There are many written articles about Christianity. Some praise it while others curse it. Due to the fact that “history is written by those who won”, we find a very few article that criticize this religion.

One of the best I have read so far was Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian”, but the essay was more about refutation against supernaturalism. Now thanks to the advent of “New Atheism,” there are more commentaries that disparaged Christianity on its merits.

Ask a typical Filipino in the street about Christianity and he will tell you a lot of good things about it. Who can blame them? That information was forced-fed into his mind – that’s how four hundred years of Spanish rule messing up our brains.

And what does a typical Filipino really knows? Most of his information was derived from Christian missionaries, priests and TV Christian evangelists.

According to its paid apologists, Christianity has a superior worldview compared to other religions out there. It is a religion (or a lifestyle, because Christian don’t want to call Christianity a religion) of peace…of love…of doing good to others.

Yep! Peace with a price.

Christianity is a religion of blood lust!

It is a religion whose foundation is the worship of a man condemned to die in a cross.

Hmmmmm…Christian apologists always reason out that Christ death is for our own salvation from sin. So, it’s about a god who would be appeased with the sight and sacrifice of gore, blood and guts. Such a tragic used of adoration.

And what peace are we talking about? Throughout its history, Christianity is soaked by the blood of its innocent victims. Inside its “holy book” we can read stories of how a certain deity orders its “chosen people” to slaughter and plunder their neighbor. Women, children and old folks were not spared. And as Christianity “light the world”, Crusades, inquisitions, holy wars and witch hunts literally burned a lot of communities. Just read your history books. And just imagine how many innocent lives were prematurely ended, burned like firewood in the name of Jehovah. This is what Christianity meant by “love thy neighbors”.

Some say Christianity brought progress. Really? So know most countries that were influenced by Christian missionaries were turned into “banana republics”. There are strings attached to these so-called “progress”, and that’s the eradication of a nation’s culture, thanks to these “missionaries” and the interest of those people behind them.

I find Christianity odious, the fact that it was founded by a liar named Saul of Tarsus. Saul (who was later called Paul) founded this religion by mixing together some old Middle Eastern religious belief and Greek philosophies. Then placing an obscure Jewish persona and viola! He created a cult whose main belief is a cooked-up prophecy about the end of Roman rule in Palestine.

And what were Paul’s issues?

The guy was a hysterical fundy who found pleasure in hating the world. His taste for humiliation, his sexual impotence, his hatred to himself. The man is a perverted masochist!

He’s also a misogynist. He loathed women and found them repulsive. This tent seller also abhorred intelligence and is seen frequently preaching loathing of knowledge, philosophy and science. He scoffed at knowledge…well that’s obvious, his audience were neither learned nor intellectuals, but ordinary townsfolk – simpletons whose lives were surrounded by superstitious beliefs to make it more exciting compare to the realities of their mundane lives. Now…Paul was said to be educated by the Pharisees…So? Pharisees are as ignorant to science and philosophy as a modern-day Christian pastor.

His preaching was centered to a man called Jesus. Who is this man? Christians claimed he is the Son of God that came down from Earth to save us from sin. Now…accepting without admitting that the story was true, what did Jesus really accomplish?

As a Man-God it seems Jesus has accomplished nothing. He didn’t give us anything new in ethics. Most of his teachings were already taught by other philosophers and teachers ahead of his time. His moral ideas are unsystematic and are notoriously obscure. His ethics were not prescribe base on human happiness and well being but instead backed by brute sanctions of threats and punishments.

He never tackled critical moral problems in his time: Issues such as slavery and discrimination against women. He never even talked about basic human rights.

He seems to be ignorant with hygiene and healthcare issues. Gosh! He even promotes folklore remedies and erroneous ideas about the cause of diseases.

He didn’t invent anything that can ease the work of a Jewish peasant. As a son of a carpenter, he didn’t even contributed any major breakthrough in carpentry and wood-working.

This Jesus person also has this temperament of a boiling tea-kettle. He curses other life forms just because of some physical discomfort and he whipped and scourged legitimate entrepreneurs while promised salvation on con-men.

If we were to strip Jesus of his so-called “divinity”, what will be left is a mediocre preacher who held erroneous beliefs, a pretentious fraud, or at worst, a hot-headed madcap.

From Paul to Jesus, we now have Christianity…with the help of forgers, confidence men, lunatics, despots and power-hungry “vicars of Christ” Christianity flourished from an obscure Jewish cult to a mega-religion. Stories of a so-called “Son of God” were invented, recopied – and as these scribes add, subtract, and omit on its parchments the Christian “good news” was created.

Now thanks to modern secular laws, Christianity’s corrupting power was clipped. There are no more killing and mayhem in the name of Jesus. No more smokes from burning bodies…but still we have book burning activities, thanks to Paul!

Today, we find Christians in a non-ending feud with other Christians for the title crown “Who is the true Christian” and as Christians throw mud at each other their pastors and priests are running happily in the bank, depositing money called “tithes” that their witless adherents voluntarily gave so God would save their pitiful souls. Will the money bore God’s name? I doubt it. Wait till the Reverend signs a check and see if the signatory will be Yahweh.

We now have a multi-billion industry. From selling salvation to preaching obscure teaching from an ancient book – re-interpreted to fit a timelier flavor. We also have Christian “apologists” who earns million on books about resurrected flawed philosophies – ALL TAX FREE!!!

When Nietzsche declared God is dead and Voltaire announced that the Bible will cease to exist, they were right. God is dead, and what we are just seeing now is his corpse, attached in strings like a puppet being pulled by Christian evangelists. And when these Christian proudly publicized that they converted Voltaire’s garage into a Bible publishing house…well they’re not publishing the Bible as God’s word but only its empty shell that were already been diluted by their self interpretation to safe guard their own doctrines and interest.

This is what Christianity is all about. It is an empty temple ruled by the rotting carcass of a dead Canaanite deity named Yahweh and his bastard son. A book – compiled by power hungry priests – that was re-interpreted many times by fakers whose vested interest is to accumulate dollars and power.

It seems the religion itself is baldy in need of salvation more than its adherents.

Pinoy Atheist

According to Christians…the Bible is advance…advance in what????

Let’s look at their claims:

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

And again…

(Amos 9:6) “The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name.” (NASB)

Now is the Earth a dome?

In Isaiah 40:22 for example, the word “circle” doesn’t mean a spherical Earth. The word “chug” refers to a circle…a flat circle. Notice the word “tent” or “dome” in those verses. As specified in Amos 9:6, this vaulted dome or “raki’a” (See: Genesis 1:6-8) is what the ancient Hebrew believe to cover the entire world. It is said that this solid vault or dome held the Sun, the moon and the stars (Gen.1:14-19; Psalms 19:4, 6) and it also provided the boundaries to the divine (Job 22:14 and Proverbs 8:27)

It also separated the water “above” from the water “below”. In fact according to these ancient Hebrews the blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters above the dome. This solid dome has windows and trap doors in which it release the rain and snow when opened (Gen. 7:11, Isa. 24: 18 and Mal. 3:10)

According to rabbinic traditions, in Nachmanides Commentary on Torah (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman 1194-1270) “Let the expanses become fixed; for although the heavens were created on the first day, they were still in fluid form, and they become solidified only on the second day when the Divine said “Yehee Raqiyaa.” (Also see: Nachmanides (Raban), Commentary on the Torah, vol. 1, pp. 33, 36.)

This is clearly not scientific foreknowledge.

Now here’s something real funny.

According from a certain site owned by a certain Eliseo Soriano…the Bible have the forknowledge regarding the use of crying. Now can that only be found in the pages of the Bible? My papaya naman! It is ancient folk wisdom that crying is good for our health. It isn’t new. Practitioner’s of folk wisdom have routinely encouraged people to allow themselves to cry comforting the suffering soul that ‘ a good cry will help you feel better’.

For example:
The ancient Hawaiians assert there are two chemical reactions within the human body that can accomplish Reconnection with Source Oneness. The first is the “sacred tear” beneath our sadness and hopelessness. Beneath that tear lies the second chemical reaction, said to be more powerful than all the healing agents known to humankind. It comes “out of the blue” with the power of a jackhammer, shattering the seriousness of the entire human estate. A power instantly freeing and balancing to all the body’s chemistry. This is the power of laughter. When it comes in this manner, it comes through the “na’au” (gut level) and will pierce the hopelessness of any situation or attitude. It is not a power to be taken lightly, for the ancient Hawaiians say it holds the chemistry of immortality and will instantly heal any terminal disease. It’s said to be the “laughter of God” which shatters the ridiculousness of hopelessness.

