quote above, the basis that there is no such thing as innocent is the scriptures. Babies for example are not innocent based on the verses above. Is that right and fair? (You know the answer) But why should one believe in the scriptures specifically the Bible? Why should we believe in an ancient book that is full of errors and contradictions with unknown authors? Also, not all of us believes in the scriptures (Bible). Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and other religion have their own scriptures. Furthermore, there are innocent babies that were born in places that were not reached by Christian missionaries. It would be unfair for them to be termed as sinful just because missionaries were not able to introduce the scriptures to them.

Also, it is not really fair and just for us to face the consequences of the sins of our ancestors right? (Adan and Eve). Is it just for the authority to let you face the consequences of the sins of your great great great great grandparents? Of course not.

Lastly, basing your morality on the scriptures is not really a good thing. It is because it is very limited and it is not flexible. It is much way better to base morality in the commonality of human nature and that knowledge of right and wrong should be based on our best understanding of our individual and joint interests rather than in some scriptures written long ago.

The Lord Jesus Christ, who was the only truly “innocent” and “righteous” man in all history, nevertheless has suffered more than anyone else who ever lived.

And this He did for us! “Christ died for our sins” (I Corinthians 15:3). He suffered and died, in order that ultimately He might deliver the world from the Curse, and that, even now, He can deliver from sin and its bondage anyone who will receive Him in faith as personal Lord and Savior. This great deliverance from the penalty of inherent sin, as well as of overt sins, very possibly also assures the salvation of those who have died before reaching an age of conscious choice of wrong over right.

One, Jesus never died for us (according to your beliefs). He was resurrected after two point something days (almost three days). So he was never dead. Secondly, he never suffered. What is three days of pain for an omnipotent being? He even predicted it (because of his omniscience). He knew that someone will betray him.

Now our parents have sacrificed a lot their resources, time, and energy for us to have education and good life. And so are the Army. They sacrificed their time, energy, resources for us to be secured. But how come we do not have statues of them? We even disobey our parents sometimes. (More of JC's so called "sacrifice" here)

These are just some of the points being attacked at the problem of evil and atheism. I also included to answer some of Christian gibberish and straw man. All in all, the theodicies that is presented in the said essay still do not justify evil and suffering as shown above. Here is also some answers to some common theodicies.

2012 Doomsday Prophecy

2009-12-06T20:10:00.000-08:00

2012 Prophecy
I always hear and see people on the world wide web so worried about the coming of 2012. Some of them say that we must prepare for 2012 because their god or gods will be coming on that day. Some of them say and believe that the world will really end on that date. Some of them believe it is because the Mayan calendar ends in 2012. Some of them believes that Planet X will hit Earth. Most of them (if not all) do not have any basis or solid evidences at all to back this up. They simply accept the hearsays of others and of marketing ads. What bugs me about this is that these people who believe in this lie are mostly educated people. Yes you read it right, educated people. Maybe the education in their country or the one they are taking (or took) is(was) not that good or they simply lack education. I just can't believe that these "educated" people fall for this crap.

Failed Doomsday prophecies
There were already hundreds or maybe thousands of other similar failed doomsday prophecies like this one. Lets take a look at some of them:

in 1900's people stood in Utah on a mountain they thought it was the end of the world

2000 - y2k?

in 1998, people though that time was going to repeat itself through the dawn of time.

june 6, 2006 theory

1954 (armaggedon man), a man predicted the end of the world to be on 1976, nothing ever happened on that day

2007 on july 4, apocalyptic nuclear bomb from iraq?

1986 zombie attack blowing out the human race that wont be contained

That is just some of them. Here's another lists of failed doomsday prophecies. You see, not one of these prophecies ever happened. (That's why they are called failed doomsday prophecies.) I am very confident that this 2012 doomsday is also a fake and just like the lists above. Why? Read on..

Debunked
One of the basis or evidence that 2012 doomsday will happen is the end of Mayan Calendar. According to the believers of 2012 doomsday, the world will end on 2012 because the Mayan calendar will end in 2012. Because of this, they believe that our world will also end. But the Mayan calendar do not really end on 2012. It's the time when the largest grand cycle in the Mayan calendar—1,872,000 days or 5,125.37 years—overturns and a new cycle begins*. During the 2012 winter solstice, time runs out on the current era of the Long Count calendar, which began at what the Maya saw as the dawn of the last creation period: August 11, 3114 B.C. The Maya wrote that date, which preceded their civilization by thousands of years, as Day Zero, or 13.0.0.0.0.** The point is that time and the world gets renewed all over again just like we renew our calendar on New Year's day.

Another thing that doomsday believers claim is that a certain Planet X, also known as Nibiru, will hit our planet Earth destroying all life and nonlife forms. This is called the Nibiru collision. Even a near miss could still destroy most of our earth. Fourtunately there is no such planet as Planet x. Astrobiologists and astronomers simply do not believe that this planet exist. Even if there was, astronomers would have been studying it for the past decade.

These two are just some of the myths about 2012 being debunked. You can see the whole list of myths being debunked at the National Geographic website here.

Why would I care?
I care because these people, especially the ones who were behind the marketing, are spreading lies and fear to the people. This could result to panic and maybe chaos. Also the people who believes in this crap blindly are panicking and in fear. People should not be worried about these things. 2012 is just a movie. An entertainment. People should not take it seriously. So stop worrying and enjoy.

Just a tip, do not just accept or deny a certain truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Use your head.

References:
*Said by Dr. Anthony Faveni
**National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091106-2012-movie-end-world-fears-maya-predictions.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091106-2012-end-of-world-myths.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/photogalleries/maya-2012-failed-apocalypses/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

Maguindanao Massacre

2009-11-25T16:31:00.000-08:00

I condemn the inhumane killings in Maguindanao that killed, so far, 57 innocent lives. I hope that justice will be served. I also hope that those who are responsible for the killings will be dealt with accordingly.

COMELEC is a Bigot

2009-11-12T07:38:00.000-08:00

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) on Wednesday rejected Ang Ladlad for party-list accreditation on the grounds that the party advocates "sexual immorality" and "immoral doctrines."

In a ruling dated November 11, the Comelec said that although the party presented proper documents and evidence for their accreditation, their petition is "dismissable on moral grounds."

Page 5 of the ruling states that Ang Ladlad's definition of the LGBT sector as a marginalized sector who are disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation "makes it crystal clear that the petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs."

The document quotes passages from both the Bible and the Koran (taken from internet site www.bible.org) that describe homosexuality as "unseemly" or "transgressive."

The Comelec goes on to state that accrediting Ang Ladlad would pose risks for Filipino youth.

"Should this Commission grant the petition, we will be exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith," the ruling stated.

Source

Since when did the Comelec become a moral arbiter?

I think this is a very unfair decision because the Comelec thinks that homosexuality is immoral (of course, based on the Holy Books written looooong ago). They should respect the separation of Church and State! They think that homosexuality is about orgies, drug use, violence, man to man sex, threat to the youth and what not. They killed the straw man here. Homosexuality or being gay is not really about these things. And it is not really immoral (unless of course they hurt others). Does being gay in general can hurt another? Of course not. The Comelec should not judge gays or anyone as immoral based on what they are or based on ancient books but based on their actions and/or cause. It does not mean that they are gay they are already criminals or threat or that they hurt others or immoral. I do not really see any hate nor threat in homosexuality. Gays are just persons (same sex) loving each other.

This is bigotry.

BTW and FYI, I am not gay :) I am very very very (repeated for emphasis) straight. This decision of Comelec just pissed me off.

God is good!

2009-11-10T23:40:00.000-08:00

If a believer gets a good score in an exam, finds a good lover, felt good, encountered any good and positive event, he/she shouts "God is good!" and then praise and offer something (usually money).

Heck, why don't they just give the credit to those who really deserve it?

Free Will?

2009-11-10T19:05:00.000-08:00

Here goes nothing..

free will
–noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

Do we really have free will?

I have been thinking about free will and determinism for quite some time. A few months back, I believed that men have free will and that men have control to its choices, decisions, and actions. But just recently, I read a couple of articles and arguments that shows that we do not have free will and that free will is just an illusion. I think (as of the moment) that we (men) do not have free will, we do not have control to our choices, and that we just think that we have free will (thus an illusion). I am not really a hundred percent certain about this because I am still in the process of learning about free will and determinism but let me just show you as to why I (for the moment) do not believe in free will. The point of this post is to simply show that our decisions, choices, and actions are not really 'free' at all.

There are two reasons why I believe that we do not have free will. Causality and chance. We end up choosing an option because of these two or a combination of these two. And both causality (cause and effect) and chance (random) shows that we do not have control to our choices.

Let's say I am walking from my work to my house one afternoon. Before I can arrive at my house I have to either pass one of two streets, Street A or Street B. I can arrive at my house in 25 minutes if I will take Street A and Street A is not that safe. On the other hand if I will take on Street B I will arrive at my house for only 10 minutes and it is much safer than Street A. Street B is nearer and a much safer course than Street A so I took Street B. I took Street B because of of the said reason and this reason (cause) led me to take Street B. As you can see, this decision is not really "free" because it is determined by an external force (the danger in taking Street A). This external force is called a determinant, or something that has a role in causing, or determining an outcome. A determinant could also be internal (genetics/biological).

But what if one afternoon I took on Street A for no particular reason whatsoever (random). Would this scenario tell me that I have free will? No. It is because this chain of purely 'random' event is, by definition, not really controlled. If it is, then it would not be random. Even a combination of causes and a random event or random events and cause/s still do not show that choices are 'free' because we cannot control chance and causality.

All in all, our choices are determined by determinants (external or internal force) or by chance. These two reasons led me to believe (right now) that we do not have free will.

Objections and criticisms are welcome.

"RH Bill: A Moral Evil" : Fail

2009-10-15T18:11:00.000-07:00

This(click the link if the video above do not work) is a video by a Father Arellano that I found in Facebook. The video is about why should RH Bill should not be passed in Congress. I believe that Father here is making a big mistake and is spreading wrong information about the RH Bill. Either Father here is spreading lies or he simply is ignorant about the issues and problems our country faces (is there any other possibility?). Maybe he was not able to read and study well what RH Bill is and what this bill is not before making that video. I will tackle below the wrong information and the twisted logic that Father Arellano have and prove him wrong.

1.)The bill promotes 2 child policy

This is the first reason this priest stated as to why Filipinos should repel RH bill. But the bill do not really promote 2 child policy. Maybe Father should've read and studied the bill before making a comment. He then states that five to seven children would be an ideal Filipino family. How can 5-7 children a family be ideal? Even a middle class family would have a hard time bringing up 2-3 children. What more a to low income family with 5-7 children. This priest do not even mention his basis to this statement. Will the Catholic church pay for the food and shelter for these families? It is really ironic because Father here promotes 5-7 kids per family as 'ideal' and he himself is a celibate (or is he really?).

2.)Sex education is pornography

How can sex education be pornography even to eight year olds? What part of "education" this educated(?) priest do not understand? Sex education is not a pornography. Sex education "educates" people about sexual reproduction, sexual intercourse, reproductive health, emotional relations, contraception, and other aspects of human sexual behavior. Basically it aims to educate people about human sexual behavior. It is not the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer.

3.)The Bill is against Catholic Faith

So what now if the bill is against the Catholic faith? It would not follow that it should not be passed just because it is against the Catholic faith. The Philippines is not only composed of Catholic faith. We have Muslims, Protestants, Hindus, and other faiths. Not to mention agnostics, atheists, and deists. Priests like this should not join in the affairs and decision making of the state. Majority of them (if not all) are not really educated well in state related issues like this one and that their doctrines and/or beliefs could hinder progress in our country. I mean they do not really care about the issues and problems our country face. They are more concern in following the doctrines and beliefs.

4.)RH Bill kills and is pro-abortion

The RH Bill do not really kill and is not pro abortion. No where in the bill that states that abortion is legal or that it would be legalized. In fact, it prevents unwanted pregnancies that could lead to abortion (and most importantly, it educates). Unplanned and unwanted pregnancies result in children that can't be fed or sent to school. Remember that contraceptive is different from abortion. As to the killings like genocide/holocaust that Father mentioned, I honestly do not get it. How can this bill kills?

5.)Philippines is the conscience in Asia

Are we really? In fact we are one of the most corrupt country in Asia and maybe in the world.

6.) Anti Labor

Let me quote a comment here from limestories in youtube.

According to Fr. Arellano, the country's number one export resource is its labor? Now I'm scared. How can that be a celebration of life when a man's life per se is degraded, sent to work and toil overseas to be away from their families and friends. It robs the life from the living.

Also, over population would just result more unemployed people.

So these are just some of the points that Father Bing Arellano states in his video. As you can see, he is either telling and spreading lies which is contradicting to the 9th Commandment of his God or he is simply ignorant to the problems and issues that our country faces. I hope that someday he will realize that he is making a big mistake here in influencing people not to pass this bill.

Theodicies

2009-10-12T19:50:00.000-07:00

Our country was hit by two strong storms in the last few weeks. If my memory serves me right, there was only less than a week before another storm hit the northern part of our country again. These two storms caused a lot of casualties. It killed more than 200 people, displaced thousands of people from their homes, and destroyed a lot of properties. Not to mention the trauma that it left to the survivors especially to the young ones.

Instances like this is a challenge to the lives of the people who are affected. How will they move on with their lives when they have almost nothing left? How will they move on if their loved ones were killed? Where will they get money to start again? Where will they get help? I think all of these questions and problems can be answered and solved as time will pass by or if eventually some will help these people. Time will heal the wounds as a quote say. But a more important question still remains unanswered for a long time. Well many have tried but I guess their answers still faces a lot of criticisms and contradictions making the problem still a problem.

Where was the God that believers, mostly Christians, claim to be true/existing, loving, and powerful? Why God would allow this to happen? Well these questions are not really original and new but I think it would be good to ask this question again and again for more emphasis. I asked these questions subtly (subtly so that they will not be offended) to my theist friends and they all have their own explanations and theodicies. I wasn't able to reply and criticize them because of time constraints and that I do not want to offend, and humiliate them. So below is the four and most common theodicies that I encountered and my reply and criticisms to these four.

Punishment Reply. The people that suffered in the in the two storms were just punished by God because these people disobeyed God laws or that these people were very sinful.

My reply: Not all of the people that were killed or suffered are sinful. There were children and good people too who suffered and died on the said storms. Theists could reply that this is just a result of the original sin. But I say that this is not just and it do not show that God is loving. I mean, is it just to punish the grand grand grand grand grand grand100x children of a person who committed a sin long ago? You know the answer.

The Heavenly Reply. These people and children may have suffered and died but they will be compensated many times in heaven/eternal life.

My reply: But what's the point of them suffering here on earth? Why did'nt God put them straight to heaven even before they suffered? Heaven do not justify their suffering. This act is immoral even if heaven is so good because God could've put them to heaven or give them eternal life without suffering them.

