I remember a feature in Discovery Channel many years ago on the idea of downloading everything from a person’s mind – knowledge, memories, language, emotions, etc. – and uploading it to a supercomputer that controls a robot. This robot would then act and interact based on the whole personality of the borrowed mind, and it would keep on doing so even after the person is long dead, rendering him/her immortal.

Unfortunately, this attempt at immortality would only benefit the surviving family, friends, and colleagues because as far as the person is concerned, he/she has already ceased to exist and cannot experience or enjoy this “life” the robot is living.

Moreover, having one’s mind “transfered” to a robot’s electronic brain isn’t really very much different from distilling one’s thoughts into literature. Great minds from decades and even centuries ago continue to speak to the living and influence millions. Sure, a robot is cool, and Shakespeare might still be writing plays today if his mind was backed up in a supercomputer, but until such time that the technology becomes available, the written word is the closest one can get to immortality.

So to those who don’t believe in an afterlife, if you post your articles here at Filipino Freethinkers a part of you will become frozen in time, to be read, shared and discussed by future generations of freethinkers. By then this site might be run by Ryan’s great-great-great-grandchildren or by an FF Foundation – or by the CBCP, heaven forbid! – but as long as it exists, so will the authors, in a way.

And with this we are inviting everyone to submit articles on freethought – essays, stories, even poems.

Write up guys, and become immortal! :)

“It has become a commonplace that, were Jesus to return today, he would be appalled at what is being done in his name…. We owe Jesus the honour of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the supernatural nonsense which he inevitably espoused as a man of his time…” — Richard Dawkins

Most, if not all, of the earliest Christians in ancient Rome were branded atheists because they frowned on the emperor cult and refused to recognize the Emperor as god, even as many of them were arrested, tortured and killed — so explained the documentary “Rivals of Jesus” shown in The National Geographic Channel. Indeed, these early Christians were atheists with respect to the Roman emperor/god. They were, shall we say, atheists for Jesus.

Similarly, today’s Christians (Catholics included) are atheists with respect to other gods, in the same manner that other religionists are to the Judeo-Christian god. Uniformly, we’re all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. And does anyone still pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Physicist Mano Singham wrote: “If one asks followers of one particular god why they do not believe in a different one, you will usually find that they argue much like atheists, citing the lack of evidence or reasons for belief. The difference is that they apply the rule only selectively, to rule out all other gods except their own preferred one, although there is no empirical difference between them.”

My take is that the plethora of gods ultimately makes a god-believer a theist and at the same time an atheist. If you’d not get schizoid with that…!

However, not a few religionists would argue that no matter what religion one belongs to, and even with the different name(s) for the god(s) he/she worships, these names universally refer to the same and only one God. Aha! the “only-one-God” with multiple bios and resumes? Like the three-hundred or three-persons-in-one? The latter sounds more like the sacheted Nescafe!

Additionally and not necessarily relevant, what explains the fact that Buddhism does not have a god? Would nothing or none be the same as the Abrahamic God?

Alas, we were all born without faith, without belief, without any clue whatsoever of the god-hypothesis. That’s pretty clear. It’s only when indoctrination started in varied stages of our life in various little and big ways did we begin to consciously or unconsciously adopt the faith in a non-existent god — either by having that faith slowly instilled in us or forcibly rammed down our throats.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I can’t remember in my childhood when Santa Claus and Christmas socks were first introduced to my gullible Christmas gift-excited mind; or the moment in our house when I first saw pictures and icons of Jesus’ face, as a baby in a nativity frame or as a half-naked man crucified, and somebody whispered to me saying “he’s the son of God.”

But I do remember viewing a TV program months after 9/11, wherein a little girl was asked who the man in the picture (Bin Laden) shown to her was. Without hesitation she quickly answered : Jesus Christ.

Pardon the kid, but you know the popular image of Jesus is so embedded in our minds that many geniuses could see him about anywhere: From formation of clouds to burnt marks of a toasted bread, from abstract designs of bathroom tiles and soiled urinals to worn out soles of flip-flops. Yet, a National Geographic documentary posited that Jesus may have looked like a dark-skinned, curly, beardless man resembling that of the Judas character in the rock opera/ film “Jesus Christ Superstar.”

Which leads me to gutsily croon this Rice/Webber non-Christmas “carole”:

Every time I look at you I don’t understand,
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand,
You could have managed better if you had it planned,
Now why’d you choose such a backward time and such a strange land?
If you’d come today you could have reached the whole nation,
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.

Well, Judas-looking or not, Jesus would have topped Google search hits if the net and Facebook were already in vogue when he was rumored to be walking on water or raising the dead in old Galilee or thereabouts. Conversely, if he were to show up in these parts in this post-Marcos era, he would be an admirable heroic human rights activist, and would possibly be listed as a victim of torture (read: crucified), and/or unfortunately gone desaparicido. Partly because Jesus possessed the radical ethics that Dawkins describes him to have!

Now, this question intrigued me the happy holidays through: If Jesus were to return today, would he be an atheist or agnostic, too? My gut feel: Yes, probably! You know he’s depicted in the bible to have knowledgeably debated with religious elders when he was still a kid. He was, at the very least, a maverick.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
When I was still a pre-schooler, I had difficulty distinguishing Jose Rizal from Andres Bonifacio. It seemed I saw Rizal in Bonifacio and vice-versa. It was only when I was able to recognize the old (’70′s?) two-peso bill wherein, if memory serves, Bonifacio and Mabini shared “topbilling” on the banknote, and contrasting it to Rizal’s one-peso bill did I clearly define who was who. So you can say that money educates the ignorant about history, and also makes hero-worshippers out of pre-schoolers. And oh, how brilliant was that person who originally thought of deflecting money-worship toward other forms of fanaticism.

