Majority of Christian Filipinos who are into debates here in Manila are oblivious with William lane Craig’s Kalam argument on the existence of God. These guys need an upgrade!

Therefore, I guess Filipino non-believers as well are also in the dark if they encounter the argument.

So a little bit of FYI.

The idea came from the works of the 6th century Alexandrian philosophical commentator and Christian theologian Joannes Philoponos. His ideas were later developed by medieval Islamic theologians, the Mutakallim and called it ‘Kalam’ which means ‘speech’.

The Kalam argument was brought to Christian attention in a debate between Franciscan theologian John of Fidanza (St. Bonaventure) and Thomas Aquinas over the existence of God.

The basic premises of the Kalam argument are quite simple:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Let us examine each premises.

Premise 1

Christian apologists insist that the first premise is obvious that it does not need an explanation. William Lane Craig calls this a metaphysical intuition.

Yet…Is God not included in premise 1?

Christian response: Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God is infinite and he is necessary.

Atheist: But according to Christian apologists such as Mr. Craig, actual infinity cannot exist. If God is infinite then He has lived through an infinite number of hours. This would contradict Mr. Craig’s claim that actual infinity does not exist.

Christian: God is outside our universe. He is also not subjected to time.

Atheist: So God is situated in a different place. Do you have any idea of a place that is without space and time? We can’t even call this ‘place’ a place since a place requires a “space”. Now if God created the universe from a timeless “place” that makes his action timeless (without beginning). Therefore, the act of creating the universe is an act of God that has no beginning, right? That’s an example again of an actual infinite…which sadly…according to Christian apologists like Mr. Craig, doesn’t exist.

Speaking of space…God occupy space on this er…place, right? If so, then how and when was this ‘place’ created? Surely, this ‘place’ also has a cause. If you said, God created this ‘place’ from another timeless-space less place then we’re now going into an Ad infinitum.

Christian: God created this ‘place’ on his own being.

Atheist: Hmmmmm…that sounded pantheistic. Anyway if this ‘place’ was created on God’s own being and God is eternal, then this place is eternal…again contradicting the Kalam argument.

Also, if God is immutable (doesn’t change) then this ‘place’ is also immutable…again a contradiction with the Kalam which says everything was created (finite and contingent).

Premise 2

We define ‘universe’ as the aggregate of all existing things – including time and space. Now, if “everything” is the same as the universe it contradicts one of the rules of the set theory that says, “No set should be considered a member of itself.” Yep…Georg Cantor (1845-1918). Now if the universe is not included (or the same as) everything, then how can its beginning (the universe) the same with the beginning of everything?

Christian: We…eh…GOD IS ALL-POWERFUL AND OMNIPOTENT!!! HE IS BEYOND HUMAN RULES AND LOGIC!!! YOUR SET RULES, PHILOSOPHY…WHATEVER WILL NEVER LIMIT GOD’S POWER!! IF HE WANTS BLUE TO BE GREEN OR YELLOW HE CAN DO IT!!! HE CAN DO EVERYTHING, EVEN IF IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR US!!! WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND GOD!!!

Atheist: Then Christian apologists like Mr. Craig and Mr. Giesler will be out of the job. Why will these guys spend money publishing books and why will I buy those books if God can’t be explained by human reasoning?

Going back to the subject, scientifically speaking, most Christians seem to be having trouble thinking of something that is “uncaused.” Believers speculate that these ‘uncaused’ events at the quantum level such as the spontaneous decay of a single atom of a heavy isotope are just a case of “just not knowing the cause.” Mr. Craig calls them as “probabilistic causality.” However, accidental causes are spontaneous, and spontaneous causes are not predetermined. According to David Hume (1711-1776) when we speak of ‘cause’, what we mean is an explanation for the event. So how can we explain spontaneous cause? Thus Mr. Craig’s “probabilistic causes are just another word for ‘uncaused cause”.

Now, since premise 1 and premise 2 can be refuted then there is no need to explain the conclusion.

Pinoy Atheist

Why the fascination with the end-times?

Throughout history, self-professed prophets of doom have given us predictions of the coming the end-times. I think religion needs some sort of eschatology to keep the local system on line. Belief about the end of the world is a very effective way of scaring the wits of the masses…or to keep believers waiting while doing mostly nothing…hehehe theology is a very boring subject.

It is not only found in Christianity. For example, there is a Buddhist story that says Buddha will come down to Shangri-La before the end of the age. There is also what Hindus call the Cyclic-Uproar – after the lapse of a hundred thousand years the world will be destroyed and the cycle will be renewed.

The Mayans believed that the world will be destroyed after the period of thirty-four thousand years…Nah! I’m not talking about the calendar that says the world will be destroyed in 2012. I’m talking about what was written on the last page of the Dresden Codex – the Mayan manuscript records of cosmic cycles.

The Vikings on the other hand believe that there will be a time when the gods will go kick each other’s ass. While the gods are killing each other, fire will burn all over the planet and no man will be spared.

In Zoroasterism, Ahura Mazda will someday destroy evil. Before the day of the ultimate world victory, Angra Mainyu (the Destroying Spirit) will make their final desperate stand. There will be wars and world-wide catastrophe. Then the ultimate savior, Saoshyant will arrive (sounds familiar?). The dead will be resurrected and hell will vanish. All the souls in hell will be liberated, released and purified. Then there will be an endless age of peace, purity, perfection and joy.

Here in the Philippines, a group of Rizalista (oh…these guys believed that a certain Felix Melgar is God. When I asked where can I find Mr. Melgar, they told me he’s already dead due to diabetes) predicted that the end time will start on June 2010…while the whole Philippines is busy choosing their president in the 2010 Presidential Election.

There was also this guy…Bionic Wonder Boy AKA Ronald Juaquin Marcos who predicted that a great world war will happened on March 16, 1991.

Notice that these tales seem to promote the same idea; that the old ways will be replaced by the new. With these change, everything that represents the old ways will be erased.

Eschatological Interpretations

When we look closely on these end-times predictions, it mostly represents certain issues. For example…

Early Christianity proclaims that the messianic time will come in their generation. Well Paul expected the Parousia will be arriving on his lifetime and the author that created the Gospel of Mark believed that the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem will be the beginning of the end. These beliefs are in effect the anticipation of the end of Roman rule in Palestine.

Lately, most doomsday prophets predicted (again) that the end time will come in the time when Rome falls. Well the Romans came and went…but the earth keeps on spinning. After the Fall of Rome, there are new reasons to choose from that will start the end of the world. Some thought that the end time started on the time of the Black Death (1348 and 1350).

