Pinoy Atheist: My journey as a Filipino atheist in Manila.

Welcome to my new journey.

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:13:00 +0000

Please visit my new place @ http://thepinoyatheist.blogspot.com/

Thanks.

Atheista ka ba? Opo Atheista po ako. (Part 3)

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Sat, 25 May 2013 15:42:00 +0000

Jesus Story

Mapunta naman tayo sa paliwanag nya tungkol kay Hesus. Ayon sa may akda binasihan nya ang kanyang idea na mapapatunayan ng mga atheist na hindi nagkaroon ng HesuKristo batay sa pahayag ng Website na http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html na nagsasabing:

The elimination of the OT leaves only the New Testament (NT) “evidence” and extrabiblical material to be considered. Essentially, the NT is composed of two types of documents: letters and would-be biographies (the so-called gospels). A third category of writing, apocalyptic, of which the Book of Revelation is an example, also exists, but it gives no support for the historicity of Jesus. In fact, it would appear to be an intellectual fossil of the thought-world from which Christianity sprang – a Jewish apocalypse that was reworked for Christian use. The main character of the book (referred to 28 times) would seem to be “the Lamb,” an astral being seen in visions (no claims to historicity here!), and the book overall is redolent of ancient astrology.

(Note: ang sinasabi nyang "link" ay hindi gumagana at ang tamang basihan ay dito matatagpuan. )

Teka...Thomas Paine? Anong kinalalaman ni Paine sa artikulong isinuklat ni Mr. Frank R. Zindler? Anyway, since ang bigla nyang kinalaban eh ang Examination of Prophecy ni Thomas Paine, mamaya na lang natin balikan ang unang katanungan nya,

Ayon sa Examination of Prophecy ni Thomas Paine, hindi nya tinatangap na ang Psalms 22:18 ay may kinalalaman sa pagkakapako ni HesuKristo, Ayon kay Paine ang nakasulat sa Mateo 27:35 ay isang hinaing ng taong naniniwala na sya ay anak ng isang diyos at hindi isang propesiya. Now...eksakto ba ang nasusulat sa Mga Awit ikumpara sa Mateo para masabi na isa itong prophecy? Tutal eh humihingi ang katolikong may akda ng paliwanag...

Una, ikumpara natin ang dalawang talata:

Sa Ingles...

Psalms 22:18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Matthew 27:35 When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Ang Psalms ba eh isang prophesiya tungkol kay Hesus? Ayon kay Thomas Paine ang Mga Awit ay isinulat ng maraming may akda at ang naturang bersikulo na ito ay nagsasaad tungkol sa hinagpis ng manunulat hindi isang bagay na sinasabing magyayari sa mga susunod na panahon. Ito ay nasusular sa "present tense" na ibig sabihin ay isang kasalukuyang nagaganap habang sinusulat ito ng may-aksa ng Awit, Ito ay ginawang propesiya ni Mateo ng isinulat nya ang kanyang ebanghelyo. Malinaw naman ang paliwanag ni Thomas Paine tungkol dito at mukhang ang ating Katolikong taga-basa lang ang hindi nakaintindi.

Mapunta naman tayo kay Ceasar.

Ayon kay Frank R. Zindler:

It may be conceded that it is not surprising that there are no coins surviving from the first century with the image of Jesus on them. Unlike Tiberius Cæsar and Augustus Cæsar who adopted him, Jesus is not thought to have had control over any mints. Even so, we must point out that we do have coins dating from the early first century that bear images of Tiberius that change with the age of their subject. We even have coins minted by his predecessor, Augustus Cæsar, that show Augustus on one side and his adopted son on the other. 1 Would Mr. Wright have us believe that these coins are figments of the imagination? Can we be dealing with fig-mints?

Statues that can be dated archaeologically survive to show Tiberius as a youth, as a young man assuming the toga, as Cæsar, etc. Engravings and gems show him with his entire family. Biographers who were his contemporaries or nearly so quote from his letters and decrees and recount the details of his life in minute detail. There are contemporary inscriptions all over the former empire that record his deeds. There is an ossuary of at least one member of his family, and the Greek text of a speech made by his son Germanicus has been found at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. And then there are the remains of his villa on Capri. Nor should we forget that Augustus Cæsar, in his Res Gestæ (“Things Accomplished”), which survives both in Greek and Latin on the so-called Monumentum Ancyranum, lists Tiberius as his son and co-ruler.

Is there anything advocates of an historical Jesus can produce that could be as compelling as this evidence for Tiberius? I think not, and I thank N. T. Wright for making a challenge that brings this disparity so clearly to light.

Bilang kasagutan sa argumneto ni Zindler, sinabi ng may akda na, "Unang pagkakamali sa argumentong ito ay ang pagkukumpara sa dalawang nilalang na magkaiba ang estado sa lipunan nung mga panahong yaon. Si Tiberius Ceasar ay isang makapangyarihang emperador ng Roma samantalang si Kristo ay isang ordinaryong hudyo na naninirahan sa Jerusalem. Marapat lamang na ang mga pisikal na bagay na nauugnay sa isang pamosong tao sa kasaysayan ng mundo ay bigyang halaga at pag-iingat tulad ng pag-iingat sa unang bandila ng Pilipinas, sa Fort Santiago, sa mga pader ng Intramuros at iba pa. Ngunit para sa isang ordinaryong mamamayan nung panahong iyon, sino sa palagay ninyo ang mag-aabala upang tipunin ang mga pisikal na bagay na bahagi ng buhay ni Kristo maliban sa Kanyang mga taga-sunod? Gamit ang lohika, masasabi nating mali ang tinatawag na point of comparison ng nasabing may-akda kung kaya’t ligwak agad ang argumentong kanilang ibinibigay."

Tandaan natin na ang sinasagot ng artikulo ni Zindler ay ang argumento na ginamit ni N.T.Wright sa kanyang aklat na Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress 1996). Sinabi ni Wright na mas madali pa raw na paniwalaan na hindi umiral si Tiberius Ceasar kaysa sabihi8n na hindi totoong umiral si Hesus.

Ay naku po...suguro naman mas maganda na basahin mo muna yung artikulong binabatikos mo bago ka bumatikos. Ganyan ba ang pag-gamit ng "lohika?"

Pero sige, pasukin natin ang argumento ng Katolikong may-akda. Ayon sa kanya, kaya may mga naiwang ibedensya si Tiberius Ceasar eh dahil sikat sya, tama ba? Papaano mga taga sunod ni Hesus? Wala ba silang ebidensya? Yung mga record o kaya mga census, hindi ba't ma-ituturing na ebidensya mga ito? Wag nyo namang sabihin na sikat na tao lang ang may mga record sa census ng mga Romano?

Pero mabalik tayo sa kanyang salita na sinasabing nakabase lamang ang argumento ng mga ateista tunkol kay Hesus base lamang sa dalawang aspeto (pisikal na ebidensya at sa kamalian at pagkakaiba ng istorya ng Ebanghelyo). Totoo ba ito? Dito nga lang baito nakabasi?

Maraming dahilan kung bakit ang mga ateista na katulad ko ay hindi naniniwala sa pagkakairal ni HesuKristo bukod sa kanyang mga nasabi:
1.) Kawalan ng

Ukol naman sa sinasabing inconsistencies and discrepancies sa mga ebangheloyo ng bagong tipan, marapat nating isaisip na ang mga may-akda ng mga ebanghelyo ng bagong tipan ay may kanya-kanyang paraan ng pagsulat at pag-atake sa kanilang pagpapahayag ng mga aral at karanasan sa piling ng Panginoong HesuKristo. Sapagkat ang bawat isa sa mga ito ay may sariling karanasan na nais nilang ibahagi sa mga mambabasa. At sapat na ito upang magkaroon sila ng magkakaibang istilo ng pagsulat. Wala akong kilalang dalawang magkaibang manunulat ng libro o kuwento na mayroong eksaktong parehas na istilo. At ito ang isang bagay na di kayang unawain ng mga ateistang ito. Ang tanong ko, bakit tinatanggap nila ang pagkakaiba ng istilo ng mga pamosong manunulat tulad ni Shakespeare at Hawthorne pero di nila matanggap ang pagkakaiba ng istilo ng pagsulat ni Lukas, Mateo, Markos at Juan? Kataka-taka hindi ba?

Si Kristo ay tunay na lumakad sa mundong ating ginagalawan mahigit 2000 taon na ang nakakaraan. Ito ay malinaw na pinatototohanan ng mga ebanghelyo ng Banal na Kasulatan. Mga ebanghelyong napatotohanang totoo at isinulat ng mga totoong nilalang.

Higit sa lahat, ang katotohanan ng kabanalan ng Panginoong Hesus ay di marapat na ibase lamang sa mga pisikal na patotoo. Di tulad ng isang ordinaryong tao, ang pananalig natin sa Panginoong Hesus ay nakabatay sa personal na karanasan. Sa isang personal na relasyon kung saan nararamdaman natin ang Kanyang pagmamahal, patnubay, gabay at pagpapapala. Hindi ito isang pananalig na nakabatay lamang sa isang piraso ng tela, damit o anumang pisikal na gamit at pamamasaysay.

Para ka lang nakipag-away sa bata (Its like you just fought a child.)

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 01:58:00 +0000

I find this too embarrassing. Nope, not on the atheist side of the camp but on those people who keep promoting this video. ADD members always show this YouTube video as their so-called "proof" that their so-called "Sugo" can face an atheist.

WTF?

I won't include how obvious this "sugo" is so misinformed about evolution, but to keep promoting this as an "evidence?"

The guy Mr. Eliseo Soriano is facing is just a kid, for crying out loud. No intelligent person in his right mind will take this video seriously. Look , you won't find Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and even the late Christopher Hitchens spill their guts out in front of a yuppy.

My gulay!

Don't bother me, I'm protesting!

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:53:00 +0000

Deceiving facts?