Soul making theodicy. This contends that God allows evil because this builds up a positive character to the victims. And this compensate evil and suffering.

My reply: Is this how a loving God build up positive character to its followers? I think there are still many other ways that is less evil and crude. Also evil and suffering do not necessarily build up a positive character. Greater losses also occur. Families would break up, morale would go down, people would turn away from God.

The Privation response. Evil is just the absence of good just as darkness the absence of light.

My reply: Evil is not really a privation of good. If you are hurt, say you were punched or kicked in the ass, you know that it hurts. It is a positive sensation and not just the absence of pleasure. People who are numb or asleep do not feel pain, even though they experience the absence of pleasure and any other feeling.

So where's your God now?

On the origin of the universe

2009-09-22T06:49:00.000-07:00

I have been following a discussion in the Filipino Freethinkers Forum regarding the origin of the universe. Well the thread (about why do people decide to become atheists) was not really about the origin of the cosmos but it suddenly turned into this topic. A deist, named innerminds, posed a question to atheists regarding the origin of the cosmos. He asked,

Can I pose a slight variant to the question why people decide to become atheists? I'd like to ask: Why do atheists believe that either the universe had always existed in one form or another for all eternity or was an accident in nature?

And please don't answer with "Because the idea of a creator is absurd". Remember, the 'real' atheists do not simply not believe in God but altogether rejects the idea of God, so please don't include God in your answers.

This question is basically geared towards atheists. I think that atheists (around the world) could have different views regarding the origin of cosmos. I mean one must not really expect that all atheists around the world would only either believe in an ever existing universe or an accidental universe. Other atheists also have other ideas and/or theories regarding the origin of the universe. Anyways I answered the question by saying that it is more simpler to suppose that the universe do not have a cause than it was caused by some entity, called God/Deity (which I will further discuss in another post). And yes, I mentioned the word "God". LOL. I am not supposed to mention it based on his 2nd paragraph but, my bad, I was too attached by the question in bold. And also I thought that his intention to that question is to trap atheists into believing or making atheists realize that the universe (logically speaking) must have a cause.

Upon thinking and pondering on the question (in bold) and also considering his 2nd paragraph (to answer it w/o mentioning God), I thought that it was kind of difficult to answer. It is because, as an atheist (agnostic atheist to be exact), I always tend depend on the flaws of the arguments (and stupidity of "some") of the believers. I base my answers/arguments/even my non-belief to the flaws of the believers. And that's the one of the very reason of my non-belief.

But what if there's no religion, no churches, no "divine" messengers? (Of course there would also be no believers and atheists:) What would be my theory of the origin of the universe? Assuming ceteris paribus, I would still believe in the Big Bang theory. Simply because its the only theory about the origin of the universe that I am familiar with and because it is the only(?) theory that is being widely accepted by scientists today. Believers argue that the Big Bang singularity begs for a cause/creator which is un-atheistic. Thus a contradiction (me being an atheist believing in a singularity). But we (including believers) simply do not know what caused the Big Bang. We simply do not know because science do not have enough evidence to point or explain what really happened before the Big Bang.

Now, believers (theists/fundies/deists) use this singularity to argue the existence of a creator or cause. This is also logical. But is it really sound? I will answer this question in my next (or next, next) post. :)

Unknowable

2009-09-19T23:58:00.000-07:00

Its been a while since I made a post here. I have been busy with my work lately and I have been traveling for the past few weeks. Although I thought some good topics to write about, I really forgot some of them and maybe I just got lazy to write them here (aside from the time constraints). So anyways, here's something that is a little philosophical and religious-ly that's been crawling in my mind for the past five minutes (LOL), the unknowable.

Of course when I say unknowable, I mean God as unknowable. Now according to the dictionary, unknowable is something that is not knowable; (especially : lying beyond the limits of human experience or understanding). I want to write something about it because there seems to be a problem with it when one relates it to God. Some believers, including some deists, believes that God is unknowable. They say that God is beyond our human understanding and experience. That's why they can't explain (or have the difficulty explaining) the Problem of Evil or some other questions regarding God or prove God's existence or why the deist's God do not intervene in their lives. So they hide in the safe armor of the unknowable God.

There seems to be a contradiction in this unknowable God because to say that something is unknowable, one must first have knowledge about it. Now some Christians (and Muslims) say that God is unknowable. Their basis to the existence of their God is their respective holy books. But their holy books tells us something, in fact almost everything, about their God and these holy books shows the personality of their God (example, Jesus Christ as told by the Gospels). Thus making their God known or knowable. We can clearly see and know their God which really contradicts their claim that their God is unknowable.

To finish this post I would like to quote something from a website where I got some of the ideas I wrote above..

Those who reject the knowable God are standing before a closed door, wondering what, if anything, lies on the other side. There is no handle. They shake the door but it does not open. They knock on it and hear sometimes silence and sometimes echoes and wonder these responses mean.

Believers interpret those silences and echoes as proof that God awaits them. Others are more sceptical. The closed door says nothing; proof must be found elsewhere. At the end of the day, the question is remains: if God is unknowable, how do we know if he exists?

Heck, this post is short. At least I wrote something :S

Rants

2009-09-07T15:52:00.000-07:00

So here's what the pastor (reverend) in my family's church said last Sunday that really caught my attention. (Yes, I go to church. It is because I am a DISCREET infidel.) She said something like this, "My investment with my husband went bad because we did not seek the approval of God". I was really laughing hard deep inside and I noticed the people around me were really taking it seriously. Then the reverend said that we should always seek God first before making difficult decisions so that God can guide us to the right path and that he will surely help us. And guess what is the basis of the pastor in saying that God will surely help us if we'll just seek God? Of course the Holy Bible. She mentioned a few verses to back this up! What a good basis!

I can't really understand as to why she still believes in that book. She's good at it and she is reading it almost everyday and still dint notice its flaws? How come pastors like her who reads the Bible (and study them) dint notice that it is full of errors, absurdities, and contradictions to the verses and to reality? Heck, they even teach these verses to people and tell the people that everything that is written in this ancient book is true.

Well to you Mrs. Pastor and to all pastors out there, why should we believe in the Bible despite its glaring errors, contradictions, absurdities? Why should we believe in the Bible and not the Quran or any other holy book? Why not use your mind and think and stop fooling people and teaching them lies!

Death of INC Leader

2009-09-06T23:18:00.000-07:00

I read a post at Facebook that a mom don't want to celebrate her daughter's birthday today because of the death of their (cult) leader. Yeah, you read that right. A mom do not want to celebrate her daughter's birthday because of the death of their beloved leader. Poor child.

Well this reason number 1047 as to why religion poisons everything.

Law of Attraction: Fail

2009-08-30T06:03:00.000-07:00

The Law of Attraction. I always hear these words recently from my friends, others, internet. Two friends of mine introduced to me the Law of Attraction. Both of them are saying that I'll really get anything I want if I am aware of this law of attraction. This made me laugh and curious. One of them told me to watch this 20 minute or so video in Youtube titled The Secret. And so I did. But somewhere in the middle of the video I stopped for I notice some serious flaw in the logic of this "law" of attraction and I just can't help myself (laughing and shocked). I was really skeptical about this "law" of attraction so I made a research on the net and studied (at least a little) this LOA.

According to proponents of this law, thoughts have an energy which attracts whatever it is the person is thinking of. In order to control this energy to one's advantage, proponents state that people must practice four things:

Know exactly what you want.
Ask the universe for it.
Feel, behave and know as if the object of your desire is already yours (visualize).
Be open to receive it and let go of (the attachment to) the outcome.

Thinking of what one does not have, they say, manifests itself in not having, while if one abides by these principles, and avoids "negative" thoughts, the universe will manifest a person's desires. (wikipedia)

Do you really think that by simply thinking (and acting) of something, say success, would really give you that thing (sucess)? Do you think that you will pass the board exam just by thinking that you will pass that exam without working hard? Of course not. One must work hard to get something you want. Simply thinking of it will bring you nowhere. But how about the stories of success in the video? Well they are just anecdotals (hearsay) and because of the self-selecting nature of the positive reports, as well as the subjective nature of any results, highly susceptible to confirmation bias and selection bias *. I mean these people are successful because they worked hard and not because they just simply think what they want. And some people just relate these successes and claim to have been the result of the Law of Attraction.

Also, one of the luminaries of the Law of Attraction, Joe Vitale, claims that LOA is really a scientific law and that it works "everytime - no exceptions". LOL. Hmm lets see. Imagine a boxing match. Both boxers are positive that they will win the fight yet one of them only won. Or when wagers on both side are positive that their bet will win yet only one of them won. What can LOA say about that? Well this only shows that LOA is not really a scientific law as one of the luminaries claim for it do not produce predictable and repeatable results. (Thanks to Skeptico for the idea)

Despite the criticisms and glaring flaw of LOA, many people still believe in this (forgive my word) crap. The idea of LOA is very similar to the concept of prayer which, eh, do not work. These people are just fooled by the marketing of The Secret.

*wikipedia

Belief

2009-08-14T08:15:00.000-07:00

I just had a conversation with my friend (office mate) a week (or two) ago about belief. Specifically about the belief in God. We were chatting about something and our discussion suddenly diverted to what-is-your-religion part. We still don't know each other well so we ended up asking this question to each other. Our talk basically went smooth until this what-is-your-religion part popped.

Me: Btw, what is your religion.
Her:Catholic, how about you?
Me: Well my family is protestant Christian but I am not really religious. I doubt God's existence. (I said something like that)
Her: But why??!
Me: (I stated briefly the Problem of Evil)

After I stated the PoE, she just went silent. And then we go on with the day. I noticed that after we talked about it, I felt a little distance between us. It seems that there's an invisible wall between us whenever we're together in the office. And I suspect that it's because of my non belief. Maybe there are other reasons but the little closeness (FCness) we had just suddenly disappeared after we had that discussion. Maybe her faith was shaken when I talked about the PoE and she hates me (secretly) because of that. LOL.

Well I don't care if she hold so dear her beliefs. I was simply showing her the reality about the evil and suffering in this world. And I also don't care if she won't like me because of my non belief. So what if I don't believe in what you believe. Am I evil because of that? Am I evil for not agreeing with you? Heck, she should pay more attention to the actions/deeds of a person instead of judging them because of one's belief. I hope she can read this.

Problem of Evil and Suffering (again)

2009-08-12T06:27:00.000-07:00

While I was on the way home from work I passed by a little boy (obviously homeless) who was lying on the dirty side walk while sleeping with a plastic glass on the side (probably for the alms). The boy, while lying down, was hugging his stomach. His stomach maybe aching due to hunger or maybe something worse. It rained a little when I passed by this boy and he only had a thin carton as his bed. The weather was cold. It will be colder at dawn. Can you imagine what I am talking about? Well I wish I took a picture of that sad scene so that you could see for yourself what I am talking here.

I really felt sad when I saw that little boy there lying down and obviously suffering and helpless. I also felt a little disappointed with our government because they should (could) keep that kind of boy and put him someplace better. I really wish I could help that boy and others in that similar condition. If only I have the power and resources, I would certainly help them. But at the mean time I don't. Maybe I will in the future.

What if you had the power and resources to help that little boy, would you help him? If you were indeed powerful or even just excessively rich AND just a bit loving and merciful, you would help him, right? But how come the loving, powerful, and moral (and allegedly existing) Christian God didn't help the boy? How come a loving and powerful God would let that happen? Is the Christian God not existing or just simply selfish?

Ah, the problem of evil and suffering again (and again).

Taliban 'brainwashed' Pakistan teen suicide bombers

2009-08-08T19:09:00.000-07:00

KHWAZAKHELA, Pakistan (AFP) – Seemingly never-ending tales of terror abound in Swat, where the military has fought against the Taliban for years and where parents speak of being forced to surrender young boys to the militants who train them to become suicide bombers.

The scars may take years to heal for Hamad Ahmad, one of many Pakistani boys purportedly brainwashed by the Taliban and determined to enact maximum carnage as a suicide bomber.

His mind trained on violence and his heart full of God, Ahmad says he wants to carry a pistol and strap explosives to his body in the name of Islamic law -- not hold books and wear school uniform.

"I am ready to carry out a suicide attack against any target with approval of my ameer (chief)," said 15-year-old Hamad, who claimed he received 40 days of training from the Taliban after being snatched last year.

Hamad, who talked to AFP by telephone from Qambar village in Swat, is now among a group of teenagers being treated by military psychiatrists in the wake of Pakistan's latest air and ground assault against the Taliban in the valley.

Hamad's father, Furqan Ahmad, found his son receiving militant training in the northern Swat town of Charbagh last February, two months after he mysteriously disappeared and before the latest military offensive began.

"My son disappeared in December after I thrashed him for carrying a pistol," said Furqan, a bank employee. "I was able to get him back with the help of a Taliban commander, who was known to me."

"The Taliban completely brainwashed my son, who was studying in ninth grade. He is now even more violent and doesn't let his mother and sisters watch TV, calling it un-Islamic," Furqan said.

Radical cleric Maulana Fazlullah led thousands of ideologues and disenfranchised young men in a brutal uprising across Swat to enforce sharia law, beheading opponents, burning schools and fighting government forces.

Commanders say more than 1,800 militants and 166 soldiers were killed in the latest blistering military assault designed to dislodge the Taliban from Swat, but Hamad refuses to stare defeat in the face, saying God is on their side.

"Any one who stops or becomes an impediment to implementing sharia needs to be dealt with sternly by any means, including suicide attacks," he said.

"They are fully protected by Allah the almighty," he said. Following in their foot prints is a "ticket to heaven", he added.

Heavy death tolls released by the military from the summer offensive are impossible to confirm. None of the most-wanted Taliban leadership in Swat have been killed or captured. The military have slammed the training of children.

"We have contacts with about 100 children who are living with their parents. They visit us routinely and a psychiatrist sees them regularly," said military spokesman Major Nasir Ali Khan in Khwazakhela, a town in northern Swat.

But the precise numbers are unclear. Top military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas confirmed recently 11 boys trained as suicide bombers were taken into custody. Other officials charged that hundreds of boys were recruited.

No Taliban spokesmen or commanders were reachable for comment.

Boys told military officials that a foreigner, probably an Uzbek, used to impart training to them for suicide attacks.

Khan said the Taliban training came in three parts. For two weeks boys were taught to provide tip offs about security force manoeuvres. Then came a 40-day militant training and lastly, training in the art of becoming a suicide bomber.
In Khwazakhela, the military took reporters into a dimly lit room, once used as science laboratory, to speak to boys -- masked to protect their identity.
"The Taliban took me to Charbagh at gunpoint and later to Matta where they set up a training camp inside a government school," said one 16-year-old.
"There were at least 30 men who used to train us in Matta," said the youth, a small beard already growing on his face.
"They used to say there is a great reward in heaven for anyone slaughtering a soldier and same reward if you slaughter someone telling you it is wrong," added the boy, who said he escaped back to his parents.