Let’s talk about history:

One of the best weapons used by Christians to confirm the Bible story is Hezekiah’s Tunnel. According to them the discovery of the tunnel built by King Hezekiah authenticates the passages written in the book of Kings. 2 Kings 20:20 states that Hezekiah, “Made the Pool and the conduit and brought water into the city” and in 2 Chronicles 32:30 that he closed the upper outlet of the waters of Gihon and directed them down to the West side of the City of David. This refers to the tunnel which connects the ‘Spring of Gihon’, through the rock to the reservoir called the Pool of Siloam.

“And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?” 2 Kings 20:20

“And when Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib was come, and that he was purposed to fight against Jerusalem, He took counsel with his princes and his mighty men to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the city: and they did help him. So there was gathered much people together, who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much water?” 2 Chronicles 32:2-4

“This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.” 2 Chronicles 32:30

It was discovered in 1838 when it was explored by the American traveller, Edward Robinson, and his missionary friend Eli Smith.

Let me get this straight, just because something was discovered by archeologists means the whole Bible is literally true. Let me share to you this quote:

In summary, the Bible is not a book of history, yet it contains history and culture, which is more or less borne out by archeology. It’s a book of teachings, and it’s the ideal way to learn the patterns of history. And if we understand that the reason why we’re learning history is to learn lessons, then we have to pay extra special attention to what is going on in the Bible.

Christians are well delighted when archeological proof confirms parts of their beliefs. However, since parts of the Bible are historically true still does not make that the rest of the Bible is true as well. The Bible is still not an accurate history book. It tells about some stories about people and events that might happen in the past and were confirmed by archeologists, but still, the fact of the matter, the Bible should not be in use as historical actuality and that the stories in the Bible are NOT metaphors from which facts can be dig out by the reader.

So let us talk about the tunnel, According to Bible scholars, the book of Kings and Chronicles was written possibly between 450 and 435 BCE. There are even some suggestions that these books were written hundred of years after the events took place (See: I Chronicles 9:1-3). The said tunnel was already been constructed before 701 BCE during the reign of Hezekiah. That means the tunnel already existed when both books were being wrote. Obviously the story was already known by the writers and they just incorporated it on their narratives.

I can think of a lot of historical facts that were incorporated in fiction. For example Cold Mountain by Fraszier is historically accurate as to the civil war events but the tale is fiction. There are others like Les Miserables, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Noli Me Tagere and Floeante and Laura. The settings are true facts but don’t tell me that Crisostomo Ibarra and Maria Clara are real persons.

Pinoy Atheist

In our continuing series, we will now look on the development of the New Testament Cannon.

According to most Bible scholars we have a better idea on how the New Testament took shape. Edgar Johnson Goodspeed (1871-1962) theorized that the surviving Pauline letters were first collected after the publication of the Books of Acts, about 95 CE and the Epistle of the Ephesians was compiled as an encyclical or “covering letter” to head this collection, being paraphrased from several of the authentic letter. This theory was widely accepted among New Testament scholars.

Basing on this theory, the original nucleus of the New Testament was the epistle of Paul, to which was added the “catholic” epistles written by James, Peter, John and Jude and the Pastoral Epistle, a supplement to the Pauline collection dating from 100 -105 CE. The Gospel was added later…they were gathered together into a “four fold evangel” about 150 CE. The whole New Testament was known as the Evangelion (Evangel) and the Apostolos (Apostle).

The first generation of the Church fathers such as Ignatius (35-107), Papias (60-130) and Justin (100-165) were more concern with the Old Testament compare to the New Testament. In fact, a definitive list of the canonical book for the New Testament came from a heretic named Marcion (d. 160).

Marcion, a shipping magnate in the Black Sea port of Sinope, traveled to Rome in about 139CE. He taught that many of the Christian literature were corrupted by Jewish ideas and that the Jewish God of the Old Testament was strict and had condemned all humanity. According to Marcion, Jesus Christ who was absolutely unrelated to the Jewish God will released Christians from this god’s clutches.

Marcion compiled only the letters of Paul (Galatians, I and ii Corithians, I and ii Thessalonians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians) and a “purified” version of Luke’s gospel. If it’s not for Marcion, the Christian Church never would have possessed a “New Testament”.
By 95CE, there are still evidence of apocryptic books being included in the New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus includes the book Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospel of Barnabas. The Codex Alexandrinus contains the Epistle of Clement, which was said to be written by Clement, Bishop of Rome to the Corinthian church.

The Muratorian Fragment, discovered in Milan by L.A.Muratori and was published in 1740 – was said to be written in 200CE and have rejected most of the apocryptic book, yet it also rejected I and ii Peter, Hebrews, James and iii John. It also included the Apocalypse of Peter, a book that tells the story of how Peter was granted a vision of heaven and hell.

According to Papias (c 60-130) Bishop of Hierapolis, Mark got his information from Peter himself. Papias also said that the authority of the gospel of Matthew and Mark was base on a certain John the Presbyter.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) said that the earliest gospels were those with Jesus’ family tree.

Irenaeus (c.130-200) Bishop of Lyons, gave the first historically documented list of the four gospels and its authors in 180CE. In all the many available gospels in that time, he chooses only 4 which according to him, “As there are four winds, there should be four Gospel.”

Irenaeus believed that Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in the book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who learned on his breast himself, produced his gospel when he was living in Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus was also the first to give a chronological sequence of the writing of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He also drew up a list of writing he considered as canonical. His list consist of 22 books which includes The Shepherd of Hermans but he left out Philemon, ii Peter, ii and iii of John, Hebrews, Jude and Revelations.

But even with Irenaeus’ list, Origen (185-254) who in 230 CE defined what he believed to be the cannon of the scripture for the New Testament included the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s 13 Epistles, I Peter, I John and Revelation. He also stated that the first gospel was written in Hebrew by Matthew.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) stated that Mark copied and abbreviated Matthew.

The truth in this matter is that Mark is the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars ‘Q’ (from German: Quelle, meaning “source”).

In the Festal Letter of Athanasius (c. 296-373) Bishop of Alexandria to the Egyptian Churches in 367 he said that there are only 27 books considered as canonical. Athanasius list was confirmed by a council under Pope Damasus.

Pope Damasus (304-384 CE) proclaimed the list of the canonical books in the New Testament which was identical to the modern Bible we have now in 374 CE. Over a period of time, at the Council of Laodicea (363) the bishop agreed to the list and his cannon was later been approved by the Council of Rome in 383 and was reconfirmed at the Council of Carthage in 393, 397, and 419 CE.

However, some churches disagreed. The Book of Revelation for example, was not considered divinely inspired until the 8th century. In the Codex Claromontanus, a 6th century manuscript, the Book of Hebrews was omitted while the Epistle of Barnabas was included and placed between the Epistle of Jude and the Book of Revelation.

Even today, some Christian church, with very old roots, has different set of New Testament books. The East-Syrian Nestoriam Church has cannon of only 22 books. The Ethiopian Church has 38 books which includes the Shepherd or Hermas, i and ii Clement and the Apostolic Constitution.

How can a document, tampered with by kings, tyrants, fools and scholars be the “true” and “inspired” word of God?

According to Christians, the Bible is the inspired word of God and for some it is even inerrant. However, looking at its history, we find that the book has been repeatedly revised and re-written.

Today, in this series, we are going to explore the history of this book.

We begin with the Old Testament.
There are no “autograph’s of the Old Testament that survived. The text we now possessed was transmitted to us by generation of scribes and there are ample evidence of how these scribes both wittingly and unwittingly altered the documents they were copying. There is no reason to suppose that the documents in our Old Testament, at least in the period before they regarded as sacrosanct, did not suffer from the usual type of scribal corruption.

The Old Testament was written during the course of more than one millennium, approximately in the period of 1200-100 BCE. Nine volumes from Genesis to Kings were written in 561 BCE in the time of the Jewish captivity and were edited about 400 BCE. The first five books were separated and canonized to become the written Torah, the four remaining were canonized (with an additional two) two centuries later.

In the development of Israel’s history, the Tanack gradually took form and reached completion in the late Persian period. The first move toward canonization can be seen in Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomist stated that their law was completed and that nothing can be added or removed (Deut. 4:2; 12:32) and that God made the law binding on all generation (Duet. 27:4-8). Scholars suggested that the Book of Deuteronomy was formed in the late 7th century BCE, a product of the religious reforms carried out under king Josiah, with later additions from the period after the fall of Judah to the Babylonian empire in 586 BCE.

The Book of the Law was found in the temple of Jerusalem and was ratified as a divine law of the land (2Kings 23:3)…well that was according to legend. M. L. de Wette suggested that King Josiah had Deuteronomy created as a type of “pious fraud” to further his agenda of religious reform. In that time, the study of the Law eventually becomes more vital than offering and sacrifices. Yahweh, the god introduced by the Jahwist writers (The Jahwist, also referred to as the Jehovist, Yahwist, or simply as J, is one of the four major sources of the Torah postulated by the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). It is the oldest source, whose narratives make up half of Genesis and the first half of Exodus, plus fragments of Numbers) becomes the creator of heaven and earth and the only god in existence.