Communists Scare

The rise of communism in Eastern Europe and South-East Asia became the new eschatological subject. By the 1917’s these prophets of doom were pointing their fingers on “godless communism” as the main culprit of the coming Millennium. Here, a good example…The Christadelphians claim that Daniel’s prophecy foretold the coming of a so-called Russian confederation that will subdue Turkey and incorporate Persia and Rome. Russia will come to agreement with Rome and will bent on world domination. Israel will fight Russia and Jesus will return (What on earth is Wrong with the World? Pp. 11-12 Vol. 28 July 1978 Number 2 – Edited by H.P. Mansfield)

If you were able to read a copy of the Fatima Crusader (Issue 25 Aug. Sept. 1988) you’ll notice that interpretation of the Fatima message usually predicts that Soviet Russia was chosen by God as an instrument of chastisement to punish the whole world.

In May 1917, three Portuguese shepherd children Lucia Dos Santos (now Sister Lucia) and her cousins Jacinta and Francisco Marto saw the Virgin Mary and gave them a message. In that time Portugal was on the verge of totalitarianism after the revolution in 1910 which deposed the Catholic backed royal government of King Manuel II and established the Portuguese First Republic.

The message of the Lady of Fatima is against communism. One of Mary’s revelations at Fatima specially denounced Russia and predicted a worldwide disaster unless people rejected communism and return back to Catholicism.

But what’s the real score?

Well…we should heed the Virgin Mother to abstain from sin and to ignore those clergy or lay people who tell Catholics that they can use contraception and have an abortion and who says you can vote a pro-abortion candidate…heck! I’m just waiting for another Virgin apparition that will tell Filipinos not to support the RH Bill, but I think President P-Noy already took care of that…so no need for the Virgin to come to this country. As the late Carl Sagan noted on his book The Demon Hunted World, “…some of the apparitions have taken on greater import…the Virgin was incensed that a secular government had replaced a government run by the Church…the end of the world was threatened unless conservative political and religious doctrines were adapted forthwith.” (pp 146-147)

So the Berlin wall crashed and Glasnoth was established in Russia without the aid of a “dancing sun”. Soviet communism cease to exist but the world continued to spin…so does end-time predictions.

When the cold war between Russia and America ended, these self-professed prophets began to invert other ways to deliver their message and make it sound credible. They began to point at…anything they can point at.

Herbert W. Armstrong (founder of the Worldwide Church of God and host of the World Tomorrow TV broadcast) for example believed that a so-called Ten nations in Europe (which was symbolized by the beast with ten horns in Revelation) will join together to make war with the United State, Britain and other English-speaking nations…which Armstrong believed to be the remnants of the original ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Well…that was when European Union (EU) only has ten members. Now EU has 27 member states so I guess there isn’t any beast in the Bible that has 27 horns.

So we ran out of “commies” and “ten nations”…what’s next?

We still have solar flares, planetary conjunctions, Mayan calendars and invisible large asteroids.
============================================

Here’s a partial list of “prophets” and their “predictions”.

Saint Clement predicted that the world end would occur at 90 CE.

2nd Century CE: Prophets and Prophetesses of the Montanist movement (A movement created by a certain Montanus , who predicted that the end of times were upon the world) predicted that Jesus would return sometime during their lifetime and establish the New Jerusalem in the city of Pepuza in Asia Minor.

Gerard of Poehlde decided that the millennium had actually started in 306 CE.

A man by the name of Hilary of Poitiers, announced that the end would happen in 365 CE.

The Donatists, a North African Christian sect, predicted the world would end in 380 CE.

Lactantius Firmianus (260 – 340CE), called the “Christian Cicero”, from his Divinae Institutiones: announces that, “The fall and ruin of the world will soon take place” somewhere in 410 CE.

Saint Martin of Tours, a student of Hilary, was convinced that the end would happen sometime before 400 CE.

The antipope Hippolytus and an earlier Christian academic Sextus Julius Africanus had predicted Armageddon at 500 CE.

The theologian Irenaeus predicted the second coming of Jesus in the year 500.

Bishop Gregory of Tours, who died in 594CE, calculated the Time of the End for sometime between 799 and 806.

Lotharingian computists foresaw the End on Friday, March 25, 970

Beatus made the prediction on Easter Eve, predicting the end of the world 793. When that didn’t happened, he wrote in his Commentary on the Apocalypse that the world would end in the year 800 at the latest.

The Christian prophetess Thiota predicted the world would end in 848.

Many Christians in Europe had predicted the end of the world on January 1, 1000.

Various Christian prophets predicted the end of the world in the year 1184.

A Dominican monk named Brother Arnold gained a following when he wrote that the end was about to take place in 1260.

Pope Innocent III predicted the end of the world in the year 1284, 666 years after the founding of Islam.

The friar Petrus Olivi predicted Antichrist’s coming between 1300 and 1340, after which the world would enter the Age of the Holy Spirit, which itself would end around the year 2000 with Gog and the Last Judgement.

John of Toledo predicted the end of the world during 1186.

Joachim of Fiore predicted in 1190 that the Antichrist was already in the world, and that King Richard of England would defeat him. The Millennium would then begin, sometime before 1205. They again re-scheduled the end of the world, this time to the year 1335

Constantine’s reign. Thus, the world end was expected in 1306 CE.

A Frenchman, Jean de Roquetaillade, published a guide to the tribulation. Imprisoned for most of his adult life, he predicted Antichrist in 1366, to be followed in 1369 or 1370 by a millennial Sabbath. Jerusalem, under a Jewish king, would become the center of the world.

Czech archdeacon Militz of Kromeriz claimed the Antichrist was alive and well and would show up no later than 1367, bringing the end of the world with him.

Martinek Hauska, near Prague, led a following of priests to announce the soon Second Coming of Christ. They warned everyone to flee to the mountains because between February 1 and February 14, 1420, god was to destroy every town with Holy Fire, thus beginning the Millennium.

Some mystics in the 15th century predicted that the millennium would begin during 1496.

Anabaptist Thomas Müntzer, thinking that he was living at the “end of all ages,” in 1525

Melchior Hoffman predicted that Jesus’ return would happen a millennium and a half after the nominal date of his execution, in 1533. The New Jerusalem was expected to be established in Strasbourg, Germany. He was arrested and died in a Strasbourg jail.

French theologian Pierre d’Ailly predicted the end of the world in 1555.

In 1578, physician Helisaeus Roeslin of Alsace, basing his prediction on a nova that occurred in 1572, predicted the world ending in 1654 in a blaze of fire.

Philip Melanchthon, ally of Martin Luther, claimed that a divine numerical cycle, chiefly utilizing the numbers 7 and 10, would culminate in 1588, which was 10×7, years from Luther’s 1518 defiance of the Pope. It was then that the seventh seal would be opened, Antichrist be would be overthrown, and the Last Judgement would occur.