Click here for the source.

These kids will kill in the name of their God and religion. I hope this will stop. This is one of the few reasons as to why religion poisons everything.

Questions for Christians

2009-08-06T06:33:00.000-07:00

According to wikipedia, a Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who Christians know as Christ, the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. The American Heritage Dictionary on the other hand defines a Christian as "one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or lives the lifestyle based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."

Bertrand Russell consider a person a Christian if (1) that person believes in God and immortality(could be heaven); and (2) that person believes in Jesus Christ and consider Christ, if not Divine, the best and the wisest. One could also add the belief in hell to that. But some Christians nowadays do not believe in hell for some reasons.

Now based on the definition on what is a Christian above, I want to ask Christians (especially the Fundies) these questions:

1.) How do you know that God exist? Give me first your definition of God before you answer this.
2.) Why do you believe in immortality (or afterlife or heaven)? What is your proof/evidence of immortality (or afterlife or heaven)?
3.) Do Jesus have powers and can create miracles? Is Jesus really the best and wisest of men?
4.) If you believe in hell or eternal damnation, what is your proof of this?

I want to discuss these questions with you Christians (if I am fortunate to get answers from you) and see how and where this goes. This post by the way is inspired by one of the blog posts of Drazzel (the post where in he invites readers to participate).

Pray on!

2009-08-03T05:20:00.000-07:00

First things first. This post is not meant to offend the former President. I have high respect on her. This post is meant to open your eyes and make you realize that there is no sky daddy up there who listens to your cries and thoughts.

One of the first things that popped in my mind when I heard the news that the former president Cory Aquino died was the power of prayers. Well, the powerless of prayers. That really proved it, again and again. Many people in my country prayed and prayed a lot for her cure and well being yet she still ended up dead (unexpectedly). In fact she died in the middle of some prayer vigil of some sort.

What could this mean? Well in my view, this means that praying is useless and just a waste of time. Still I heard a lot of people in the news that they will still continue to pray for her. Heck, these people still believes in the power of prayer. I mean these people already prayed to their sky daddy that the former President would be healed from cancer. Yet she was still sickly and died because of it. Well she survived more than a year or so but it is because of the medication she took and of the money. Imagine if her family is not that rich and she did not take her meds. She would've died earlier.

Now, lets also examine some verses in the Bible that says praying works.
Matthew 7:7
Matthew 21:21
Mark 11:24
John 14:12-14
Matthew 18:19
James 5:15-16
What would the death of Cory tell us about these verses? Lies.

So you Christians out there. You be the judge here. Pray on!

Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

2009-07-15T05:31:00.000-07:00

Let's have a laugh for a while.

Here's some of proofs for God's Existence. Just click this link for the complete list. Click also here for the proof of afterlife. LOL

# ARGUMENT FROM OFFENSE
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist makes counterarguments.]
(3) You know what? I am offended.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

# ARGUMENT FROM PRAYER (I)
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist makes counterarguments.]
(3) You have my prayers.

# ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

# ARGUMENT FROM LOVE
(1) Have you ever fallen in love?
(2) [Of course!!]
(3) So what is the cause of love? Isn't it God? Am I right or not?
(4) Therefore, God exists.

# ARGUMENT FROM IDENTITY (PC ARGUMENT)
(1) Believing in God is a central part of my identity.
(2) You don't mean to deny my identity do you?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

# ARGUMENT FROM FORMATTING
(1) Behold, foolish atheists, I present you with an incontrovertible proof of the existence of God.
(2) [Christian posts 10,000 word document without a single paragraph break.]
(3) [Atheist's eyes implode.]
(4) I see that nobody can refute (2).
(5) Therefore, God exists.

# ARGUMENT FROM NON-CONFRONTATION
(1) I am not here to argue with you atheists.
(2) But come on, God obviously exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

# ARGUMENT FROM EXODUS
(1) If the Exodus story has any basis in historical fact, then God exists.
(2) Some guy found some chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea.
(3) There is absolutely no other way that chariots could get to the bottom of the Red Sea.
(4) This means the Exodus story is true.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

Word of God

2009-07-14T15:27:00.000-07:00

Funny how it's always humans doing the talking.

Word of God eh?

Thou Shall Not Lie

2009-07-07T05:56:00.000-07:00

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. This is the eighth commandment in the Catholic Lutheran and the ninth commandment in the Orthodox Church. This commandment is telling us (or at least the believers) to not to tell a lie all the time. Sounds good right? Christians also believe that whoever disobeys this rule is considered as sinful and immoral. Thus any one who will disobey this rule (and the others) will suffer eternal damnation.

When I first thought of this, I said to myself "Well this commandment is a good moral standard". But after more deeper pondering and reading, I noticed that this commandment and as well as the other commandments is not that flexible and good. Is it really good to tell the truth all the time? Christians here would answer yes for they know that that is the commandment of their God. They are also aware that if they will disobey this commandment, they will suffer eternal damnation. But telling the truth all the time is not really a good idea. There are instances/situations wherein one should lie in order to improve his/her situation or other's (or in order to expect a better outcome). Example, what if a killer is chasing someone innocent, say a child, and that child hides in your house. Then the killer asked you if you saw the child. Would you tell where the child is (the truth) or would you tell that you don't know (lie)? Well I (hope) know you know what to do.

But what do you think would happen if a Christian would follow Commandment number 9 at that situation? What if a Christian would base his/her action/s on the said commandment? So its either the Christian would follow the commandment or could lie and suffer eternal hell. As you can see, their Commandments are not flexible (unchanging). And that is the problem there. Christians are claiming that they have a good basis of morals (Bible) but as you can see above, their basis is not that good or flawed. Christians (the way I see it) just blindly believe in these commandments not knowing that following them could cause more damage (in some situations/instances) instead of lessening it.

All in all, morality should not be based merely on ancient texts and fear. The way I see it, morality should be based on society in general. One should base what is right on what we see as beneficial to the public or the other party involved and what is wrong should be based on what can be harmful to others (both emotionally and physically).

Caught in the Art (act)

2009-07-04T21:42:00.001-07:00

Uh-oh. Caught in the act!

Confirmed: God is slightly gay

2009-07-04T21:21:00.000-07:00

Just ask the animals. As soon as they stop having all that homosexual sex.

I found this link at the Filipino Freethinkers forum. This is a good read. Enjoy.

Sobering Thoughts

2009-07-03T07:47:00.000-07:00

Despite life's problems, pressures, trials, and ironies, I can still say that it feels good to exist (esp. w/ RH and friends by your side).

Morality

2009-06-28T06:22:00.001-07:00

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

2009-06-28T06:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Kalam Argument

2009-06-22T05:47:00.000-07:00

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.)

Omnipotence Paradox

2009-06-21T05:40:00.000-07:00

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?

Why I am an Infidel?

2009-06-20T15:27:00.000-07:00

"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.

Just a theory

2009-06-17T06:49:00.000-07:00

Picture from here.

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

(sarcasm)

New Blogroll

2009-06-13T18:41:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-13T00:57:00.000-07:00

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

Panatang Makabayan

2009-06-12T04:42:00.000-07:00

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).

Day Dreaming

2009-06-11T22:49:00.001-07:00

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

2009-06-11T18:56:00.000-07:00

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?

New Blog Name

2009-06-09T06:14:00.001-07:00

I have changed my blog name from the original to Discreet Infidel (discreetinfidel.blgospot.com). 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

2009-06-09T05:46:00.000-07:00

"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.

Blog Lists

2009-06-04T02:24:00.000-07:00

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

Why Christianity Fails

2009-05-26T06:16:00.000-07:00

This is the opening statement of Christopher Hitchens on debate(religion vs. atheism) against Alister McGrath on October 11, 2007.

Manifesto ng Tunay na Lalake

2009-05-25T15:43:00.000-07:00

Manifesto ng Tunay na Lalake

Ang tunay na lalake ay di natutulog.
Ang tunay na lalake ay di nagte-text-back, maliban na lang kung papasahan ng load. Gayunpaman, laging malabo ang kanyang mga sagot.
Ang tunay na lalake ay laging may extra rice.
Ang tunay na lalake ay hindi vegetarian.
Ang tunay na lalake ay walang abs.
Ang tunay na lalake ay hindi sumasayaw.
Ang tunay na lalake ay umaamin ng pagkakamali sa kapwa tunay na lalake.
Ang tunay na lalake ay laging may tae sa brief.
Ang tunay na lalake ay di naghuhugas ng pinagkainan o nagliligpit ng kanyang mga gamit dahil may babaeng gagawa noon para sa kanya. Mas lalong nagiging tunay ang pagkalalake kung di niya kilala o di niya maalala ang pangalan ng babae.
Ang tunay na lalake ay di nagsisimba.

Tunay kaba na lalake?

Problem of Evil

2009-05-21T01:51:00.000-07:00

I always hear during Sundays in our Church (*when I go with my family) other church members/leaders/pastors/evangelists shout "God is good all the time! All the time God is good!" I can't really understand how they end up shouting that phrase. I guess they are not that aware of what is really happening in this world. Maybe they only see the good things in this world OR maybe they consider a certain tragedy or suffering as "good".

I mean look at the news in TV, we always hear about floods killing tens to hundreds of people, plane crashing, rape, abortion, diseases, storms, wars, and other kinds of sufferings. Would these tell us that a good, loving, moral, and powerful God exist? How can there be a loving, moral, and powerful God if evil and suffering exist?

Whither is God during these times? (Assuming GOd exists as believers claim) I am sure that some believers tried to contact or connect or pray to God for some assistance and help but where was God? Or is there really some one powerful, loving, and moral up there that listens to the cries of the dying and suffering people below? If God is powerful then he can prevent evil and sufferings like floods, diseases, storms, wars, rape, and the like. But he was never there (although some believes he was). If God is moral and loving then he will not allow (or at least prevent some of) these evil and suffering. But he didn't. If God is worth of worship then, again, he will not or at least prevent some of the evil and suffering.

I can only think of three possible answers to the question above. Either (a) God don't exist, (b) God exist but he is not loving and powerful, or (c) God exist and he is loving and powerful but don't want to help. You know what item (a) means. Items (b) and (c) would tell us that God (Christian) is not worth of worship. Simple as that.

*Yes, I go to Church once in a while. But I go not because I worship or praise or or believe or love God.

2009-05-07T04:00:00.000-07:00

This is the time in my life where everything is falling apart and at the same time it's all coming together. Just like when beautiful people drive ugly cars. Just like when pretty people crush ugly cars.

Pacman Dilemma

2009-05-04T16:04:00.000-07:00

I found this interesting topic at the Freethinkers Forum (yahoo group) about Pacquiao's prayers.

John P. wrote:

If you will notice, Paquiao always starts and ends his match with a prayer, and he wins his match most of the times. So just asking...How will you point out to the Filipinos a certain "godless" philosophy like Secular Humanism for example in relation with Paquiao?

Does the prayers really helped Pacquiao win most of his fights? Is that really the reason why he won most of his fights? As a freethinker, I really don't believe that the Pacquiao's prayers helped him win most of his fights. His prayers have got nothing to do in winning his fights. I (and others like me) believe that Pacquiao won most of his fights because of his talent and training. Not because of his prayers. Imagine if Manny will not train 2-3 months before his next fight and just rely on prayers. Do you think Manny will win? Well you know the answer. Also, there are other boxers out there who pray before (and after) their fights but they are not champions like Manny. ( Maybe God have other 'divine' plans for these boxers?? Well, who are we to question God's plans right??* LOL).

All in all, prayers really don't have 'powers' or divine intervention something by a sky daddy up there. Yes it could motivate or give confidence to others but believe me, it is not the prayer. It is with the person. No one really listens up there. It is better to give the credits to yourself and others who helped and worked hard rather than to the non-existing sky daddy up there.

*sarcastic reply of one of the member @ the forum/yahoo group

Church issues new prayer on swine flu

2009-05-03T07:25:00.000-07:00

MANILA, May 2, 2009—A new prayer posted at the Church of Manila website aims to help avert the spread of swine flu in the country.

The “Oratio Imperata on swine flu” at www.rcam.org urges the faithful to pray in order to spare Filipinos of the disease that has already claimed many lives in Mexico and threatens to spread throughout the world.

[Credit to the original source. Read the full (absurd)news here.]

This is really absurd and stupid because one can't really heal/minimize/eliminate this outbreak by hoping that sky daddy will hear and pity them.

Boooorrrinnnggg....

2009-05-01T05:35:00.000-07:00

Well the title is self explanatory. I'm kinda bored right now. I am looking for something new to do aside from Internet and chess and music and DVD. Since I got bored reading, I will present here some of the things that made me busy lately (although these things also bore me sometimes) while waiting for S's to call me for my training.

As of now I am reading Paulo Coelho's The Devil and Ms. Prym and I am not yet done with it. I have to rest my eyes for a while first before I continue reading it. Hopefully I can finish the book this weekend. The story is (so far) great. I like the characters because they are kinda weird and unusual. The novel tries to answer the question "Are people bad?". Also it kinda presents the problem of evil and I am guessing I will encounter theodicies somewhere in the end. The one thing why I like this book is because I can really relate (well I guess we all can) to the situation of the main character.

Aside from that book above, I am also reading Atheist Universe by David Mills at Scribd.com. I really don't know if the copies of the books there are legit. I just started Chapter 3, God of the Gaps: Does the Universe Show Evidence of Design. Chapters 1 (Interview with an Atheist) and Chapter 2 (Origin of the Universe: Natural or Supernatural) are both good and easy to understand. I really learned a lot especially in Chapter 2 (this chapter is a little scien-cy) wherein David Mills explains some of the basic ideas of the Law of the Conservation of Mass-Energy.

Lastly, I am watching The Office Seasons 1 and 2 and Two and a Half Men Season 1. I bought these just last week (pirated of course). The Office is a mockumentary about life in a mid-sized suboffice paper merchants in a bleak British industiral town, where manager David Brent thinks he's the coolest, funniest, and most popular boss ever(from the back of the pirated DVD). But he isn't really. In fact, his employees think of him as the opposite of these things. The Two and a Half Men on the other hand is a little better and funny than The Office. But the copy I bought is defective (duh pirated). I only enjoyed the first 12 or so episodes of season 1.

So these are the three things that keeps me busy lately (well aside from my daily chess and Facebook and E-mail). I may have a lot of things going on while waiting but I easily get bored with these things. Grrr... Boring...

Refutations (part2)

2009-04-30T22:24:00.000-07:00

Now here is my refutation on the second part.