The second step toward canonization was recorded in the Ezra tradition. During the festival, Ezra read publicly from “the Book of the Law” and instructed the people in the law (Neh. 7:73; 8:18).

The contents of the prophetic cannon appeared to be established between the forth and second centuries in two general groupings: The former Prophets and the Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets were recognized as a Deuteronomic history (Joshua, Judges, i-ii Samuel). The Book of Kings (1 and 2Kings) was written in 600 BCE.

The Hagiographa or Writings are an amorphous literary collection with an obscure history. The Psalms were attributed with King David. The wisdom writings were attributed primarily to Solomon.

The earliest mention of the collection of the Hagiographa were found in the prologue to Ben Sira’s word that he called “other books of our fathers”.

Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, most of our OT documents and actual manuscript evidence for the text of the OT was relatively late.

The Cairo Genizah for example was dated within the 7th and 6th century CE but some so-called “earliest” fragments were dated to the 9th and 10th century.

The Cambridge Codex XIII, a complete Old Testament was made in early as the middle of the 9th century. The Cairo Karaite manuscript of the Prophets may be of the late 9th century.

The3 Aleppo Sephardic Codex was dated in the early 10th century. The Pentateuch Codex (4445) that is now housed in the British Museum is also of the 10th century. The St. Petersberg Prophet Codex is dated 916 CE and the six manuscripts in the Firkowitsch collection at Leningrad belong to the 10th century. The Codex Urbinus 2, now in Vatican, which contains the whole Old Testament, is also dated to the 10th century. The famous Codex L from Old Cairo was dated 1008.

The earliest printed Hebrew scripture were just portions and was also printed in the late 15th century. Example, the Psalms at Bologna in 1477, the Pentateuch at Bologna in 1482, the Megilloth also in Bologna in 1482 and the Pentateuch in Faro in 1487.

The first complete Hebrew Bible to be printed was issued at Soncino in 1488, the second was on naples in 1492 to 1493 and the third at Brescia in 1492. The first great Rabbinic Bible was printed by Daniel Bomberg at Venice in 1516 to 1517. The text was prepared by Felix Pratensis. The second Rabbinic Bible was compiled by Jacob ben Hayyim, a Masorah, in 1524-1525 at Venice. Paul Kahle edited the text of the 3rd edition of Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgarst 1937) and used a purer Ben Asher text base on the Leninggrad manuscript.

Amateur (or should I say “immature) and defenders of certain Christian cults have a peculiar way of confronting the issues posted by atheists. Instead of proving atheism as an irrational position, they cater more on emotions and rely mostly on insults. Maybe they think that by doing those things atheism will just go away.

After their “sugo” posted two articles to confront his problems toward atheism, which failed miserably to prove his points, it’s the members (suckers) time to salvage what their “sugo” have failed to accomplish.

Meet josepherdon, a typical guy who fits the profile of a fanatic. To save his “sugo” for further embarrassment, he created a “blog” to discredit Filipino freethinkers and non-believers.

It’s quite obvious.The intellects talk about ideas while dull minds castigate people, which remind me of Philippine celebrity gossips in sleazy tabloids. Anyway, since this dullard is a master of abusive, profane and obscene slanders, it also reflects his state of mind.

I wasn’t planning to give any critique to this dolt’s article (that’s why it took a year or so before I’ve answered his rants), but as they say, “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing”.

Excuse me my dear readers if I didn’t gave any link to his blog. You see, I don’t intend to give him some free exchange link.

I understand this pathetic jerk for making his accusations and insults. Remember, he wanted desperately to please his cult master. Charles “Tex” Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Larry Layton have already done the same and look what it resulted so far.

You won’t really learn anything on something that was written from sheer hate. That’s a fact! So I am certain that I will not find even a morsel of enlightenment in his posts. But at least I’m offering the blogging world my free service by personally correcting some of josepherdon’s deliberate misinformation.

Ignorance in the Meaning of Religion

Atheism is a religion. Atheism requires faith. Atheism also requires a strong conviction.

Atheists deny that Atheism is a religion but it is clearly being displayed by Atheists in different Religious forums that Atheism is indeed their religion.

So he still define atheism as a religion. That’s means josepherdon still doesn’t even understand what religion means. Religion is suppose to be the “ultimate concern on our life”. Now, atheism is not a religion since it’s not saying anything that is ultimate regarding concerns on someone’s life. The rule is quite simple; atheism is about not believing in a supernatural being which people calls god or gods.

Let us continue…

Ignorance in the Meaning of “Faith”.

Most of the Atheists believes that their existence was not based on Creation. They strongly opposed it.Christians have faith. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1 KJV)

Atheists also have faith. Atheists also believe in things that are not seen. Atheists also believe in things that are not yet scientifically proven.

Aw….I’m too tired of explaining faith in my blog. Now let see…if I don’t believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, is that faith @ Mr. Joseph Perdon. Go figure it out…or maybe too much heavy metal rock music banging or squeeky anime on your brains eh?

Please naman po, tutal 30 years old na po kayo, eh pakilawakan po ng konti ang pang-unawa mo po.

I have this inkling that josepherdon doesn’t have any science background in his studies. Whether he made it on college or not – well, it seems he was not really been exposed to a lot of science subject, especially in biology and physics ( o baka naman natutulog sa library).

Now here’s some samples:

Ignorance in the Theory of Evolution

Missing Links in Theory of Evolution.
These links are yet to be found.No Scientific evidences of their existence.They believe that the link exists out there, it’s just they cannot find them.They treats Theory of Evolution as their doctrine of faithin spite of growing number of scientists are abandoning the theory.

Also considering the great minds of the science communityDID NOT even believed that the humanity came from apes. Sadly, Atheists are taking the Theory of Evolution really seriously.
What missing link? Evolutionist now adays are not looking to any “missing links”. My gulay naman @ Mr. Perdon, you’re so 1880’s hahaha!

Maybe you’re talking about transitional fossils? The term “missing link” po eh ginagamit ng mga taong naniniwala sa tinatawag na the great chain of being, a pre-evolutionary concept now abandoned. Transitional fossils are the fossils of transitional forms of life representing an evolutionary bridge between two recognized groups and I’m proud to say that the discoveries of these trasitional fossils have just proved Darwin’s theory is correct.

We now have hundreds or thousand transitional fossils available. Mr. Joseph Perdon, year 2010 na po tayo. There are many example of transitional fossils and all you have to do is to search the Internet (Remember, Google is your friend. Maybe you should use it to do some worth while research instead of looking for heavy metal bands and Japanese anime.).

Now you won’t find “great minds” saying that humans came from apes @ josepherdon. Ganito po yan, apes and humans comes from a common ancestor. Evolution doesn’t say that monkeys became human. It just say that homonids, simians and prosimians came from a common lineage. Great minds already knows the process and it seems that idea that monkeys or ape became humans only came from you and your “sugo’s” mind…which I don’t think to be great.

Now it’s your turn. maybe you can show as an evidence that human came from Adam and Eve for a change @ Mr. Joseph Perdon AKA josepherdon.

Ignorance in Cosmology

Missing Matter and Energy in Big Bang Theory.

“Every textbook in the planet earth,says that the universe is made out of atoms and sub-atomic particles.Well, all those textbooks are wrong”–theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku
Quote mining eh? OK let see…Dr. Michio Kaku is an American theoretical physicist specializing in string field theory. Do you know what is string field theory? String Field theory…wait…I thought you don’t believe in scientific theories? If you don’t believe in scientific theories they why are you quoting a theoretical physicist? Are you contradicting yourself @ Mr. Perdon? Nasa Bible ba ang String field theory?

Anyway, if you have some idea on what quantum physics is…well you will understand what the String Field Theory is all about. It is like this…it says that the most smallest thing in the universe (quarks, atoms, etc) and the vastness of the very large universe is connected like a string in a musical instrument. That’s String Field Theory in a nutshell for you @ josepherdon. Naiintidihan mo ba? Obviously you can’t understand what I’m talking about.

You know why?

Because you can’t even tell the difference between Big Bang and Dark Matter.

Combined, Dark Matter and Dark Energy make up 96% of the universe.(That’s a VERY BIG percentage for something you don’t have a scientific evidence)The problem is, Atheists have faith about these things.(96% of the Universe [r.e.bigbang theory] is not proven scientifically)

Science has do not directly proven the existence of Dark Matter.They are still guessing about what the Dark Matter and Dark Energy really are.