Martin Luther predicted that the world would end no later than the year 1600.

Dominican monk Tomasso Campanella wrote that the sun would collide with the Earth in 1603.

Eustachius Poyssel used numerology to pinpoint 1623 as the year of the end of the world.

Joseph Mede, whose writings influenced James Ussher and Isaac Newton, claimed that the Antichrist appeared way back in 456, and the end of the world would come in 1660.

The Old Believers in Russia believed that the end of the world would occur in 1669.

Anglican rector Thomas Beverly and notorious witch chaser Cotton Mather predict the end of the world in 1697.

John Napier, the mathematician who discovered logarithms, applies his new mathematics to the Book of Revelations and predicts the end of the world for 1688.

Benjamin Keach, a 17th century Baptist, predicted the end of the world in 1689.

British theologian and mathematician William Whitson predicted a great flood similar to Noah’s for October 13, 1736.

Charles Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, thought Doomsday would be in 1794.

William Miller predicts Jesus would return in 1844.

Rev. Edward Irving predicted that Jesus will return in 1864.

Joseph Smith declared that Christ will return by the time he’s 85 years old. He never reached his 85th birthday. He was killed in jail together with his brother in 1844.

An unknown “prophet” predicted that Christ will return on March 5, 1888.

Rev. Michael Baxter, editor of the Christian herald, predicted that the Rapture will occur in 1896 and the world will end in 1901.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses predicted the return of Christ in 1914.

In 1917 at Fatima, three small children claimed to see Mary and that they were given three prophesies. According to the prophesy, an era of peace will arrive in 1995. Evil will be paralyzed and will almost vanish from this world. In May 13, 2000, the “secret prophecy” of Fatima was announced. (It seems the Virgin Mother forgot to prophesized those attacks that will happen on September 11, 2001.)

1973 – Sister Agnes Katsuko recieved a message from the Virgin Mary that the world will end in 2000
The Davidians, headed by Victor Houteff waited the return of the Lord Jesus on April 22, 1959, but failed.

1980 Psychic Jeanne Dixon predicted a world holocaust for the 1980s, and the rise of a powerful world leader, born in the Middle-East in 1962.

Edgar C. Whisenant, in his book 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988, gave a three day period in September for the saints to be “caught up with the Lord.” When this failed, he issued another book claiming that he was a year off, and urging everyone to be ready in 1989.

North Carolina prophecy teacher Colin Deal has set dates for the return of Christ for 1982 or 1983, 1988, 1989, and in a March 17, 1989.

Hal Lindsey believed that the world will end in 1988 because of the “Jupiter Effect”.

1988 was the expected time of the Rapture. The Trinity Broadcasting Network believes it will happen on September 11 and 12 while Hart Armstrong, chairman of Christian Communication said that it will occur on September 29 and 30 in the same year.

Elizabeth Clare Prophet predicted the end of the world by nuclear war in 1990.

Larry Wilson, a former Seventh-day Adventist pastor, predicted four massive global earthquakes beginning around 1994 and ending in 1998 with the Second Coming.

Arab- Christian prophet Om Saleem claimed that the antichrist was born November 23, 1933, that his unveiling would come in 1993 and the rapture in 1994.

California evangelist Harold Camping predicted that the world will end in 1994.

George Curle predicts God’s judgment on the antichrist will be in 1999, the Tribulation will follow on 2002 and Christ return and the Millennium in 2005.

Rev. J.S. Malan predicts the Great Tribulation on September 1995 and the Second Coming of Christ will be in 2002.
Dr. James Mckeever (editor of the End Times News Digest) declared that the end time will be somewhere betwen 1997 and the year 2030.
Lee Jang Rim of the South Korean Tani Church predicted the Rapture will happen on October 28, 1992 and the Millennium will begin in 2000
.
Marilyn J. Agee published he so-called Bible-base predictions that the Rapture will occur on May 1998, the end of the age on September 12, 2007, the return of Jesus on April 6, 2008, Armageddon on May 30, 2008 and the Millennium will begin on May 31, 2008.
Samuel Doctorian announced that the Great Tribulation will occur on June 20, 1998.

Monte Kim Miller claimed that the Tribulation will occur in 1999.

Eileen Lakes predicts a pole-shift will happen in 1999.

Robert Blake says that Armageddon will start on September 20, 1999.

H.J. Hoekstra believed that the Rapture will happen on September 27, 1999.

Daniel Adam Millar predicted that on September 6, 2000, the antichrist will proclaim himself God and Armageddon will start on September 13, 1993.

Jack Van Impe says that Armageddon starts in 2001.
============================================

What happens when a “prophetic prediction” fails?

They never ran out of excuses…

William Miller and his followers were so convinced that the second coming of Jesus will occur on March 21, 1843. When that didn’t happened, Miller announced to his disappointed followers that there was just a simple error in calculation the date, so he re-scheduled the Millennium on March 21, 1844.

Riding on Miller’s mistake, Ellen Gould White and her husband James founded the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and declared that the Day of Judgment was being delayed because people are still doing their worship on a Sunday instead of Saturday as declared in the Bible.

Charles Taze Russell and Jonas Wendel have a better excuse. They declared that the second coming will occur in 1874. When nothing happened, Russell claimed that Christ did returned but only in invisible form…Yep…and only those members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses can know it…yeah…whatever. By the way, the Jehovah’s Witnesses keep postponing the end times…1914, 1915 to 1916 and even today the followers of Russell’s church still continues to offer ‘evidence’ that the world is experiencing its final age.

From elaborate excuses to a simple “our prayers were answered”, these self-professed prophets will not stop. Why? Money…Power…you name it!

Hal Lindsey has sold tens of millions of copies of his ‘prophetic’ books including The Late Great Planet Earth. Harold Camping sold thousands of books outlining his predictions. It supplied the needed money to finance the Aum Shinri Kyo (Aum Supreme Truth). Chizuo Matsumoto (AKA Shoko Asahara) wrote books about the coming apocalypse by mixing Hindu and Christian ideas plus some apocalyptic prophecies of Nostradamus and the Buddhist’s concept of ‘mappo’. And it earns over 1.2 million pounds.

Speaking of Nostradamus. A lot of publishers, authors and commentators earned money for re-interpreting Michel de Notredams 1555 and 1558 “Centuries.” But unknown to the gullible public, Nostradamus rhyming quatrains are not prophesies but random poems re-interpreted to fit future history and pre-conceive ideas about the end-time.

It seems quite strange that these charlatans gain their fortune through death and destruction. Why the fascination with death and ‘the end’? Maybe instead of predicting a chaotic future we could start thinking right now for better solutions that will benefit every living thing in this planet. Eschatology offers nothing and what’s worst, end time predictions always fail. If you want change, ACT NOW.