It is really a misconception that atheists are evil or bad persons. Atheists are not really bad and evil. Atheists are happy people. Well maybe not all atheists are good but there are also evil and bad believers. Are atheists evil because they disagree with you? Are atheists evil because they don't believe what you do? I mean beliefs has got nothing to do with being bad/evil as long as your belief cannot hurt others. I will one by one present my refutations to the points raised of the author.

The items below are the "realities" that atheists avoid according to the author. Below each item is my reply.

1. The reality that there is a Creator of everything that exist;

(ACTS 17:24) God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; (KJV)

Is this your proof that there is a creator of everything? The Bible? Very rational (sarcasm). Is the Bible telling the truth? Why? Is it because it is the word of God(instructed by God)? This argument is called circular argument (which is fallacious). Also if everything has a creator, then who created God? (infinite regress). If God is infinite then your premise fails making your statement illogical.

2. The reality that everything that exists was planned and created for a purpose. (The harmony in the natural and physical universe cannot logically be the product of an accident or a Big Bang)

Did God plan the evil and suffering in this world too? :lol: If it is then he is not worth of worship. If not then again your statement is false that everything is planned. If one will just study clearly and critically the universe one would notice that the universe was not really created for a purpose. No one created the universe. It is always existing. The conservation of mass-energy states that both mass and energy can't be created nor destroyed. Now i ask, what is the purpose of the empty(unlivable) planets in the solar system? What is the purpose of the billions of stars in the universe? Also the Big Bang Theory (theory eh?) is already accepted by many scientists and even theists. Compare this to your Genesis myth which is based on the ancient book. Maybe it is time to update yourself and your group to science.

3. The reality that the Bible speaks of scientific truth even before they were discovered by human science because such declaration came from an existing God.

(ISAIAH 40:22) It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (KJV)

(JOB 26:7) He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. (KJV)

Well these two verses are not really clear in explaning and describing our earth. Is this all? The earth is so complex and these two is not enough and clear to describe it. Well yes, these two are quite consistent with science but this is not enough. Let us also consider the talking animals, the stick that turned into snake, the man who walks in water, the man who raised from the dead, can these be supported by science? Also the Genesis myth misinterpret the origin of life and of the cosmos. Very scientific eh?

4. The reality that present-day happenings were predicted in the bible thousands and hundreds of years ago before by an existing God.

5. And, the reality of their very existence that the prophecy of the coming of “scoffers” is being fulfilled in their person!

These so called prophecies in the Bible are so vague. These are like Horoscopes. Vague. One can just relate any event or situation to one of these prophecies and claim it was predicted. Notradamus' prophecies are much way more accurate than the Bible.

Whew! Until next time!

Refutations (part1)

2009-04-30T21:14:00.000-07:00

While I was surfing the net and blog hopping, I stumbled (again) upon this blog. This really caught my attention because of its false and allegedly rational content and bad(and weak) arguments. Well this post is not really new but I haven't write any refutations yet here in my blog and I think I should have to because I am bored. Now the two part entry of this blog is titled The Claim That There Is No God Is An Escape From All Realities (part 1).

Now let's examine the author's "rational" claims...

In the first part, the author writes that the worst evil was done by those who denied the existence of God. He mentioned (the "Godless") Hitler, Polpot, Joseph Stalin, and other communists. But this author never really thought that these people did not kill because they are atheists. These people killed hundreds to thousands to millions of innocent people not because they were too attached to critical thinking or that they were too attached in finding evidences. They committed atrocities because of some ideology. Not because they reject God. Also, and FYI, Hitler was not Godless. He's a Catholic. He even have connections with the Jesuits during their time. Their(Nazi) oath even mention God. Now how about 9/11 and the Inquisition and the Crusades? Hmm.. In whose name do you think these atrocities were made? Speaking of atrocities, the God they are worshiping also murdered thousands of people and even ordered to kill babies (loving eh?).

All in all, this part 1 is mostly copy and paste of Bible verses, lies, and straw man claiming that atheism is an escape from all realities. It is really funny because they believe that they will live after they die and their proof of this after life is Bible. Very rational indeed (sarcasm). Who is escaping now to the reality that we can only live once?

Lastly, I noticed that the author likes to quote verses in the ancient book. Why should one consider the contents of the Bible as true? Why not other Holy Books like Quran? Well lets leave these questions to them. (I am guessing that they will quote verses to answer them.LOL.)

Fish

2009-04-30T02:50:00.000-07:00

Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish. ~Author Unknown

Swine flu: what you need to know

2009-04-28T04:22:00.000-07:00

Several hundred people in Mexico and 20 people in the US have come down with a new kind of swine flu. People are concerned because some of those infected in Mexico have died, and because this is the kind of virus that could become a serious worldwide epidemic (see Deadly new flu virus in US and Mexico may go pandemic).

Should I worry about this flu?

That depends on two things: how severe the flu is, and how far it spreads. Its severity is still unknown. Those who died in Mexico were young adults who don't often die of flu, so we know this virus can be serious. But it isn't always bad: the cases picked up in the US were mild. Outbreak investigators are now trying to find out how many people have had the virus, and how many of those were seriously ill, to get an idea of how bad it is.

Will it spread to where I live?

That depends on two things: whether the virus is transported to where you live, and how efficiently it spreads between people. So many people travel globally now that, as long as this virus keeps infecting people, it is unlikely not to get to where you live. Some countries are already using infrared cameras to spot people with fevers on flights from affected areas. But that won't stop it entirely, since five days can pass before an infected person shows symptoms, and the virus can spread before symptoms start.

The question is how efficiently it spreads once it lands. From the number of cases in Mexico and the fact that those infected in the US had not contacted pigs or each other, we know that it can spread from human to human, and has done so for weeks at least. Investigators are testing whether people who contacted known cases were also infected to try to assess how easily it spreads.

Similar swine flu viruses have jumped from pigs to people before and have always petered out without causing a pandemic because they were not good enough at spreading in people. This virus may do the same thing.

Does this virus mean I shouldn't eat pork?

No. This virus is named swine flu because one of its surface proteins is most similar to viruses that usually infect pigs. But we've never seen this particular virus in pigs before. It is spreading in people; that's the problem.

Can I travel to other countries?

Yes. There are no official travel advisories against going to affected regions of Mexico, but cases of this virus are being discovered in other countries in people who recently visited there.

What if it causes a pandemic?

Most countries in the world have pandemic plans, on paper at least. They can respond with vaccines, drugs, and measures called "social distancing", aimed at limiting human contacts that spread flu. Mexico has already done this, by banning public gatherings and closing schools in affected areas. Modelling suggests this can be effective.

The Mexican swine flu virus is susceptible to the most widely stockpiled flu antiviral drugs, Tamiflu and its relatives. But viruses of the same family can readily develop resistance to these drugs, so no one knows how long the drugs will remain effective.

There are no stocks of vaccine to this flu. The US has already created a "seed strain" from it, a virus that can be grown to make vaccines. Because of fears that H5N1 bird flu would go pandemic, vaccine companies and regulators, especially in Europe, have developed procedures over the past few years for rapidly approving and manufacturing pandemic vaccines in factories that normally make regular human flu vaccines.

The question now is whether and when they will switch production to a pandemic vaccine. If they do, the question will be how many doses they can produce, and how fast. Researchers are trying to find ways to stretch vaccine stocks, but there is no commonly agreed approach yet.

They won't be able to make much vaccine for several months. But if there are several waves, each several months apart, as there have been in past pandemics, they might have time to make stocks of the vaccine before the next wave – if there is one.

Why are we worried this virus could go pandemic?

Because it is new. Flu constantly evolves, mostly with small changes to its surface proteins. There are usually enough differences between this year's flu and whatever you had last time to allow the new virus to evade your immune defenses and cause an infection, but its similarities to your last case mean you still have partial immunity to it.

But flu surface proteins come in 16 different families, and viruses interbreed and swap genes. Occasionally a new flu virus that has picked up completely new surface proteins from pig or bird flu viruses circulates in people. Since no humans have been exposed to it before, no one has any immunity. Those viruses cause pandemics.

The Mexican swine flu is like this. It is of the H1N1 family, named for its two main surface proteins. There are other, mild H1N1 viruses circulating in humans as ordinary flu. But pig H1's are somewhat different, and it is not yet clear whether having had human H1N1 gives you much immunity to this swine flu.

The bad 1918 pandemic was an H1N1 virus, and there is evidence that people exposed to earlier human H1 flu had some immunity to it. The 1918 virus was different from this one, however, because its H surface protein was from birds.

What should I do to prepare for a pandemic?

We don't know yet if this will be one – but quiet preparation can't hurt. Cover coughs and sneezes and wash your hands a lot. Don't run down your ability to fight infection – eat well and be sensible. Some scientists recommend going on statins as there is some evidence they reduce death rates from flu in people who tend to die from it in normal years.

Do all the things you might do to prepare for any disaster. Stockpile canned and dried food and water, a little cash, and your family's essential medicines, as disruptions in supply might happen in a bad pandemic, and make sure you have a crank- or battery-operated radio and lights and spare batteries.

Source : New Scientist

----------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks,
Science For Life!

From Science For Life. Add this group at Facebook for Science updates like this.

People's Tactics

2009-04-24T17:49:00.000-07:00

This game is very old school. The graphics is DOS-like and the game play is very simple. This game is like Capture the Flag (anyone knows this DOS game?). BUT this game is surprisingly fun (for me at least). I love the tactics, the long term planning, and the historical maps/campaigns and units. Although I have (and play) Rise of Nations, which has a very similar concept and game play and which is way way more better than People's Tactics but I really love the simplicity of People's Tactics. I'm like playing chess without the long calculations(and memorization) and instead of chess pieces, I have infantry, tanks, bomber planes, and other military vehicles. These pieces are not really real moving tanks/bomber/infantry but they are just representations (like a small icons) which makes it a little boring and outdated.

But all in all, I love this game. It is very simple and fun. Very strategic and tactical.

Pascal's Wager

2009-04-19T20:18:00.000-07:00

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1663) when he wrote "Pensees" (Thoughts). This argument is commonly used by Christians to non-believers to encourage the non-believers to change their beliefs. This 'wager' is used to non-believers. They say that if you will wage that there is no god but in the end there is, then you will suffer eternal damnation. But when you'll wage that there is a God and in the end there is no God then nothing will happen to you. Draw. If one will see these two options, you will notice that you will lose more if you will wage that there is no God and in the end there is than you will wage that there is a god and in the end there isn't.

So if you will weigh both options it is better to wage that there is a God rather than to wage there is no God right?

Well, not really.

When Blaise Pascal thought of this wager on 17th century, he only considered two options. Catholicism and atheism. But in reality we all know that there are also other options, there are also other religion and gods. This means that we do not know who is the real God. Who should one worship? This is the problem of Pascal's Wager. There are different religion and concept of god in every culture in this world. Each of these religion have their own commandments, teachings, heaven, hell, etc. Almost each of these has a commandment that if one will worship the wrong god, he/she will suffer eternal damnation.

Now what if (you as a Christian), in the end of your life (a few moments after you were killed) you realize that you were wrong all your life. That you worshiped the wrong god. What if the god you worshiped all your life is not the real god. What if the real god is Allah, or Zeus, or Baal, and not Jesus/God? Then you will suffer eternal damnation (eternal hell) right? Remember that in every holy book, there is a commandment that tells you or its believers that once you'll worship other gods, you will be punished. Just like what is written in the Bible/Quran.

All in all, this means that one's beliefs in religion, doctrines, and god is not really an assurance of Heaven and Hell (ofcourse).

Stupid Processions

2009-04-13T04:07:00.000-07:00

Our family went to Ozamis City last Friday and returned just yesterday. While we were on our way, I noticed a lot of Processions going on in the highway at dawn. Same procession from one "poblacion" to another. I was not really surprised since it was Good Friday and that the procession is a part of the tradition of Catholics. But the processions we encountered last Friday were really 'over acting', stupid (forgive the word), and very annoying. I mean, majority of these processions were on the national highway where big trucks, buses, and private vehicles pass. The processions really caused a lot of traffic in roads where there should be no traffic (rural highways). I remember 4 processions that really used the two and four lanes of the highway. Vehicles (big and small) can't really make their way. Vehicles should just wait until they pass by. We just waited and wasted precious time for nothing. These processions really delayed our trip and other's trips.

I do not really hate these people and I am not against their beliefs/traditions as long as they would just keep it to themselves. In the case of last Friday, they did not keep it to themselves. They caused a lot of delay and annoyance to others and their processions really caused my and other's head to heat up. They (religious people) should put in mind that not all people in this country have the same beliefs/doctrines/tradition/thinking with them. They should not involve others with their useless and annoying activity. Look what happened to us and others who were dalayed. I am sure they did not know what we and others had to face.

I say they should just keep their faith/beliefs/tradition/stupidity to themselves. Also, I really do not understand what would these people gain in waking up early in the morning, sing sad songs in highways/streets, carry heavy cross, relive their god's sufferings, pray repeatitively, (and delay other people's lives)? Eternal life? Remembrance of the sufferings of their god? The way I see and think of it, they gain nothing.

Baptist Church?!

2009-04-09T03:32:00.000-07:00

WTH. LOL

What Happened on Easter?

2009-04-08T00:52:00.000-07:00

An Easter Challenge for Christians

What really happened on Easter? Can you answer this? Well I really can't. And I bet you also can't. If you'll going to read the Gospels, all of them seem to contradict (in some parts) with each other. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone*. How come the other authors of the Gospels did not notice this? Or perhaps other historians? Below are some discrepancies among the Resurrection accounts.

What time did the women visit the tomb?

Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?

Mark: No (16:13)
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?

Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?

Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?

Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

*from the link above

Free Chess Softwares

2009-04-06T16:41:00.000-07:00

For chess aficionados out there! Here's some free (and legal I think) chess softwares to improve your game. If you want to improve your game and not spend a cent read on. The short list includes playing softwares, database, and training softwares.

Playing Softwares
1.) Arena 2.0.1
Arena is a graphical user interface. You can organize engine tournament in this software. Most importantly you can play against chess engines (both Winboard and UCI). Arena have the features other commercial softwares have like position set-up, limiting engine strenght, opening books, and others. You can also use this software to analyze games (but make sure you use a strong engine). You can also install engines in this software. I currently have 17 engines in my Areana. This is really a must have (especially if you don't want to spend money like me).

2.) Crafty
Crafty is a chess playing software with its own graphical user interface. But you can still play Crafty in Arena or other shell. The GUI of Crafty is very good looking. And Crafty is (as I have read and heard) one of the strongest engines out there. This software also have some features like you can see on other playing chess softwares. Crafty is good for the serious-type-chess player and club players alike. And you can download this engine for free.

3.) Nagasaki (version 5)
Nagasaki is a chess playing software similar to Crafty. This playing chess software includes basic features seen in the Crafty GUI. The downside of this chess software is that its GUI is not that good looking (for me) and that the engine is not that strong (for analysis and for strong players). But this is very good for club players, novices, and beginners. You can also limit the playing strenght of the engine to meet your level.