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 15:25:00 +0000

If you are trying to state a "fact" why do you need to tell a lie about it?

According to a Pro-Life article that appearing in the CBCP website, "3. The RH Bills will destroy the family.

Will the greater availability of contraception improve the conditions of the family? Contraceptives bring about the downgrading of marriage, more extramarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, according to the studies of Nobel prize winner, George Akerlof. (See: Science Facts on the RH Bills IN PLAIN LANGUAGE.)

Yet in his written response, Akerlof said, "In my opinion, giving women, whether single or married, the right to choose can only increase the dignity of marriage and its sanctity."

Akerlof's research concluded that America's legalized abortion, as well as modern contraceptive technology, changed the American socio-sexual paradigm, as out-of-wedlock childbearing was now perceived as a woman's choice, which relieved men of any social obligation to marry the women or support their children.

The research, conducted within an American cultural framework, is not generalizable to the culture of the Philippines, where abortion is still illegal and single mothers are common.

Akerlof had not previously known that his research, which was on American out-of-wedlock childbearing, was cited in the Philippines by opponents of the RH Bill.

When asked about his stance on the bill, he wrote: "I support fully, and without qualification, the bill in the Philippines to promote, without bias, all effective natural and modern methods of family planning that are medically safe and legal."

"Contraceptives and abortion, in my opinion, make family life richer and more rewarding because they reduce the number of unwanted children, which is bad for the family, and also bad for the children as well," he added.

Akerlof is the Koshland Professor of Economics at the University of California-Berkeley, and a 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Akerlof was moved to comment on the issue after being contacted for comment by a freelance journalist who noticed the CBCP's citation of his research on their website.

(See: Nobel Prize winner contradicts CBCP BY TONY AHN)

Hollie Ones issues in Facebook

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 04:22:00 +0000

Holie Ones: ang point ko eh natural event ang big bang na nangyari billion years ago,naiintindihan mo ba kung gaano katagal ang billion?,ang syensya ay ang pagdidiskubre sa mga bagay na observable,testable at repeatable sa PRESENT,pero yung method ng syensya sa para i uncover yung past ay ibang iba dahil hindi naman pwedeng ulitin yung nakaraan na event eh,yung doppler at hubble ay natural phenomena na ginagamit lang nila para suportahan yung big bang theory,hindi meaning may dioppler at hubble effect ay totoo na ang big bang,isang malaking theory lang yon na kailangan ng pananalig,halatang hindi mo alam kung pano magtrabaho ang syensya kasi panay basic knowledge lang ang alam mo e,ang lakas ng loob mong magsalita tungkol sa huble at doppler effect baket physicist ka ba?

Holie Ones: at baka isipin niyo anti big bang theory ako hah,hindi, ang point ko lang madami ring faith based sa science gaya ng religion,hinding hindi magiging anti science ang religion dahil ang mga religious na tao nga ang nag introduce ng science sa mundo magmula western civilization, copernicus,kepler,newton,mendel,planck,Boyle, Galileo,francis collins na director ng human genome project iilan lang yan at madami pang religious na tao na gumawa ng pundasyon sa science.

****

Pinoy Atheist: Ok, let us now deal with this post from our favorite Christian defender, “Holie Ones.” The post was written in Tagalog and is dealing with two issues. We will tackle them one by one.

The first paragraph is very familiar with the Christian evangelicals and Creationists argument of what they call as “operational science” and “origin science.”

Using Google, I tried to surf the web to find some reference about this, and I’ve noticed that only Christian website offer explanations on this “two types of sciences.” According to them, operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites. Origin (or Historical) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. As Norman Geisler explained, “this origin science is not empirical and its conclusions are not falsifiable (When Skeptics Ask pp. 214-215). Origin science works on different principles than operation science does. Since the past events that it studies cannot be repeated today, it uses an analogy between the kinds of cause/effect relationships that is being studied (When Skeptics Ask pp. 214-215).

He said that origin science study things that only happened once and by their nature, doesn’t happen again. This seems to echo Christian theologian Richard Swinburne definition of a miracle as a non-repeatable exemption to the Law of Nature (The Existence of God p.229).

This is the same claim that Hollie Ones is trying to push through. According to him (minus his braggadocio), the Big Bang already happened billions of years ago, so how can we use science (since science only deals with the empirical and observational events) to believe that it is true. The Big Bang is only a theory and just like other theories, you can only use faith to believe it.

Ok, so how will we know that the Big bang is true? How do scientists deal with the past?

In the scientific community, this is still debatable, not because of the methods employed but more on the issues brought about by philosophers (who are not scientists) like Thomas Khun and Paul Feyerabend.

If I will accept this so-called “explanation” then “origin science” will become unfalsifiable thus making it unscientific (since the past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science).

But lucky for me, science doesn’t operate that way. When dealing with past events, science use present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs to make verified retrodictions. So, that’s not faith since we didn’t just accept it without trying to observe with our claims. That’s the logical side of science. Unfortunately, when I told Hollie Ones about the Hubble Law and the Doopler Effect, he shoved them as irrelevant.

Irrelevant?

As I have already stated, science uses present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event to make a verified retrodiction. That’s where the Hubble Laws and the Doopler Effect steps in. There are other hypotheses about the origin of the Universe like the Steady State Theory, The Big Bounce Theory, The Cyclic Universe and to make Hollie Ones happy let us include his Judeo/Christian Creation myth. However, in today's scientific model, the Big Bang fits present scientific observations. It is currently the best natural explanation we have and both the Hubble Law and the Doopler Effect have contributed to its explanation. Oh I’m not saying that the Hubble Law, and the Doopler Effect are the only reasons to explain the Big Bang. There are other discoveries that support it like when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson found evidence of cosmic background radiation.

Now we go to paragraph number two.

It was the religious people who introduce science to the world. Hmmmmm…really? Well, the irony here is that the Big Bang was introduced by a Georges LeMaitre (1894-1966) a Monsignor in the Catholic church. However, he advised Pope Pius XII not to make it a Catholic dogma.

So let see…

Are you familiar with the fallacy…uh yep…Appeal to Authority.

Now, using Hollie Ones’ logic we can say that astrology and alchemy is true because Sir Isaac Newton practice it. That slavery is ethical because Aristotle agrees with it. See the problem?

There are scientists out there that believe in a certain god or some kind of a religious discipline…roughly 75 percent does, but that doesn’t automatically mean that science and God belief go side by side. We shouldn’t declare them to be compatible purely on the basis that some scientists and philosophers are religious. There are scientists who believe in the Steady State model of cosmology, or that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, or that sunspots are the primary agent of climate change, or that UFO's are real (really?). The mere fact that such positions are held by some scientists doesn’t make these ideas are scientific. Their irrational ideas are not and did not become scientific foundations.

So again please before thinking of engaging an atheist in a rational discussion, think again. Oh, and I don’t need to be a physicist to explain that to you.

Pinoy Atheist

Let's help CFI to win Alexander Aan freedom back.

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:13:00 +0000

After stating on Facebook his doubt about the existence of God and posting some satirical cartoons about the prophet Muhammed, Alexander was attacked by a mob, arrested for promoting atheism, and convicted of “disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hatred or hostility.” He was then sentenced to two and a half years in prison and saddled with an exorbitant fine.

Let us help the Center for Inquiry to win him his freedom with demonstrations and through diplomatic channels, and to bring the President of the United States to his cause.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/urgent_tell_the_president_to_speak_out_for_jailed_atheist_alexander_aan/

Where did you come from?

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 05:18:00 +0000

I got this comment from an anonymous person who is obviously a God believer.

"Kung di kayo naniniwala sa Diyos saan nagsimula ang unang tao? Evolution theory? saan naman nagsimula ang unang unggoy at pinagmulan nito?"( If you don't believe in God then where did the first humans originated? Evolution theory? Where did the first monkey come from and where did it originate?)

And here's another one.

Who made you, then? You popped out of nowhere? Surely you don't believe the evolution theory? why would anyone accept that they evolve from an ape? Where did life come from, would you please care to explain? Atheisits. You're an easy prey for Satan. I'm not dissing you or anything. I'M JUST WARNING YOU. But on second thought, maybe he won't prey on you so that you keep on believing that atheism of yours, then you'll neer know HIM. Ever thought that Satan might be the one putting that "atheism" thing in your mind? (By Haidi on 10/23/11)

Have you noticed anything familiar with these two comments?

Yes, they are all assuming that believing in a God will answer the question of where you came from.

Unfortunately, they're just using one source, which is the Jewish myth of Adam and Eve. So how will you answer this question? Where does life comes from? Did I popped from nowhere? I will not pretend to know the answer about the origin of life. What I can do is to assume its origin. That's why we have myths. Different culture had given us different answers on where we came from. For some good examples, we'll look at a few different creation myths.

According to the Altaic speaking people, the world was created by Ulgen and the first man was Erlik. Now Erlik was corrupted ( I don't know why so don't ask) and became the devil, and he tempted and corrupted the first woman.

Here in the Philippines, the Bagobo Tribe of Southern Mindanao believed that Melu created this world and with the help of his brother, they both created the first humans. My Tagalog ancestors believe that human emerged from a bamboo pole. When the world first began there was no land; there was only the Sea and the Sky, and between them flew a huge, beautiful Kite (a bird similar to a hawk). One day, the bird, which had nowhere to land and rest, grew tired of flying about, and in frustration stirred up the Sky in a quarrel against the Sea. The Sky threw rain, thunder, and lightning that reached the Sea, who in turn rose up and hurled waves and hurricanes that reached the Sky.

In order to restrain its fury, the Sky showered a multitude of massive boulders down upon the Sea, which became the islands that formed the Philippines. These islands prevented the waters from rising any more - instead causing them to flow back and forth, and thereby creating the tides. Afterwards, the Sky then ordered the Kite to light on one of the newly-formed islands to build her nest, and to leave the Sea and the Sky in peace.