Pinoy Atheist

I was intrigued by the quote that I saw in the Internet, something that was said by a certain T.B. Wakeman “The word moral does not occur in the Bible, not even the idea.”
What? How can that be?

I grew up as a Christian and believed that the Bible was the foundation of morality…well…I thought it was, but hey, we can find the Ten Commandments in its pages, right? There is also this Jesus fellow who taught me to be good. That can be counted, right?

Since the Bible was inspired by God and every Christians know that God is good they blame the decay of society and the lost of moral values as the result of the decline in Bible reading and the lack of God belief. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the Left Behind series and one of the founders of Moral Majority agrees and said, “…since moral conditions have become worse and worse in direct proportion to humanism’s influence, which has move our country from a biblically based society to an amoral “democratic” society. “
Ok…so let us talk about morality base in the Bible.

Since Christians all agree that God inspired the Bible, let us look at God’s morality first.

According to Christian claims, God is suppose to be a god of love (1 John 4:16; Psalms 145:15-16 and Matthew 5:9), a righteous judge (Genesis 18:25), fair (Ezekiel 18:25) and impartial (Roman 2:11).

However, reading the Bible will also give us a different personality.

1.) That this God is a jealous god.
A perfect, omnipotent being getting jealous?

• Exodus 20:5, 34:14
• Deuteronomy 4: 24, 5:9
• Psalms 79:5, 78:58
• Joshua 24: 19
• Ezekiel 16:38, 38:19
• Zechariah 8:2
• Nahum 1:2

2.) He orders plunder.
Exodus 3:22Deuteronomy 20:14, and Ezekiel 39:10

3.) He deceives.
“O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived….” (Jer. 20:7)

“If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel” (Ezek. 14:9)

“Ah, Lord God! Surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reaches unto the soul” (Jer. 4:10).

“…God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:9-12).

2 Chron. 18:18-22, 1 Kings 22:20-23 and Jer. 15:18.

4.) He command killing (even innocent women and children).
“ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put 10,000 to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword” (Lev. 26:7-8).

“the Lord said to Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said to the judges of Israel. Slay every one his men that were joined to Baal” (Num. 25:4-5).

“Vex the Midianites and smite them” (Num. 25:17).

“But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes. But thou shalt utterly destroy them…as the Lord thy God has commanded thee” (Deut. 20:16-17).

“So Joshua smote all the country of the hills…he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded” (Joshua 10:40).

“As I listened, god said to the others, ‘Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children….” (Ezek. 9:5-6).

So I guess Thomas Jefferson was right about God when he said, “A being of terrific character – cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.” In addition, Thomas Paine was correct when he said, “All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.”

Reflecting from Xenophanes’ quote…if an ancient culture creates a god, it will reflect their standard of morality, the same on how horses and lions will create their gods.

Now let us talk about God’s only begotten son, Jesus.

Many people, and unfortunately even some freethinkers and agnostics, think that Jesus was a great teacher. People like Thomas Paine calls Jesus as such and Robert Ingersoll who was very impress with the so-called “Sermon on the Mount”.

When I was still a Christian, I also thought that this Man-God excel not only as a teacher but also in regards to ethics. I was 12-years old at that time.

Bible believers say that Jesus’ morality is at its best in the Sermon in the Mount (AKA the Beatitudes). You can see it in Matthew 5:3-11. Well they may be admirable, but it has little value as a moral code. The Beatitudes are unrealistic. If we take away most of its supernatural rewards, what is left are a bunch of Consuelo de bobo (hollow consolations).

The reason behind this is obvious. Jesus is teaching ethics base on the promise of divine rewards and treats of supernatural punishments. He does not teach by the content of his moral code but on his conception of himself and his divinely appointed mission.

How about Jesus’ other moral precepts?

Most of his teachings we re-hashed from other teachers and some were lift from the pages of the Old Testament. The Golden Rule for example was advocated by Confucius (Doctrine of Mean 13) 500 years before Jesus and you can also find it in the Seven Rules of Hillel.

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor that is the whole Torah … (b.Shabbat 31a)

Isocrates (436–338 BCE), the ancient Greek rhetorician have also said,”Do not do to others what would anger you if gone to you by others.”

Matthew 5:39 can also be found in Leviticus 19:18 and in the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu

I am good to people who are good.
I am also good to people who are not good.
Because Virtue is goodness.
I have faith in people who are faithful.
I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
Because Virtue is faithfulness (Tao Te Ching 49)

In addition, the same teaching is seen in Confucianism, the Buddhist’s Dhammapada and at the Indian Ramayana.

Someone said, “What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness?” The Master said, “With what will you then recompense kindness? Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness.” (Confucianism. Analects 14.36)

Conquer the angry one by not getting angry (i.e., by loving-kindness); conquer the wicked by goodness; conquer the stingy by generosity, and the liar by speaking the truth. (Dhammapada 223)

A superior being does not render evil for evil; this is a maxim one should observe; the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them–for who is without fault? (Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda 115)

Christian apologist Norman Giesler insisted that Jesus ethics is an ethics of love, but American author Ruth Hurmence Green disagrees – “They told me the Bible was a book about love, but I studied every page of that Bible, and I couldn’t find enough love to fill a salt shaker.”

There are other Bible stories that saturated with obscenities, degeneracy and immorality. Some have questionable moral values and others even promote profanity and corruption.
Here are some samples:

Genesis 19:8
“Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

2 Samuel 13:11-14
11 But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.”
12 “Don’t, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me. Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.” 14 But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.

Genesis 34, The defilement of Danah

Genesis 38, The narratives of Judah, Omar and Tamar

Genesis 30: 14-16
14 During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.”
15 But she said to her, “Wasn’t it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son’s mandrakes too?”
“Very well,” Rachel said, “he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son’s mandrakes.”
16 So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. “You must sleep with me,” she said. “I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he slept with her that night.

Genesis 30: 3-6
3 Then she said, “Here is Bilhah, my maidservant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and that through her I too can build a family.”
4 So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife. Jacob slept with her, 5 and she became pregnant and bore him a son. 6 Then Rachel said, “God has vindicated me; he has listened to my plea and given me a son.” Because of this she named him Dan.

Genesis 16, The story of Abraham and Sarah and the illicit intimacy with Hagar.

Genesis 30: 25-43, Jacob’s trick Laban.

[Visit The Bible Unmasked for more examples.]

When confronted by these issues, Christian apologists like William Arndt say, “When it speaks of sin, it describes it in its ugliness, so that disgust and horror enters the heart of the readers. Not once for a moment, does it leave the high moral level of stern opposition to unrighteousness in all its form.”
What moral value? Ah OK…Peter called Lot a “righteous man” (2 Peter 2:7) even when Lot was giving his daughter to be raped by a mob. What moral value does it show…that giving your daughter to be rape is a good thing to do…I don’t think so?