4.) Fritz 5.32
This is one of the best free chess softwares out there. Chessbase gave out this version of Fritz for free. This engine is very strong but you can also play in sparring mode/hadicap mode. You can add opening books and this software also includes a lower version of Chessbase database (with no games included). Fritz 5.32 can also open files in Chessbase format. This is also a must have.

Database
5.) Chess DB
Chess DB is a free chess database. Aside from its database use, you can also save your own games in a way where the right game can be quickly found, a very time-efficient method to study, which will give the maximum improvement in the minimum time, and access to statistics about both your own games and of GMs, which would be impractical to collect without a computer based chess database. You can save, annotate, analyze (with strong egines), create tournament crosstables, and play (also) in this software. The only thing I don't like in this software is that it is not really a user friendly software. I had a hard time learning to open and save a database.

6.) Chessbase Light 2007
This is also one of the best free chess softwares out there. Chessbase light is a crippled version of Chessbase 10. This is also a database software wherein you can access to game collections and allow you to manage them with ease. Very user friendly. This is also a must have.

Training
7.) Chess Position Trainer
Chess Position Trainer is a software that focuses on chess opening, training, and reportoire management. This software is very good (although I prefer to study opening the traditional way) and very free. You can use this software to study openings and you can create your opening reportoire in this software. You can also train tactics in this software. You can also download openings in their website for training and study.

8.) Chess Tactic Sever
CTS is not really a software but a website. This website is for tactics training. You can train your tactics in this website. Once you register (ofcourse for free), you'll have your own rating. Your rating will increase as you solve more tactics problems. This is a very good site for training. I train in this website almost everyday and it really helps my tactical vision.

So these are just some of the free chess softwares I can recommend. These are good softwares and they are free for download. And these softwares are all legal copies. BTW, these softwares are good especially for club players or intermediate players. But for the serious-type-chess player (GMs), I think they need the commercial programs because these programs are much way more stronger. Just click the links above and download. There are also other websites on the internet like Zakron Fischer's site. There are lots of softwares in that site.

Memory Remains (Metallica)

2009-04-05T05:50:00.000-07:00

Memory Remains (Metallica Live S & M)

Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane
But the memory remains

Heavy rings on fingers wave
Another star denies the grave
See the nowhere crowd
Cry the nowhere cheers of honor

Like twisted vines that grow
Hide and swallow mansions whole
In light of an already
Faded prima donna

Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
But the memory remains

Heavy rings hold cigarettes
Up to lips that time forgets
While the hollywood sun sets
Behind your back

And cant the band play on
Just listen, they play my song
Ash to ash
Dust to dust
Fade to black

Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
Dance little tin goddess

Nananananana nananada nananananana nanananadana
Nananananana nananada nananananana nanananadana

Drift away
Fade away
Little tin goddess

Ash to ash
Dust to dust
Fade to black

Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
Fortune, fame
Mirror vain
Gone insane...
But the memory remains

Ash to ash
Dust to dust
Fade to black...
But the memory remains
Faded prima donna

Dance little tin goddess dance

Discussion w/ a Believer

2009-04-04T21:31:00.000-07:00

I recently had a discussion with a believer on the internet (Friendster forums). He is a proud ADD member. We discussed about religion, faith, existence of God, and science. And it was not really a good one because he had a hard time understanding what I was saying and because of this, we were going in cirles. But I had fun. I had fun because of his replies. He is claiming that he and his denomination is rational yet the way he talked and presented his arguments were very fallacious and illogical. He even said that he believe that there's a "Spiritual Force" behind the magic of David Blaine. LOL. Does he even know what rational is? I guess not. He can't even identify magic from illusion.

So here's some part of our discussion.

Kuya Frank:The most rational proof of God's existence can be found in the bible and that is written in Romans 1:20.

(Romans 1:20) Sapagka't ang mga bagay niyang hindi nakikita buhat pa nang lalangin ang sanglibutan ay nakikitang maliwanag, sa pagkatanto sa pamamagitan ng mga bagay na ginawa niya, maging ang walang hanggan niyang kapangyarihan at pagka Dios; upang sila'y walang madahilan:

Hayag na hayag na ang ebidensiya sa tao ng katunayan na merong Dios sa pamamagitan ng mga bagay na ginawa ng Dios. Malawak ang uniberso at sa loob ng unibersong yan ay maraming mga nakapaloob na mga planeta at mga bituin. Paano ba lumitaw ang mga yan? Aksidente lang ba ang napakahusay na balangkas ng mga yan? Sapat na sapat na ang mga bagay ng makikita natin sa langit na maniwala na meron ngang Dios na pinangglingan ng lahat ng bagay.

(Awit 19:1) Ang kalangitan ay nagpapahayag ng kaluwalhatian ng Dios; at ipinakikilala ng kalawakan ang gawa ng kaniyang kamay.

That is written in the bible and that is rational.
Me:How can that be rational????

Ok your argument is like this Frank..
Frank: "God must exist."
Jobo: "How do you know."
Frank: "Because the Bible says so."
Jobo: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Frank: "Because the Bible was written by God."

It does not follow that it was written or that it is said in the Bible that God exist, eh naga exist na si GOd. I mean why should we believe in the Bible? Why should we believe in an ancient book full of errors,absurdities, and contradictions? Is that book based on critical thinking or magic lang? (I'd appreciate if you'll answer these)

You know Frank, your reasoning is fallacious because you just assumed that your conclusion is true. Not because the Bible says so eh, totoo nayan. Simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. Begging the question yan Frank. (I guess hindi mo na intindihan ito so just click the link)

You call your argument rational Frank? Do you even know what is rational? Quoting in a book full of errors, absurdities, contradictions and use that as an argument is irrational.

Balik ka lang dito kung may maganda kang isasagot. Ok? And please dont quote Bible verses again. Use your head and think. You just did what Eli did in his blog about atheism.
------------------------------------------

Frank:Up to now Evolution remains a theory the same with the Big Bang Theory. It simply means that they are not accepted as absolute truth in Science because they don't have strong proof.

[then he gave these links :How Great is God of the Bible (1st Part) and How Great is God of the Bible (2nd Part) saying that these answer what I posted. This do not answer the points i raised. Its like I'm asking a bread and he gave me a shit. ]

Me: You misunderstood "theory" here Frank. As ive said earlier, the word theory there is not used in common usage or in layman's term.
Here's what theory is..
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

Frank:It is not a fact. It is still a theory.

Me:Again Frankie, read what "theory" is. The word theory in layman's term is different in scientific terms. Mag basa ka naman ng dictionary or encyclopedia. Mag research kanaman din.
Also saying na "It is still a theory" is not enough. Prove it.
Tapos, look at your answer. It doesnt answer my questions/arguments. Tsk.

------------
Frank:Through deductive reasoning alone it crumbles down pieces beyond repair. If man evolved from apes under certain circumstances and conditions - at one time or another will evolve to become Homo Sapiens. And thus, will occur continuously and consistently. However, no such things was recorded in history to be happening elsewhere in the world. Not a chimpanzee or baboon from Asia finally succeeded to become a full-pledged human. Not even an orangutan or gorilla from Africa was officially proclaimed as a graduate from the animal ape kingdom, welcomed and promoted to enter man's civilization as a totally new human being.
Me:
Evolution do not happen in a short time Frank. It do not happen overnight. Have you seen the pictures ive posted? That was recorded Frank and it do not happen for a short time. The basis of that are fossils that were found. Its really time to update yourself to science Frank.
Wait for a couple of thousand years and see what'll happen to us.
Frank: How many thousand years more? Man have existed thousands of years already. How come there are no recorded evidence in history that it happened? It still remains a theory and for Christians it is a hoax.
Me:
What do you mean not recorded? Nakita mo ba pictures na pinost ko? Ano pala tawag mo dun? Do you think galing lang yun sa imagination ng author/scientist? Merong physical evidences yan frank. From skulls and bones ng animals and tao.
Also, please do understand what theory is. Hanggang ngayon hindi mo parin alam kung ano ang theory when used in science. Mahina ka ba sa English?
Lastly, Christian Apologists and RCC alike accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact. I mean, Ive saw and heard catholics and christians apologists defend the Theory of Evolution against creationism.
----------
Frank:Why don't you look in the dictionary yourself. Pick a dictionary of your choice and prove to me that it supports your claim that a theory is a fact like what you are doing with the theory of evolution. I challenge you to that and I assure you that you cannot prove it.
Me:Hahay Frank. Did i say na theory is a fact? I said na ang Theory of Evolution is a fact. And the word theory there is not used in common terms but in scientific terms. Mahirap bayang intindihin?? Did you understand my example(the word black)?

the⋅o⋅ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

So here it is. Do you think number 7 lang ang definition ng theory Frank? Again, it depends on how the word is used. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, it is number 1. Tsk. Update yourself in English Frank. I just prove that you wrong.

Evolution as theory and fact.
-------------------------------
Frank:sn't it a fact that your physical appearance can be copied by a sculptor?
Isn't it a fact that scientist can imitate a cell but they cannot give life to it?
There are no contradictions in the words of God in the bible.
Have you not seen the magic of David Blaine. How could he behead a chicken and then put it back and the chicken is still alive? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fkckEXVYTc That is not an illusion. There is a spiritual force to that. If someone like him can do it, more so with God.

THEN AGNOSTICS, ATHEISTS, AND SKEPTICS LAUGH AT THIS POST. FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

Heck, spiritual force behind David Blaine's magic tricks??? LOL. WTF. Here's the whole discussion. I think this is still going on. As you can see, he can't even identify magic from illusion. He call himself (and his denomination) rational but look how he writes, look at his arguments. He don't even know what 'theory' is when used in science. Maybe he is just using a pocket dictionary.

Truths or Lies: What Happened This Morning

2009-03-25T05:59:00.000-07:00

What would you prefer, a comforting lie or a biting truth?

They say that truth hurts. But why hurt yourself with the truth when you can have a comforting lie? The answer to this question would vary from different people and depends on different cases/scenarios. Some people would prefer the comforting lie rather than the biting truth. Some would not.

Well I got the unfortunate chance to choose between these two this morning. I actually liked to solve or respond to these kind of ethical dilemmas but this morning was (I guess) a little different and a little serious (for me at least). When I was in college we have this subject called Philo 107 (Moral Philosophy) and we got the chance to solve different ethical dilemmas and situations and I really liked it. But we were in the classroom that time solving. This morning was different. It was real.

So here's what happened.. I just had my final interview for the company I am applying for this morning. I did my preparations before the interview. I did a little research about the company and I tried to anticipate and rehears some answers to some possible and common interview questions the night before the interview. Meaning that I already had prepared some answers even before the interview started. Then it was 9am and it was time for the interview. I was very relaxed and confident because I knew that I really prepared for that. The questions were really common (and I guess easy than I anticipated) and I had prepared answers to each of them.

BUT suddenly, there's this one question that made me think and ponder for a while. "What is your weak point?", the interviewer asked. I knew that I prepared an answer to that. But I also knew that the answer I prepared was a "strategic weakness". Meaning a lie. The night before that, I decided to prepare a "strategic-weakness-answer" when I would be asked by that question. It's because I don't want to expose my weaknesses so that no one could exploit it (WTH, oh the paranoid me). Also I knew and anticipated that if I would tell truth about my weakness, the interviewer (he's the Plant Manager btw) would not like my answer. Thus risking my application.

Two things ran into my head that time, "truth or lie". Should I tell the truth and risk my application or should I just stick to my plan and answer my strategic-weakness-answer? Well I cannot really imagine myself to lie to a such serious and good man and being labeled by my conscience as unethical so I told the truth. I told him my true weakness (w/c is I sometimes easily loose my temper). And as I anticipated, he (the way I see it) didn't liked it although I reasoned out that I am working hard on that weakness. He really asked a lot of questions about it. I really felt that my chance of landing that job just went from big to small. Heck.

As of now, I am still pondering and thinking if what I did was the right thing. I chose the biting truth over the comforting lie and risk my chance of landing that job. Well I could have chose to answer my strategic-weakness-answer but I didn't. I chose not to. I don't really believe in the existence of heaven and hell (meaning I'm not afraid of them) and I could have told a lie and know that I would not end up in hell yet I chose to tell the truth. But why? I guess I'm just too ethical that that could be considered as one of my weaknesses. LOL. I'm still pondering on that experience.

So if you were in my shoes, what would you choose? Comforting lie or the biting truth?

Theory of Evolution: just a theory?

2009-03-24T23:59:00.000-07:00

Many [ignorant (forgive the word)] people really misunderstand the Theory of Evolution. These people (especially Christian Fundamentalists and blind believers) argue that the Theory of Evolution is not a fact because it is just a theory. According to these people, if Darwin's Evolution is really a fact then it must be called the Fact of Evolution rather than the Theory of Evolution. Thus for them, the Theory of Evolution is invalid.

Well in reality this is not really true. This only shows that the minds of these people are very limited. Now, the word 'theory' have many definitions depending on how the word 'theory' is used. The word 'theory' is defined differently in layman's term/common usage and in scientific terms. Below are the definitions of the word 'theory' from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition..

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[Late Latin theōria, from Greek theōriā, from theōros, spectator : probably theā, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horān, to see).]

As you can see, the word 'theory' have different definitions/meaning depending on how the word is used. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, the word theory there is defined in item number 1 (the words in red) since it is used as a scientific term. This is also the same with the 'theories' of gravity (in Law of Gravity). Many people misunderstand the word 'theory' in the Theory of Evolution and they defined it as (just) an assumption based on limited information or knowledge (item number 6 [in green]). Many believers use this term and construct arguments disputing the validity of evolution not knowing that they misuse and misunderstand the word theory.

So is the Theory of Evolution just a theory? Well not really (so stop flattering yourselves).

I hope this clears this misconception on the Theory of Evolution. More about this topic here (wikipedia.com) and here (talkorigins.org).

Science vs. Faith

2009-03-22T22:59:00.000-07:00

(Click here for a better view)
You be the judge.

(Untitled)

2009-03-22T07:11:00.000-07:00

My memory of you is like the rain
Loud, disturbing, and cold
And every raindrop is a picture of you
Scattered all around disturbing nature
Keeping the birds to their nests
Forcing the flowers to sleep
And making the rational irrational

I can't really think of a title to this. These words just popped into my mind in one rainy afternoon thinking of her and drunk a long time ago. Love really can make one irrational. Good thing someone invented alcohol and chess and DVD and internet. LOL

Pope Ratzi Says Condoms Won't Solve AIDS

2009-03-17T22:29:00.000-07:00

YAOUNDE, Cameroon -- Pope Benedict XVI said condoms are not the answer to the AIDS epidemic in Africa and can make the problem worse, setting off criticism Tuesday as he began a weeklong trip to the continent where some 22 million people are living with HIV.