Anyway, my drift here is: To be a fan of popular celebrities or historical figures brings its own strategic reward. A fan values the admirable traits of the idol/role model and perhaps deliberately emulates his/her attributes, then most likely in the long evolutionary process, somehow those characteristics are replicated in meme-like fashion thereby enriching the human gene pool. Good to hear, thus, there are Catholic followers of Martin Luther King, non-Mason fans of Rizal, or Noranian admirers of Vilma.

But I maintain that atheist ‘fans’ of Jesus must not be confused with atheists for Jesus. You see, I’m no more than a mere Jesus fan now.

Worshipping these celebrities and historical figures as gods is altogether a delusional matter, as one Rizalista cult proves to be no ordinary fans club. Go figure that woman-member who was interviewed on TV about her interpretation of the “INRI” that’s associated with the crucified Christ: She emphatically lectured viewers that the “R” stands for “Rizal”. Arrrrr…!

What would Jesus do

in

this troublesome

time?

In Iraq, USA, Israel

and Palestine?

What would Jesus do

when

calamity comes?

to people who are unfortunate,

it seems to them the sun

won’t shine.

What would Jesus do

to

physically and mentally challenged men?

to amputees, mongoloids, the deaf, mute and

the blind?

What would Jesus do?

If people will realize,

that it’s foolishness to believe

in a

Jesus divine…

This is my second collaborative effort with Wesley (the first was What Makes Us Special). My words are the ones in normal type while Wesley’s are in italics.

* * * * *

Sex feels good and it stimulates the entire body. Muscles tighten and heart rate rises along with blood pressure, respiration and body temperature. The brain becomes flooded with dopamine, the ‘feel-good’ neurotransmitter. Finally, a feeling of oneness with the universe (or at least with the partner) washes over, clearing the mind. Sex is not just a physical and physiological experience but also a psychological and even spiritual one – and maybe that’s why some people shout “Oh, my God” during orgasm.

And what exactly is an orgasm, in technical terms? Dr. Prakash Kothari defines it as: “an explosive, cerebrally-encoded neuromuscular response at the peak of sexual arousal elicited by psychobiological stimuli, the pleasurable sensations of which are experienced in association with dispensable pelvic physiological concomitants.”

It appears that our body’s pleasurable response towards sex is encoded in our brains. Sex is therefore Darwinian; evolution made sex feel good because otherwise we would not be engaging in it considering the hardships and dangers of pregnancy and childbirth – dooming the fate of the species. In short, evolution made sex feel good because it is crucial to survival of the species. 

As such, animals (and our prehistoric ancestors) start courtship and mating as soon as they become fertile because in the wild it’s a daily struggle between eating and trying not to get eaten, so it makes no sense waiting a few more years for adulthood before giving your contribution to the gene pool. In the wild, the animals mate at will but nature controls their population.

Now the problem starts when a certain species’ survival becomes too successful – when it has climbed to the top of the food chain because it has overpowered all of its known predators – to the point of overpopulation. I remember a part from The Matrix where Agent Smith asserts that humans are not mammals because mammals reproduce in accordance with the available food and water in the area. Humans, on the other hand, reproduce uncontrollably, exhausting resources and destroying ecosystems, and then move on to other places, repeating the process. And there is another organism that does just that: the virus.

Our species’ intellectual capacity and unique ability to shape our environment to such a high degree has earned us the enviable top perch in the natural order. We have virtually eliminated all threats to our survival of the predatory nature. We have driven some of nature’s best killing machines, the great beasts themselves, into near-extinction, surviving now only in zoos and nature preserves, existing now only at the mercy of man. The only other creatures left to prey on us are a few handful parasitic bugs and microbes, and even those we’ve developed effective drugs to rid our system of them. In short, we have become a species without a means of regulating ourselves. We have used our intellectual abilities to bypass nature’s checks and balances and now breed ourselves to oblivion.

Take for example the micro-ecosystem of an aquarium. A poorly designed and maintained aquarium seldom lasts long. The fishes may have been left to multiply beyond the capacity of the limited space or maybe the algae grew all over the place… either way, if the delicate balance of the ecosystem was upset due to uncontrolled, rampant growth, it soon finds its oxygen-nitrogen balance gone awry. It’s a concept every elementary student learns in science class. In an imbalanced environment, things will soon start dying out if there’s too much or too little of the required plants and animals to maintain the carbon cycle.

The earth is like a giant aquarium. Already we see the effects on the water supply, the climate, air quality, and over-all health of the species population suffering because of the scale in which man has tampered with the environment. But we have to use up the available resources to fuel our ever-rising population. It’s simple math, the more people there are in the world, the more forests we have to cut down to make our houses, and the more animals we have to kill for food. Our resource-renewal efforts haven’t quite matched the pace in which we use them up. Deniers may claim that climate change may not be due to man’s effects on the environment, or that we still have enough resources in the world to last for a few more hundred years, but one cannot deny that the world is now a dirtier place than it was a decade ago. 

The Bible passage “go forth and multiply” probably did more damage to the environment than the discovery of fossil fuel. And now the Church is telling us that in controlling the disaster this “word of God” has caused the world we must use only ‘natural’ or Church-approved methods. But which is really more unnatural, artificial contraception or abstinence from something already hard-wired into our instincts? The latter totally denies something innate in our nature; the former merely prevents the environmentally-harmful side effects of too much of that nature. The latter is unreasonable and oppressive; the former is responsible.

Somewhere along the way, anything enjoyable became deemed evil by self-appointed moral police. Sure anything in excess is bad for you, but taken in moderation and with proper precautions, this falls in the category of “responsible recreation”. If some people think it improper, then by all means let them abstain from it. But those minority shouldn’t impose their lifestyle choices on the rest of the population. In the bigger scheme of things, which act is more evil? Wearing a condom or having kids you can’t raise?

Sex may lead to pro-creation but the two are still two totally distinct acts, no matter how much some belief systems may insist that they’re one and the same. When you start a fire, you aren’t obligated to go cook something. Sometimes, it’s enough just to enjoy the warmth of a blazing fire on a cold night. The same goes for sex. It’s a social activity and a recreational sport as well. From a liberal point of view, it’s not even that different from a couple going dancing (that’s why it’s also called the horizontal tango).