There are countries out there that have not even heard of this Christian Bible, and there are those who do not care about it, yet they even have a higher moral value compare to Bible-believing western nations. Japan for example, where honesty and honor are of the highest value, deems the Bible as 重要ではない. Most countries in Asia values cleanliness, respect to the elders and reverence to their parents yet they knew nothing of Yahweh, nor Moses, Jesus or Paul yet compare to the most pious Christian nation, their place are not riddled with crime, vices and corruption.

Ironic isn’t it?

Pinoy Atheist

It is the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic church that the conscience is the final judge whether an action is in conformity with objective law or not.

According to Thomas Aquinas, conscience is connected to the rational faculty of man. Now, what if this rational faculty is corrupted? Remember, religious, philosophical and political beliefs, misguided idealism, malicious propaganda and poor education can corrupt a person’s rational faculty.

What happens then? Well, then conscience becomes unreliable. That is why Aquinas becomes the victim of his own theory when he defended the evils of the Inquisition “in good conscience.”

In nature…

Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican who was greatly influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle believes that human are by nature good. Benedict de Spinoza (1634-1677) also believed that men are not conditioned to live by reason alone, but by instinct. Greatly influenced by Spinoza, Giambattista Vico (1688-1744) believed that God’s law were immanent not transcendent. God places these laws in us by instinct. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) both believed that men are guided by natural law, but unlike Aquinas, they believed that reason (not conscience) is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, of good and evil. These ethical theories influenced Thomas Jefferson’s “inalienable rights” which were stated in the United States Declaration of Independence.

However, some believed that nature could not provide the norm and pattern for moral behavior. The Lisbon earthquake of 1747 brought out a moral dilemma regarding natural moral law. Voltaire (1694-1778) asked if nature is good, then there must be no evil. John Stuart Mill suggested that ethical naturalism is blind to the obvious darker side of nature, the side marked by physical disorder and calamities, the aberration of the human heart and the tragedy of history. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) stated that the natural condition of man is war. Since the main law of nature is self-preservation, it follows that men are obliged to confer all their power and strength upon one man or upon one assembly of men that will reduce all their wills to one will. There must be someone who has the power to enforce contracts and obligation.

Going through Hobbes, John Locke, (1632-1704), like Hobbes, believe that man by nature are equal (not good). But unlike Hobbes, he believe that civil society will prosper with reason. Therefore, instead of conscience, society must set up a known authority to which everyone may appeal and obey. However, this authority should be judge in each own case. Common good is now not based in instinct and nature, but is determined by standing laws, statutes that all are aware of and agreed to.

Natural moral law is definitely a double-edged sword. If a Christian would insist that morality in embedded in nature, what do I have to lose? If that is true, then we don’t need a God to discover morality. If Darwin was right about morality, that it (like cooperation and altruism) evolved to humans (through natural selection) then who needs God.

Speaking of morality, I prefer Mr. David Ramsay Steele’s explanation regarding this issue. His view is that the structure of moral theory is just as objective as the structure of, say, medical theory. Now, practicing morality, like practicing medicine, requires an input of subjective values. In the case of morality, these values derive from empathy from other conscious beings. This empathy is in fact, almost but not quite universal among humans. (Atheism Explained – From Folly to Philosophy p.289).

If a person believes that he is being guided by invisible elves, chances are you will call him bonkers, but when a group of people began to believe it, we call that religion.

When Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion, many people were shaken. Boy! I never taught it was possible to find that book in some bookstores in Manila.

I remember attending this atheist gathering here in Manila – I do not exactly remember the date, but just for some kicks – I asked one of the waiter on what he thinks about people who doesn’t believed the existence of God. Well…what I got was quite a surprising response: They’re not human.

If a person doesn’t believe in God, people seem to think negatively of him. Instead of contemplating about his reasons for not believing, they seem to concentrate more on some issues…negative issues in the non-believer’s life. Maybe something happened to him or that some of his prayers (or wishes) were not answered. That is why he is now rejecting God.

Christian apologists oftentimes rub more salt into the injury. In the medieval idea, John Chrysostom said that a man who does not fear God does not exist and his nature is somehow not human. Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain said that atheists have an inferior moral and psychological status.

H.C. Rumke placed all atheists in the class of the mentally sick when he said, “Unbelief is an interruption in development.” (The Psychology of Unbelief 1962 p.13)

What?

Alister McGrath even said that atheism is an outcome of anxiety, despair and alienation.

Well that was then…this is now.

Today we have an idea of what kind of madness god belief can do and fortunately, we have history as a backup. Just imagine how many people were killed because of religious wars and the insanity brought by the Inquisition and the Crusade. Golly! That is worse than being delusional. How many more were killed by religious suicide bombers, who believe that their action will bring him and his family to heaven?

Those are extreme cases. Let us focus on a more subtle side of this insanity.

Just go to Luneta Park on a Sunday night and watch these “Attorneys of God” debate their blues away. Believe me it’s better than Jack TV and Comedy Central. Just imagine the confusion…and to think about it, they’re debating a book which all of them read and believe to be the “Word of God.” And they say God is not the author of confusion.

How many religion, denomination or churches insist to be “the true one?” How many founders of these religions declare himself as “Son of God”, “the true messenger of God” or an “Angel of God”? Sheer madness!

I was reading Joseph’s Campbell’s Myth to Live By, and noticed chapter 10 of that book. Campbell wrote that the imagery of schizophrenic fantasy perfectly matches that of a mythological hero’s journey (p.202). Well…as always, Mr. Campbell explained it very well. Now I am applying these ideas in a typical believer’s state of mind. Christians seems to create a world of their own, surrounded by invisible beings like God, angels, devils, Satan and nefelims. This is the same symptom of a person suffering with essential schizophrenia – a withdrawal from the impact of experience of the outside world. When a Christian starts to interpret the world base on his wonderland, now that is paranoid schizophrenia.

Karl Marx once said religion is the opium of society…who can blame him? Drug use is common in some religious practice. Shamans or priests employ the use of plants like Psilocybe cubensis, Amanita muccaria (Fly Agaric) and yep…even Canabis (marijuana) in some of their rituals.

Hallucinogens were also utilized. For example, a priestess breathed gasses that seep out on rocks in the oracle in Delphi that have mild hallucinogenic effects and a priest translated her incoherent “prophecies”.

How about people giving their properties, money and other valuable stuffs on a conman, just because this phony can interpret the Bible very well? There is also this Christian sect that prohibits the use of modern medicine or blood transfusion, even in times of emergency. Just imagine what kind of mentality a parent has who can sacrifice the life of their own child who badly needs the medicine or the blood transfusion…just because their church prevents them.

