Instead you’re likely just sharpening your prejudices. Sharpening prejudices can be fun. I do it all the time. But it’s not thinking, free or otherwise, and it’s not good philosophy either.

Another note. Prejudices, per se, are not categorically "bad." The statement above implies that it is. This is not the whole story. I guess this ought to be revised. In fact, to have prejudices is the only way to think – one cannot think as in a blank slate. What is needed, however, is to constantly workout our prejudices – understand them better. This "attempt to understand" applies also to others who supposedly has "irrational prejudices" (i.e, the religious and superstitious). Thus, I doubt the merit of blind criticism to others who are supposedly "prejudiced" (e.g. because they are tied to religious dogma; or they still have superstitions). It is time for a "reality check", as FlipAnon points out: we ourselves are prejudiced. Working out and understanding prejudices so that the false ones are discarded while the true ones are retained, to me, is the prime goal of "thinking" as such; and not those cheap and misguided "critiques" which are proliferated in the Internet by those who profess allegiance to this movement: for instance, the too old antagonism of Science and Religion (I am tempted to name a few, to be honest).

Anyway, I scanned through all your comments and their rebuttals and I’ll leave most of your misguided and semantically plagued reprobations behind to answer your last/latest words.

Why are they "misguided"? State your reasons. If they are "semantically plagued", that is because it is my hope to make it clearer; now I am guilty of the crime of oversimplifying. Apologies, from now on I will state my arguments in a less simplified manner.

The purpose of Filipino freethinkers coming together is not to bash and express our contempt of religion (albeit some bashing and joke cracking still arise at times).

Point taken. But then again, some of you do. And basing from the over-emphasis of this site: "Reason. Science. Freedom" – to me, it implies that art, religion, metaphysics does not have those three qualities!

We do not define ourselves, as I think you believe we do, as people who are anti-something, in this case, religion. We define ourselves more positively, and that we are also a part of society and warrant acceptance, just as homosexuals and other groups do.

Point taken. However, if you warrant and are needy of acceptance, then it implies that you are a separate, unwanted group. Realistically speaking, you are, of course. Philippines is largely still "superstitious and irrational" in its day-to-day proceedings. However, do you really want to be "just a group, amovement"? I don't know. Remember however that "grouping" and "fencing" ourselves from others always implies antagonism to those who do not belong to 'us' (i.e, in our group). And this is the last thing we need, as Filipinos. We do not need division – we need a unified goal; we need Understanding. Of course, this does not preclude our option to form groups, but where antagonism is the rule between groups, there is nothing achieved. I will take it that your group is not based on antagonism and contempt to those who are "unscientific, unreasonable, and unfree." But then again there are those (your members which are many of them who have blogs/journals of their own which has the effect of spreading more ignorance) who do not recognise this, and delights to highlight the supposedly "infirmities" of those who do not share their views, and declares that they are "unreasonable, unscientific, irrational" – which is equivalent to saying that they are "bad" and in all circumstances should be avoided. That priests and bishops are fools; that quack-doctors are liars; that old women and widows, fundamentalists who still believes in sin and the after-life are laughable – these are the reactions and views I detest. Instead of giving undue remarks about their "irrationality" ("irrational" from your or your colleagues perception, I suppose), why not seek the historical phenomenon behind this to achieve understanding?

I also think you’re mistaken if you think there are no lies, uncertainty etc in science, but in fact there are. Science, as Carl Sagan puts it, has a built-in error correcting mechanism which religion for example, barely has.

Why that is the whole point. Why do you think science admits an "error correcting mechanism"? Or as Karl Popper puts it, loosely quoted, "science acts 'as if' things are explained" – i.e, that "all is well" until no suitable theory is conceived to dispose of the existing one. But what is the motivation behind this? Why build an "error correcting mechanism" – what is its justification/purpose? Why treat the theories "as if" they are true? Of course, science, in itself, has no answer to these ontological questions – in fact, it deliberately avouids these very questions for they "lead to nothing" (That will be the subject of a "meta-science", perhaps ).

But in our daily lives, it is mere stupidity to act without any purpose in mind: we act "teleologically." Though our explanation of our actions (the "science") rejects the idea of teleology, it cannot escape it. In fact, science is teleology in action. Notice for instance its goal on experience. It views experience as "a source of truths". It supposes that experience will, in the end, be objectified in a rigid body of knowledge (as exemplified in experiments, reasearch, surveys and other conventional scientific methods). You cannot deny that as a man-of-science. Basically put, "there are no science without any presuppositions." Those "presuppositions" I claim as irrational, or rests on an "informal" grounding, which religion rests, too. If you attempt to contrast them, you will unfortunately fail – but more importantly, their contrasting (or antagonising) achieves nothing, for they too are the same in a very important sense which is usually neglected.