Benedict's first statement on an issue that has divided even Catholic clergy working with AIDS patients came hours before he arrived in Cameroon's capital - greeted by thousands of flag-waving faithful who stood shoulder-to-shoulder in red dirt fields and jammed downtown streets for a glimpse of the pontiff's motorcade.

Click here for the rest of the story.

What kind of logic does Pope Ratzi have? How can he come up with that kind of thinking?

Well I guess he didn't even think about it. He just follows what religious dogma tells him. Maybe the Pope is not aware of what kind of reality Africans face. They need condoms to protect themselves from diseases and AIDS. Condoms also help control their population. Big population means big problems. This only shows that Pope Ratzi (or the Roman Catholic Church in general) give more importance on religious doctrines/dogmas rather than the lives of the people or in this case the lives of Africans.

What kind of a leader is that?

Atrocities

2009-03-17T05:59:00.000-07:00

While I was waiting in line for my turn in paying our water bill just this afternoon, I overheard two middle-aged women (I think they were Christians) talking about the atrocities by the Muslims. They talked how evil and unjust and brutal and unforgiving the Muslims were when they attacked the Twin Towers and when they kidnapped good people. I really want to join their conversation and share some of the information I know but I thought it would be useless.

There's a saying "Before you point your fingers on others, make sure your hands are clean". Maybe the two women I heard talking about the atrocities done by the Muslims don't know the atrocities done by their God. Yes, their God(or Jehovah/Yahweh). Little do they know that the God they are worshiping also committed a lot of atrocities. Yes, you heard me. Christians do not even know about these atrocities. They just think that they are worshiping a loving God because that's what the authority, tradition, and dogma told/taught them. Is stoning a man to death just because of a very shallow reason called love? (NU 15:32-36) We can really see a lot of atrocities done by Jehovah/God in the Bible. If one would just read clearly and critically the book of Numbers, Exodus, Revelations, Genesis and in some other books in the Bible they would see some or maybe a lot of atrocities done by (or done in the name of) God/Jehovah.

Some may react violently on this (especially the religious ones) but what I said are based on facts (well assuming the Bible is a fact). It is written in the Bible. The book which many consider to be the guide book of their lives. Well I guess the truth hurts.

To back up what I said, here's some example of the atrocities I was talking about. Just click them to read.
GE 3:1-7, 22-24
GE 4:2-8 , GE 6:11-17, 7:11-2
GE 19:26
GE 38:9
EX 7:1, 14, 9:14-16, 10:1-2, 11:7
EX 9:22-25
EX 12:29
EX 32:27-29
LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10
NU 11:33
LE 26:22
NU 15:32-36
NU 16:27-33
NU 16:35
NU 16:49
NU 21:6
NU 25:9
NU 31:31-40
DT 7:2
DT 21:10-13
JS 6:21-27
JS 7:19-26
JS 8:22-25
JS 10:10-27
JS 10:28
JS 10:30
JS 10:32-33
JS 10:34-35
JS 10:36-37
JG 1:4
JG 14:19
2KI 10:17
2CH 13:17
IS 49:26
EZ 6:12-13
EZ 9:4-6
EZ 23:25, 47
MT 3:12, 8:12, 10:21, 13:30, 42, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, LK 13:28, JN 5:24

More atrocities here.

Deleted

2009-03-16T01:31:00.000-07:00

Heck, while I was trying to change my template for a new look I accidentally deleted my widgets and other similar stuffs. Back again to square one in blogging I guess. Hmm.. As of now I am trying hard as I can to change my blog template, other decorating stuffs, and widget thing in my blog. I am still researching more about it in the net. Btw, I am just novice blogger (trying hard blogger).

Friends

2009-03-15T08:47:00.000-07:00

It is 11 something pm (when I wrote this) and I just got home from a drinking session with my friends. I really did'nt plan to drink with them tonight because we already spent time last night at Bar-b-que Boss (@Torres) where we got drunk and wasted. I planned to just watch DVD series [24 (Season 1) and Weeds] tonight but they unexpectedly came here to fetch me to go at Dino's house. They bought food and I also brought some food (from Grandpa and ma's anniversary celebration) and went to Dino's house. I really did'nt like the idea of (again) having a drinking session with them because we already had one last Saturday night. At first I was not really in the mood for drinking but then after a coulpe of shots, I was in the mood and I felt great. Maybe it was just the alcohol that made me feel that way. Maybe not.

It really feels great to have some one to talk to about life, love, and other boy-stuffs. It feels good when someone is listening to your side of story in life and love. I noticed that we all have some complains in life (and of course love) and it really felt good to share them with someone although their advices were not that really good (LOL). The point is that they listen and they understood my side of the story and I understood theirs. At first, we were not really talking about some serious stuffs but after a couple bottle (liter) of Red Horse we eventually talked about some. We talked about how our lives are not going in the right track. We talked about our regrets in life and love. Of course we also talked about our succeses and other fun stuffs in life. We talked about the past and our rackets in college. It was very nostalgic. It really feels good to have someone to share these things.

I am really grateful and thankful that I have friends like them. I spend the whole weekdays (sometimes the whole week) imprisoned here in the four corners of our house and it really feels great to know that somehow I still have friends to share my ups and downs, spend time with, and talk to at the end of the week. :D

Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil Catholic Church

2009-03-07T00:02:00.000-08:00

The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. "They took the life of an innocent," Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. "Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored."

Click HERE for the full story.

Now here's my say..

I really do not think that the RCC's decision to try to stop the abortion was correct. Especially excommunicating the nine year old child including her mother and others who were involved. Yes, I agree that abortion is a crime. But she's just a child. And she did not want that to happen. Continuing the babies [twins] would just leave her a big scar [a bad remembrance of the rape incident]. Also her body is not yet ready for pregnancy. Her hips are still immature for a baby. And according to doctors it would be dangerous. What more with a twin. She's too young for it and she's too young to take care of the babies.

Its not that I am pro abortion. I just do not like the RCC interfering the lives of others. The RCC's attempt to stop the abortion and excommunicating the parties involved is very 'unjust' for me. The RCC should just let the child or the mother or the doctors who knew better than the RCC to decide what's right for the rape victim. It looks like the RCC is trying to control the life of the child and this is bad. The Church is taking away the freedom of the rape victim to choose what is better for her.

Lastly, I say that the RCC's leaders are hypocrites. They are teaching their believers to go on and multiply yet they themselves are not allowed or can't multiply. WTH. :p

Let's support our Reproductive Health Bill (HB 4110).

Origin of God

2009-03-05T04:56:00.000-08:00

Why do we have a god? How do we[maybe you] end up having a god? Where do god/s came from? If we, according to theists, were created by God, then who created God? Or in a polytheistic religion, who created their gods? Why do people believe in a god/s?

The way I see it, man was not made by a god or gods. Instead, man made the [idea of] god and gods. Primitive man created the idea of god. When I say primitive man, I am talking about the early humans just before or during the one of the first civilizations. Now I can see two reasons why man created the idea of god/s. One is because of intellectual necessity and the other is because of emotional necessity.

Now imagine the situation of the early humans. They lack knowledge on their surroundings, their nature, their environment. Although they already have some technology by that time, but they really do not have the scientific mind the modern humans have. They may already have some knowledge on their surroundings or perhaps the universe or knowledge about their nature but the intellectual gap that time was still very wide and big. This intellectual gap is the reason why they created the idea of god. They created this idea because they cannot explain many things that time. Things related to nature, environment, the universe, their existence. Remember, they do not have the scientific mind the modern humans have. So they point to an entity or being that could explain all these things [gaps]. Example, when early humans first encountered a thunder, they do not know what it is, what caused the thunder. They also do not have the scientific mind and gadgets to know what it is. So they created the idea of an entity or being [god] that could explain thunder. This is also the same with the other phenomenas [rain, eclipse, earth quake].

Some modern humans still also believe in a god or gods because of this very same reason. Some people in this time still point to God or their god/s when they encounter things that they can't explain not knowing that science can already explain it. I know that there are some things that science cannot explain today. But I don't just find it reasonable to point a god/s to explain the unknown. Making god as the explanation to these things is a non-explanation kind of explanation. Science may not know some things today but it will be known in the future. Finding answers is a [long] process. I mean look at the phenomenas that were thought to have caused by god. Today, we can already explain the reasons behind it. And as the time pass by, the intellectual gap is getting smaller and smaller because of the findings of science.

The next reason is the emotional necessity. At some point or time in life, we encounter a crucial event or a turning point. This time in our life is the time wherein we are subject to some change [physical and emotional] because of the event. This crucial event changes the way we act, feel, and see things. It also changes our attitudes and behaviors toward things and life. This event could be a postive [marriage or graduation] or a negative [death of a close relative or your own coming death] one.

In a positive turning point, people tend to seek and thank a greater power or being that helped them achieve their dreams or helped them become a better person. Most people believe that the reason they succeed or the reason they changed to a better person is that some greater power helped them. As to the negative turning point [like death], people who encounter this also seek for a greater power or a divine power. They seek and need a greater power to hold on to. They need some power or maybe divine intervention or a miracle to help them accept and cope that negative turning point in their life. Who can give the people a greater power than a god/s. But the way I see it, the only being responsible for the positive turning point [like marriage] in one's life is the person who achieved/experienced it. And that is the same with the negative turning point. The only being that could help the person who suffered from a negative turning point [loss of a close relative or an accident] is just himself/herself. Who else could it be? Can the greater power that one seek can raise a dead person or heal an amputee? You know the answer.

These are the two main reasons why people believe in a god/s. There are also other possible reasons like some people were just forced because of authority or tradition or dogma. Other group/religion also have their own answers to the questions above. Now let me end this article/essay or what ever you call it with a question. Given that two reasons [emotional and intellectual necessity] I presented with my explanation, does man still need a god/s?

Sabbath-Breaker

2009-03-01T18:57:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time, a children of some nation were playing on the wilderness. While playing, the children saw a man that gathered sticks upon the day of rest and worship. The children knew that it was not allowed to work in the day of rest and worship. So the children then brought the man [who gathered sticks] to their elders or leaders of some sort and unto all the congregation. They put the man [who gathered sticks on the day of rest and worship] in ward because it was not declared what should be done to him.

Suddenly, their lord said to their elder/leader, "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

And so they did. All the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as their lord commanded the elders and congregation.

And the end [i guess].

So that's the story of the Sabbath-Breaker. I am not going to tell you what is the moral lesson of this story. I'll just criticize their lord. The truth is I can't really think of any lessons that can be learned from this story. Well maybe others would say that the lesson of this story is to follow rules and regulations to avoid the consequences. But putting a person to death simply because of not following a rule is very unjust. Killing him was not really necessary. If you were in the shoes of the lord, would you kill the man? Of course not, unless you are very unreasonable, violent, unforgiving control freak, vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser bully.

Now, what makes my jaw drop here is not that the King was very unreasonable or violent or unforgiving bully or the violence. What makes my jaw drop here is that this story came from a book. A book which many people consider as the guide book to their life. A book wherein many people base their morals. A book from divine origin. Can you imagine if a child would read this kind of story?

Well I got that story from the Bible [Numbers 15:32-36]. I never really thought before that God is that violent and unreasonable. I was taught in my Theology classes that God is love. But is killing a man because of that very shallow reason love?

Real God

2009-02-28T02:09:00.000-08:00

According to space.com the size of the universe is at least 165 billion light-years wide. One light-year is equal to just under ten million kilometers [or exactly 9,460,730,472,580.8 km]. Can you imagine how big is that? And can you also imagine how small we are? Hmm..

This fact popped a 'God question' in my mind. Assuming that there are other life forms [with civilizations] in other parts of the universe or in the 'other universes', do you think they also have gods there? If they have, do you think you and 'them' worship the same god? Do you think 'your' God created them? Or maybe 'they' [other life forms] believe that 'their' god created them and not your god. Hmmm... Well these questions are not really meant to find answers. They are meant to make one realize something.

What about in Earth [our world]? Today there are looooots of gods that we [or maybe I] know of. Some of these gods have their own religion. And there are some [I guess majority of] religions who think that their god is the 'true god.' or real god. Example, religion A thinks that their god created the universe and is the true god. Religion B on the other hand thinks [aslo] that their god created us and the universe. These religions just contradict each other. Their gods, beliefs, stories[myths], traditions contradict each other. Now these contradictions just shows that all religions [w/ supernatural god or gods] are all wrong. Simply because they consider each other as wrong and false.

So who then is the real god? Which creation story is true? Which beliefs are right and wrong? Who should one believe? Well of course a religion or perhaps your religion would say that your religion has the true god and creator right? But other religion would just disagree with that. Remember, they also have faith just like you.

(in)Finity

2009-02-23T23:00:00.000-08:00

Here I am again sitting in front of the computer killing the time. The same old thing I did yesterday and the day before yesterday. My life at the mean time has become very routinary. I wake up, eat, open the computer, eat, bike, watch DVDs and so on until I wake up again the following day and do the same things I did yesterday. Although I am still looking for a job right now and waiting for the employers to call me [heck, what is taking them so long]. But aside from that, I think there is almost nothing.

I remember when I was in college there was really something new almost everyday. Report in this subject, quiz on that, party here, Sabado nights there, or food trip somewhere. During that time I go to sleep almost everynight feeling very excited for tomorrow. But now, nah, there is almost nothing in stored. I try to do new things like learning something new or read a book or increase my chess rating or [try to]enter in a relationship and some other things to add some color in my life. I estabished new goals and new objectives for me to follow to keep me excited about tomorrow. But as long as I achieved these goals I find myself again looking for another goal or objective. Back again to square one. This only shows that nothing in life is infinite. Everything is finite.

Everything in life is indeed finite. I mean everything. I cant really think of anything that could satisfy me or man forever. Everything has its end. Love, power, friendship, other kinds of relationship, life. And I am not just the one who is facing this [sad but true] reality but all of us. You may think that my life is much duller[or sadder] than yours but you would still end up back in square one after some time just like everyone of us or even much worse[and sad] you would still end up dead no matter how hard you try. Everthing has its limits. Man just jumps from one objective/goal to another and then finds himself again looking for another goal/objective to accomplish. This makes life boring. No wonder why the primitive man created the idea of the "Absolute Thou" [I hope you get this. Clue: I try to avoid the three letter word because it is kinda sensitive.] Man hopes for the infinite and the limitless in the 'absolute thou'. However, no one really proved that this 'absolute thou' will last forever or that we would be also infinite with the absolute thou. I mean look at Zeus and the other Greek gods. Maybe this is just an 'absolute hope'.

So what can we do about this sad reality that everything is just finite? The sad thing is that we cant really do anything to make things[including life] infinite or limitless. No matter what we do, all we have would end or in case of life, we would all end up dead. That is the way I see it. Because of this, I think we must really not waste every thing we have. We must not waste our time and energy and resources to unproductive things and activities. We can only live once and we must not waste time and energy to these things. I'd really like to elaborate more on what kind of 'unproductive things' I am talking about but I guess it is much better not to. Next, we must not also waste every opportunity. I mean we must grab every opportunity we encounter. Dont be afraid and take risks [I really learned this the hard way]. Again we can only live once and we must not let beautiful things pass us by.