But somewhere along the way, generations of culture and tradition turned it taboo which left us where we are now – a species that treats sex as something either dirty or sacred (quite the irony there) instead of the natural act that all the other animals in the world seem to take for granted. Which begs the question – have we become too smart for our own good? Have we outsmarted ourselves in the process of winning the genetic race? While we enjoy the enviable luxury of being able to breed without fear of being some other animal’s lunch later, we have ironically become our own worst enemy by inventing ways to limit ourselves.

Sex is sex and procreation is procreation. The former lasts a night, the latter carries with it a responsibility of 18 years minimum taking care of your kid. It should always be the couple’s choice how far they’re willing to go because they’re the ones who are going to take care of the child, not the church, and certainly not those anti-contraceptive campaigners. So how silly is it to make up all these imaginary rules on how couples should have sex? If you plan to have only two kids because as a responsible parent, that’s all you can afford to raise, then there’s the possibility that you might only have sex twice in your whole married life. Try selling that proposition to all the married couples out there and see how far that gets you. 

We don’t need religion to tell us that every baby born into the world is a wellspring of potential. But that’s generally the problem now, is it? So much untapped potential and no way to unlock it because how does a family earning minimum wage get all ten children fed, educated, and raised properly? Most families have no problem with the breeding… but the raising? Most people never even think about it. It’s a matter of quantity or quality, which, more often than not, makes for a poor strategy in trying to uplift one’s condition. The less there is to go around, the less chance of getting out of poverty. In that aquarium metaphor, introducing more fish doesn’t make things better, it’ll just force everyone to compete against each other for scarce resources, and not in a good way, as one can see with the escalating crime rate. In the end, we end up with a lot of people forced to do bad things in order to survive. And no amount of the church’s preachings will stop someone from breaking the law if the alternative is hunger. 

In a religion where natural urges are deemed evil or immoral but having more children than you can raise responsibly is acceptable because it’s “a gift of god”, we end up with an escalating population growth that far surpasses the rate our infrastructure is able to cope with. The number of urban poor is rising exponentially each year, clear proof that the economic and social infrastructure development cannot match our population rise.

Yet there are still sectors of society who blindly claim that we are “not overpopulated”, that we have more space to grow. Space is not the issue here, it’s the problem of turning everyone into productive members of society. A typical family belonging to the urban poor will churn out a dozen babies without an inkling how to provide not only food and shelter for their brood, but how to turn them into productive adults. So they grow up into uneducated, unskilled vagrants that further tax our already over-burdened urban infrastructure. It’s a vicious cycle of uncontrolled growth.

Yes, it’s not the headcount per-se that determines whether we’re over-populated or not, rather how well resources are channeled to each individual. There are first-world countries that have denser urban populations than us but the big difference is that a greater percentage of their population are productive, able to work within the economy to provide for themselves instead of resorting to crime or waiting for charitable dole-outs.

Population growth should always follow the economic trends, not the other way around. If there are too many people and too few jobs to go around, we hit an economic crunch. It’s simple supply-and-demand : if you’ve got an over-supply of unemployed workers, their market values plummet. Employers can pay sub-standard wages because everyone is desperate to get any sort of work. With that level of salary, you end up living from paycheck to paycheck, unable to get out of the poverty cycle.

Let me make this clear: this is not about limiting how many children you’re allowed to have, it’s about responsible parenthood. If you can’t provide for your future offspring, then you should think twice about bringing them into the world. It’s your decision and your actions but it’s the children who will suffer for it. Children are not lottery tickets that you get as many as you can get your hands on, hoping that by playing the numbers game, one of them might eventually be your ticket out of poverty. Instead, that rare child who grew up in the slums that beats the odds of finishing school and gets a good job still ends up with the problem of having to support his parents and a dozen other unemployed siblings that didn’t fare as well.

In the wild, the weak do not live long enough to slow down the rest of the species; they either get eaten by predators or die from starvation because they cannot effectively hunt for survival. But we do not live in the wild, and we generally do not leave our offspring and other family members to fend for themselves. And since we are well above this law of the jungle that keeps populations in equilibrium with the available resources, the least we could do is to regulate our propagation so as not to overburden our already ailing planet. Now which is the more reasonable way of doing that, abstinence or contraception? Come to think of it, abstinence is prescribed by the same people who insist that we “go forth and multiply”. And look where that has brought us now.

Sunday, January 24, 2010
1:00pm – 4:00pm
Starbucks (near cinemas) at Shangrila Mall

Agenda:

* FF Podcast 2010 Episode 1

* Brainstorming for new FF contest

* Coordination meeting

** FF Film Fest on Feb 27
** FF Anniversary Party on Feb 28
** FF UP chapter and other university/college orgs

As I was seeking for answers and looking for truths regarding life, I was disappointed and dismayed when I learned that some ‘truths’ are only illusions. I learned that each and every one of us has his/her own ‘truths’ which, if anyone dares to argue with, it would be a long and tiring argument for sure.

So let me tell you my story on why I became an atheist. This is my JOURNEY TO PARADISE.

I was born in a Christian family, in an environment among what they call the ‘righteous’ and the ‘chosen ones’. But I am an individual, unique, and I have my own thoughts to follow. I realized that I don’t have to follow my family’s traditions and beliefs.

For 12 years I was in a Catholic environment because my family is a devotee of Catholicism. But by the time I was able to understand this religion and belief thing, I started questioning every little detail on why people follow such traditions like the rituals done during Holy Week, the baptism of babies, the signing of the cross, the feast of the patron saints, etc., which are actually prohibited in the Bible, as far as I know.

But instead of answering my questions they just ignored me, so I started seeking for answers. A friend of mine in high school told me that if I wanted to seek for answers to my questions regarding religion and belief, I must read the Bible. And so I did. But instead of giving me answers it created more questions, until one day a neighbor came and preached about the gospel and the “Word of God” to me. She earnestly answered each and every question I had, and although I was a little skeptical of her answers, I accepted them. And because of my eagerness to really have the answers, I decided to become a born again Christian and to study more about the Word of God.