Now at this same time the Land Breeze and the Sea Breeze were married, and they had a child which they named Bamboo. One day, when Bamboo was floating against the sea, it struck the feet of the Kite. Shocked, hurt, and angered that anything should strike it, the bird furiously pecked at the bamboo until it split in half. Out of one section came a golden-bronze colored man, named Malakas (Strong One) and from the other half came a similarly hued woman, named Maganda (Beautiful One).

The earthquake then called on all the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea to see what should be done with these two, and the animals decided that they should marry each other. Together, Malakas and Maganda had many children, and from them eventually came all the different races of people (see: Ancient Philippine Creation Story).

The Huron people believed that in the beginning there was water and water animals. Into this emptiness a goddess who had lived with the Great Spirit fell out of the sky. Two loons saw her falling, and they made themselves into a cushion for her to land on. The loons cried out for help from the other animals; the loon still has a loud voice. It was Giant Tortoise who came first and offered to carry Sky Woman on his back. Then he called a council to see what could be done. It was decided that Sky Woman must have some permanent place to live, so Tortoise ordered the animals to dive into the water to find earth. Many died in their attempt. Only the toad made it and returned with a pinch of earth. Sky Woman took it, placed it on Tortoise's back, and it grew into land. The Great Tortoise still supports the world.

Now these are a lot of different creation myths that we can find in different cultures, and they are all trying to explain our origin. The Genesis story is just one of them. (For a scientific explanation, see the article The Origin of Life by Albrecht Moritz).

There is nothing really bad about myths. According to Joseph Campbell, myths are more than just trying to search for the meaning of something, but it is the experience. "They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols. Read other people's myths, not those of your own religion, because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts - but if you read the other ones, you begin to get the message. Myth helps you to put your mind in touch with this experience of being alive. It tells you what it is."

Mr. Campbell was right. You have to read other people's myths because you might start interpreting your own religious myth as facts. That's what's happening with Christians nowadays. Going back to the topic, we have a very rich source of different creation myths to choose for, surely you can always look for the best story that will suit your personal lifestyle.

Which brings us to the issue of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is not about origins. It's about change. Evolution is not after where life came from, it's about how life branches off to from different species. Evolution is essentially the process whereby new species arise from earlier species by accumulated changes. This is often referred to as "descent with modification." The first monkey came from its ancestor, which doesn't look like a monkey. Humans don't descend from monkeys; we came from a different lineage. Ok...let us level with the kind of thinking these fundamentalist Christians have when it comes to science. I reasonably assume that when they talk about "monkeys" they automatically include the Great Apes (the chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas). Now, if I'm going to trace my biological ancestors, say 6 million years ago, it would very much like the chimpanzees. Notice that I said "like," I never said it would be a chimpanzee because the modern chimp we have today branched out to a different species from humans. 105 million years before, my ancestors look more like a tree shrew and 417 millions years earlier; it's a bony fish. So you see, it's not just about monkeys. Before becoming a Aegyptopithecus, life has evolved from different species before reaching my ancestors.

So why do I accept the Theory of Evolution more than eh, let say the Genesis Creation Story? Well, because we have valid evidence on evolution and there are supporting evidence from geology, organic chemistry, and genetics to support its claim. Now, if these Christians can show me a decent evidence that human males are missing a rib and there is a tree that bares a fruit that is the source of human morality and...or let's make this easier and just be contented that the Genesis story is a myth.

On the news: Atheism on the rise in America.

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:03:00 +0000

by Don Lacey on Jul. 14, 2012

On June 1st, Pastor John Hagee gave a speech in which he tells Atheists to move out of the country. Thank you for sharing your feelings, Johnny, but I don’t think I’ll be moving soon. Perhaps you should move. Pentecostals such as you, Pastor Hagee, are famous for handling poisonous snakes and testing your faith by drinking strychnine. As far as I know, you all believe that the meaningless babbling you spew is talking in tongues. I don’t think I’ll be taking your advice anytime soon.

The fact is, Atheism is gaining ground in America and locally, The Tucson Atheists just signed up its 500th member. There are four freethinking groups operating in Tucson—Tucson Atheists, Skeptics of Tucson, the U. of A. Skeptics Club, and FreeThought Arizona. In Arizona there are two coalitions currently operating—Secular Coalition for Arizona and the Arizona Coalition of Reason. The coalitions combine the efforts of many secular and freethinking groups in Arizona from Flagstaff, Prescott, Phoenix, and Tucson.

Perhaps the rapid increase in the number of people shedding religion is a reaction to the fact that the Religious Right has shown its true character with its intolerance of the civil rights and in some cases the health of homosexuals. Here in Arizona the Center for Arizona Policy sidelined legislation designed to protect our school children from being bullied because it might accidently protect gay students from being bullied. How Christian is that? How is it that Cathi Herrod wields so much power? I don’t remember voting for her. Remember that she is heading a 501.c.3 organization (tax exempt charitable organization). According to the rules established for that kind of organization, there are restrictions on political action, such as lobbying. Please check out StopCAP to get a more complete story on this powerful, religious, right wing organization.

Perhaps the rise in Atheism is due to the amount of information that is readily available. Many of us carry around internet connected, hand held computational devices that can be also be used as a phone. Arguments are different now. Sometimes points of disagreements are settled on the spot after a short consultation with Mr. Google. Have you ever noticed how someone looking up something on their iPhone looks like someone praying? Except, they’re not looking for answered prayers, they’re looking for answered questions. Do you want to know who wrote the song The City of New Orleans? Check it out HERE. I’ll bet you thought it was Arlo Guthrie didn’t you? People used to carry the Bible to answer all the hard questions.

It’s a sure bet that the next generation will be less religious than the current one.

****

This news happened in the USA so why posted it here in a Filipino atheist blog?

Ans: So you'll know where my journey is heading.

Just a reminder.

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:43:00 +0000

The Usual Gang of Idiots

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:17:00 +0000

"Cruel persecutions and intolerance are not accidents, but grow out of the very essence of religion, namely, its absolute claims." - Morris Raphael Cohen

Don't get me wrong. I am not calling these people in the following pictures above as "bunch of idiots", it's what they are doing what I see as idiotic...but sometimes I am tempted to think otherwise.

It is typical to see Christians acting this way, like they have the authority to judge people base on their standard, which is the Christian Bible of course. Since the Christian holy writ declares homosexuality is a "sin" therefore these Christians think they are giving humanity a service by demonstrating on LBGT parades, reminding the gay community that homosexuality is a sin, thus saving the poor chap's soul for being condemned in hell for all eternity.

Normally, we call that being a self-righteous jerk.

That's the problem with religious standards. The Westerners (in which where the Bible came from) have culturally accepted that their god only created two genders; Male and Female. However, other cultures has 4 or even five different genders. For example, in Thailand, it is accepted that there are other gender roles than masculinity and being feminine. But hey, these Christians will not accept that as a fact since it's not written in their Holy Book.

What's written in the Bible eh? I am wondering. If Born-Again Christians like to protest about such issues why is it that they seem to be choosing the case? For example, why don't they rally in front of an organization that's protecting the rights of a child? The Bible is clear on this. To discipline a child, you have to whip him hard with a rod (see: Proverbs 23:13-14, and 19:15). It is also said in that Holy Book that disobedient and disrespectful children must be stoned to death (Exodus 21:17). Today the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child forbids such cruel punishments. So why not demonstrate in front of the United Nation Commission on Human Rights?

Now how about slavery? There are a lot of words about slavery in the Bible, yet I can't find a single act of God that He gave any orders to abolish it. Even His son Jesus Christ seems to be too silent about the issue. No wonder the American South can justify owning Negro slaves using this "holy book." So why is it that these Born-Again Christians don't demonstrate in front of the Commission on Human Rights against the abolition of slavery?

Rape? According to the "Good Book" if a man raped a woman, he would be killed if she was married or engaged, but if she wasn't married or engaged, a virgin, she would have to marry him (See: Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Gosh, nowhere in any Police woman's desk will recommend this. So, why not rally in front of every police precinct in Metro Manila?

Cherry picking? Why choose if the Bible is the inerrant word of a God? Whose standards do these Christians are using if they are selecting some verses in the Bible while ignoring the others?

As they say here in the Philippines, before you clean someone else's yard, clean your yard first.

After the discovery of the Higgs boson, now what?

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 02:59:00 +0000

I found this post from that Christian apologetic website called "Apologetic Press."

As stated above, evolutionists consider the existence of the Higgs Boson “crucial to forming the cosmos after the Big Bang” (“Scientists…,” emp. added). Notice that without the existence of this theoretical particle, Big Bang theorists recognize that the Universe could not even form after the Big Bang theoretically occurred. Its existence would not prove that the Universe did form in the manner suggested by Big Bang Theory. Its existence would not even prove that the Universe could form after a hypothesized Big Bang occurred. Further, its existence would not prove that the Big Bang itself could occur at all. Its existence would not prove that matter could exist forever or pop into existence out of nothing, one of which must be true in order for the Big Bang to even get started. And its existence would certainly not prove that the scientific laws governing the Universe could write themselves into existence. However, without the existence of the particle, theorists know the Big Bang could not happen. Thus, discovery of its existence would not prove anything in the end, but only allow evolutionists to cross one of the many chasms that stand in the way of their theory even being considered a remote possibility. In other words, the Big Bang has not even reached square one in the realm of proof. It still lies firmly in the realm of impossibility. Bottom line: the Creation model still stands as the most logical explanation for the origin of the Universe—the model that matches the scientific evidence.

Evolutionist and Big Bang? The Creation model? Is this a joke?

Anyway, the funny thing here is that since the Higgs boson was called the "God particle," some Christians inside Internet forums think that it has something to do with god. For example, a certain "Wayne" in Yahoo Answer has this to say,

Atheists, how do you feel about the discovery of the God particle? It must turn your stomach knowing that the God particle has been discovered. In my opinion this completely ends the debate between religion and science. Religion is science. Scientists have discovered a particle that highly suggests the existence of God.