By the way, they say that the Dark Matter is an invisible matter. Yes, believing Big Bang Theory requires faith.Faith about those unanswered questions and mysteries about the universe(e.g. Dark Energy and Dark Matter)
Are you talking about the candy bar or the sitcom that was created by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady?

So what does Dark Matter has to do with the Big Bang? For your information, dark matter is the large invisible matter that composed most of the universe. The term “dark matter” was coined by Fritz Zwicky who discovered evidence for missing mass in galaxies in the 1930s.

Dark Matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation and it is more important on the issue concerning state-of-the-art modeling of structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropies observed in the cosmic microwave background.

So where’s the issue concerning the Big Bang?

Like The Theory of Evolution,Growing number of Scientists already abandoned the Big Bang theory just like the well-known scientists that believe that there is a God. If the scientific evidences about Big Bang Theory and Theory Of Evolution are really that great, How come that there are scientists have religion and believes in God? These Atheists are just hiding in the surface of science books which actually Scientists have already given up reading.

Like who? Can you please name names @ josepherdon.
Let see…according to the studies conducted by sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund, 38 persent of natural scientist doesn’t believe in God. In Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham studies they discovered that disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. (See: Victor Stenger’s excellent Has Science Found God? for more details)

Being an Atheist does not make you more intelligent than others

Ah so that’s his problem…Atheists appear more intelligent than him and his “sugo”. So that’s why he’s bitching in the World Wide Web.

Mr. Joseph Perdon. It’s not that atheist like me is more intelligent…nope. We just use our “coconut” more that you used yours. Remember, your mind is like a parachute, it is more useful when it is open.

Hmmmmm…I think josepherdon still has a lot to say…

I have talked, discuss and even debated with some self-centered Atheistang Pinoy and believe me, papansin lang sila. Tinatawag din nila ang mga sarili nila na THINKING PINOYS. As if, naman na sila lang ang nagiisip. They are just people wanting to be different from others. Oo nga naman, karamihan ng mga pinoy ay may religion at naniniwala sa Dios, kapag hindi ka nga naman naniwala sa Dios, instant attention nga naman yun. Pa-kontra-bida effect, pa-others, parang EMO, or talagang Pinoy EMO na nga talaga sila. At kapag naiipit na sila sa mga dahilan nila in denying GOD, they will demand respect. Ay teka,teka, magpapatawa pala muna sila, tapos aasarin ka. Kapag na-realize nilang hindi ka mabilis maasar or bumabalik na sa kanila yung mga pang-aasar nila, tsaka sila hihingi ng respeto sa paniniwala. Kung kakausapin mo sila ng masinsinan at napansin nilang may point ka, they will simply walk away at sasabihin nonsense makipag-usap sayo. “I am more intelligent than you”. Feeling of superiority from others. Pride.Yes, may pride nga ang mga Pinoy EMOs este Pinoy Atheists.

You see, after nilang ipagmalaki ang paniniwala nila, pagkatuwaan ang mga naniniwala sa Dios at naiipit na sila sa takbo ng utak nila, tsaka sila hihingi ng respeto. Believe me, iyan po ang pattern ng usapan ng mga Christians at Atheistang Pinoy. Kahit mapa-saan man yang forum, Friendster or else, they will try to impress you first with their different way of thinking, carabao-english and then asking for respect of their beliefs. Emong-emo di ba

With the slow rise of Scientology wannabes, Atheists are endangered species.Actually, habang kumakaunti sila, lalong lalaki ulo ng mga yan. Feeling elite.Pa-others lang talaga. Feeling important. Feeling genio.The Big Bang Theory + Theory of Evolution = Existence of Atheists

So in the following statement that was written in the tagalog language (maybe because josepherdon ran out of English words…) he just started spilling his own viscera. Hmmmm….sa makatuwid eh sinuka na nya ang talagang sinisintir nya (He just vomited out his issues).

It’s quite obvious (base on his seethe) that he was crushed on a debate. We can perceive that on his writings. Now what happened here is that when this guy ran out of arguments, he started spewing venom.

He had this feeling (which really bothers him) that atheists are more superior in knowledge, ideas and arguments than his “sugo” and himself. Naturally the guy was hurt and he’s just licking his would like a dog and well…sour-graping.

Mr. Joseph Perdon AKA josepherdon, here’s my advice to you. If you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you don’t have any logical arguments against atheism, then don’t debate. Also don’t dwell too much on fantasies. Please let us at least have a little honesty in our part – you never even tried facing us for a debate, so how can you defeat us? Seriously, you never posted any comment in the Filipino Freethinker Website and forum; you never posted any comment on my blog and even on my shout box. You don’t have any posts on the Pinoy Atheist Group in Friendster, Multiply and Facebook. Are you a phony just like your “sugo”?

Come on…give us the real deal here.

And what do the EMO and the Scientologist have to do with your beatings @ josepherdon? Bakit, wag mo naming sabihin sa akin na natalo ka ng EMO at ng isang scientologist sa debate?

Life after death? Philanthropy? My goodness is this a special pleading? Mr. Joseph Perdon, even without “dios” humans can still be good. Look at me; I can still do good things even if I don’t expect any life after death in heaven. Kaya mo ba yan o baka naman kaya ka gumagawa ng mabuti eh para mapunta ka sa langit?

Look, I know of a story of a man who believes in a “dios” and his followers claims he is a walking Bible encyclopedia yet still manage to raped a guy. Think about it.

Now we non-believers don’t believe in brainwashing and “indoctrination”. We don’t teach something, but strongly encouraged not to question or critically examine what you’ve been taught.

Diba you have indoctrination in your cult…este coordination centers pala @ josepherdon?

Ew….How repulsive…parang may sapilitang ipinapasok sa ulo mo. Only cults do that @ josepherdon.

In the issue of respect…well respect is earned @ josepherdon and it seems you and your “sugo” still have to work harder to attain it.

Oh and another thing, atheism is different with Scientology…wait a minute…don’t tell me you don’t know what Scientology is? Man…(lol)…Scientology is a religion that was created by L. Ron Hubbard that teaches people are immortal spiritual beings who have forgotten their true nature. Maybe you think that Scientology are people that worshipped science…hahahaha! Gosh, your lack of knowledge disturbs me. Mr. Joseph Perdon, John Travolta and Tom Cruise don’t worship science.

So instead of bitching here in the Internet and exposing your dirty underwear, why not work on your arguments and start focusing in reality. I would love to invite you on one of our meet-ups if you want. You could be one of our “special guess”.

Also, before you engage a debate with any member of the Filipino Freethinker or an atheist like me, please review the following subjects: Philosophy (especially logic), science, religion and in your case English Grammar. Review your subject-verb agreement.

And please: THINK FIRST BEFORE YOU WRITE!

Ay my papaya…as they say, to an ignoramus nothing is impossible.

Ciao!

We are now on Part 3 of my comments and I’m now going to tackle some of Pastor Vince’s issues using the Christian Bible.

Suffering (A Question on Job’s Theodicy)

There was this site that Pastor Vince recommended that we Freethinkers should read regarding why good people suffer.

After reading it, I noticed that it is quite typical for Christians to use the Book of Job to explain this theological dilemma. The Book of Job seems to be a good case in point why God allows good people to suffer…or does it?

Unfortunately to Pastor Vince and Bro. Tom, the Book of Job fell short in accomplishing such task.

In the first chapter of the said book, we find that Satan has tempted God in an issue regarding Job and his faith. Well…well…well…I thought God cannot be tempted? Now, in the first part of the test, God killed Job’s family…that I think is Test No. 1.

I thought God was omniscient? God perfectly and eternally knows all things which can be known, past, present, and future. So why did he need to give a test to Job? Surely he did not need to test Job’s faith because He already knew the entire outcome.

Why would God kill the herdsmen, the shepherds, the camel care-takers and Jobs’ sons and daughters? What did they do to deserve being killed? Job was the subject of the test, wasn’t he? These other people had their own lives and families.

Christians will quickly answer this by saying that since God gave us life, he has the right to take it back from us. Really? Is that a moral thing to do? If I gave someone something…like a gift, or blood…could I just demand to take it back? Are Christians telling me that God is such an “Indian giver”…there’s always a string attached to his gifts?

What is shocking on the Book of Job is that the whole story is really not about Job’s fidelity. Nope…the so-called test was not about Job nor his faith; it’s about a conversation between God and Satan. God was just proving to Satan that he was right, so he allowed Satan to inflict harm to Job and his family. Good grief!

Somewhere in the middle of the story, Job was allowed to see God and to ask the reason for his suffering. But instead of giving a clear answer, what this braggart (that Pastor Vince called “God”) did was to boast his inflated ego all over the pages of the book…Wow! Talk about a bigheaded son of a bitch!

So why would I worship such a jerk?