For two years I studied and adopted the beliefs of this sect I was in. I became “The Bible Man” in my family. Sometimes I argued with my mom with regards to what the Bible says about those who don’t follow what God had commanded. But that was until I realized that I was being a freak of this Jesus and his teachings.

I could no longer accept some of the lessons in science, sociology, and philosophy that I encountered in school because of this “have faith and never doubt” thing that I learned in the Bible. Fortunately, I realized I was being illogical and unreasonable at times. I realized that “truth is never told but realized”. And so I renounced my Christian faith and beliefs to grasp freethought for me to gain the real knowledge of life and the most logical and reasonable position that man can ever be.

Christianity had been my hindrance to progress and to knowing the reality and every answer to my questions. I may not know everything in life yet but what I know for sure is that there will be answers in the future. For everything here is explainable by science and logic – maybe not yet now but sooner or later we’ll have every answer that we longed to know and waited for so long. I may no longer be alive at that time, but I’m living right now for that future to come.

I no longer believe in any deity or supernatural things now that I have realized that it’s absurd to believe in such things that have no proofs of their existence. I live my life the way I want it, free from falsehood and absurdities.

But It doesn’t mean that I live a life of nothingness just because I don’t believe in a Sky-Daddy and didn’t follow what my family has taught me. I have my own thoughts and views regarding things, so no one can say I am a lifeless being. Every individual is as unique as his/her beliefs and so we can’t just say to anyone that he/she is wrong for what he/she believes, for we don’t know yet what is true.

And so if I say that God does not exist, you can’t say I am wrong just because you have things that “prove” your claim that God exists. No, God’s existence has been the long time argument of theists and atheists and yet no one has ever proven anything of it’s existence or non-existence. So I may be an agnostic as far as my position is concerned because I don’t know anything yet. But if God exists or not, I don’t care. At the least I know what I’m doing and what I’m supposed to do.

I am an Atheist. It has been one heck of a journey for me indeed. I may not have written all of it here, but this is the best thing that happened in my journey. And though my journey is not yet over, I’ll live for it now, to finish what I started, on this Journey to Paradise.

I take birth control pills. So what. I could tell you it’s because it helps to regulate my often haywire menstrual cycle (one time six months without a period – it’s a good thing I’m an extremely good girl and have nothing to worry about). Or that the pills help control acne (I hate that at my age I still get besieged with pimples!). Still the incident the other week: “You’re still taking birth control pills!” my sis exclaimed as she saw the pack in my bag. I felt like I’d just been caught with my hand down the cookie jar. The above reasons I’d cited and said to her, sounded so lame to my ears (nevertheless, both are true by the way!). Because to the contrary, I certainly do not have a swinging sex life (haven’t been kissed for the longest time, let alone…). And it’s not like I jump into bed with any man I fancy (really, I’d much rather prefer to say, I stroll into bed and take my own sweet time). So why do I take these pills which I have to remember to take everyday (no mean feat for someone who’s as absent-minded as me)? I guess it’s about having control over one’s body,  having a choice in the matter.

I guess it’s a no-brainer why women feel more passionately about the reproductive health bill than men. I mean, women can get pregnant. Men can’t. And as trite as Ms. Universe Sushmita Sen’s answer, that the essence of being a woman is to love, and the role that we do as mothers”. Not that I’m supplanting Ms. Universe, but I believe the essence of being a woman also lies in her exercising that right to her own body, and having that choice to bear children or not.

See, I’ve researched the matter quite thoroughly. As compelling as the evidence is, from population experts, about the declining population of certain developed countries and how this will affect the country’s economic future later on. When it comes down to it, no woman tells herself: “I’m going to have kids because the world population is declining”. It boils down to a personal choice – am I ready to bring kids into this world – do I even have the time and patience for them – do I see myself working my ass off for an X number of years till he/she finishes college? I won’t be dissuaded from my convictions with a rational answer, when the very act of procreation entails not reason, but is ruled by one’s passions and bodily desires. So the logical stance just won’t cut it for me.

Date: Saturday, January 30, 2010 – 6pm

Venue: 2nd Flr. Harley Blvd. Motor Cafe
Juan Luna St., Davao City (opposite Better Components)
Tel. (082) 302-8986
Google Map coordinates: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=101543816664430507801.00046dc19acc8ec594a7e&ll=7.072348,125.615691&s

AGENDA:
- introductions/welcoming of new members
- initial planning for the First FF Davao Forum

CONTRIBUTION: None; pay for your own food and drinks (Harley offers the best burgers and they also serve rice and Filipino food)

Nonsense No. 1 “It is a religion of the unbelievers of the existence of God (regardless of how they conceive God to be) that have different doctrines as to the origin of the thought that there is no God.
You are as deluded as those religious people are. “

A lot of Christians have accused atheism as a religion. I even saw a book that says atheism is a religion based on how religion is defined. However, is atheism a religion?

The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion this way:
In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behavior are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture.

Daniel Dennett defines religions as social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. That includes Buddhism and Jainism since both religions still believe in the existence of “devas” and demi-gods. The English word religion is clearly derived from the Latin word religio, as well as its cognates in other European languages, but the derivation of the Latin noun is uncertain. It is most commonly linked to one of two Latin verbs, religare (to bind or fasten) or relegere (to collect again, to go over again [as in reading]).

Friedrich Schleiermacher defined religion as a “feeling of absolute dependence” – absolute as contrasted to other relative feelings of dependence.

Lindbeck defines religion as, “a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”

Therefore, in reading these definitions, we can say that atheism is not a religion since it’s not about anything that is ultimate regarding ultimate concerns on someone’s life. The rule is quite simple: atheism is about not believing in a supernatural being which people call god or gods.