Why else would it be called the God particle?

The Higgs boson was nicknamed the “God particle” because of Leon Lederman. It came from one of his books, “The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question,” that was written in 1993. According to Lederman, the God particle was so named because:

(a) it's short for "goddamn particle," presumably owing to the difficulty of establishing its existence, and
(b) finding proof of said existence would help us understand the "mind of God." Skeptics would likely add that the term is also appropriate because
(c) like its namesake, it may not really be there.

By the way, Peter Higgs is a self-proclaimed atheist. That's why he disliked the name, "God particle" and personally, I don't really like to give the Higgs boson a religious undertone.

I hope this drawing from Live Science can help you guys understand what this Higgs boson is, coz I don't understand it myself. Eh...I will not pretend to be a scientific "Know-It-All" just to make me look "cool."

Now, I live here in the Philippines, and the bad news is that we Filipino doesn't really care much about science, especially particle physics. Ask a typical Filipino in the street about the discovery of the Higgs boson and wait for a reply. He may know more about the news in the latest entertainment gossips, on what's happening with the government or in the boxing ring...but particle physics?

So let me leave this article to the Filipino science geeks who are now having a Mad Hatter's tea party of their lives because of this news. Any reaction with the Filipino Christian Community on the discovery of the Higgs boson? As long as you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he is the answer to your salvation, it really doesn't matter for them.

The Curse of Silence

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:38:00 +0000

Luke Skywalker: "But...I can't get involved with anything like that..."

Ben "Obi-Wan" Kenobi: "Remember, Luke, the suffering of one man's the suffering of all. Distances are irrelevant to injustice. If not stopped soon enough, evil eventually reaches out to engulf all men, whether they have opposed it or ignored it."

There are atheists out there who prefer to sit on the side bench, and watch the parade go by. I call these atheists as moderates. Well, that’s my term.

These atheists prefer to call themselves as “agnostics." Unlike the true agnostics, these atheists just want to be identified as agnostics simply because they don’t want to be labeled with the “A” word. For them, the term atheist signifies militancy, intolerance or worst.

Reasons for this moderation vary, but the one rationale I always heard is that we (as atheists) should respect other people’s belief – that includes the religious belief.

In his book, The End of Faith, Sam Harris devoted pages on religious moderates. I think he should also include moderate atheists in that chapter. Anyway, just like their god fearing brothers (the moderate believers), these moderate non-believers believe that atheists and pious people should learn to respect the belief and non-belief of others. In other words, mutual respect. Now, is there such a thing called “mutual respect” between a God believer and a “godless” person?

Personally, I find some Christians (Catholic or Protestant) friendly. I have theists’ friends, but that’s it. We prefer to talk about politics or trivial stuffs. Even so, we never talk about religious beliefs.

Now, try opening the Bible and read Psalms 14:1. How about reading Psalm 53: 1-6, Romans 1: 18-32 and Romans 3: 10-18. It that what you call "mutual respect?"

Ah so as an atheist it is OK for me to respect the idea that I will be burning in hell because I don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I am destitute of reason or of the common powers of understanding because I don't believe God exists, or I am corrupt, wicked and vile, right?

I think what these moderate atheists should do is to read some religious scriptures and try figuring out for themselves what these “faiths” have to say about the faithless.

In Islam for example, atheists are known as Kafir. The word Kafir is derived from the Arabic term Kafara which means to "to cover up or hide something." So a kafir is a person who covers up and hides the truth. For those who believe in Islam, the word Kafir is the worst word in the human language. A Kafir, or disbeliever, will be punished for eternity in the fire of hell. Try reading the following in the Qur’an so you will know how these Muslims really look at atheists: 40:35, 83:34, 25:77, 47:4, 6:25, 86:15, 6:111, 23:97, 37:18 and 8:12. Furthermore, take note: A Muslim is not the friend of a kafir - 3:28. Believers should not take kafir as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah's protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him. So, when they say “ respect”, does that mean I cannot even criticize their ideas. That I should just shut my trap and let these God believers proselytize his faith, his archaic philosophy, his twisted science, his wanton disregard to the other person’s ideas?

Wow!

Eye of the Needle

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Wed, 16 May 2012 05:07:00 +0000

Just a thought...

A famous Filipino boxer is now promoting the Bible and is rallying that everyone must obey what the Lord have said.

Now, as of today this boxer is worth P1.5 billion. That's almost 60 million dollars worth of earnings. I think that includes all his material wealth. I even heard he bought a helicopter worth $18-million.

When a rich man asked Jesus how he can serve him Jesus answered, "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." (Luke 18:22)

In Matthew 6:19-22, it is written that Jesus said, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal."

Going back to the Gospel According to Luke, Jesus said, "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys."

Now, if you said you are a Christian, yet you seem to ignore what Jesus taught. Does hypocrisy ring a bell?

Well as what happened to the rich man, "When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth." (Luke 18:23)

Hay...

Christian hypocrisy indeed!

Serves You Right!

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:11:00 +0000

Every Lenten Season the pious Filipinos flock the street wiping themselves, carrying makeshift crosses and worst, nailing themselves on a cross amidst spectator. Now some conservative Catholics are shouting “blasphemy” because a girl in her shorts went up a cross to have her picture taken.

My gulay!

Why can’t we just be a little bit honest for a change? Lenten season here in the Philippines is a circus. The reason why we do it is nothing more but a show. We’re doing all of this for the foreign tourist industry. What a bunch of hypocrites!

April Fools’ Day

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:04:00 +0000

In a 2010 Psychology Today article by Nigel Barber, Ph.D., “Why Atheism Will Replace Religion.”makes the case that there are “strong correlations between atheism and intelligence” as cultures develop.

According to Dr. Barber, “Belief in God declines in more developed countries and is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1%.” (See also, Zuckerman 2007) Dr. Barber continues: “The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs." (Barber, 2010)

So why are atheists being connected to April Fools Day?

First how April 1 did become known as a Day of Fools? Traditionally, eh no one knows but some attribute the day to Pope Gregory XIII and his calendar.

Now, since Christians have used this day as a mockery to atheists as their “holiday” well let’s give them what they want. Christians have been labeling atheists as fools because of that verse… Psalms 14:1. You know…"The FOOL saidth in his heart there is No God." Even though the word “fool” in this verse is an English translation of the Hebrew word “nabal” which means morally inferior NOT intellectually inferior.

Contrary to popular Christian belief, there is no real fact that says God-believers are more morally upright than those who don’t believe in God. But still an atheist is a fool.

The New Testament is more blunt. According to the one who wrote the Book of Romans, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:20)

In other words, we become fools for not believing, for lacking faith to believe that their invisible God is the creator of the whole universe. "Moraino" is a strong word. This doesn’t signify an immoral person but a stupid one. That’s how Christian thinks, right? Just because someone doesn’t believe his god, he is now considered a dullard. But why give a damn about what the religious fanatics in Jerusalem believe anyway. I am more connected to Athens. Doubt has brought me closer to knowledge than religious faith.

More Fun in the Philippines.

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:40:00 +0000

Just for Laughs!

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:49:00 +0000

"Hey! I said pull the ropes, NOT pull my pants!"

All About Rizal, evolution and Einstein...Facebook style.

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:46:00 +0000

Let’s talk about Jose Rizal’s idea of God and religion. This Fb surely doesn’t have the slightest idea about Rizal and his ideas towards religion and God. That is why he taught that he can use Rizal to…well aggravate a Filipino atheist.

Let me start with paragraph 1. According to his post Rizal (based on the quote) thinks that religion is a very sacred thing. That’s correct, Rizal is a deeply religious person, but there’s more.

Rizal believes in what he called “Natural Religion.” In his notes to Morga, he claimed that primitive religion of the Filipinos was more in conformity to Christ’s religion that the religion brought by the Spanish friars. Well we know that the Spaniards brought Christianity to the Philippine shores in 1565. Now, base on most of his correspondence with Fr. Pablo Pastell on the time he was in Dapitan, Rizal seems to imply that he defines religion base on the romantic claim of deism natural religion. As Rizal wrote in his third letter to Fr. Pastell,

“Through reasoning and by necessity, rather than through faith, do I firmly believe in the existence of a creative Being. Who is he? I do not know. What human sounds, what accents are we to use in pronouncing the name of this Being whose works overwhelm the imagination? Can anyone give him an adequate name, when a small creature on this earth with power so fleeting carries two or three names, three or four surnames, and many more titles and designations? We call him Dios but this only comes from the Latin dues and ultimately from the Greek Zeus. What kind of being is he? I would attribute to him, to an infinite degree, all the beautiful and holy qualities my mind can think of, but the fear of my ignorance constrains me. Someone has said that everyone conjures up his own God in his own image and likeness. And if my memory serves me right, it was Anacreon who said that if a bull could form an image of God, it would imagine with horns and mooing in a superlative degree. Even so I venture to think of him as infinitely wise, mighty, good (my idea of the infinite is imperfect and confused), when I behold the wonders of his works, the order that reigns over the universe, the magnificence and expanse of creation, and the goodness that shines in all.”

And what about Rizal’s idea of God? Rizal’s belief in a Deity was based on reasonable reflection of nature as well as from conscience and not on faith or divine revelation. In the same letter, Rizal expressed his disbelief on the teachings of ancient sacred books. He writes:

“The various religions claim to have God’s will condensed and written in books and dogmas; but apart from the many contradictions, conflicting interpretations of words, and many obscure and untenable points I find in them, my conscience, my reason cannot admit that he who like a wise father had provided his creatures with everything necessary for this life, proceeded to bury what was necessary for eternal life in the obscurities of a language unknown to the rest of the world and hide it behind metaphors and deeds that go against the very laws of nature. Is it possible that he who makes the sun rise for all and the air to blow everywhere to give life, he who has endowed everyone with intelligence and reason for life here on earth, has also hidden from us what is most necessary for our eternal life? What shall we say of a father who heaps candies and toys on his children, but gives food only to one of them, educates and rears him alone? And what if it so happens that this chosen one refuses to eat while the others die looking for food?”