According to Bro. Tom, people suffer because of these five reasons: Adam’s sin, other people’s sin, our own sin, satanic oppression, and God’s chastening hand.

Ok…

Now why am I being punished for Adam’s sin? After all he and his wife were the ones who ate the “apple”, not me. (Note Deuteronomy 24:16 says: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.)

Why would God harm others for the sin of someone else? Why would God send famine and pestilence to kill innocent children to punish other people?

Why would God send storms or flood to some impoverished community in Bangladesh to punish a sinner living in a large penthouse in Beverly Hills, California?

Oh, and now we must blame Satan? Based on Job’s story Satan needed to get God’s approval first before he could make any damage, right? So why blame the “Yes Man”? It was God’s call, not Satan’s.

So just like these pastors, theologians and parishioners, both Pastor Vince and Bro. Tom are still struggling to find the answer to their own question and by using the Book of Job, the issue on “why do good people suffer” became more problematic than ever.

Who’s Right?

Pastor Vince: Yes, the Bible will be contradicting itself my friend espcially if the one interpreting the Scriptures interprets it all literally and as is without understanding the Bible itself.

I will not explain more of the Bible since it will be a one BIG GIANT topic to discuss. But I can assure you that most if not all of the passages quoted by the article you cited are simply a bunch of misinterpretations.

Who’s making a bunch of misinterpretations?

Ah…the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit, eh?

Pastor Vince, if I will put you in a police lineup, together with the Roman Catholics, the Mormons, the ADD, the INC and the Pentecostals, all of you guys will claim that you are “right” and everybody else is wrong. All of you are claiming certain knowledge on theological or biblical hermeneutical background.

Just an illustration: Let us look at your Matthew 16:17.
Your interpretation here is that it is telling us that faith is enough to be in heaven…Let me refresh your memory:

Biblical teaching from Ephesians 2:8-10 says:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Matt 16:17; Eph 1:19;
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Rom 3:27; Col 1:29;
10 For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.
To summarize this:
Grace (Coming from God) + Faith (coming from man) = Salvation
Totally different from what Catholic Church teaches:
Grace + Faith + Works = Salvation.

Roman Catholics interpret this differently. For them this is proof that Peter was the first Pope. According to the notes on the New American Bible, “[13-20] The Marcan confession of Jesus as Messiah, made by Peter as spokesman for the other disciples (Mark 8:27-29; cf also Luke 9:18-20), was modified significantly here. The confession was of Jesus both as Messiah and as Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Jesus’ response, drawn principally from material peculiar to Matthew, attributed the confession to a divine revelation granted to Peter alone (Matthew 16:17) making him the rock on which Jesus would build his church (Matthew 16:18) and the disciple whose authority in the church on earth would be confirmed in heaven, i.e., by God (Matthew 16:19)”.

Beside, the Bible also justifies faith with works. Jesus says that we need to do certain actions before we can be in heaven (see: Mt 5:16; Mt 13:3-9; Mt 16:27; Mt 25:34-36; Mark 10:17-25). You should also read James 3:14-26). Based on these passages, Roman Catholics can justify Grace + Faith + Works = Salvation.

Let’s face it: Christians interpret the Bible to fit their agenda. Martin Luther (1483-1541) created Sola fide to free him on his guilt so he could find inner peace. That is why most evangelical Christians teach the same doctrine…it all boils down to Martin Luther…to the Protestant Reformation.

There is really no truth in these so-called “Bible interpretations”. It’s not interpretation but rather justifications of a certain denomination’s doctrine.

In my last post I discussed the difference between belief, trust and faith, but before I go on, I would like to dive deeper into the subject.

We now know that belief encompasses anything that we accept as true – yet it doesn’t follow that before we arrive at a certain belief system we accept it without any evidence. As I have already said, not all beliefs are categorized as “faith”.

To illustrate this, maybe you guys have any idea on those people who are into NWO or “New World Order”. Conspiracy theorists believe on things like secret societies, that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen, or that the moon landing never happened, but they believe such things not on faith but on what they believe as evidences. They have “reason” to believe. Their “evidences” are: big, contemporary newsworthy events which may suit their “theory”; some so-called “anomalies; and of course big organizations. But whatever wacky ideas that come to their mind, it is still “evidence”.

Evidence is anything that increases the estimate of the probability of the truthfulness of the proposition.

I believe that the Sun is going to rise in the East and will set in the West tomorrow and that there is an “invisible” thing we called wind. Is that faith?

Nah…Knowing these things rely on evidence. We use data to predict an outcome of something – like the rising or setting of the Sun for example. Unless something beyond natural event happened tomorrow, we expect the Sun to rise in the East and set in the West based on and limited by repeatable, objective experience.

Pastor Vince: That’s right, you cannot see it. But you can see other things being moved by it. You can see the clouds being pushed by it, etc… But the question is, can you see the wind? Molecules??? You felt the matter, but not the molecules my friend.

In the issue of the wind for example, we can feel it but we can’t see it. But again, that is not faith. The reason that we can “feel” the wind is a proof that it exists. When we talk about feeling in an empirical context, we don’t assume its existence because we have the “conviction” it exists…nope, we’re not talking about being euphoric.

We don’t see air because the molecules that make up air (nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide, argon) just don’t happen to absorb light in the wavelengths our eyes can see.

Oh and molecules don’t exist?
Actually you can see a molecule. Since molecules move too fast and our eye can only see around 100 frames per second, if you saw a molecule it would be just a blur, maybe a sphere. But thanks to specialized microscopes, we can even see atoms. Also there is this device called scanning tunneling microscope (STM) that can be used to see a molecule (neat stuff eh?).

There are other evidences of the existence on molecules. Just pick up your physics and chemistry text book (do you have a copy Pastor Vince?).

If you hit a crystal with a beam of rays, the rays diffract into patterns which can be used to tell exactly where the atoms in the crystal are located. This technique, which was proposed by Sir William Bragg in the late 1800′s, only works if matter is made of atoms.

Botanist Robert Brown noticed that tiny objects like pollen grains shook and moved erratically when viewed under a microscope. Nearly seventy years later, Albert Einstein explained this “Brownian motion” as the result of bombardment by molecules. Einstein found his main clue to the size of molecules: how far the suspended particles move should depend on the number of molecules it takes to make one “mole”. Each time a fluid molecule bounced into a suspended particle, the particle would be moved a little, so after many bounces the particle might wind up in a quite different place. Einstein found that, if one mole equals so many molecules, the suspended particles would wander, on average, so far in one minute. If a mole only equals one fourth as many molecules so that each fluid molecule is four times as massive, the fluid molecules would hit hard enough for the suspended particles to wander, overall, twice as far in one minute.

Avogadro’s number is the number of molecules in one mole of any compound. There are dozens of different experimental methods for measuring Avogadro’s number. All give the same result. The fact that Avogadro’s number seems to be independent of any particular method implies that it actually has meaning- and so is strong circumstantial evidence that molecules actually exist.

Pastor Vince seems to forget, because of science, we can now see the wind.

Pascal’s Bad Bet

Pastor Vince: As for me, I would rather believe in God. For if I die and then there is no God, I will lose nothing. But if I believe that there is no God, then when I die I found out that there is God, then I lose everything.

Let’s talk about Pascal’s Wager.
Now, isn’t it funny that Christian evangelists like Pastor Vince always use Pascal’s Wager? Doesn’t he know Pascal’s wager was intended for Roman Catholic use? (Come on…give me something original.)

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) lived in a time when religious belief in Europe was simple; whether you’re a Roman Catholic or a non-believer. There were only two choices. In today’s Christianity for example, the wager can’t be that useful…let me explain.

How many dogma and doctrines does Christianity have today? Some Christians believe in the trinity while others don’t. Some believe in a human Christ, Biblical inerrancy, additional gospels (from the Gnostics)…whatever! Now what if Roman Catholicism turns out to be right and Born-Again Christianity is wrong. What will happen? What if “Sorianistas” are right or the Iglesia Ni Cristo is right? This is becoming a very bad bet.
Speaking of which, I’m just wondering…why would an omni-being punish those who don’t believe its existence? Does non-belief suck the very life-force of this “God being”? Does lack of worship weaken this “God”? It is really quite odd for a perfect, omni-being to require a need of worshippers and believers.

It seems this so-called “God” will wither and dry-out if people stop believing in its existence. So! It appears this God needs me that I need Him.

Enjoy it till it lasts

Pastor Vince: Do you think your life is wasted when you enjoy something doing it? Do you believe that your life is wasted for trying to prove that there is no God? I am pretty sure that you will answer that your life is not wasted for you have already judged my life that I already have wasted it.

But then again, going back to my question. Do you think your life is wasted when you enjoy the things you are doing and that it is with a purpose?

So according to Pastor Vince, if a person enjoys something, that won’t waste his life. Hmmmm…eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die eh?