William Alston suggested that the presence of an unspecified number of any of the following characteristics would make a set of cultural practices a religion:
(1) Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
(2) A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
(3) Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
(4) A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
(5) Characteristically religious feelings.
(6) Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
(7) A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. . . .
(8) A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
(9) A social group bound together by the above.
(Alston 1967, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 7. New York, 1967. pp. 141–142)

Now that we have some proper definition of what religion is, we can now start to determine if these Christians are right in declaring atheism as a religion.

Atheists do not believe in supernatural beings called “gods”and they do not consider any object as “sacred”. The term sacred in this paragraph means, “something declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use”.

They do not have any religious rituals. There are no consensuses in atheism regarding any moral code (some atheists believe on an objective morality while others believe in relative morality.) They do not have any religious feelings and they never do any prayers.

Atheism is not a worldview (a worldview is a comprehensive view of the world and human life). Atheists are not well organized, and lastly, they do not have any social groups that are bounded by everything that were mentioned above.

Nonsense number 2: Doctrines.
According to these Christians, atheism has different doctrines regarding the origin of the thought that there is no God. Therefore, it is considered as a religion.

Perhaps they think that the word doctrine is synonymous in being religious. Maybe it is best that we first define the meaning of the word “doctrine”.

Simply put it, a doctrine is a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school. Most dictionaries record two related senses of the term doctrine: according to the first, it is the affirmation of a truth; according to the second, it is a teaching. As the statement of a truth, doctrine has a philosophical cast; as a teaching, it suggests something more practical.

As a statement of truth, philosophical discourse reveals more variation: according to the context, “the doctrine of the equality of man” may be taken either as a precise axiom belonging to a political theory, or as a practical maxim designed to guide political action.

Based on the definition, a doctrine does not automatically connote on being “religious”. For example, Marxism or we can call it the doctrine of Marxism is not religious. Religious doctrines (I think that is what these Christians are talking about) tend to be characterized by their practical intent rather than philosophical discourses.

Christianity uses the terms doctrine and dogma to designate the teachings through which salvation is offered to all those who hear and respond. In case you don’t know, dogmas are truth revealed by God (directly and formally), which is presented by the church for belief, as revealed by God, either through a solemn decision of the extraordinary magisterium (pope or council) or through the ordinary and general magisterium of the church (episcopacy). It must be accepted through faith.

Christian doctrines for example teach proper action for a believer to enter heaven (salvation). O.k.…here are some examples of Christian doctrines: The person of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, sin and grace and the concept of Redemption.

So now, you know the difference between doctrine and religious doctrine.

Atheists use arguments in expressing their case against theism. Those are not “doctrines”. Arguments are sequence of statements such that some of them (the premises) purport to give reason to accept another of them, the conclusion. These may be certain facts or assertions offered as evidence that something is true. It is also defined as a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood.

Nonsense Number 3: Who is the original source of the thought that there is no God?
Answer: Diagoras

Philosophers do not consider Diagoras of Melos as “Father of Atheism” (and there is no such thing as a “Father of Atheism”.)

What we have are myths regarding Diagoras’ atheism. According to stories, Diagoras was a poet and a pious man like others; but then a colleague once stole an ode from him, escaped by taking an oath that he was innocent, and afterwards made a hit with the stolen work.

So Diagoras lost his faith in the gods and wrote a treatise under the title of apopyrgizontes logoi (literally, destructive considerations) in which he attacked the belief in the gods.

If we ask, however, what is known historically about Diagoras, we are told a different tale. There existed in Athens, engraved on a bronze tablet and set up on the Acropolis, a decree of the people offering a reward of one talent to him who should kill Diagoras of Melos, and of two talents to him who should bring him alive to Athens. The reason given was that he had ridiculed the Eleusinian Mysteries.

As seen here from the eleventh-century Arab Mubashshir, from the erudite Athenian Apollodorus (ca. 180–120 BCE.):

“When he [viz., Dhiyaghuras al-mariq, or “Diagoras the heretic, or apostate”] persisted in his hypocrisy [or “dissimulation”], his unbelief and his atheism, the ruler, the wise men [or philosophers, hukama] and leaders of Attica sought to kill him. The ruler Charias the Archon [Khariyus al-Arkun (415–4)] set a price on his head [literally: “spent money,” badhal] and commanded that it should be proclaimed among the people: “He who apprehends Diagoras from Melos [Maylun] and kills him will be rewarded with a large sum [badra, traditionally a leather bag containing 1,000 or 10,000 dirhams].”

Nonsense Number 4: On the issue of sin.

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 3:10
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;

Atheist is just afraid to admit their sins to God.

Like anyone else, an atheist is not a perfect person. We all commit mistakes. Remember that atheism is not about refusing to acknowledge that we err.

But because atheists do not believe in any god or gods, they do not accept the concept of sin just like they do not accept the concept of karma. The concept of sin is pointless to an atheist. Sin is defined as the transgression of God’s law. Since atheists don’t believe in God, the concept of sin is without meaning.

Nonsense Number 5: On the issue of evolution: If we evolved from Apes as science suggests, why do we still have apes?

This is the most common question if the believer is too ignorant with evolutionary biology, taxonomy and genetics, and I’m sure a lot of Filipinos are.
First, humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages.

Second, Christians assume that the theory of evolution presuppose some inbuilt tendency for advancement or progress. There is nothing in evolution that automatically makes a population ‘better’ or ‘more advance’. Humans and apes came from a common ancestry line but they diverged and became different. But one group is not superior to the other group. That’s why we still have apes in Africa.

In today’s basic knowledge of heredity, we now know that there is no barrier keeping evolutionary change within specific limits. With the discovery of DNA, we find that all living things – from the tiniest bacteria to the giant sequoia trees, to cats, whales, lizards, sponge, apes and humans, all share the same DNA information. With some other factors such as geographical isolation, natural selection and time, it is not impossible for modern apes to evolve into something else.