In addition, Yahweh was diagnosed to be suffering from bipolar disorder…Good grief!

As in-house copywriter for a large hospital, I interview patients and write about their ordeals for PR and marketing purposes. I am happy to say that the hospital’s branding is strictly secular; I can’t, for instance, quote a patient as saying, “Doctor X is truly a blessing,” nor can I say that “the hospital’s devotion to quality health care is exceptional.”

Nonetheless, almost every patient I interview ends up going on a 30-minute homily on how their having battled cancer or stroke or what-have-you was ultimately God’s doing, and would then ask me to pray for them as they face their last few sessions of chemo or their final MRI. At moments like these, of course, I just throw them a smile and get on with my questions.

My dream patient interview, then, would be with the very vocal atheist Christopher Hitchens, who has esopheagal cancer and is likely going to croak any second — but not without spewing a few hundred thoughts or so beforehand.

Fortunately he’s said enough in this recent Vanity Fair piece.

Credit: NASA, WIYN, NOAO, ESA, Hubble Helix Nebula Team, M. Meixner (STScI), & T. A. Rector (NRAO)

There are reasons why some people would rather call themselves skeptics or freethinkers instead of atheists, and one is to avoid the not uncommon misconception that atheism automatically means the positive claim that there is no god. While I thought this issue had already been resolved a long time ago considering the multitude of articles and videos posted online explaining that it isn’t necessarily the case, it seems that it hasn’t been explained often enough. People continue not only to assert that that is the only definition of atheism but even to imply that the New Atheists are deliberately trying to redefine the word to suit their purposes when their true position is just play-safe agnosticism.

To settle the issue, let’s look at the definition of atheist in the 1979 edition of The Grolier International Dictionary, of which I happen to have a copy:

atheist - one who denies the existence of God.

The operative word here is denies. Using the same dictionary, let’s see what that word really means:

deny

1. to declare untrue; assert the contrary of; contradict.

2. to refuse to believe; reject.

3. to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow; disown.

If we add “the existence of God” to each of the above definitions, the first one seems to be the most presumed by theists while the atheists usually mean the second and third – that they do not take this particular claim as truth, that they simply do not believe.

And what does it mean to not believe? If a friend told me that last night he dated and slept with a famous actress, say, Angel Locsin or Christine Reyes – or both – but he didn’t even have a scandal video on his phone, I would simply say that I don’t believe him. However, I wouldn’t accuse him of lying because I wasn’t with him or either girl last night and I didn’t have 24-hour surveillance on any of them. No, I could not be certain that he’s not telling the truth. But I just wouldn’t believe him because his story is too incredible that I would provisionally conclude that he did not sleep with either actress – until I see some evidence that he really did. Then and only then would I reassess and perhaps even reformulate my conclusion. Heck, I might even worship him for banging those goddesses.

Going back to the God question, in The Agora, a Facebook group created by our very own John Paraiso, I saw this very amusing comment:

The universality of belief in the existence of God makes the burden of proof to rest upon those who deny the existence of God.

Wow. They demand proof against something that has not been proven in the first place. “Universality of belief” does not necessarily mean that such belief had undergone and passed through skeptical scrutiny.

But sometimes the problem lies with some atheists who, in their passion to express their new-found freedom from religion, go a bit too far not only by saying something inflammatory but by indirectly making assertions that they would have to defend, like this one:

The poster is indirectly saying that Jesus, Allah and Yahweh are imaginary, hence, they do not exist. That is a positive statement that supposedly carries the burden of proof. However, when asked to prove such statement, some atheists would simply say that it is the theist’s job to prove that his particular god exists. That is wrong. A comment posted in Friendly Atheist says it best:

If you say, “There is no god”, you are making a claim that you can’t defend. It is a point of dogma.

If you say, “I haven’t seen enough evidence to believe in god”, you are making a defensible claim. You’ve left open the possibility that new evidence could change your position.

The first one clearly refers to the strong atheist, but the second refers to atheists in general and includes agnostics and skeptics. Unfortunately, to many people the word atheist is associated more closely with the “there is no god” position than with healthy skepticism, no thanks to the overeagerness of some atheists (and no thanks as well to those who say that agnostics are atheists without balls).

Atheists, agnostics, skeptics. The first two are defined by their positions on a certain truth claim; the third focuses more on the method of arriving at either position. All three are the same in one sense: They do not believe.

Vegans are often confronted with the circle-of-life argument. Animals in the wild eat other animals, so why must one abstain from participating in this cycle? I explore two angles in addressing this question: first of survival and then of morality.

Do we need to eat animals to survive?

The circle of life automatically conjures up images of one animal eating another animal, and that first animal being eaten by another animal, so on and so forth, as if the size of one species is the sole determinant for which other species it can consume with rightful entitlement. Lest we forget, not all animals are carnivores, and that circle of life includes animals like cows and monkeys who rarely, if ever, consume animal carcasses.

Human beings are not carnivores. We can eat animals to survive, yes, but we certainly don’t need to eat animals to thrive. On the contrary, eating animals increases the likelihood of contracting a long list of health problems such as obesity, stroke, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, kidney stones, gallstones, osteoporosis, and diabetes. These are the same diseases that true carnivores will not be subject to with the same kind of high-fat, high-cholesterol, animal-flesh diet. I intentionally omitted any mention of animals consuming other animals’ excrements because of its irrelevance. It is only us humans who consume the milk of another species.

Comparative anatomy also shows that humans resemble the physiology of herbivores more than carnivores or even omnivores.

• Carnivores have sharp front teeth with no molars and limited side-to-side motion that enable them to tear up animal flesh and swallow them whole. Herbivores have no sharp front teeth and their jaws can move both in up-and-down and side-to-side motion to enable them to grind up fruits and vegetables with their molars. Humans have similar flat back molars as other herbivores, and humans do not have anterior teeth suitable for tearing animal flesh.

• Carnivores have shorter intestinal tracts that allow animal flesh to pass through quickly without causing illnesses. Carnivores have intestinal tracts 3 to 6 times their body length while humans have intestinal tracts 10 to 12 times our body length, similar to herbivores. Eating animal flesh poses a greater danger of colon cancer to humans, as our longer intestines provide more time for bacteria in animal flesh to multiply and rot.

• Carnivores do not need fiber to move food through their digestive tracts. Herbivores need fiber to digest food in their long intestinal tracts. Humans, without fiber, will suffer from digestive constipation.

• Carnivores have acidic stomachs that kill bacteria present in raw animal flesh. Herbivores have weaker stomach acids as fruits and vegetables do not require so much acidity. Human stomach acidity resembles that of herbivores. This is why we are at risk of being contaminated with e.coli, listeria, and campylobacter when we eat raw or even undercooked animal flesh.