And what made you say that "religion does not have, or barely have, 'error-correcting mechanisms'"? Please provide an instance.

Why choose science over religion you ask? One reason is because science can give you the exact time and date when an eclipse will occur, when a comet will pass by, and so on.

These are just mere practical consequences. In the end, the arguer here is providing a "utilitarian"/pragmatic view of science – that is, if we prefer science over religion, that is because only of pragmatic reasons. Hmm..But there is no scientific basis to prefer the secular/pragmatic over the unsecular/religious/holy! Can your science provide that? No – this simply shows that science, in the end, is a mere utility of a phenomenon before science – before science there was human instinct!

I doubt you could give any religious doctrine across history which can match such certainty.

Well, science, in this sense, is in the same boat. Notice all the revisions, outdating, replacing of existing theories of new ones. So if both are "uncertain", why prefer the former over the latter? What will be the "scientific basis" of that? There is none in my opinion. So, again, "science. reason.freedom" can never be the true banner of "a promising movement."

Science does not have a monopoly of the truth but it’s many magnitude greater than the alternative, i.e. religion, pseudo-science , the supernatural, occult, the list goes on.

No decent man-of-science would claim that he has. However, in the same sense, he will not deny that he has "presuppositions" which he shares with the most religious of men. Albeit ready for revision, the fact remains: the man-of-science has presuppositions, prejudices, irrational assumptions; the religious man has presuppositions too; then the man-of-science and the priest are the same. I challenge someone to refute this claim; but, there is no point in refuting! "Why?" you ask – because it is futile to contrast them in the first place; that the preference over "reason.science.freedom" is in the end unfounded – it cannot justify itself. What is needed, in the end, is understanding of history; of moving and motivating truths which can make a nation great – which propels men to action and greatness.

Thanks for your time though, it was fun reading your comments.

You are welcome. It is my point and hope that this movement should not be treated as the "final answer and action neccessary." I have pragmatic views in mind – namely, national transformation; our nation, Philippines, needs this transformation of the intellect. I see this as an attempt to do so; I am sad to admit that the ground assumed by this movement ("freethinking") does not totally hit the goal in my limited mind – my goal being unity and true Understanding of our history, culture, and nation – a nation-historical-cultural consciousness, which can use science and reason as tools, but only as tools and not ends.

Sorry if it has taken me so long a time to get back here and reply to you. Anyway, I scanned through all your comments and their rebuttals and I'll leave most of your misguided and semantically plagued reprobations behind to answer your last/latest words.
The purpose of Filipino freethinkers coming together is not to bash and express our contempt of religion (albeit some bashing and joke cracking still arise at times). We do not define ourselves, as I think you believe we do, as people who are anti-something, in this case, religion. We define ourselves more positively, and that we are also a part of society and warrant acceptance, just as homosexuals and other groups do.
I also think you're mistaken if you think there are no lies, uncertainty etc in science, but in fact there are. Science, as Carl Sagan puts it, has a built-in error correcting mechanism which religion for example, barely has. Why choose science over religion you ask? One reason is because science can give you the exact time and date when an eclipse will occur, when a comet will pass by, and so on. I doubt you could give any religious doctrine across history which can match such certainty. Science does not have a monopoly of the truth but it's many magnitude greater than the alternative, i.e. religion, pseudo-science , the supernatural, occult, the list goes on.
Thanks for your time though, it was fun reading your comments.

Now freethought is about seeking your answers by applying reason and scientific knowledge while not subscribing to religious dogma.

The despicable aspect however of all this is that when the freethinker "thinks" that his method "is the only method" proper to conduct one's life. His criticisms on religious truths rebounds on him: it shows that he has a great lack of understanding of history; he thinks unhistorically, and surrenders all his capacity of thought to "logic" and "science" alone. Science is not an end in itself; in fact, it does not believe if there are such "ends/great purpose/destiny." That is why it needs justification; that is why if one proceeds under the banner of "science" he inevitably will fail, and miserably fails.

I am not against science per se. What I'm against, or I am doing this to remind ourselves, we Filipinos, that this is a mistaken step. Science is but a step. Our poor country needs some direction – science can be used to that, but it is not the source of a "sense in direction."

Another thing. This whole "movement" seemed to be particularly contemptuous of dogmatic religion. But then again there is no scientific basis of all this contempt. So why still proceed as if one is "being scientific" if one criticises religion? That should be the final nail in the coffin, so to speak.