Nonsense Number 6: It’s so obvious that Atheists are people who live an awful life. And so they blame God for it and try very hard to tell people that he doesn’t exist. Well God gave you freewill so do what you want. And I feel sorry for you that you have to blame God for your terrible life.

Is atheism the effect of a bad childhood, a failed marriage, an unhappy life, failures, etc. etc…? Well if that’s true then there must be more atheists in this world than God believers.

But seriously, belief or non-belief is not a factor that will affect someone’s life. In fact, there are even some religions that capitalize on human misery and guilt.

What makes believers link God to happiness is this: Every human naturally desires the good, the object of happiness. God is believed to be the ultimate, self-sustaining good. Therefore, humans seek God.

If I don’t believe in the existence of elves, that will not make my life unhappy. That’s the same with god belief. Not believing in a God doesn’t affect my life. If I believe in evolution, that will not make my life sad and miserable.

Happiness, contentment and peace of mind are up to you and no one else can do it for you. But speaking of atheism, it is not against happiness and love; it is against the idea that happiness and love can only be achieved in the afterlife – when you’re already dead.

In atheism there is no God to think for you, to guarantee your happiness and to save you. These are all the sole responsibility of human beings. If you want knowledge, you must think for yourself. If you want success, you must work. If you want happiness, you must strive to achieve it. For those who rely on a god, this is a terrifying prospect, but for an atheist, it is an exhilarating challenge. As David Ramsey Steele have said, “Atheism is like a clean water supply: very elementary and purely negative. It doesn’t tell us how to conduct our personal lives or how to organize our social order. But then despite first impressions, neither does theism.”

So if a God believer attempts to defeat atheism by using emotionalism he accomplishes nothing aside from revealing his disdain for an atheist’s ability to think.

Nonsense Number 7: You don’t believe in God, so you believe in nothing.
Atheism is without belief in a god or gods, NOT ‘without belief’. Contrary to popular (theist) belief, an atheist can believe in almost anything. Atheists only agree with fellow atheists in the issue against theism. Other than that it’s every man for himself.

Some atheists are communists while others defend capitalism. Some are against religion while others are neutral on the issue. Some are relativists, humanists, objectivists, feminists, compatibilists…all those “ists” and “isms” on the list!

There are honest atheists, thieves, neurotic atheists philanthropists, nationalists, psychotics, rapists or “tatlo dyes” (dime a dozen) atheists.

We have some friendly atheists, grumpy old atheists who call other atheists as “morons”. We have gay atheists and atheists suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

The only thing incompatible with atheism is theism.

Nonsense Number 8: Obviously, there must be a Prime Mover since something cannot start from nothing? Just like in Newton’s Law of Inertia, nothing can move unless there is an outside force that will move that thing.

Newton’s first law of motion is that property of matter which manifests itself as a resistance to any change in the motion of a body. Thus when no external force is acting, a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion continues moving in a straight line with uniform speed.

So I really don’t know why this Christian used this law as an example to illustrate the Prime Mover. There’s nothing in Newton’s first law that says a body always starts at rest. It said that if there is no external force, matter will continue moving. If the object is at rest it will stay at rest until an external force acts on it.

So how will you prove to me that everything in this universe started at rest? Atoms are always moving, aren’t they? Remember that the Newtonian laws are valid only for all mechanical problems not involving speeds comparable to the speed of light and not involving atomic or subatomic particles.

Nonsense Number 9: Something started from nothing.

Why is nothing always a default position? Nothing is nothing…if “nothing” has something on it to start with, then that is not “nothing”. What is the property of “nothing”? Is it hard to imagine that there has always been something? That we don’t have to begin with nothing? Energy for example is something that wasn’t created. Maybe everything started at that. Believers believe that something started with something and this ‘something’ is God. Then, why is there God rather than nothing?

In today’s modern cosmology and physics, something is more natural than ‘nothing’.

But suppose we accept that nothing is the natural state of affairs. Is it impossible that something came from nothing? There are a lot of examples that simple systems of particles are unstable and undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures. Since ‘nothing’ is quite simple, it is very unstable. So it is very normal for ‘nothing’ to undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something without any supernatural agent, as Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek suggested.

Nonsense number 10: Atheism is a worldview.

According to Christian apologist Razi Zacharias, atheism is a worldview (See: Can Man Live Without God p. 17). But what is a worldview anyway?

Personally speaking I think a worldview is how you see the world. It is the concoction of a person’s philosophy, ideas, ideology, knowledge, understanding and conviction in describing the universe. Others think that it’s how a person perceives reality. Whatever way a person describes it, generally speaking a worldview is how a person interprets his universe.

Sigmund Freud defines it as … an intellectual construction which solves all the problems of our existence uniformly on the basis of one overriding hypothesis, which, accordingly, leaves no question unanswered and in which everything that interests us finds its fixed place.

James W. Sire, defines world view as
… a set of presuppositions … which we hold … about the makeup of our world.

So to put it together, a worldview is the set of beliefs about fundamental aspects of reality that ground and influence a person’s perceiving, thinking, knowing, and doing. Simple isn’t it?

Worldview includes the following:
• epistemology: beliefs about the nature and sources of knowledge;
• metaphysics: beliefs about the ultimate nature of Reality;
• cosmology: beliefs about the origins and nature of the universe, life, and especially Man;
• teleology: beliefs about the meaning and purpose of the universe, its inanimate elements, and its inhabitants;
• theology: beliefs about the existence and nature of God;
• anthropology: beliefs about the nature and purpose of Man in general, and oneself in particular;
• axiology: beliefs about the nature of value, what is good and bad, what is right and wrong.
(From Hunter Mead’s Types and Problems of Philosophy)

We already have an idea of what a worldview is; now we’re going to see if atheism fits the bill.