Let me tell you a story of a person who enjoyed his youthful life going to sleazy bars and “beer houses” to have fun. Sure, don’t tell me he’s not enjoying every minute of it. Drinking all night long to drown his problems and his mundane existence with whiskey and beer.

Now that he’s 75 years old…what happened? What did he achieve?

The same reason can be heard on kids who waste their time “enjoying” leisure with their friends instead of going to school…(Have you heard the Nonoy Zuniga song “Sa Panaginip Lang”?)

Pastor Vince: Well, as a Christian myself, I don’t think that it is a waste of life to believe in God, just as you believe that there is no GOd. I enjoy exercising my faith with a purpose and with the hope of second life while you enjoy searching and reasoning that there is no GOd with the hope that there is no second life. What life have been wasted then? I simply believe that I have made a better preparation of what it is to come or “if there will be no second life at all.” It’s not a waste of life my friend.

Drug addiction also has the same effect. You enjoy being a “junkie”. You enjoy all the euphoria while speed-balling or injecting or snuffing Methamphetamine on your system. Something like belief in a so-called “promise of an after-life in heaven” can do. So, to say that it is not a waste of time to prepare for an after-life with God is the same excuse a blotter user would say when he’s “high”.

Before I start, I would like to thank the Christians who visit the Filipino Freethinkers website and grace its pages with their…er…”reasonable” comments.

To make it more interesting, I would like to share a little of my mind…a personal analysis perhaps on Pastor Vince Orlaer’s comments on religion, faith, atheism and his defense on the Bible and Christianity.

Religion

Yes it NEVER requires religion; but that religious faith produces religion.
Religion is the way you practice your faith.
It’s like “You can give without loving, but you cannot love without giving.”
Therefore, “You can practice your religion without faith, but you cannot practice faith without practicing religion.”

Uh…I think religion is not only the way to practice your faith but religion is synonymous with faith. The word religion can be interchanged with faith. That’s why we call it Buddhist faith, Hindi faith, Jewish faith, Islamic faith and Christian faith.

Now, defining religion can really be nose-bleed since there are many ideas, interpretations and “what-nots” about it. But we can at least narrow it down to something coherent.

Christianity is not all about religion. Religion will in no way get you to heaven. It may be an instrument in understanding the underlying principles of true Christianity, but it’s not enough to get to heaven. Our relationship to Christ is what matters.

Narrowing what is common to all religions will displace the myth that Christianity is not one of them. Most books will agree with me that different faiths have the following concepts in common:
(1.) Belief in some kind of a supernatural being (sometimes called gods, devas, etc.)
(2.) Rituals
(3.) A moral code given by supernatural means (or a Supernatural being).
(4.) Prayers
(5.) A belief in a certain world view that gives an individual a so-called purpose or meaning.

Come on! All these concepts are present in Christianity, aren’t they? Fundamentalists/Evangelical Christians may deny it but it won’t make the facts go away – whether it’s true Christianity or not.

Belief and Faith

It seems Pastor Orlaer got a little confused between “belief” and “faith”. OK let’s clear the mess that he just made.

First, let’s do some defining:
A belief is how you accept something as true. Easy, huh? So based on this simple definition we can say that faith is also a kind of belief. But not all beliefs are the same as faith.

But hey! My pocket dictionary says that both faith and belief are synonymous with the word “trust”!
Hay my papaya! That’s the problem with pocket dictionaries.

As I have said, not all beliefs are categorized as faith. Why? Because not all beliefs are without, or against, reason.

Why? What is faith?

Faith believes without proof or evidence.

Now that we already know the difference between the two, we can now look at Pastor Orlaer’s statements.

Religious faith is just one form. But you yourself exercise faith like sitting on a chair. You sit on a chair because you believe that the chair can comfort you. You drive a car because you believe it can bring you somewhere.

Faith, Trust, Belief/Believe …. all these are synonymous terms, my friend. How can you say you trust yet you do not have faith that you can definitely sit down on the chair? Hope you are getting my point. You sit because you trust that the chair is stable. And because you trust, you have faith that it can carry you. Trust and Faith (the real meaning) cannot be separated from each other.

Sitting on a chair or driving a car doesn’t require faith. First, we all know that chairs and cars exist. Second, we also know what chairs and cars are for.

Trust is not blind belief. You trust something or someone because you see particular characteristics on that something that will win your confidence. That’s what advertisements are for.

Trust is something you come to after a long process of give-and-take. Trustworthiness is confirmed by observation. It’s a learned process while faith is something that doesn’t require knowledge. Faith is about something that has not yet come to pass and its actuality has no evidence. It depends on the unknowable, the incomprehensible and the claim that it is beyond reason and logic. Therefore, trust and faith can be separated.

Until next time…

To escape the problem, believers seem to assert that religious faith is very different from faith per se. According to believers, faith, like reason, is a method of acquiring knowledge. So there! Reason and faith are not the same but different systems. Some say that faith is above reason. Others, like most theologians today, accept faith as compatible with reason…but faith is…as they say, the last recourse. Everything that reason cannot explain must rely on faith, and some believers insist that reason assists faith (liberal Christians are more into this kind of faith.)

Nevertheless, whatever its use is, well…faith is still not reason.

Let me illustrate this.

Suppose Wikipedia tells me that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. If I accept this because I have faith in Wikipedia…will that make faith compatible with reason? Some believers say that, “Reason tells me that my faith in what Wikipedia tells me is justified because such things have been (or can be) scientifically demonstrated by technical experts with the proper equipment. My faith in what Wikipedia tells me can be backed up by evidence.”

It seems these believers are not talking about an act of faith. First, the article in Wikipedia can be collaborated in other books. If Wikipedia declares that light speed is 299,792, 465 we can always check it using other books available. Remember, in the example, it is the Wikipedia article about the speed of light that’s in question, not the speed of light itself. You do not need to verify the speed yourself or to measure it. All you have to do is to check other books that claim this. At least you may have an accurate or near accurate figure to the Wiki’s claim. Furthermore, we assume that these believes have already heard of light speed – Gosh! Every wide reader knows that light has a speed, so it is not strange for Wikipedia to have an article about light speed. That means the Wikipedia article about light speed has evidence and it already came to pass.

Will I say that I have faith in something if I feel my proposition is backed-up by evidences? If I said that, I will sound ridiculous. If you are so cock sure about the claim and you believe that it is backed-up by evidences, you do not need to address it as faith. I will never say that I have faith in the existence of the aswang (Philippine Ghoul Demon) or mananaggal (Self-Segmenting Viscera Sucker), UFO, Area 51 and that space man who lives under the White House because I believe they are true and that there are evidences that point to their existence. Nor will I say that I have faith in Fung Shui or astrology or Extra Sensory Perception if I believe that they are backed-up with scientific evidences. Remember that faith is belief in some proposition that is without evidence. If it is backed up by evidence (or it claims to have an evidence), then technically speaking that is not faith. You will not hear a parapsychologist claiming he has faith that ghosts exist. That’s because he already believes that the existence of ghosts are backed up by evidences…of scientific proofs.

Hey, do not blame me with this definition of faith!

According to Fr. Pablo Pastells, faith cannot be called the result of a reasoning process; it is a supernatural gift from God our Lord. Inasmuch as it is the beginning and source of justification, it cannot be acquired by our natural powers without the necessary assistance of divine grace. Faith is a voluntary act of homage by which man freely submits his reason to the authority of the revealing God. Faith is not blind for it finds support in the evidence and irrefutable motives of credibility which assure us of the objective truth, or the existence of revealed dogmas, even if our limited rational faculties cannot comprehend them.

Nevertheless, though it is human, hence deliberate and free, the supernatural act of faith cannot be blind. For the will reasonably submits the understanding to the yoke of faith, that is, to the authority of the revealing God. And both intellect and will, enlightened and strengthened by divine grace, give assent to the revealed truths of the supernatural order. (Fourth letter of Pastells to Rizal dated April 28, 1893)

Obviously, Fr. Pastells’ definition of faith is highly influenced by Thomas Aquinas. This brings us to the problem of Thomas Aquinas’ concept of faith. Aquinas believed that reason and faith could not contradict each other because they come from the same divine source. He is really against Averroës’ (Mohammed ibn Roshd) concept of the so-called twofold-truth theory that states a proposition may be philosophically true although theologically false (or vice versa). So in order to understand both Pastells and Aquinas’ view on faith:

P is not capable of rational demonstration until proposition Q (God revealed P).
However, proposition Q can be true if (1.) it must assume that God exists (2) miracles occur within the Christian church (3) scriptural prophesies have been fulfilled. Therefore, P is compatible with rationality.