The default psychology of humans also strengthens the position that we are herbivores. We are not like sharks who are drawn to blood and guts. When human toddlers see animals, they gaze in fascination, wanting to pet them, not eat them. The fact that most humans still eat animals is not an indication that it is natural. It is because it has been the accepted norm, because it is a matter of taste and preference, because it is a habit born out of modern capitalism.

Is it morally acceptable for humans to eat animals?

Given that eating animals is not a matter of survival, the answer becomes a resounding no. We are not entitled to kill other animals. More than that, it is to our detriment that we do. And if we expand the definition of morality to include our obligation to other human beings and to our environment, the morally acceptable position is still to abstain from consuming animals. World hunger, human violence, and environmental destruction are all topics that need a separate discussion altogether.

Gary L. Francione, Professor of Philosophy, Animal Rights and the Law at Rutgers University, refutes the circle-of-life argument succinctly. “It is interesting that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed ‘superiority’. And when our supposed ‘superiority’ gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.”

Entitlement is a key concept here. We do not have the physiological entitlement to make eating animals morally excusable. We are not wild animals. For many of us humans, our wildest venture into food may be a donkey we mistakenly ate cooked well-done in an industrial-quality stove at a so-called exotic restaurant. Were we to hunt for animal flesh with our bare hands and eat them raw, we are likely to be repelled by the very same process which is natural to physiological carnivores.

Might does not make right. Just because we have found ways to eat animals does not mean we are meant to do so. We are capable of committing arson too, but that capability does not give us the license to go ahead and commit arson. Abstaining from animal flesh – and more comprehensively veganism as a whole – is not about charity or kindness or compassion or heroism or purity. It is not morally equal to using our time and resources to build houses for the homeless. Rather, it is morally equal to not stealing money from the homeless. It is the minimum requirement.

In conclusion, we should not take the circle of life literally. It is not about the smaller animal being eaten by the bigger animal. It is about how we survive and thrive. It is about respecting our role and causing the least disruption in others’. I would like to think that as morally conscious beings, our participation in the circle of life is an enlightened one, where our moral blind spots are shed to light, where we are able to scrape away our desire for conformity and appeal to our true sense of ethics, away from what is convenient and accepted and normal. I would like to hope that one day, you – dear reader – will be at the receiving end of the circle-of-life question, and that you will find the question as irrelevant as the answer is obvious.

References:

http://pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vsk/veg_foods.html

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/frequently-asked-questions-part-two/

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html

Two meetups, one cup! This weekend will be a busy one as there will be two meetups. We’re having a special project discussion on Saturday and then a book/pub crawl on Sunday!

Saturday: A Meetup of Minds @ Starbucks

RSVP on Facebook
Date: Saturday, September 18, 2010
Time: 1:00pm – 4:00pm
Venue: Starbucks (6th floor near the cinemas), Shangri-La EDSA Plaza Mall

This special Saturday meetup is to discuss a film documentary project setup by John Paraiso (Pinoy Atheist) and our supporter from New York, Marissa Torres.

A film maker is interested in creating a documentary about atheism in the Philippines, we’ll be discussing ideas for the documentary.  Since this is the Freethinkers, agnostics, deists, humanists, and liberal theists are welcome to make their voices heard!

Be creative about your ideas for the documentary, this is how we’ll ‘come out of the closet’!

This is a joint event with the Pinoy Atheist Facebook group.

Sunday: The Bookworm Crawl

RSVP on Facebook
Date: Sunday, September 19, 2010
Time: 1:00pm – 4:00pm
Venue: Starbucks at One E-Com Center, beside Mall of Asia

Since the Saturday meetup is already at Shang, we’ll be having this meetup at Mall of Asia. Also it segues neatly into hitting the Manila International Book Fair at SMX for the post-meetup plans.

To avoid the MoA crowd, we’ll be having this meetup in the Starbucks at One E-Com Center (map)

This meetup follows the regular informal format. As I’ve run out of discussion topics, I prostrate myself before your collective wisdom and humbly plead for suggestions for discussion topics.

In the meantime, I’m stealing from our young rascals from UP Diliman.

Discussion Topics:
1. Vigilante justice against poaching.
2. Neurosexism – How different are men and women at the level of the brain? What does this mean for human relations? (moderated by Jessica Balaquit, maybe)
3. International Blasphemy Rights Day
4. A Vegan Says, ‘Let Them Eat Meat‘

Post meetup plans are to go to the book fair and then dinner & drinks at MoA. If you’re new and interested in the post-meetup but can’t make it for the scheduled meet, please indicate in a comment below so we can contact you.

* Newbies are welcome.
* Discuss anything with fellow freethinkers.
* Look for the FF sign (or the group of smart, sexy people).
* There is no required age, religion, philosophy, or IQ level.
* Discussions are informal yet intelligent (most of the time).
* You don’t have to talk; you can just sit in and listen.
* You don’t have to buy anything from Starbucks

One of the most common reactions I hear from theists on atheism or even on freethought in general is a question on where the nonbelievers base their morality considering they do not hold themselves accountable to an absolute standard or have their actions confined by the threat of eternal fire. A number of articles had already been written about the morality of an atheist/freethinker – some mention for comparison the “morality” of the Abrahamic god who condoned or even commissioned slavery, rape, and genocide; others talk about respect, doing no harm, and the Golden Rule (which isn’t of Judeo-Christian origin, by the way) – and yet the question remains: What compels the nonbeliever to respect others and do no harm?

I have tried to answer that in The Morality of a Freethinker where I said:

Life is not a zero-sum game where each person’s gain necessitates an equal amount of loss to another; in nature and in society teamwork and cooperation have proven that it is actually possible for everyone to win, and that every now and then small civilized gestures go a long way and eventually trickle down to the pool of moral standards, gradually raising its level. And it only takes rationality – not religion – to realize that.

Admittedly, though, not all nonbelievers realize that; rationality is not really a requirement for atheism – all babies are born atheists – so some nonbelievers really do not have moral standards. And this reminds me of M. Scott Peck’s stages of spiritual growth. (While Dr. Peck talked about four stages, I will describe only the first three because I am rather skeptical about the fourth.)

Stage I: Chaotic, Antisocial. All children are born into this stage, but some reach adulthood without ever leaving it. These are the people who submit to nothing but their own free will and have no beliefs or principles, and their relationships with other people are often manipulative and self-serving.