According to Christian philosopher Ronald Nash, a worldview consists of five major topics: God, reality, knowledge, morality and humankind. Now does atheism entails any belief about epistemology, ethics or humankind? No it doesn’t. The problem lies when a god-believer thinks that any worldview that has atheism in it is an “atheistic world view”. When a believer thinks a certain philosophy or rationalization excludes his god he automatically places the whole thing in a can and places a large label on it which spells “ATHEISM”. That’s because most religious believers err in believing that worldview and doctrine are synonymous, and they really consider atheism as Satan’s doctrine. A good example of this is the Theory of Evolution. Most believers consider evolution is atheistic because it is deemed to be a materialist’s version of how life was created without God (which is unfortunately incorrect since evolution is about the development of life, not the creation of life). Yet there are some believers who are quite comfortable with evolution (mostly the Roman Catholics).

Now let us elaborate the issues. On the issue of ethics – atheism does not logically necessitate any theory of ethics. In that department, any atheist can believe any theory of ethics he thinks is correct. As they always say, an atheist can even develop his personal moral code. He can be a nihilist, a relativist, an objectivist, or a mixture of all of those “ists” in the dictionary for all he cares, as long as such theory doesn’t conform to any theological interpretation. Also atheists vary in the belief of morality. Some non-believers like Sam Harris and Paul Kurtz believe in absolute morals while there are atheists out there who believe in relative morality.

It is also the same with the sense of meaning (teleology). I personally believe that an individual creates his own meaning in life. That is my own belief…but it doesn’t reflect my atheism. Not every atheist that I know agrees to that, and they even say that my outlook in life is more of a Satanist than an atheist. For some, the meaning of life depends on how society perceives it, yet we are atheists.

Another good example is philosophy. Majority of Filipino atheists are Marxists. They are also into dialectic materialism. But there are also atheists who are into Utilitarianism. We also have existentialists (they say majority of those into existentialism are members of UPAC – U.P. Atheist Circle) atheists and those into Wittgenstein’s “Ordinary Language Philosophy”. Shucks! I have even met a non-believer who is totally into some kind of irrational version of rationalism. Speaking of metaphysics, atheists also seem to be diverse in this concern. There are materialist atheists, spiritual atheists, ethical atheists, rationalist atheists, objectivist atheists, and so on. There are even some who declare themselves as Christian atheists! (Hmmmm…sounds like an oxy-moron? Whatever…) Personally, I am a little Hegelian when it comes to the Theory of Knowledge. But atheism has nothing to do with my epistemology. I just like how Hegel dismantles Kant’s “ding-an-sich”. When it comes to the philosophical explanation of morality, I believe it came from reason just like Immanuel Kant.

In the issue of truth, some atheists are defending the correspondence theory of truth while others are still into John Dewey’s pragmatism. Hmmmm are there agnostic atheists?

In the concept of cosmology…wow! Here a lot of atheists seem to ride on different boats! Majority believes in a scientific explanation…or should I say a more natural explanation of origins. Yet you will be surprised that there are non-believers who believe in Zacharias Sitchin’s “12 planets”. You know…that theory that say we were created by intelligent alien life forms from Planet Nebiru! Oh yeah! There are also those who believe that the universe is just a part of other universes – or should I say, multiverse.

And who says all atheists are the same in matters of theology? We say that Buddhists are atheist in some sense…just because they don’t believe in an anthropomorphic, personal god. But how about when it comes to other god-concepts? Some Filipino atheists declare themselves as pantheists or deists. Some even say they are atheists because they don’t believe in the Bible. Speaking of god and religion, atheists also differ on the issue of religion and science vs. religion. To some atheists, we must destroy religion, yet there are atheists who are passive on the subject. Some atheists believe religion and science must not mix together yet others believe in NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magistrate).

Now how can I picture this? Hmmmmmm….ok, I can exemplify worldview and atheism to a fruit salad (Yummy…since we are nearing Christmas season). Anyway, let’s say a banana is a part…an ingredient of a delicious fruit salad, yet a banana is not a fruit salad. That’s the same with atheism. Atheism is about not believing in a god or gods – right? It may be an influence to some of the subjects that complete a worldview, but that doesn’t make a whole worldview. It may be a part of an explanation of why an atheist is an objectivist, a rationalist or a relativist. But that doesn’t make atheism a complete justification why he considers that the world operates that way. A worldview must contain the whole element to make it coherent and livable.

Every January 9, thousands of devotees from all walks of life come to Quiapo to take part in the procession as a way of strengthening their faith or fulfilling their “panata” (vow) to the Feast of the Black Nazarene.

The Black Nazarene is a life-sized, dark-colored, wooden sculpture of a “black” Jesus Christ carrying a cross held to be miraculous by many Filipino devotees. Its original carver is an anonymous Aztec carpenter and the image was transported by a galleon from Acapulco, Mexico by the first group of Augustinian Recollect friars sent by Spain. Legend has it that the Black Nazarene was charred black because of a fire that broke out on the galleon during its trip to Manila from Mexico. It arrived on May 31, 1606, in this form and has always been depicted as such.

It was transferred from its old home from San Nicolas de Tolentino in Intramuros to its present site in Quiapo, Manila at the Saint John de Baptist Church (Now called Minor Basilica of the Black Nazarene) in 1787 by then Archbishop of Manila, Basilio Sancho de Santa Junta y Rufina.

On the day of The Feast, the church doors open wide and the pilgrims of the area and abroad search for healing and hope. They wave white towels and throw them towards the statue hoping for the chance to touch the image too. The procession begins and the statue in its gilded carriage moves slowly as honored participants dressed in maroon pull the carriage along ropes as thousands of barefoot devotees follow along. The procession followers walk barefoot to mirror Jesus as he walked on to Mount Caramel.

It is said that only the body of the Black Nazarene is displayed in the procession, the original head portion of the statue is safely protected in the Minor Basilica of the Black Nazarene tucked away in the high altars.

Just last January 9, 2010, it was estimated that at least two million devotees of the Black Nazarene flooded the area from Luneta to Quiapo to join the holy procession. Walking barefoot, these devotees will endure the intense heat of the midday Sun, the crushing crowd and the hot asphalt pavement just to touch or wipe a towel on the body of the paraded idol.