2. This reflects the Fb guy’s ignorance in evolution. Humans didn’t descend from monkeys and humans will not evolve into gorillas. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

3. Albert Einstein is a scientific pantheist.

When Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue asks Dr. Einstein if he believes in God, he answered, “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Also, in a letter March 24, 1954, Einstein wrote, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Atheista ka ba? Opo Atheista po ako. (Part 2)

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:04:00 +0000

Exodus 20:8 vs. Romans 14:5

Isa raw sa nakita nyang maling kontradiksyon na nakasulat sa website ng American Atheists ay ang patungkol sa Exodo 20:8 at sa Taga Roma 14:5. Ang sabi nya...

Teka...ano nga ba ang kontradiksyon dito?

(Exodus 20:8-9) - "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. "Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

(Romans 14:5) - "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind."

Ah, yun naman pala. Kung kailanga pa bang ipag-diwang ang Sabbath ayon sa iniutos ng Panginoon o ang tao na ang bahala kung anong Sabbath ang gusto nya.

Ayon sa may akda bakit tila hindi ipinaliwanag ng American Atheists kung paano naging magkakontra ang naturang mga sitas o talata.

Pinuntahan ko ang site na tinutukoy nya at napansin ko nga na walang paliwanag...dahil ito po ay nasa porma ng isang listahan o lists. Lahat ng sinasabing contradictions dito eh pawang nakalista lang po. Hindi po naman kasi ito kagaya ng site ni Farrell Till kung saan naka detalye ang lahat ng mga rason.

Ikalawang tanong, ano ba ang pakahulugan ng nasabing komentarista sa nais iparating ng talata sa Taga Roma 14:5? Ito ba ay totoong patungkol sa araw ng pamamahinga o Sabbath?

So, ang Romans 14:5 po ba ay walang kahulugan ukol sa Sabbath?

Well, ayon kay Adam Clarke (Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible) eh mayroon. Bagamat hindi binangit ni Pablo ang salitang "Sabbath" sa bersikulo na ito, dapat nating unawain na ang pinag-uusapan dito ay ang mga tradisyon at batas ng Hudyo kumpara sa Hintil. Ganito rin ang komentaryo ni Albert Barnes at ni B.W.Johnson. Sabi nila, hindi raw kasi maunawaan ng mga Hudyo na ang Lumang Tipan ay napalitan na ng Bagong Tipan kaya't ang mga utos tungkol sa tradisyon ng Lumang Tipan ay natapos na rin. Sya nga pala...ito ay mga kumentaryo ng mga Christian Bible commentators at hindi mga Katoliko. Tandaan natin na ang American Atheists ay kumakalaban ng mga pananaw ng mga Fundamentalist Christians.

Kaya dahil sa mga komentaryong ito, nakikita natin na para sa mga pananaw ng mga Fundamentalists Christians, may koneksyon and Romans 14:5 sa Sabbath.

At ang huling katanungan sa pag-aanalisa natin ay kung bakit hindi isinama ng komentarista ang talatang kasunod nito na nagsasabi ng ganito:
Ang nangingilin sa isang araw ay nangingilin alang-alang sa Panginoon. Ang kumakain ng kahit ano ay kumakain niyon alang-alang sa Panginoon, sapagkat nagpapasalamat siya sa Diyos. Yaon namang hindi kumakain ng lahat ng uri ng pagkain ay gumagawa ng gayon alang-alang sa Panginoon at nagpapasalamat din siya sa Diyos.

Nabura ba ng talatang kasunod ang problema?

Hindi po. Tandaan natin na ang naging usapan dito eh tradisyon (which kasama na ang custom on festivities, food laws at iba pa.) Ang tanong lang naman dito eh simple lang: Ang diyos ba ang nagtalaga ng araw o ikaw ang pipili ng araw na gusto mo?

(Sa kanyang naging tugon sa akin gagamitin ko na rin ang post na ito para masagot ang mga ito.)

Unang una na ay ang patuloy niyang pagtukoy sa Exodo 16:29. Dapat po nating isipin na ang araw na binabanggit sa Exodo 16:29 ay ang araw ng pamamahinga para sa mga Hudyo na hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay patuloy na di kinikilala si HesuKristo at ang mga aral ng ating Panginoon.

Hindi ba kinikilala ni Hesus ang Sabbath dahil sa salita nya sa Marcos 2:27-28?
“At sinabi niya sa kanila, Ginawa ang sabbath ng dahil sa tao, at di ang tao ng dahil sa sabbath: Kaya’t ang Anak ng tao ay panginoon din naman ng sabbath.”

Ito ang madalas na ginagamit ng mga Katoliko o iba pang mga mananamba ng Linggo para ma-justify ang kanilang pagsamba sa ibang araw. Pero alam mo...walang problema sa akin ito. Tandaan natin na ang kontradiksyon eh kung ang diyos ba ang nagbigay ng anong panahon ang dapat gawing Sabbath vs. kung pwede bang tao na lang ang mamili ng araw na gusto nya. Just telling me that Jesus changed the Law doesn't justify the fact that an omnipotent, omniscient God's Law is replaceable. Teka...but to tell that Jesus never respected the Sabbath Law is a lie isn't it? (See: Luke 4:16; Mark 2:27-28)

Pero sasabihin na, "Malinaw mga kapatid na si Kristo bilang Panginoon ng Sabbath ay may karapatang baguhin ang Sabbath ayon sa kung ano ang makakabuti para sa tao. Ito ba ay mauituturing na isang kontradiksyon ayon sa Exodo 16:29? Hindi po mga kapatid sapagkat bilang Panginoon at Diyos ng Sabbath, may karapatan at kakayahan ang Panginoong HesuKristo na baguhin ito ayon sa kung ano ang makabubuti para sa tao na siyang dahilan sa pagkakatatag nito."

Para sa may akda binago na ni Hesus ang batas ng Sabbath kaya wala ng kontradiksyon, tama ba? Kung iintindihing mabuti ang nakasulat sa Marcos 2:27-28, hindi dyan sinasabi na binago ni Hesus and batas ukol sa Sabbath. Sinasabi lang dyan na mas importante ang tao kaysa sa Sabbath (Which still contradicts Exodus 16:29 that demands people to worship in the 7th day.)

Atheista ka ba? Opo Atheista po ako.

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:17:00 +0000

Habang ako'y naghahanap ng mga kung anu-ano dito sa Internet, ako'y nadaan sa isang blog na sinulat ng sa tingin ko'y isang Catholic defender na may titulong "ATHEISTA KA BA?" Ito ay naisulat noong Abril 8, 2008 ng isang tao na naitatago sa pangalang fperito at mayroon itong 5 bahagi. Hmmmm...mukhang nasagot ko na ito, ngunit nagtataka lang ako kung bakit mukhang nawawala ata yung ginawa kong kasagutan para dito sa aking blog?

Well, due to insisted public demand, aking ulit ibinabalik ang naging mga kasagutan ko sa kanya at sa kanyang sinulat tungkol sa atheism at sa mga ateista.

According sa blog na ito, ang layunin daw ng mga ateista na gibain ang pundasyon ng Kristianismo base sa isang artikulo sa Internet. Tignan natin ang kanyang sinabi:

Medyo naguguluhan ako dito. Ang artikulo na galing sa American Atheists ay kumakalaban sa mga paniniwala ng mga Evangelical Christians o yung tinatawag nating Fundamentalist Christianity. Malaki kasi ang pag-kakaiba ng paniniwala ng mga Romano Katoliko ikumpara sa mga Fundamentalist Christians. Umpisahan natin sa "The Bible has no errors."

Sa mga Katoliko, naniniwala sila na ang Biblia ay walang mali...KUNG ang babasihan natin eh yung mga tinatawag na original manuscript (na hindi na matatagpuan) at take note...ang Biblia ay walang mali kung ang pag-uusapan ay tungkol sa kaligtasan. Nakasaad sa dokumentong "Dei Verbum" Article 11. Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scripture..

Malinaw ba?

Sa naabing dokumento, hindi sinasabi na walang kamalian o kontradiksyon ang Biblia. Sinasabi dito na walang mali ang Biblia KUNG ITO AY PATUNGKOL SA KALIGTASAN.

Eh papaano naman sa mga tinatawag na Fundamentalist Christians?

Ayon sa Lausanne Covenant of 1974, "We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice." (Section 2. THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE BIBLE). Ibig sabihin, sa mga Fundamentalist Christian ang Biblia ay walang kamalian sa lahat ng sinasabi nito, hindi lamang patungkol sa kaligtasan.

Kaya bumalik tayo sa patukoy ng may akda. Motibo ba ng mg ateista na sirain ang pundasyon ng Kristianismo? Kung ang tinutukoy na pundasyon eh ang katotohanan na may kontradiksyon o kamalian ang Biblia suguro'y kailangan munang linawin ng may akda kung ano ang kanyang tinutukoy na doktrina ukol sa inspirasyon ng kanyang Banal na Aklat.

Sa susunod na bahagi ating pag-usapan ang kanyang mga sinasabing "kinokontrang" kontradiksyon...

The Awful Truth!

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 10:12:00 +0000

Do you know that Jack T. Chick, publisher of those nifty little Christian comics is a religious bigot?

Little is known about Jack Chick, a reclusive fundamentalist Christian preacher operating out of Rancho Cucamonga, California, and what little can be gleamed about him is only available on the website of his publishing house, Chick Publications. What is known is the proliferation of tiny, hand drawn comic books, called “Chick Tracts” which he uses to evangelize. The subjects of the tracts range from relatively typical to downright bizarre, but are best known for a particularly vicious brand of anti-Catholic bigotry, and anti-evolution.

