Reason Enough?

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

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:

1. the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined, and
2. all of the available evidence that X exists is inadequate, and
3. 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

I am You? You are Me?

In Defense of the Problem of Evil and Suffering

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

1. God exists
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction)

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. (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

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

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

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!

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

1. Know exactly what you want.
2. Ask the universe for it.
3. Feel, behave and know as if the object of your desire is already yours (visualize).
4. 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

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)

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

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

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!

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

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

Funny how it's always humans doing the talking.

Word of God eh?

Thou Shall Not Lie

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)

Uh-oh. Caught in the act!

Confirmed: God is slightly gay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theist Morality vs. Atheist Morality

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

Kalam Argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omnipotence Paradox

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

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

Omnipotence Paradox. This is not really new. I have read this in forums and blogs many times. This argument is used to prove or show that God is not omnipotent. One of the most famous I read and know in forums and blogs is the Stone Paradox: Can God create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it? Both possible answers would tell us that God is not omnipotent. Another example I read is this: Can God create a being that is more powerful than him? Again, the answers (yes or no) would tell us that God's power is not limitless. Now I read at theAtheist blog some interesting examples about the Omnipotence Paradox. The examples I read there are:

• Could God kill himself? One might question why God would have the desire to kill himself, but that is not a valid reason for dismissing the question. If God can kill himself, then he lacks the power of immortality (perhaps a poor choice of words, maybe ever-existence would be better), if he cannot, then he lacks the ability to kill himself.
• Could God create a truly immortal being? Similar to the above but a step removed. If God can create a truly immortal being, then he lacks the ability to end the life of that being, if he cannot create a truly immortal being, or if he can create a truly immortal being that he can then kill, then either he lacks the ability to create a truly immortal being or that being he creates is not truly immortal.
• Could God create a being more powerful than himself? You might also ask whether God can create a more powerful God? This is particularly interesting as it applies across multiple definitions of the word omnipotent (see below). If God can create such a being, then he is clearly not of unlimited power (for a being to be more powerful, there must, by definition, be something the new God can do that the old one cannot), and if he cannot, then that is an ability God lacks.
• Could God make himself no longer omnipotent? Rather than questioning whether God is omnipotent, this dispenses with that and rather asks whether God can make so that he is no longer omnipotent, or such that he is no longer a God. If so, then what impact does that have on the established belief systems, and how would we know?

Is God really omnipotent?

Why I am an Infidel?

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

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

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

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

Just a theory

Picture from here.

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

(sarcasm)

New Blogroll

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