For Thomas Aquinas faith is rational if we accept some proposition as true by means of…well you guessed it – FAITH! Let me elaborate. According to him, there are two kinds of faith: faith that is guided by reason (which he called general revelation), and that which cannot be demonstrated with human reason (special revelation). Let us concentrate on the “general revelation”. Based on Aquinas’ definition, you have to be preconditioned to some belief to accept natural theology as revealed truths. Without it, his general revelations fall apart.

Therefore, you need to rely on faith for you to make faith rational. Does it sound circular or it is just me? To make faith “rational”, you have to accept proposition (1) That God exists without question. According to Aquinas, he already proved it using his Quinque Viae (Five Ways). You also have to accept propositions (2) and (3). Remember, in theology, appeal to authority carries most weight; in philosophy, it carries least. Let us make something non-religious as an example: If we use Aquinas’ definition of faith by general revelation, well…

Suppose you went to see an “albulario” (faith healer) to cure a growing tumor in your balls. The albulario told you if you want to get better, you have to drink a potion made from the fruit of the “tuba-tuba” plant.

Using Thomas Aquinas’ general revelation, faith becomes reason when we accept the albulario’s claim for a cure if (1.) You accept that the tuba-tuba plant juice will heal the tumor in your testicles. (2.) You believe the town folks that say the “tuba-tuba” plant is medicinal. (3.) There is a book written by their ancestors that says the tuba-tuba plant is medicinal.

Without investigating evidences that will back-up proposition (1), (2) and (3), you drink the prescription because you think you are being reasonable with your faith in the albulario’s treatment, not even knowing that the tuba-tuba fruit is poisonous. You did not really use your reason here because you just accepted this point blank!

If the patient accepts this prescription by faith, he is not being rational, yet that is what Thomas Aquinas wants us to accept. What can I say about Aquinas in the issue of reason? In his writings, Aquinas gives more weight to faith rather than reason. Being a devoted Catholic and a believer, Aquinas believed that he already knew the absolute truth, truth as declared by the Catholic faith! If he could find apparently rational arguments to back-up his faith, so much the better; if he couldn’t, he needed only to fall back on divine revelation. That is not reasoning, that is special pleading. Therefore, Thomas Aquinas’ faith by general revelation has failed to provide us the link between faith and reason.

We now go to Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard’s definitions of faith. According to Kant, faith is the acceptance of ideals, which are theoretically indemonstrable, yet necessarily entailed by the indubitable reality of freedom. I think he calls faith as practical belief. Kierkegaard believes that faith is a total and passionate commitment to God.

Gosh! It is epistemology – but epistemic sense represents our knowledge about the world, which requires that we believe a given proposition to be true, not because we just want to feel good about it! Is Kant and Kierkegaard’s faith compatible with reason? Can I put someone behind bars just because it feels good? Will I believe Jun Lozada’s testimony not on the merits of his evidence but because I hate the First Gentleman Mike Arroyo’s ugly mug? You call that reason?

In trying to figure out the mind of Kierkegaard, a defender of faith may say, “Kierkegaard does not suggest that belief is not rational, but rather, it is not just a rational act. Sure, belief includes the passionate decision to make that “leap of faith” but no way is Kierkegaard suggesting that this leap is “blind” because the individual has to know (or has to have the reason) what they are leaping for. The individual must at least understand Christianity as the paradox of the Transcendent god entering into history as god incarnate (Christ), and must know why one needs to leap over the mystery of Christianity. (Because our sin prohibits us from understanding God.)

Faith, which Kierkegaard contends is a gift from God, is a necessary tool in overcoming our incapability to understand God (because of sin). This is the reason behind his words that faith is needed to believe in the paradox and the absurd. Faith, as per the context of Kierkegaard’s mind, is based on this reason; faith is not merely from a blind leap.”

However, such belief will also lead us to the problem of Aquinas’ “general revelation”. In order to apply Kierkegaard’s faith to reason, you have to leap “by faith” on Kierkegaard’s concept of god, sin and Christianity. That is circular reasoning.

We now go to Wittgensteinian fideism.

Blogger El Sordo from his blog, “Yet There Is Method In It”, offers an explanation through an example:

“Consider a group of Catholic theologians who meet on Wednesday afternoons to discuss metaphysical questions. These people use a number of curious words and expressions such as ‘essence’, ‘ground of being’, ‘grace’, ‘dialectic’, and so on. Yet the discourse in progress clearly is not arbitrary, but rule-guided. A beginner who uses an expression incorrectly is reprimanded, and may even be ostracized if he or she does not conform. Within the group it is well known who are the experts whose pronouncements are listened to with most respect, and so on. Here we could propose is a language-game, it is a rule-guided activity and probably (being religious) is a form of life. Within this language game, words and expressions have a use which is circumscribed by rules and conventions. On Wittgenstein’s later theory of meaning, therefore, we must surely say that these words and expressions have meaning, and that the metaphysical discourse is (to its game-players at least) meaningful.”

This whole language-game philosophy is on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s beetle in the box story. In Philosophical Investigations (1953), Wittgenstein says:
Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a “beetle.” No one can look into anyone else’s box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle.— Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing. —But suppose the word “beetle” had a use in these people’s language? —If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no place in the language game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even be empty. —No, one can “divide through” by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is. [Section 293]

According to Wittgenstein, religious discourse is embedded in a form of life and has its own rules and logic. It can only be understood and evaluated in its own terms, and any attempt to impose standards on such discourse from the outside – for example, from science – is quite inappropriate. Since religious discourse is a separate unique language game different from science, religious statements, unlike scientific ones, are not empirically testable.

I have used Wittgenstein to secure my contention that faith is not reason nor it is compatible with reason. I will now elaborate this using El Sordo’s example. If you notice El Sordo used a singular group in his example, which was a group of Catholic theologians. He is right that any person outside the group may not understand their religious language play. However, what if the group started to talk about Catholic doctrine like the Eucharist (where the Catholic believes that the bread and wine will transform into the actual blood and flesh of Christ) and a “Born-Again” Christian is listening. Well even that Christian (which also uses the same religious terms like essence’, ‘ground of being’, ‘grace’, ‘dialectic’, and so on…) will be estranged with the Catholics’ discourse. Let’s see…in a Catholic language game, the Pope is infallible in spiritual matters but the Born-Again Christian language game makes the Pope fallible. Gosh! I can’t distinguish who’s right between the two! The problem with Wittgensteinian’s fideism is that it will make it appear that all religious discourse uttered by different religions are relative to the language game in which they belong. How can we use reason if there is no place for errors in the religious language-game? How can we make any investigation and arrive at any conclusion if truth is relative in the religious language-game? If believers claim that Wittgenstein’s religious language game secures religious faith, its relativity makes it irrational.

On the contention of Griffith-Thomas and McGrath in relation to faith, well what can I say…It is suggested that both people agree with Aquinas’ notion of “General Revelation”, it is a logical conclusion to say that both also fell on the issue of the problems of Aquinas’ general revelation.

As I have said earlier on this article, do not blame me on the definition of faith. According to the Christian sacred book (which is the Bible):

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. – Hebrew 11:1

That means faith is to believe something which has not yet come to pass or for which one has no evidence. However, most believers sometimes contradict this very definition of faith. For them, faith must reconcile with reason. A reasonable faith? Sounds like an oxymoron.

How does a believer reconcile faith with reason? Typically, a believer has to place reason in a narrow framework and then place this framework in a large sphere occupied by faith. Then the believer will create a scenario to place faith as compatible to reason by making reason accept the believer’s “truth” derived from special pleading from his source of authority which was derived from…that’s right folks…faith!

So now, you know the secret of this magic trick.

Looking at Mr. Daniel Razon’s reasoning we can clearly see the problem: People like him have defined goodness as equal to God. There are two versions of this “argument” – One, Goodness and God are almost the same entity (based of some quotes from the Judeo-Christian holy scripture) and Two, As long as there is goodness and a person believes that goodness exists, there is a moral Lawgiver which is God.

According to the article I have read regarding Mr. Razon’s so-called refutation on the issue of being good without God, he used several Bible passages such as Mark 10:17-18 and Psalms 100:5. VIOLA! Case closed…or is it?

I don’t know…Is Mr. Razon pulling us by the leg? Anyway, based on his..er…refutation..Uh what makes God good? Is it his love, his mercy or his sense of justice?

And what is meant by “good”?

Goodness is an action that purposely benefits the human organism or society. That’s how I define it. The problem here is that people like Daniel Razon simply equate goodness to God, based on their holy scripture. Christian apologists like Giesler and Ravi Zacarias for example use this to connect God to the concept of a moral Lawgiver – So God must be good all the time. But is the goodness of God based on the Bible just a perception of the writer on how goodness should be defined? It seems like it. God is good because the author of a particular chapter in the Bible wants God to be good…based on his own definition of goodness. For example, God is good because He supposedly loves the people of Israel. That’s not a universal definition of “good”. Is it?