Chick’s tracts portray the Catholic Church as sinister and conspiracy bent, especially in regards to Protestant Fundamentalists and himself in particular. He portrays Church belief and practice as being born out of ancient paganism, and depicts demons as infesting every aspect of Catholic life, as though Catholics secretly worship Satan. He frequently refers to the Church as the “Whore of Babylon”, “Antichrist”, insinuates the Church created Nazism as a means to exterminate Jews, and portrays Catholics as foul-mouthed, angry, abusive and prone to drunkenness.

For more of the Bigot's List, click here.

Definitely an Atheist

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:17:00 +0000

Here in the Philippines, when we talked about atheism, we get different reactions. Some don't mind it while others are bothered that it exists. Just take this post written by a certain "ragubalane" from the Definitely Filipino blog as an example (Sorry guys, this is written in Filipino dialect).

atheist – (noun) someone who denies the existence of god. they believe in the doctrine that there is no god or gods.

atheists groups are now growing. nakakalungkot at nakakatakot isipin na sa pagbabago ng panahon, nagbabago na rin ang pananaw at paniniwala ng mga tao. marami na ang naniniwala or should i say marami na ang hindi naniniwalang may Diyos. Sa European countries malaking porsyento ng mga tao dito ay naniniwalang walang Diyos, maging sa bansang Amerika ay nadadagdagan sila ng nadadagdagan isama mo na rin ang Asia kabilang na ang bansang pilipinas (Philippine Atheist) although hindi pa ganon kapopular ang mga atheist sa atin the bottomline is: meron at may possibility na dumami din sila. May mga pondo rin sila para sa advertisement; sa buses, sa billboards, etc. hindi ko alam kung ano ang nasa isip nila kung bakit kailangang ipangalandakan pa nila na hindi sila naniniwalang may Diyos, bakit hindi na lang nila sarilihin ito? bakit kailangang kumbinsihin pa nila ang ibang tao na tularan sila?

Pinoy Atheist: Now I've noticed that the first paragraph of his posts has this so-called meaning of the word "atheism" that says it 1.) denies and it is a 2.) doctrine. So let's play his game, shall we?

According to Mr. Webster, to deny means to "refuse to believe." So do atheists are just too stubborn to believe the irrefutable? Before, I accept this meaning, may I ask regubalane to give me the most irrefutable argument for the existence of God in his arsenal and...uh...wait. Are you saying that what he will give me are just the same banana Christian apologists have been giving us for the last hundred of years? You don't say...

OK, we atheist doesn't believe (not deny) your god because you guys still haven't given us the best reason to believe its existence in the first place.

Is atheism a doctrine? Maybe regubalane doesn't understand what the word doctrine means. A doctrine can mean two things: 1. It is an affirmation of a truth and 2. It is a teaching. When a person says he doesn't believe in the existence of large-headed, green Martians, that's not a pronouncement of a truth, but rather a statement of disbelief. That is what atheism is. There is also no such thing as an "atheist teaching." Most atheists rely on arguments and please, they are not teaching. The Argument from Evil and The Argument from Disbelief are examples of arguments an atheist use. An atheist only argues for a point why she doesn't believe a god exists.

So what is scary about atheism and atheists huh? OK...this guy is bothered with the growing number of people who have stopped believing in the existence of a god. He is also asking why an atheist can’t just keep her disbelief to herself.

What makes people afraid of atheists?

Personally, I think the idea that morality came from a god is one factor. These people think that if a person stopped believing in God, he automatically becomes immoral. Looking at our history shows this is not true. When the Spaniards came to conquer our land, they've use the sword and the cross. Religious history is soaked in blood. So I guess a religious, god-fearing nation doesn't really make you morally upright.

Let us continue...

noong nag-aaral pa ako may isang tao na naniniwala na ang tao ay nagmula sa unggoy siya ay si charles darwin at ang paniniwala niyang ito ay tinawag na theory of evolution pero hanggang sa ngayon wala pang nakapagpapatunay at nagpapatotoo sa teyoryang ito. ang mga unggoy ba sa zoo o anumang uri ng ape sa kasalukuyan ay nag-evolve at naging tao? at sa panahong ito mas dumami na ang halos katulad ng paniniwala ni charles darwin.

Pinoy Atheist: I'm a little perplexed on what Darwin has to do with atheism? Some people are quite comfortable believing in God while also accepting Darwin's evolution as a fact. But it seems that regubalane is the one having problems with Darwin and evolution.

There is a big difference between the word "unggoy" (monkeys) and "bakulaw" (apes) and it seems regubalane doesn't know the difference. Oh well...Darwin never said that humans came from monkeys (That's why there're still monkeys at the local zoo @ regubalane). Contrary to common Christian belief, according to Darwin, humans and apes have the same ancestor and that ancestors are not monkeys.

Is evolution not proven? Gosh...evolution is almost common with medicine and biology. It is already considered as a scientific fact. There are branches of science and medicine that is being supported by evolution, just look at the issues of bacteria being immune to some antibiotics. That is a good example of evolution my theist friend. The problem here is not evolution...it's about not keeping your facts straight @ regubalane.

ang mga atheists ay hindi masasabing mga walang edukasyon dahil sa pagkakaalam ko karamihan sa kanila ay mga educated; degree holder persons, siguro nga sa pagiging well educated nila bigla nilang narealize na wala palang Diyos! should we pity them? should we be angry on them? or just completely ignore them? sabi nga eh, huwag kang manghusga para hindi ka husgahan pero hindi ko mapigilan na i-express ang opinyon ko sa kanila.

Pinoy Atheist: Not really @ regubalane. Just visit Luneta (Rizal Park) in a Sunday night. You see, there are also atheists (especially here in the Philippines) that are less educated. So I guess atheism is not only for the elites and the highly educated.

And if you want to ignore us @ regubalane, they why wrote this article in Definitely Filipino? My golly!

oo nga’t ang tao ay makasalanan, tayo ay makasalanan at madalas nga alam na nating kasalanan eh paulit-ulit pa rin natin itong ginagawa pero sa kabila nito humihingi tayo ng kapatawaran sa pagkakasalang ito at sa iba pa nating kasalanan dahil nga naniniwala tayong may Diyos. pero sa aking pananaw, at sa mga taong lubos na naniniwalang may Diyos, wala na yatang (opinyon ko lang po ito hindi judgement) hihigit pa sa kasalanang ikaw ay walang pinaniniwalaang Diyos. anyway, sa ngayon hindi nila alam na kasalanan ito dahil nga sa wala silang pinaniniwalaang Diyos at nabubuhay ang kanilang mortal na katawan base lamang sa pang-araw-araw at pangkaraniwang takbo ng buhay.

Pinoy Atheist: Hmmmmm...seems like regubalane's knowledge in the Holy Bible is inadequate. Disbelief is not the most horrible of sin (are you not reading your Bible?) it is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. According to Mark 3:28-30, Matthew 12:30-32 and Luke 12:8-10 whoever blasphemed the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. Now, is blasphemy synonymous with disbelief? Blasphemy is defined as impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred thing. That doesn't sound like disbelief to me.

sinasabi ng mga self-confessed atheist na sila ay hindi naniniwalang may Diyos pero hindi rin naman daw sila gumagawa ng kasamaan o evil things, na normal lang din sila katulad natin parang sa puntong ito jina-justify nila ang pagiging “godless” nila pero kahit saang anggulo ko man tingnan parang mali pa rin. tama bang i-deny mo ang existence and miracles of Jesus Christ? tama bang sabihin mo na prayer doesn’t work?

Pinoy Atheist: Woah...what does goodness have to do with the existence and the miracle of Jesus Christ and prayers? I really don't know how to address this one, I never really see any connection. A person can believe in prayers and Jesus but based on experience I never really find it as deterrents in doing evil. Just look at some of our Filipino politicians.

Kidding aside, a person can still be good without any Jesus belief. Look at a typical Buddhist monk for example. You know, Buddhism is known to be one of the most peaceful religion (compare to Christianity) yet they don't even care about believing in Jesus Christ.

the mere fact na tayo’y nag-exist sa mundo ay isa ng patunay na may Diyos. ang simpleng pagsikat at paglubog ng araw at ng buwan ay isa ring patunay na nandyan si Lord. kailangan pa bang bumaba Siya galing sa langit at magpakita sa harap natin para lang makumbinsi ang bawat isa na may Diyos? ofcourse, choice nila yan kaya nga may kanya-kanya tayong pag-i-isip para gawin ang gusto natin, paniwalaan ang gusto natin, at pag-aralan ang anumang naisin natin. sana lang sa isang bansang kristyano at sa paglaganap ng atheism/atheist ay wala na sa ating matinag at magiba ng ating pananampalataya kay Bro. na kahit na sinner tayo ay hindi darating sa punto na ang mga kakilala, kaibigan, kamag-anak natin ay magiging atheist.

Pinoy Atheist: The mere fact that God doesn't exists in a place where humans don't exist is a proof that God doesn't. It only exists in our minds. We talk about it, we profess it exists and so on. VIOLA! It EXISTS!

And now you say that the typical sunrise and sunset is a proof that your god exists? The Earth revolves around the Sun...Damn! Even in the planet Venus, the Sun rises and set for what? Can you appreciate the sunset in a Venus landscape? Yet still the Sun rises and set on Venus and other planets in this Solar System on that matter without any human being appreciating it. And now you tell me that sunrise and sunsets are proof of God's existence? Ay papaya!

Do you think we need to see God in order for us atheists to believe it exists? No that's too shallow. Again, in order for us to believe, all you have to do @ regubalane is to give us a good reason to believe and that's not about choice @ regubalane , that's about having a good evidence to support your claim.

subalit muli kong sasabihin lahat tayo ay may “free will”; malaya nating magagawa ang anumang naisin at gustuhin natin at kung iyon ang kanilang kagustuhan at paniniwala, hayaan natin sila. wala tayong karapatan na sila’y husgahan and as the bible says:

Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;”

And I also pray that may God forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.