So why do you think these devotees will do all that trouble?

Let see…I think it’s all about petitions – the request for some benefit or a reparation of a grievance. Come on guys…you won’t do all those sacrifices without expecting any compensation. It’s really a form of ancient worship. Our ancestors created elaborate ceremonies and rituals to please the gods so rain will fall on dry rice fields. Sacrifices and fasting are required for a bountiful harvest.

Biblical speaking, such practices are forbidden (unless you’re a Roman Catholic) Exodus 20:4-6 is quite clear in the issue.

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I The Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My Commandments”

Is Jesus a Nazarene or from Nazareth?

There is a lot of issue concerning the word Nazareth in Jesus’ title. Are we saying that Jesus was from Nazareth or if he’s a member of the Nazarene sect?

Christians will gladly point to Matthew 2:23 for the answer.

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

But a thorough search of the Old Testament will turn up nothing. There isn’t any prophet in the Old Testament that prophesied it. In fact, the town of Nazareth is never mentioned in the Old Testament.

Excuses varies. Some suggest that Matthew refers to Isaiah 11:1 yet Isaiah and the whole Old Testament never indicated or even implied that the Messiah will be called a “nester”.

There are also who would say that the Nazarene in Matthew refers to the Nazirite. If you are not familiar with it, it can be found in described in Numbers 6:1-21.

I believe in Nature, the ultimate Reality, that there is no Heaven, just Earth.

I believe in the Rational Man, he himself, his own Lord.

He was conceived through the Process of Evolution and born of a Man and a Woman.

He suffered under Professors and Priests, was catechized, bribed, and was brainwashed.

He descended into Superstition. On the third day he reasoned again.

He ascended into Reality and is seated at the throne of his own Thinking.

He will reason again to judge the real from the fake.

I believe in the the Human Senses,

the Freethinkers without a church, the Community of Scientists,

the forgiveness of Science,

the re-education of Mankind,

and the Life that I’m living.

Amen.

(originally posted as Atheists’ Creed)

Mulat Pinoy is a project by the Philippine Center for Population and Development (PCPD) and the Probe Media Foundation, Inc (PMFI) to spread awareness of population issues. They launched the site last Dec 19, and FF were actually invited to attend the launch event (thanks to an RH Bill related article in our site). Unfortunately, it coincided with the Winter Solstice party which is obviously more important than any population issue. Seriously though, we were invited the night before the event, so it was a bit too late to change the FF schedule.

And now, FF is invited to the Mulat Pinoy Kapihan Series. They’ve provided us the schedule and topics for the next 3 months:

2-4pm, Bo’s Coffee, Glorietta 5, Makati City

January 16 – Population and Environment
January 23 – Government Resources and Population Dynamics
January 30 – Population and Housing
February 13 – Population and Food Supply
February 27 – Population and Education
March 13 – Population and Health
March 27 – Urbanization/Migration
April 10 – Mulat Pinoy Synthesis

I was informed that presidential candidates Nick Perlas and JC Delos Reyes & his VP Dominador Chipeco will be attending this Saturday’s Kapihan Session on Population and Environment. If you’re scratching your head, wondering who they are (as I did), click on the links.

Thanks to Liwliwa Malabed for inviting the group!

It is a basic rule of logic that burden of proof always lies on the affirmative, that whoever asserts something will be the one who has to prove it.  Ei incombit probatio qui didt, non qui negat – “the burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies” – and so whoever tries to shift the burden of proof to the opponent by insisting that a claim is true simply because it has not been shown to be false is committing a logical fallacy.

Burden lies on the affirmative. But now the question is, What is an affirmative? Does it simply mean a ‘positive’ claim, hence statements in the negative carry no such burden?

Let us see how Webster defines the word affirmative:

1 : asserting a predicate of a subject
2 : asserting that the fact is so
3 : POSITIVE <affirmative approach>
4 : favoring or supporting a proposition or motion

We see in No. 3 that affirmative also means ‘positive’. Now let’s see what positive means:

1 a: formally laid down or imposed : PRESCRIBED <positive laws> b: expressed clearly or peremptorily <her answer was a positive no> c: fully assured : CONFIDENT<positive it was her book>

It appears that affirmative and positive are about confident assertion instead of statements that are merely positively worded (take a look at the above example, “her answer was a positive no“). As such, the statements “There are no fairies” and “Fairies don’t exist” are therefore actually affirmative statements and so they are also laden with the burden of proof. (By the way, asserting that “there are no fairies” is not the same as saying “I don’t believe in fairies”, because the latter is not affirming their non-existence but simply disbelieving their existence.)

Now some might say that it is impossible to prove a negative. I beg to disagree. One can prove certain negatives, like proving that there are no “supercontinents” ten times the size of Asia (one can easily accomplish that with Google Earth). Other negatives may be harder – but still not impossible – to prove, like the statement that “There is no oil in Davao City”, because one would then have to dig up every square inch of the entire city to prove that.

I read this article about proving a negative that states that “a person is justified in believing that X does not exist if all of these conditions 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.”

I totally agree. In the case of the “supercontinents”, all three conditions are easily met, especially #3.

But as for fairies, it would be virtually impossible to prove their non-existence because even if we had simultaneous 24-hour video coverage on every garden and forest on Earth showing no fairies (satisfying conditions #1 and #2), believers would simply say that fairies are normally invisible but can choose to show themselves to certain people at certain times, failing condition #3.

However, the inability to prove there are no fairies doesn’t automatically allow for the conclusion that fairies do exist, because that would also be an affirmative statement requiring proof. And so we are left with a technical stalemate as far as proof goes. But not probability.

Fairies are simply way too improbable that although it is impossible to prove their non-existence, one can reasonably live his/her life on the assumption that they don’t exist. And so when planting a garden, it would be a good idea to till it and water it and fertilize it – instead of just lying down waiting for fairies to magically make it bloom.