Stage II: Formal, Institutional, Fundamental. Because of the chaotic life in Stage I, some people experience intense psychological pain or get into trouble and end up converting into Stage II by joining or being committed to an institution – military, school, an organization, jail, a church. Stage II people follow rules but do not care to think about the reasons behind them. They do not want to hear anyone question the beliefs they hold so dearly especially if it is a logical, valid question, because the institution with its dogma is the only thing preventing these people from falling back into the chaotic life in State I, and they especially do not want that. (Some criminals, when caught and imprisoned, quickly turn into model prisoners and given early paroles, only to commit another crime on the first day of their release. That’s because they rely solely on the institution – prison – and have no principles of their own.)

Stage III: Skeptic, Individual. When Stage II people marry and raise a family, their children often become Stage II at a very early age. But as they grow into their teens they become so used to order that they sometimes take for granted the rules and beliefs of their parents and even question the reasons behind these rules and challenge the bases of these beliefs. Here they start getting into Stage III, the truth seeker. (For the Stage II people, Stage III is the same as Stage I – nonbelievers – and so they would try to convert them with their doctrines, only to end up getting ridiculed.) But Stage I and Stage III are very much different even though they both do not submit to an institution or dogma. Because while Stage I people yield only to their own free will, people in Stage III submit to something higher: truth, justice, and welfare.

But then, why would a nonbeliever submit to such noble concepts? I posted this question in the forum and I got very interesting answers. Basically, a nonbeliever (both Stages I and III) cares only about survival, but an enlightened nonbeliever (Stage III), while driven by selfishness, has less shortsightedness, “choosing a strategic behavior that yields the highest utility for all (all being a more positive rebounding system that is more long term)“. And here the Golden Rule comes naturally and is followed subconsciously. A person may strive only for his wellbeing, but somehow he realizes that he cannot achieve that without treating others well or at least how he would have them treat him.

Going back to the stages of spiritual growth, Dr. Peck asserts that one cannot reach Stage III without passing through Stage II; a man cannot see the reasons behind the rules if he himself has not undergone being subjected to some rules. And here some might argue that religion is necessary for morality after all, even if only as a stepping stone to get from Stage I to Stage III. To this I would answer that the “rules” need not be what Religion dictates. It could come from the secular parents and teachers who, for example, teach children not to steal – not because they would go to hell but because it would not be beneficial to their long-term interests.

Still, some religious people and organizations would protest, “What about sexual morality, the ‘contraceptive culture’ that legalizes free sex and separates the unitive from the procreative purpose of sex according to God’s design?”

Well, this is all I can say to them: You really need to get laid.

Trolls are nothing new in the life of a freethinker, particularly those who like to spread lies and claim ad hominem when you point out evidence of irrational and deceptive actions. It can be a very stressfull life when you consider that all these people who like to spread information and make personal attacks never get tired when they are in the Internet voicing their strong opinions (without having to ever bring up evidence or without the intent to listen to the other side’s diplomatically framed argument).

Internet trolls are very easy to come by. The best solution is actually asking the persons to put their money where their mouth is and bring them to a public discussion. When they begin to sound crazy, it’s not just you who notices. This applies to the religious ones, even those with the Religiously Granted (but Unearned) Credibility of a Priest, to a “middle-aged” netizen, or any one who resorts to cheap tactics, like drowning out the other side’s argument with rants and being unable to communicate their ideas efficiently enough to let you have a word in.

When this happens, bring a camera and threaten to post in Youtube or host in a torrent. Point out deflections, fallacies, captured lies, and cognitive biases in their arguments when there is a whole lot of public around to see them at their worst (and they’ll know it is their worst because they know better than to let themselves get public).

Learning to fight, argue, and discern the lies and deceptions is an important part of life. We will encounter these problems in business and in our personal lives. Someone will always be trying to take advantage of you with an argument designed to deceive you,  both face to face and on the Internet. We are free to ignore them or to answer them at our leisure time, but when reality catches up we should get used to the idea that we will have to publicly argue with them. Imagine how such people have taken advantage of you or your loved ones and being powerless to stop them.

As a freethinker you shouldn’t worry, since there is an answer. Counter-deception skills are a Science and available to the freethinker because it takes the same kind of skills to find such knowledge. The sciences hated by many trolls are (Behavioral) Economics, Game-theory, and Cognitive Science, mostly because these are related to the sciences that disprove or don’t support their claims.

It’s not as if you’re alone trying to learn the skills to find more honest answers from people or facts. There is a whole lot of people who are tired of bullshit and would like to hear less of it. They have the advantage of being able to cooperate, practice these skills together, and develop new techniques.  I’ll leave the possible consequences of a group more skilled in catching bullshit and developing a strategy to throw it back to the trolls’ face with greater force to the imagination.

“My Bliss is KNOWLEDGE, yours is IGNORANCE,” is a quote I made that, despite having struck my friends – whether they’re online or in person -  is one they respect. For several years it has been like this. As I was seeking for answers and looking for truths regarding life, I was disappointed and dismayed. I learned that truths are only illusions. I learned that each and everyone of us has truths of their own, one which if anyone dares to question, would surely make for long and exhaustive arguments. We have different perspective regarding things. Yes of course, for we are all different individuals, and yet we must not forget we belong to what we call the rational animals. However, some of us never use that ability.  Instead, we just nod and follow what other rational beings are telling us. Most of us are afraid to ask the WHY and the WHAT question: Why are we supposed to follow what others are telling us? What’s the purpose?

In this case, what we call rational beings are like puppets controlled by those people who are self-centered, and deceptive rational people. Those who are only concerned for one thing: to satisfy their greed for power.

Some people do think in the context What and the Why, but they forget to rationalize and evaluate. Instead, they jump from one thought to another without weighing things using their critical thinking.  Or did they have the ability to do so to begin with? So what exactly am I pointing out here, you may ask.

Let me just tell you that there is a kind of philosophical view-point about how people should think or the way people should think. This view is called freethinking, which holds that “opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, or dogma.” It is a way of thinking distanced from any bias and prejudice, especially those of religious beliefs. It is a cognitive application of free thought.

Sadly, we Filipinos lack this kind of thinking, for our minds have been tuned to follow what our elders and our forefathers say without question. We accept things we never tried evaluating for ourselves. It is the result of hundreds of years in the hands of these self-centered and closed-minded people, who brainwashed our forefathers. Until now we’re in bondage to this blurred form of thinking, yet, we do have people who fight against this. Much like what our national hero did before, we dreamed of a country free from religious bigots and political tyrants.

We hope for a country of freethinking people, regardless of beliefs. Like what Gautama Buddha said:

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumour; nor upon what is in scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration…

Do not accept anything by mere tradition… Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures… Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions.. But when you know for yourselves–these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness– then do you live accordingly.

This is what freethinking is about, but most of us Filipinos misunderstand it.

I would like to share a short poem I made.

New Beginning

Will you have the courage of going out of your comfort zone?

Or die with your ignorance?