Thank you and until next time,

Jobo

Beach

2009-02-20T23:48:00.000-08:00

Your voice is like the gentle breeze
Soft, relaxing, and addictive
It takes away my stress

Your eyes is like the horizon
Endless, infinite, and ceaseless
It makes me gaze at you everytime

Your beauty is like the sunrise
Perfect, beautiful,and attractive
It paints my imagination with vibrant colors

But your words are like the crashing waves
Loud, hard, and adamantile
It washes away my dreams

Let us support Reproductive Health Bill (HB 4110)

2009-02-19T17:48:00.000-08:00

This bill will [in my opinion] make our society much better place to live in. This bill encourages equality and equity, the right to development, the right to reproductive health, the right to education and the right to choose and make decisions for themselves.

I really condemn those group/s who are against this bill. These groups [maybe 'this group'] do not have the right to control the lives of others. They must let the people choose what to do with their bodies and of course with their lives.

Read and learn more about this bill here.

And please sign here for your support on the bill.

Comfort Zones

2009-02-19T04:49:00.000-08:00

“To do anything truly worth doing, I must not stand back shivering and thinking of the cold and danger, but jump in with gust and scramble through as well as I can.” I got this quote [and the idea of this topic]from the blog of my Tita.

This is really true. We cannot really know what will happen in life if we will not try and take risks. We cannot avoid risks and we must face them or else [in my opinion] we cannot live life to the fullest. As my teacher in Philosophy told us "You must go out of your comfort zones" . We must go out of our comfort zones in order to know and live life well. I think that being passive and not taking risks is a very cowardly act. Staying inside our comfort zones only shows that we are afraid of life and that we are afraid of making mistakes. But making mistakes will just make us a better person and we cannot really avoid it[I think]. I am not saying though that we must 'always' make mistakes. What I am saying is that we must not be afraid of them.

We must go out and face life head on.

Emotional Rants

2009-02-17T04:43:00.000-08:00

Dear Blog,

I am really really really angry right now. I am super [to the nth power] angry. I am angry of what happened last week. And I am angry with myself. I am now at stage two of the Kubler-Ross model, which is the anger stage. I skipped stage one [denial stage] because others say it is unproductive [w/c I also think it is]. I am also planning to skip stage three because of the same reason. Hehehe. I like being in this stage, the anger stage. My favorite part is the part wherein I get to let out of what I feel. I like beating out my punching bag until my hands ache. I like to write it all out until I can't think anything to write. These two are very therapeutic.

Now why am I angry? I am angry because I tend to screw things up. I am angry because I got easily carried away. I am angry because I have difficulty controlling my emotions. I am angry because I am a little bit paranoid. I can't really blame something or someone. I can't also blame her. I mean what can I expect? I am no Brad Pitt. I can only blame myself here. Although there are parts in the situation wherein I should blame something/someone/her, but all that could have not happened if it was because of my stupid ability to screw things up. I could've waited until the right time. I could've waited until it becomes "hinog" [ripe]. I could've followed simple textbook rules. But what can I say? This thing called...., [you know what I'm talking about], clouded my judgment and reasoning. This really makes me a hypocrite because I tend to criticize others about how bad their judgment and reasonings are and yet here I am.

I can now sense that she [unfortunately this 'she' will remain nameless ;p] thinks that I am getting a little bit crazy/weird. Am I really crazy? Ofcourse I am. I am thinking of her when I should not be thinking of her. I am texting her when I should not be texting her. I even get distracted in some things that I do. Lucky me I'm already done with my studies. Also I am showing to the world my weakness, my thumbscew here and I am talking to my blog for pete's sake. Now that's really crazy. LOL. I can sense that people will just feel "corniness" when they would read this yet I continue to write. I can also sense the "ilang-ness" stage coming in both of us. How I wish I could just re-write this not-so-well-written chapter of my life.

Well I guess this is just how life and love is. There are ups and downs. Positives and negatives. His and lows. Good and bad. Rain and shine. Yin and Yang. I'll just have to face this head on. I mean look at 'my' bright side. Other people are in much trouble than I am. Right? Other people are in much deeper shit. Others even live in unfortunate places while I sit here in this comfy chair. I'm still fortunate and thankful because I know that I still have a little bit of chance. Although "very little chance" is close to impossible but it is still possible [just ask any mathematician/statistician about this]. I am still hopeful. I'll just have to think clearly and avoid making stupid mistakes next time because life is short, we can only live once, and there's no turning back in life. [This last part sounds like stage five of the Kubler-Ross model. Hehehe]

Thank you and until in my next rants,

Jobo

To My Reader/s

2009-02-16T18:36:00.000-08:00

Dear Reader/s,

As you can notice, some of the contents of this blog are quite offensive to your beliefs or maybe to you. So read at your own risk. I also apologize if I offended someone or some group because of what I wrote in my previous [selected] entries. Unfortunately I have to continue that kind of writing next time [maybe not in the next post] because I just can't help myself criticize others who are blinded by supernaturalism.

An ex-classmate told me that I may risk being labeled as "bad/evil" because of what I write about or because of criticizing some group. He also told me to publish some of my [offensive] writings anonymously to avoid that risk. But I really do not care. It does not follow that if I disagree with 'them', I could already be considered as evil/bad. C'mon. Am I evil for not agreeing with you? Am I evil for believing what I do? Am I evil for not being like you?

Thank you and until next time,

Jobo

Saints

2009-02-15T02:53:00.000-08:00

Saints are those who follow Jesus Christ and live their lives according to his teaching. Catholics use the term narrowly to refer to especially holy men and women who, through extraordinary lives of virtue, have already entered Heaven. For Catholics, they consider saints as holy. They pray [and I think they even worship] saints. I remember when I was still in high school[and some classes in college], we always include in our prayers some number of saints. For example we pray, "Saint _______ pray for us" . They pray to the saints like gods [even if Catholics deny that they are not gods].

The Catholic Community Forum lists some 5120 saints with some of them has areas of responsibility [like abdominal pains, abuse victims, anorexia, arms dealers, to name a few]. This make the Catholic Church look like a polytheist church. Saint believers really believes that Saints have some sort of power that could help improve their lives. WTH?!

Oh poor Saint believers. What's the point in believing in such imaginary and powerless saints? How could they believe in these quacks? How can they put their trusts and faiths and lives to these powerless and imaginary saints? Are they really that blinded? How can they not realize that saints are just imaginary and powerless?

The illusion that Saints have power/s can't really do any good especially to those who are in need of help. Instead of getting real help from real qualified people [like police or doctor] some saint believers would just pray to their saints. And they would end up worse or dead. Also believing in Saints would give them an idea that someone so powerful is by their side to help them in times of need when in reality there is none. These would just make the saint believers dependent on these powerless and imaginary saints. And that is bad because this makes them lazy.

Sorry if I offended some of your beliefs but just think of what I said and open your eyes and be realistic. And btw, if you think that I am wrong, just tell me and show to me that saints have power/s. I'd like to see it. :D

Thank you and until next time,

Jobo

Love Quotes From Freethinkers

2009-02-13T21:11:00.000-08:00

I got these from the Filipino Freethinkers forum at Yahoo Group. Enjoy!

"Reason is nothing less than the guardian of love".
--Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of
Reason

"To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already
three parts dead."
--Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals (1929) ch. 19

Love is the magician, the enchanter,
That changes worthless things to joy,
And makes right royal kings and queens of common clay.
Love is the perfume of that wondrous flower, the heart;
And without that sacred passion,
That divine swoon, we are less than beasts;
But with love, earth is heaven, and we are gods."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll's famous recitation, "Love"

Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love.
--Albert Einstein

Whoever loves becomes humble. Those who love have, so to speak,
pawned apart of their narcissism.
-- Sigmund Freud

Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of
human existence.
-- Eric Fromm

"Love is the longing for the half of ourselves we have lost."
---Milan Kundera (Unbearable Lightness Of Being)

"I do understand what love is, and that is one of the reasons I can
never again be a Christian. Love is not self denial. Love is not
blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your son to appease your
own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of
people to eternal torture because they have offended your ego or
disobeyed your rules. Love is not obedience, conformity, or
submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon
authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and
admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy,
unafraid human being."
--Dan Barker

I like the last qoute the most. That really caught my attention. :D

I Wish

2009-02-12T05:46:00.000-08:00

I wish I could wake up one day

And all the pain I feel would be gone

The thought of you with someone

The biting reality that I can't be with you

The words that closed the door to your heart

These are just too painful and too difficult to grasp..

That I wish I could just fast forward to a more hopeful chapter in my life

Or rewind to re-write this painful chapter

Maybe I wish I never met you

Or maybe I wish I never fall for you

But maybe not

I wish you would know

That nobody in this world feels the way I do to you

That my feelings for you are so strong and pure

That my world revolves around you

And that I would do anything for love, for you

I wish I could tell all these to you

And that you would realize that I'm worthy to be with you

I wish that you would give me hope

And the chance to be with you

Wish, this is all I can do

Random thoughts [feb 10, 2009]

2009-02-10T06:36:00.000-08:00

1.) Do we really have control in our lives? I always thought that we all have free will and that because of this we control our lives. I always thought that life [at least mine] have absolute freedom. This free will also comes with great responsibility. But lately, I realized that there are some things that we can't control. Although I am not saying that free will is just an illusion but there are things in life that we can't just control. Yes, we have free will but there are really instances in life that we cant control. There are some things in life that we can't force to happen. We don't have full control of it.

2.) I am a hypocrite. Why? Hmm.. I always encourage/teach/preach[maybe] other people [especially religious ones]to use their heads and be rational and think. And I really hate people who are irrational. But I am slowly realizing that I am also becoming irrational. The L thing is making me do it. I mean I cant even think straight. What the hell. I am not blaming someone or something here. I can only blame myself here.

3.) Mystics claim that they are very spiritual beings. Based from what I know, these people are in higher level of spirituality. Are they really sure of what they believe? I think that to these people, they don't want to know the truth. They just want the mystery to remain a mystery. And also, how can they say that a thing or being [like God] is mysterious or unknowable yet they are cock sure that it exist? It is contradicting.

4.) The rich are getting richer. Poor getting poorer. Can you imagine how much money the telecommunication companies earn every day with all that texts and calls? It is a big big big money. The money of the consumers of these companies are[base on my opinion] like being stolen by the telecommunication companies. They should at least make texting free. LOL.

Again, imagine. Imagine the religious leaders we have today. I just wont mention any names. I am not talking about the Catholic Church here but also protestants. The leaders of these churches are so damn rich. They have body guards and mansions and cars. And wonder where they get the money to buy these things? Hmm.. Of course from their followers. How about the life of their followers? Does the followers have good life? Not from what I see. Some of their followers still even live in a 'barong2x' while their religious leaders are relaxing in their mansions.

5.) Last thought. To be honest, I think going to a community and serve is much better thing to do than going to church every Sunday. Or at least the Church would help the needy in our country instead of constructing big and beautiful churches. Imagine the money spent in expensive construction materials. That money could be spent in helping the needy by giving them food or teaching the needy livelihood. And also imagine the trees that are being cut down just to build a church. That tree could be used as paper for children who write in leaves/ground.

For me, the beautification of the church is not that important. It is the deeds and the actions that are important.

Thank you and until next time,

Jobo

Faith

2009-02-09T22:04:00.000-08:00

According to Wikipedia faith "is a belief, professedly without proof (i.e. above an acceptable standard of evidence). It is the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Basically, faith is believing without evidence. Now, is having faith bad?

I think it depends. It depends on what kind of faith one have. There is nothing wrong in having a reasonable faith. There is nothing wrong to believe that you will be dropped safely in Roxas if you take a Toril-Roxas jeep or a taxi. Me believing that North Korea exist even though I have not been there is still reasonable. I may not have been to North Korea but it is already universally known that North Korea exist or there are countries around North Korea that would tell us that NK exist. There are instances that believing in something without evidence is not that irrational. Like believing that my 'ka-text' is a human and not a dog or that I am really texting my friend and not some one else. These beliefs are not irrational because they are directly supported by evidences[scientific] and logic.

However having blind faith is a different thing. Believing that you can catch a bullet or that you are bullet proof is stupidity. Believing that you will enter the gate of heaven when you die in a suicide bombing will not only kill yourself but also kill other innocent people is also stupid and irrational. This is blind faith. Having a very strong belief in some thing with no evidence [or implicit faith/fideism] is irrational. That kind of faith is bad and that it could cause complications in one's life.

All I can say is that one should base its beliefs on scientific inquiry and reason. Not just on mere faith alone. If you have faith then make it sure that it is supported by scientific evidence and logic.

Rain

2009-02-08T17:01:00.000-08:00

Rain, thunder!

Loud as a gatling gun

Always makes me wonder

Why this makes me feel easy

As the rain drops in the roof like a water fall

My activities become limited

But my imagination becomes limitless

Taking me to places only found in dreams

The loud and annoying sound forces me to concentrate

It washes negative thoughts like the rain does to dust

The cool wind calms my stressed body

Like a demon hosed down with holy water

Rain, thunder!

Hope this will last forever

Ironic

2009-02-06T21:13:00.000-08:00

A traffic jam when youre already late

A no-smoking sign on your cigarette break

Its like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife

Its meeting the girl of my dreams

And then she's already with somebody else

Isnt it ironic...Dont you think? A little too ironic.

Well this is just some of the lines of the song Ironic by Alanis Morisette. Life indeed is [sometimes, or for some, most of the times] ironic. Yesterday, I think I felt what Alanis Morisette felt when she wrote the song above. So I thought about it last night. Why life is so ironic?

I'm not really quite sure as to how life is ironic. I'm not quite sure if what I thought was sound or right but I think it is. I think that people dont expect things to happen or that the end results are contrary to their plans/expectations because they screw things up. I mean we all have free will and we control our lives. Right? Some people [like me] just made the wrong decision or chose the bad option that is why the end result is contrary to their[my] plans. Simple as that I think. A man can use another route wherein there is much less traffic yet that man chose a route wherein the traffic was heavy. Or I could've ask her earlier than anybody else but I chose not to because I chickened out.

I mean we control our lives and we must also be responsible for it.

Think!

2009-02-06T04:01:00.000-08:00

“If we must die, let us die sober, and not drunk with lies.” -Bertrand Russell

I agree with this. I really dont like people who just accept things as they are without knowing what is 'really' the truth and without asking questions. These people just swallow what is given unto them without any recourse to knowledge and reason. How can they be satisfied with that? Why can't they use their minds and think? These people would rather die than ask themselves "why??".