Peace and Love to all of us.

Pinoy Atheist: Only existing, sentient beings can forgive.

Until next time.

Art against God?

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:48:00 +0000

This is not new. I still remember the issue about Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. The whole thing went by. Nothing really happened. There was also the clamor against the movie The Last Temptation of Christ, remember that one? Today, we hear the same roar all over again. This time, it’s all about an art exhibit in which the Roman Catholic faithful declared as blasphemous.

Mideo M. Cruz, an artist with a very peculiar taste, displayed some of his artworks in the Cultural Center of the Philippines. These arts include a Jesus picture with a penis on his face and rosaries surrounded by condoms and some girlie pictures. The work is entitled “Polytheism” and it is all about Philippine history of idol worship. Base on Mr. Cruz interview, the phallic was a representation of male dominance over women.

Ok, I will not pretend that I know what art is. I might even say that his artwork suck since they are just a bunch of Catholic religious icons that can be bought in Recto and Quiapo and some Filipino smut mags rolled into one. But hey! I’m no artist. The issue here is expression. An artist creation is his expression about the world he lives in. So I bet Mr. Cruz is getting a little pissed about what he sees around him and he’s lucky enough to have an outlet to relieve his views. Unfortunately for him, not everyone shares the same idea, and he pissed them big time.

Enter the ultra-moralists Roman Catholic lackeys and lynch-mob that will not stop till Mideo and the whole CCP officials are burn on a stake. In the first place, it seems they are the one who's making such a commotion on this art exhibit.

So what did Mr. Mideo do to deserve this? I heard in a TV interview that Mideo irk not only the Roman Catholic faithful but the entire Christendom as well. Really? Come on! I bet most Evangelical Christians are laughing right now telling their congregation that the Roman Catholic deserve that for worshipping graven images. Other says that this is an act of terrorism. Eric Manalang, president of Prolife Philippines, (him again?) even sued Mideo with violating Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code,. Oh for Christ sake!

According Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code:

Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:

(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
(2) (a) authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling the same;
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. (As amended by PD Nos. 960 and 969).
Amendment of Article 201, Revised Penal Code. Article 201 of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and fifteen, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows;
"Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows. The penalty of prison mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:
"1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
"2. The authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form, the editors publishing such literature, and the owners/operators of the bookstore or other establishments selling the same;
"3. Those who in theaters, fairs cinematographs or any other place, shall exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, including the following:
"(a) Films which tend to incite subversion, insurrection or rebellion against the State;
"(b) Films which tends to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their Government and/or duly constituted authorities;
"(c) Films which glorifies criminals or condone crimes;
"(d) Films which serves no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography;
"(e) Films which offends any race or religion;
"(f) Films which tend to abet traffic in the use of prohibited drugs;
"(g) Films contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees, edicts, and any or all films which in the judgment of the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures or other agency established by the Government to oversee such motion pictures are objectionable on some other legal or moral grounds.
"4. Those who shall sell, give away of exhibit prints, engravings, sculptures or literature which are offensive to morals."

That is clear enough, is it? Wait…Section 3 is talking about films, so I guess Mideo will fall to section 4 – that his work are offensive to morals, right? So what moral code did Mideo tramples? All that Mideo did was to show to us what he thinks of idolatry and the deconstruction of neo-deities. His artworks are purely symbols. So it is "malaswa" (disgusting) OK, agree, but what do you expect with protests? Mideo's work is a protest about Filipino idolatry, what is so beautiful about that? An artist's work is not for everyone's consumption. If Mideo's work offended the ignorant majority then sorry, an artist's expression doesn't usually all about beautiful pink clouds.

And is it immoral? So, defaced and degraded an image that represents Christ is immoral, right? How about worshipping a graven image? That is also immoral – base of the Judeo-Christian standard.

That's where blasphemy enters the picture.

Blasphemy!

According to these Catholics lynch-mob, Mideo committed blasphemy. OK…so what is blasphemy? The word blasphemy is derives from a Greek term meaning “speaking evil,” that was then, but as time goes by, blasphemy became too lose a word. Blasphemy can now be everything, from just being a heretic, to being in a different faith. The Catholic doctor, Thomas Aquinas saw non-belief as blasphemy. Martin Luther condemned as blasphemies Anabaptism, Arianism, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam. Any denial of an article of Christian faith is understood as blasphemy. Sin was blasphemy, opposing Luther was blasphemy, questioning God’s judgments was blasphemy, persecution of Protestants by Catholics was blasphemy, Zwinglian dissent from Lutheranism was blasphemy, missing church was blasphemy, and the peasantry’s political opinions were blasphemy.

When Mideo made those sacrilegious artworks, he was accused of blasphemy…by the Roman Catholic Church, because those religious paraphernalia (pictures of Christ, rosary, etc.) are used by Roman Catholics. But talking about blasphemy, these things are also seen as blasphemous by another religion. Born-again Christians say that using graven images is blasphemous. Islam even says that it is blasphemous to worship Jesus as the Son of God. Does that mean Born-Again Christians and Muslims can also sue the Catholics for being blasphemous?

Majority Rule?

According to some senators, the majority doesn’t like Mideo’s work. It should not be shown in public galleries because people were scandalized and offended. One blog even says that Cruz's freedom of expression fizzled out the moment the first person cried 'heresy!' Some critics even say since the CCP is a public agency it should NOT be sponsoring or funding any exhibit or event that could potentially spark social discord.

Then maybe Mideo should pay for a private gallery for his exhibits instead huh? Does that make the difference?

The majority has the right to say…what majority? Like the average Roman Catholic will even give a damn to that exhibit. Geez!

This is a good example of Utilitarianism. This is purely self-interest.

OK, Mideo stepped on the Catholic majorities’ foot, but what happened to my rights? I don’t think Mideo’s work was blasphemous…It’s tasteless yes, but blasphemous? What happened to my individual rights and the rights of those who want to see Mideo’s artistic protests? In the detailed 52-paragraph statement, General Comment No. 34 in the United Nation Human Rights Council and the General Assembly paragraph 48 states that, “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.” Article 20, paragraph 2 calls on states to prohibit “advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.” The Comment is careful to require that any restrictions must not violate the Conventions’ guarantees of equality before the law (Article 26) and freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18). (See article)

There is nothing hateful in Mideo’s artwork. It doesn’t make me feel hatred towards my Roman Catholic neighbors. Looking at them doesn’t make me want to kill Catholics. I think these Roman Catholics lynch-mobs are just making the issue worst or they are just ignorant of the UN resolution.

Relihiyon, Moralidad at Ano pa?

noreply@blogger.com (John Paraiso) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:32:00 +0000

(Written in Tagalog)

Matagal ng naging kaugalian na ikonekta ang rehiliyon at moralidad. Ito ay nababatay sa paniniwala na ang kagandahang asal ay nakukuha lamang sa turo ng rehiliyon sa pamamagitan ng mga batas na sinasabing inutos ng isang diyos. Kaya hindi na rin nakakapag-taka na makakabasa ka ng mga ganitong uri ng artikulo sa Internet.

Ayon sa isang tao nagtatago sa pangalang “samuelcamus”, “Isa sa pinakamahalgang papel na ginagampanan ng pananampalataya’t relihiyon ay ang pagtitimbang at pagsasaayos sa moral ng tao. Kung wala ito, ang tao ay parang hayop na walang pagiingat at pagpapanatili tungkol sa kung ano ang mabuti at masama.”

Tama ba ito?

Teka muna…hindi ba’t mas maraming digmaan ang nagawa ng relihiyon? Mukhang hindi ata tinalakay ito ni Ginoong “samuelcamus” sa kanyang artikulo laban sa ateismo. Kung tutuusin, mas maraming tao ang naging asal hayop sa pamamagitan ng relihiyon. Sabihin na lang natin na ang isa sa dahilan eh mas madaling pumatay ng kapwa mo tao kung sa tingin mo ay ang iyonng ginagawa eh utos ng isang diyos. Hindi ka makokonsensya. Tulad na lang ng mga nagyayaring terorismo. Ang mga suicide bombers na mga ito ay naniniwala na ang kanilang ginagawa ay utos ng Diyos.

Tignan mo na lang ang pahina ng banal na Bibliya ng mga Kristyiano. Diba’t mas maraming nakasulat doon na pag-patay…kahit sa mga bata at matatanda na ipinag-utos ni Yahweh? Kung tutuusin, mas umaasal hayop ang mga tao kung inaakala nila na ang ginagawa nilang karumaldumal eh utos ng Diyos nila…ang pag-gahasa, pag-nakaw, pagkitil ng buhay ng mga bata at mga alagaing hayop ay baliwala kung nakapasok sa kanilang isipan na ginagawa lang nila ang pinag-uutos ng kanilang Ama sa langit.

Kaya’t mukhang hindi totoo na relihiyon ang nag-sasaayos ng moral ng tao. Marami pa tayong pwedeng gawing halimbawa. Ayon sa mga mananampalataya, bawal ang pumatay at mag-nakaw, tama ba? At ang mga aral sa ito ay matatagpuan lamang sa kanilang mga banal na aklat. Ngunit may mga nakasulat din dito na sumasalungat sa kagandahang asal. Bagay na kagaya ng panloloko, pag-nanakaw, ang maliit na pagtingin sa kababaihan, ang pagkitil ng buhay ng hindi mo ka-tribo at pagsisinungaling para matakpan ang kahayupan ng iyong kapanalig. Ang “double standard” na pag-tingin sa mga isyung ito ang nagiging gabay ng mga mananampalataya upang sabihin na puno ng magagandang moralidad ang kanilang relihiyon. Basahin mo ang mga sinasabing mga banal na mga aklat at ikaw na mismo ang magsasabi na tama ako.

Kunin natin itong halimbawa.