According to the authors of Mark and Psalms only God is good. But do these writers include…well those other books in the Bible that Daniel Razon didn’t include in his argument? Verses like: Numbers 31: 17-18, 1 Samuel 15:3 and Ezekiel 9: 4-7.

Tell me, are slaying infants, the elderly and women amount to goodness?

How about verses like Numbers 11: 1-2; 16:27-32, Lev. 10:1-2 and 2Kings 2: 23-24? Do they tell us of an onmi-benevolent deity that is full of mercy? Giving punishments that are shockingly harsh in comparison to the acts committed is not about mercy and justice.

Why do we need to kill innocent lambs, bulls and doves to appease a so-called good God? Surely an omni-benevolent deity does not need blood and death to calm his nerves.

There more of these found in the pages of the Old Testament which lead Thomas Paine to write, “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.” [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

How about the New Testament?
Sure the New Testament contains some good moral value…but again the whole plot of the book is about blood sacrifices. Again, why is blood and death necessary to mollify the wrath of an omni-benevolent God?

Also, there are some stories and parables that were told by Jesus that betray the concept of an omni-benevolent Father in heaven like that of Luke 19:27 and Matt. 15:22-28.

It is also interesting to note that Jesus believed that love could be commanded and that those who disagreed with him would be damned. He believed in compulsion to comply with his viewpoint. He also portrayed his Father in heaven as the instigator of a morality based on “promises and threats” – too far from Daniel Razon’s “Good God”.

In the light of the following issues, it seems that Daniel Razon and others like him have failed to prove that goodness is impossible without God. In fact it seems that goodness is independent from God.

Besides, since God’s goodness is prescribed by rewards…well it really doesn’t tell us exactly what is “good”. Goodness is good because it is good – not because of benefits or by force. People who do well solely for personal gain or to avoid personal harm are not about being “good” – it is self-interest.

There are other sources of being good…contrary to popular Christian belief. For example, there is what we call our “common moral decencies” which are deeply rooted in us for our survival as a species as Joseph Fletcher wrote based on his studies in 1979:

1.) Our highest good is survival of the human race – Our posterity has a moral claim on us for the consideration, both as to its safety and as to its biological improvement.

2.) Look at how the consequences will, on balance, effect the total human well being.

A rational person needs no God belief to understand that murder or lying is bad. It’s not because God opposes them, but because of the consequences these acts will produce in the human community. Morality as I have already said is deeply rooted in human experience for our survival.

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.

Etymology is the development of words, and like other words, “god” evolved. Without Old English, the word god has no meaning. That’s because the idea of word “god” resides in the origin the word.

“God” started from the Sanskrit word “hub” or “emu”. Later this will become the root of the Gothic term “gheu”. So the word god came from India, then it traveled to the Eastern Germanic Europeans and then to England in about 450 to 1050 CE. At that time, Bede and Adlhelm were translating the Bible from Old Latin to Old English.

So “deus” was transformed to “god” not because that was the Supreme Being’s name but because that was the language of the Anglo Saxons. Most Latin words were of Greco-Roman origin. The Latin deus came from the Greek word theos. So where did the word theos (θεός) come from? It was derived from the Proto-Indo-European root dhēs- which means “to call” or “to invoke”.

It was also said that the word theos was derived from two Greek verbs theoro (I see) and theo (to run). All seeing and all moving huh? Well that’s according to John Scuttus Eruigena.

But the name Zeus (The top god of Olympus) was derived from the Proto-Indo-European root dyeu- which means “to shine”. The notion of a deity was therefore linked to the notion of the bright sky. Well may I add that for Indo-Europeans, the society of the gods was conceived in the image of their own society as patriarchal.

Even the Filipino word diyos or dios came from the Spanish deos which can again be traced back from the Greek word theos. Another Filipino word for god is Bathala, from Sanskrit bhattara which means something honorific, something venerable, and worshipful.

So the word god is actually nothing but a label which embodied a being that is supposed to be Almighty. Without human ideas, “god” is nothing but a meaningless, hollow word.

I think the best meaning of the word god is the personification of human ideas of human qualities expanded beyond human limits.

When I was young I always watched this cartoon about Dick Dastardly and his dog Muttley. I think the title was “Stop that Pigeon”. In one of its episodes, Dick hired a guru named “Swami” to help them capture the pigeon. What really happened was a disaster. Speaking of swamis and gurus, these guys always try their best to project themselves as wise men especially in the issues of spiritualism, a spiritual leader that can be asked for different spiritual questions. Well…that was what I thought.

Enter Mr. Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa (whew! That was a long name…) also known as Jagat Guru or Mr. Cris Buttler. Like other known guru, Mr. Guru is a master of cocktail drinks, eagerly combining Christian and Hindu mythology to create a new exhilarating swig of a new cult, mixing Jesus and Krishna to create another intoxicant eagerly consumed by a drunken believer. Well personally I really don’t give a damn about this cult leader…until I have read one of his literature.

In a booklet sold in local bookstore entitled Dead Friend, YOU ARE NOT GOD (Copyright by SCIENCE OF IDENTITY INSTITUTE), Mr. Guru tackled the impersonalist philosophy. They are those people who think that we are god or a part of this god or that god forgot he is god or whatever – I really don’t care too much of this impersonalist’s claims. What strikes me the most in this booklet is that Mr. Guru started to include atheism in his subject. He and his cohorts accused atheism as impersonalism in disguise.

Now here’s what I feel. I think yoga, chants and idleness disguised as meditation were already overused by other cult authors so Mr. Guru started to think of another tactic to sell his cocktail cult and that is by talking about topics that are too alien to him. That’s why he started to use atheism as an issue to sell his guru booklets.

Let us look at his claims – According to Mr. Guru, “…The impersonalist philosophy leads to atheism and materialism.” Now how on Earth can a person who thinks he is god become an atheist? An atheist is a person that doesn’t believe in a god –PERIOD! If a person doesn’t believe in a god that doesn’t mean he imagines himself as a god. If a person thinks he is god then technically god exists – which is he, and therefore he is now a theist.

In Jagat Guru’s explanation ( page 28) he said that “to equate the living entity with God is to deny the existence of God. For there to be a master, there must be a servant. If you equate the servant to the master, the master is no longer a master. To equate the soul with the Supreme Soul is to say there is no Supreme Soul.” But the explanation doesn’t justify the reason why impersonalism becomes atheism. In the first place, if the person thinks he is the Supreme Soul, the concept of Supreme Soul does not cease to exist; it just changes. An impersonalist merely changed the property of the Supreme Soul. An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of the so-called supreme soul. That is very elementary, Mr. Guru. Haven’t you thought about that?

Guru continues: “…atheism denies the glories of the Supreme Lord (Page 28).” Again how can we deny something that doesn’t exist? If we use the word “deny” that means this so-called supreme lord has always existed. The problem is that Mr Guru cannot even tell me what lord he is talking about: Jesus is Lord, Krishna is Lord, gambling lord, drug lord, Lord Darth Vader, Lord of the Rings? What? Before you claim that someone is being denied, you have to establish its existence first.

Mr. Guru thinks that atheism will lead to materialism and talk about “super materialism.” Now what the hell is this “super materialism”? Another of Mr. Guru’s concoctions I suppose. We see how Mr. Guru tries to talk about things he really doesn’t understand. Well, if his booklet is aimed for those uninformed nincompoops out there then I will close my case. But when you try selling your garbage in bookstores then there’s a chance it can be found by the learned few.

A materialist can be an atheist but not all atheists are materialists. A materialist (or physicalist) is a person that believes matter is the only source of reality; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions. But the concept of reality is still debatable even with fellow atheists. I have seen and talked to other atheists who have strong tendencies towards rationalism. So there are some atheists out there who are rationalists, and rationalism is the exact opposite of what materialism stands for. Materialism is not about being selfish. It has nothing to do about believing that you are god. A materialist doesn’t believe he is in the center of the universe or that he created everyone. No, that is not materialism. He just doesn’t believe in the existence of the “meta-physical”. Materialism and atheism will not cause the destruction of our civilized society as what Mr. Jagat Guru claims (page 34). That is a very long shot. Just look at traditional Buddhism. Is this Jagat Guru’s tactics, to scare the wits of his readers using their ignorance in order for them to believe his so-called “truths”? Sa totoo lang, some organized religions have cause a lot of destruction and death to the civilized world. Well terrorism and ethnic violence are religion-fueled hatred.

So here’s the fact. Cult gurus are like a snake-oil salesmen. They feed you half-truths and prearranged lies to sell their spurious merchandise. So what do they deserve? Well as Dick Dastardly said, they are just phony little swamis with lumps all over their little bodies.