Ode to Joy

2009-02-05T00:01:00.000-08:00

My world stops everytime I see you

As if you are the only being that exist

Roses would bloom as you enter the room

You are like the sunshine that gives life

to these roses

Joy is what I get when I think of you

Of all the beautiful things that I could possibly think of

(aromas, sunset, flowers)

You are the most beautiful of them all

Random Stories [about me lately]

2009-02-04T18:07:00.000-08:00

When I woke up and opened the computer this morning, I really don't have anything in mind to write. I cant really think of any thing not-so-serious to write. What I have in my mind right now are quite serious and controversial stuffs. So while I was surfing the net for some interesting things to write I got this idea of writing random things and/or stories about me. To break the ice, let me present to you some random stories that happened to me lately.

1.) Last October I applied to ABC Company [not the real name. i changed the name] and after like 2 months they informed me that they will conduct an interview. I prepared and read articles about interviews and the possible questions to ask during interviews. I felt confident and prepared. But when the interview started I got nervous and I freaked out because the HR guy really threw unexpected questions to me. I really dint expect what he asked although I know that I should know those answers. I just wanted the interview to end but the HR guy just seemed to continue pressing me a lot. LOL. But then it just ended. I think they wont bother to call me again unless the other applicants did worse than me. LOL. Well at least I learned a lot from that experience.

2.) Last Sunday I talked to a friend[very gorgeous friend to be exact] on my cellphone. I called her because I have nothing to do that night and I just simply want to talk to her and that I have enough load. While talking, I forgot that I was just using my CP and not the landline. We talked as if my CP have unlimited load. Although I was aware that I had 320+ of load but I was not aware that it would somehow be gone/consumed in just minutes. Our conversation ended at the middle of a very good topic. Damn. I was so "bitin" and I did not even told her the a very important thing that I want to tell her that time. And aside from that feeling of "bitin-ness", my 320+ load was gone just like a bubble that pops. LOL. But I think that its still worth it.

[nah, again me being irrational]

3.) My mom gives me 300/500 CP load almost every month. So she expects me to have load. Last Monday she told me to text Papa and tell him that the phone is ready for him to call us. I told her "Ma, wala na baya koy load" ["Ma, I don't have enough load"]. She replied "Bag-o ra gani tika gi-tagaan ug 500 load last month!" ["But I just gave you 500 load last month!"]. [See story #2 why i dont have load] I just stared at her and smiled a little. And then she smiled back and told me that I was just kidding. LOL. I am a joker in our house and I like to joke around to my sis and mom. That time my mom thought that I was just joking around. She did not know that I was really serious that I don't have enough load. And until now she still thinks that I have load. I hope she wont tell me to call her or Papa. LOL.

4.) I have season 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of That 70's Show. Some of it though were borrowed by my friends. I just finished season 6 of That 70's Show [again] and I'll start season 7 soon [again]. I watched this whole series [all of them] for 3 or 4 times now. Still this show makes me laugh.

5.) Last Tuesday after I ate dinner I went out and walked around outside our house with my mp3 player. I do this almost every after dinner of almost every night. While walking outside and feeling the cool wind with my mp3 player, I [again] imagined that I was in a music video. LOL. I mean the music was just great and I just cant stop myself but imagine that I was the one who sung that song. LOL. Music really takes me high. It's like a drug. While I was doing this, I did not notice that my cute-neighbor-nurse pass by at our house. She saw me singing this unknown song, waving my hands[like a rapper in a music video], with my face looking stupid. When I noticed that she was looking at me she just smiled[or maybe laughed] and looked away. Duh. Another classic embarassing moment.

So these are just some few stories about me. I'll post stories like this again next time if I have nothing to write. Until next time.

25 Random Things About Me

2009-02-04T16:59:00.000-08:00

I got this idea from Facebook. Since I am bored and nothing in mind to write yet so here's my 25 random things about me :D

1. i have no job

2. i love to sleeeeeeeepp

3. i like to talk about religion,faith, philosophy, and science

4. i really like some one right now

5. i am right now planning something for that some one above for valentines day

6. in that plan above, i have plan A and plan B but i have no sub plans for plan A [yet]

7. i hate people who knock at our doors to spread some The Word

8. i am watching again my That 70's Show [seasons 3,4,5,6 & 7] series for the nth time this time

9. i want angel locsin as my date this valentine if my plans to that 'some one' will not happen ["libre lang mangarap" as the song goes. lol]

10. i box 3 times a week

11. i stopped playing chess for a while

12. i am jumping from one goal to another [boring]

13. one of my favorite movies is Dead Poets Society

14. i am lazy but i like to work hard

15. i have a very cynical attitude

16. every time some one taps my back, i would just think that 'ah, that's just corporate politics'.

17. i have lots of ideas in my mind

18. i want and love to write but i suck in writing

19. i really need a job coz i need money so that i could make a move

20. i want a high, or at least, good paying job with not so difficult tasks

21. i write poems but i dont want people to read it

22. i love to see people who cant defend their faith

23. i want to be Michael Scofield

24. i like to talk to intellectual people

25.i am torpe

Purpose

2009-02-02T18:18:00.000-08:00

Why are we here? What is our purpose here? These are some of the most basic questions we ask regarding purpose.

According to Rick Warren [a theologian] in his book the Purpose Driven Life, we should not look within ourselves, but rather the starting place must be with God and his eternal purposes for each life. Real meaning and significance comes from understanding and fulfilling God’s purposes for putting us on earth. Now, Rick Warren clearly explains God's purposes for each of us and these are: a.)first purpose is to offer real worship b.) second purpose is to enjoy real fellowship c.) third purpose is to learn real discipleship d.) fourth purpose is to practice real ministry e.) fifth purpose is to live out real evangelism.

So if according to Rick Warren man's purpose is to please God, then what is God's purpose? Now, when we talk about purpose, we always ask "What is our purpose in life?" and "Why are we here?". It is always about ourselves. But what about God's purpose? What is God's purpose? Why do he exist? I'd like to quote something from a forum and this was posted by a Johnny®..

"If God exists for His own pleasure, then this is selfish. It makes it look as if God created us merely to have some living toys to play with. Isn’t there some principle that God looks up to? Something to admire, adore, and worship? Is God consigned for eternity to sit there and amuse Himself with the worship of others? Or to worship Himself? What’s the point?"

Pretty strong questions there and I think no one knows the answer for that. Maybe theists/atheists/agnostics have their own answer to that. [I think believers would just reply something like "No one can understand God" or "No one must question God!". lol ]

Now to continue..

I really dont like the idea of Rick Warren about the purpose of man's life. This kinda sounds like "essence precedes existence" to me. Life should not be like that [essence precedes existence] because if we, humans, would have an essence before we exist then we are just the same with other things like a glass or a chair. A glass or a chair already have a purpose/essence even when they are not yet created. This purpose/essence exist in the mind of the creator of the glass/chair. If that's the case then we are just like them. Instead life should be "existence precedes essence". Man must exist first then man would find his/her own essence/purpose in life. Man must define himself. Meaning man is defined only insofar as he acts and must be responsible for his actions. I believe that there is no such predetermined essence to be found in man. Essence[or purpose] must be defined by man through how he/she creates/lives his/her life.

Now that is how life should be!

Having absolute freedom and having responsibilty.

Power of Prayer

2009-02-01T16:36:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I saw an advertisement on the TV about a new show or a new telenovela of some sort. On that show/telenovela there is this kid who is very unfortunate and having a very bad life. The ad showed the kid praying and asking for some help from God. The kid was crying and was really praying for God for some assistance or guidance. I wonder if there was really someone who is listening to the kid's prayer. I wonder if the life of that kid would get any better just by praying. Hmmm...

I read that every Sunday in Britain, entire congregations prayed publicly for the royal family. Shouldn't they, therefore, be unusually fit, compared with the rest of us, who are prayed for only by our nearest and dearest?* Also I heard and read about the Great Prayer Experiment [GPE] that was held in Britain funded by the Templeton Foundation [this foundation spent $2.4 million on that experiment]. The objective of the experiment was to know/test whether praying for patients would help them recover. Unfortunately, the results of GPE tells us that praying had no effect on complication-free recovery [from coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in the case of the experiment]. But according to the Bible, specifically Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16, that God would bless those who would seek and believe in him, then how come my prayers[to heal all cancer patients, to improve our nation, to heal autistics, world peace, and many more] when I was a kid were not answered by God? Howcome the royal family are not that fit considering that they are being prayed for every Sunday by their people? The GPE results?

For some time in my life, I really tried to find answers to questions about praying [and ofcourse about God]. I read, study, and understand[I hope] the Bible. I also listened attentively to Sunday school teachers[when i still attend SS classes] and on the sermons of our pastor. I also listened attentively on the lecures of my Philosophy and Theology teachers when I was still in college and read books and articles about religion and faith. I think and think and think and read. But the answers that I found and my thinking mind tells me that praying cant do any good. I really tried to pray but it dint do good. The Church[or the theist side] dint really satisfied my thinking mind. I really do think and believe that prayers cant do anything to any situation or to the situation of the kid in my intro or to the health of the royal family or the condition of the sick patients. If you disagree on me on this then you can try for yourself a praying experiment. Pray that God [which is omnipotent and loving] would heal all cancer patients. If there is no effect then my statement stands. :D The more the Church or any authority would tell me to just pray and have faith and wait for the blessings to come, the more I dont. The more that I try to believe in praying, the more I think it is irrational. I believe that what is needed is action.

I believe that the only person or being that could get the things that you want in life is just you. If you want love, you find love. If you want success you work for it. If you want knowledge you think for it. Just waiting for things to come and be passive will not really give you what you want. You must take action and be proactive. :D Again, the only person or being that could help you in life is just you. Face all life's problems head on. Dont just depend on some sort of powerless and passive system or thinking or something like that.

*Got this info from Richard Dawkin's book

Being in love

2009-02-01T00:14:00.000-08:00

My heart is like a grave yard where I bury my pains each time she dont reply?! What the heck, I dont really want to feel like this because it feels kinda corny [but true].

What the hell. I think Cupid shot me with his arrow again. I really dont like to be in love because it really makes my reasoning and judgment unclear. I dont want to be irrational and people become irrational when in love. Some people cant eat or sleep. Some people would end up having unwanted baby. Some would loose their concentration in work/studies. In my case, there are times that I have trouble getting into sleep because the object of my desire always crawls in my mind. I may feel a little bit serious about her now but I think that this would be something that I would laugh about in the future.

Another thing I dont like about being in love is that it involves taking risks. As of now I dont really appreciate taking risks. Why take risks if you can get win-win? Rejection really sucks. But i agree that it is worth taking the risk. It's just I just can forsee the pain one[or I] would feel when rejected or busted. No one would like to feel that one.

But despite the negative effects of being inlove, [and based on my experience and based on movies about love], I believe that it is still better to love and fall down than to have never loved at all. I guess its just a matter of me having courage and not to chicken out to tell what i feel.

[credit to the original author/poet of the first line. sorry for editing it and sorry for forgetting your name :D]

Sin According to Me

2009-01-31T23:31:00.000-08:00

What is sin? According to Christian believers, sin is the violation of God’s Commandments or a transgression against divine law. When one violates God’s commandments, he/she have sinned. The Bible has many definition of sin. But they all tell us that sin is about breaking God’s laws/commandments. Christians have 10 Commandments to follow. If a Christian would violate one of these then he commits a sin. Basically, sin is whatever that contradicts God’s command. This is how the Divine Command Theory, which is held by many Protestant Christians, defines sin. And this is also how other religions like Islam and Judaism defines sin.

On the other hand, for me, I do not define sin as that. Maybe I dont believe in sin at all. I believe that I have this thing called free will and no one is commanding me to do this or that or else I’ll suffer eternal damnation. So since I dont believe in sin and that I have free will, am I a bad? [Opkors not!] Do I know what is good and what is bad? [Opkors yes!]

I dont believe in sin but I believe in immoral acts. Immoral acts are acts that causes damage to others. That’s how I define bad [or sin to Christians]. Simple as that. Acts like killing or raping causes damage to others. Since it causes damage to others then I do not kill and rape. Now is gluttony or lust or envy bad/immoral? For me they are not unless they can cause damage to others. To others [I'm talking bout believers(most of them if not all)] they do not do bad things/immoral acts because that’s what the commandments say or that’s what their God say. What if their God would tell them to kill, would they? Look at 9/11 and the Crusades. These people are just afraid of the punishment of hell or they like the reward of heaven. They do not know what is really bad. Some of them are just forced [maybe] to not to do bad.

Unlike them, I really do know what bad/immoral is from the bottom of my heart. I do not do bad [immoral acts] just because I am forced to or I am afraid of hell or I want the reward of heaven but because I know from the bottom of my heart that it is bad [simply because it can cause damage to others.] :D

Lastly I dont like the idea of sin because it kind of takes away the essence of life which is absolute freedom. Man must have freedom in order to be human. Man must choose for himself what to do and what not to do and be responsible.

Believing

2009-01-31T23:29:00.001-08:00

When i went to church last Sunday [since my mom always forces me and as an obedient and 'maro' son i follow] i noticed always that the the rituals and the pastor’s sermons always have to do with believing [ofkors in God]. Like for exmaple, when we eat the bread and wine and other similar stuffs. Its all about remembering and believing in God/Jesus. I also noticed that the Sunday school lessons were also about believing and/or having faith in God/Jesus. [maybe not really "always" but most of the time]. Both the pastor and Sunday School teachers[SSTs] teaches us that when we have faith and that when we believe in God/Jesus, nothing is impossible. They,both pastor and SSTs, really emphasizes [i think] ‘believing/faith’.

But what is with believing anyway? Is believing to God really that important? Can one secure a seat in heaven [assuming that there is] just by believing?

As person who have an open heart and mind on both sides [huh? what sides? lol] i think that believing is not that really important. Maybe for a very deeply religious person, believing is very important because it assures them of things and that they think that believing [alone] in God will assure them of afterlife/heaven. But for me, i think that believing will not really assure one a seat or place in heaven. I mean, a person can believe and have a strong faith in God yet that person can still continue to do what is not right. Right? Example are the corrupt politicians we see on news/TV. They go to church with their family [or for some, 'families'] or they offer a mass for this and that yet they are still corrupt. Or a person goes to church every Sunday yet that person still do what is not right [ still commits immoral acts]. This is really ironic because they call themselves man/child of God yet still continues to commit immoral acts.

So what now can secure a man a seat or place in heaven? ? Hmmm… For me, i believe that having a good conduct and clear conscience can secure a man a seat or place in heaven. These two, i believe, is much more important than believing. I will not elaborate on this because i know that you already know ‘why’. [i hope]. My point is that we should focus more on these two rather than just by believing alone. And that the Church must not only promise its believers of heaven/afterlife but they should also teach its believers how to ‘really’ end up in heaven.