Ngayon nga ay patayin ninyo ang lahat ng mga batang lalake at patayin ninyo ang bawa't babae na nasipingan ng lalake. (Numbers 31:17)

Mababasa sa banal na aklat ng mga Kristiano, iniutos ni Yahweh sa pamamagitan ni Moses ang isang malawakang pag-patay ng kanyang mga kalaban at pati ang mga kababaihan at mga batang lalaki ay hindi patatakasin.

Ngayon sabihin na natin na ikaw ay isa sa mga sundalo ng Israelita na napag-utusan ng patayin lahat ng mga tao na kalaban ng diyos at kahit mga bata ay hindi mo patatakasin. Kung naawa ka sa bata at hindi mo napatay, masasabi bang nag-kasala ka? Ang hindi ba pagpatay sa isang inosenteng bata ay masasabi mong gawaing imoralidad dahil hindi ka sumunod sa utos ng Diyos? Kung ganoon pala, masasabi nating ang moralidad pala ay nakahiwalay sa utos ng relihiyon.

Sumunod, sinabi ni Ginoong “samuelcamus” na, “Ang panganib ng Atheism ay ang maaaring pagbagsak ng moral ng tao at maibaba ang antas nito bilang isang supremo sa lahat ng mga nilalang dito sa mundo at dahil sa taglay na katalinuhan ay mas bumaba pa at suamahol pa sa hayop!”

Ating suriin ang pagbibintang na ito.

Ayon dito, ang mga ateista daw ay nagkakaroon ng tinatawag na “superiority complex” sa lahat ng mga nilalang sa mundo. Mukhang nakakalimot si Ginoong “Samuelcamus” na mas may ibedensya na ang isang mananampalataya ang mag ganitong kakitid na isipan. Basahin ulit natin ang banay na aklat ng mga Kristiano. Makikita sa Genesis 1:26, “At sinabi ng Dios, Lalangin natin ang tao sa ating larawan, ayon sa ating wangis: at magkaroon sila ng kapangyarihan sa mga isda sa dagat, at sa mga ibon sa himpapawid, at sa mga hayop, at sa buong lupa, at sa bawa't umuusad, na nagsisiusad sa ibabaw ng lupa.”

Tapos ibibintang nya sa mga ateista ang ganitong uring kaisipan?

At tignan mo ngayon ang nagagawa ng panjiniwalang batay sa Banal na Aklat na ito sa ating mundo. Maraming Kristiyano ang walang ginawang maganda sa ating mundo sa paniniwalang lalayasan din naman nila ito baling araw. Ang pag-iisip ng tayo ay may kapangyarihan sa lahat ng nilalang ay nag-bibigay ng ugaling pabaya…tutal tayo naman ang binigyan ng Diyos ng kapangyarihan sa lahat ng nilalang diba?

Mali!

Ngayon, inaani natin ang kagaguhang paniniwalang ito. Marami ng hayop ang nawala dihil sa ating kaswapangan. Pero ngayon tayo ay binabaha, at kinikitil ng mga sakit na naglalabasan dahil sa walang pakundangan na paninira sa eco-system ng ating mundo.

Kung tutuusin, mas naniniwala ang mga ateista na ang tao ay walang kapangyarihan na mas mataas kaysa sa mga hayop at halaman. Lahat tayo ay may ginagampanan na papel sa mundong ito - Ito ay ang sensitibong “web of life” na lahat tayo ay naka-konektado. Kung mawala ang tao sa mundong ito, hindi ito ikakatapos ng buhay. May papel nga tayo, totoo…pero lahat tayo eh expendable. Walang mas nakakalamang.

At papaano naman mapapabagsak ng atheism ang moralidad? Walang binangit na rason dito si “samuelcamus.” Naubusan na ba? Kung hindi ba ako naniniwala sa diyos o ako’y hindi myembro ng isang relihiyon, wala na ba akong pag-kukunan ng moralidad? Papaano na ang mga pang etikong pilosopiya? Wala na bang silbi ang mga ito? Kagaya ng mga sulat nila Epicurus at mga iba pang pinag-kukunan ng secular ethics? Suguro eh kailangan maipaliwanag mabuti ito ni ginoong “samuelcamus” para naman maging kapani-paniwala ang artikulo nya.

Sabi ng kanyang artikulo, “Kung ang tao ay tumalikod sa pananampalatayang may Diyos, ang unang-unang mawawala dito ay ang kanyang moral. O ang moral at imoral ay mawawalan ng kabuluhan sa kanya. Sapagka’t sa pananaw ng atheism, ang kabutihan at ang kasamaan ay bunga lamang ng relihiyon na likha lamang ng tao (Na sa katotohanan, ng dahil sa paglitaw ng masama at mabuti kaya kinailangn ng pananampalataya sa Diyos)…”

Teka…ng ako’y nawalan ng paniniwala sa isang diyos, hindi naman ako naging rapist o mamamatay tao. Alam ko pa rin naman ang tama at mali. Kung tutuusin, isa sa mga naging dahilan ko sa kawalan ng paniniwala ay ang moralidad. Alam ko na mali ang pagiging mapanibugho. Ito ay isang ugaling nagpapakita ng kababawan ng pag-iisip at pag walang tiwala sa sarili, ngunit mababasa sa Exodus 20 na "… sapagka't akong Panginoon mong Dios, ay Dios na mapanibughuin.” Alam ko na masama ang pag-nanakaw ngunit mababasa din dito na iniutos ng Dios na nakawan ng mga Istraelitas ang mga kalaban nila.

Mas nagkaroon ng saysay ang moralidad para sa akin mula ng nawalan na ako ng paniniwala sa Dios…noong una kasi naniniwala ako na mali ang isang bagay kung maykapalit na gantimpala o parusa: ang isang bagay ay masasabing moral kung ito’y ikalulugod ng Dios at immoral naman ito kung ang gagawin mo eh laban sa kanyang utos. At ang utos na ito ay yung Sapung utos ng Diyos, tama ba?

Ito ang madalas na ginagawang katibayan ng mga mananampalataya na suporta sa kanilang argumento na ang moralidad ay galling sa relihiyon. Tignan natin…halimbawa, Igalang ang iyong ama at ina. Tama po i to…pero…kulang yan. Kung babasahin natin ang pagkakasulat, ganito po yan: Igalang mo ang iyong ama at ang iyong ina: upang ang iyong mga araw ay tumagal sa ibabaw ng lupa na ibinibigay sa iyo ng Panginoon mong Dios.

Igagalang ko ba ang mga magulang ko dahil sa mahal ko sila o dahil para humaba po ang aking buhay sa mundo?

Bakit ba ang moralidad na ibinibigay ng relihiyon eh lagging may naka-akibat na gantimpala? Ginagawa lang ba nating maging mabuti dahil mabuti ito o dahil sa mga gantimpala? Ito ba ang sinasabing moralidad ni Ginoong “samuelcamus?”

Kung ang gabay sa moralidad ay gantimpala, para na lang pala tayong mga aso ni Maslow. Isipin mo kaibigan…gumagawa ka ng mabuti kasi naniniwala kang pupunta kang langit. Ito ay isang baluktot na dahilan. Niloloko lang pala tayo…para tayong mga laboratory animals nyan. Tapos sasabihin mo, kaming mga ateista ang asal hayop. Mang “samuelcamus” ako’y isang ateista at gumagawa ako ng mabuti dahil gusto ko. Dahil naniniwala akong nakakapasaya ako ng tao pag gumagawa ako ng mabuti. Wala itong halong ka-ipokrituhan. Hindi ako gumagawa ng mabuti for the show…para may matuwa sa langit at bigyan ako ng buhay na walang hanggan. Hindi yan kabutihan…ang isang gawaing ginagawa dahil sa taglay na gantipala ay makasarili…madamot yan…at wag ka namang magagalit...hayop lang sa laboratoryo ang gumagawa ng isang gawain na naghahanap ng kapalit.

At sa pagtatapos ng artikulo nya, sinabi ni “samuelcamus” na, “Ang panganib ng Atheism ay syang maaaring maging susi ng magulong argumento tungkol sa kasamaan (problem of evil) na nasa ilalim ng pilosopiya ng taong kumukwestyon sa katotohanan ng pagkakaroon ng Diyos na may katalinuhang hindi tinaglay ng tao. Kaya’t sa panganib ng atheism, sinagot ng katalinuhan ng Diyos ang problema sa pilosopiya ng sa paningin Niya’y kamangmangan ng tao. Na kahit kailan ma’y hindi makakaarok ng kahiwagaan ng Diyos.”

Kaya ang solusyon mo sa Argumento ng Kasamaan” eh hiwaga…ganoon ba? Na ang talino ng Diyos eh hindi saklaw ng tao? Kung gayon…bakit ka naniniwala na may diyos? Kung hindi pala sakop ng utak mo ang bagay na pinag-sasasabi mo @ “samuelcamus” eh bikit kita dapat paniwalaan? Eh misteryo pala yan…paano mo nalaman na yan ang may hawak ng moralidad?

Kung sa bagay, ito na rin naman ang takbuhan ng mga mananaplalataya. Ang kanilang kabalukturan at pagiging mapariwala ay itinatago nila sa kanilang inimbentong hiwaga. Ang hiwaga ng katalinuhan ng diyos ay isang paraan para hindi ma-kwestyon ang maling paniniwala. Misteryo ang tawag nila dito…ngunit sa totoo ito ay isang delusion. Sila ay naiipit sa sarili nilang mga haka-haka at para maitago ito, sinasabi nilang mas matalino ang diyos sa tao. Pero sino nga ba ang higit na matalino? Ang diyos na nakagawa ng dalawang tao o ang tao na nakagawa ng milyon-milyon na mga diyos?

At dito nagtatapos ang artikulo ni “samuelcamus.” Isang artikulo na sya na mismo ang gumiba sa pamamagitan ng hiwaga.

Hanggang sa susunod,

Pinoy Atheist

=================================================

If you have some questions or comments on the article, send the author an e-mail at pinoy_atheist@yahoo.com. Thank you.