Pinoy Atheist: A journey of an atheist in Manila.

David Aikman's Delusion

2008-08-15T10:24:00.002+08:00

This is a review of David Aikman's The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, published by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008.

Click here!

"A" Doesn’t mean Assholes

2008-08-12T07:43:00.002+08:00

While chatting with some friends, I heard “Arthur Jacket” debating with Christians about the existence of god in Luneta Park. Arthur is one of the atheists who frequently stopover Luneta Park to engage on debates.

He was asking the poor fellow if god has a penis. WHAT??? He was also asking if what part of the brain is use to feel god’s existence, the right hemisphere or the left hemisphere. These kinds of arguments are... well...is good for laughs, but I do not think any educated atheist will swoop that low. Gosh, this is very amateurish. It will turn atheism into a circus and atheists as clowns.

There are other instances that some atheists throw bad questions. Most “practical” atheist seems to rely more on the issue of “to see is to believe”. That is the problem with practical atheism.

There is this certain fellow in Luneta who loves to joke around when engaging in debates. “Nasaaan na ang diyos na yan? Iharap mo sa akin at sesenelasin ko!” (Show me this god of yours and I will slap it with my sandals!). For 7 years, his argument always starts and ends with that phrase. There is nothing wrong with that if the discussion is not that intellectually conferred but there are times for telling funny stories and times to get serious about something. When some atheists rely on jokes, it gives an impression that the atheist’s position is not to be taken seriously.

I have seen many articles from different Christian apologists about the so-called “modern atheism” and it seems they all have one thing in common. They all agree that atheists are becoming too war-like. Now here’s an example from the book “The New Atheism”. "Anyone who reads its literature or debates its leaders finds that modern anti-theism is fueled by such ignoble motives as bitterness, rage, and hatred. Its spokesmen manifest an angry spirit which rages first against God and then (because they cannot confront God directly) against those who dare believe in Him.” (p. 27). To be quite honest, there are some factors why most Christians feel this way to atheism.

Speaking of atheism and anti-theism, in the BBC docufilm, Atheism – A History of Disbelief, British philosopher Colin McGinn has given the difference between anti-theism and atheism. Atheism is about not believing in a god while anti-theism is more about the opposition to theism. Well…let see, as an atheist I don’t believe in a god – that’s the end of the story. I also criticized religion. That makes me an anti-theist. To be more specific, my arguments against Christianity (for example) reflect the anti-theists side of myself. That is not about atheism. An atheist really does not care about it – remember, he does not believe that a god exist so why bother. Anti-theism in the other hand is more concern on the effect of religion.

Most Filipino atheists (or other Western atheists) think that religion criticism is a part of the atheist’s package. In recent books that became available to the market about atheism, we find a lot of them having articles about the ill effect of religion (notable are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchen and Sam Harris). Most atheists nowadays use these arguments. Come on guys…does these arguments prove that god doesn’t exist?
So what if you critized our religion? Does your fume about our church prove that our god does not exist? Maybe you just building a stawman argument? Maybe you just can’t understand our church because you are being made a fool by the Holy Spirit.

I found a book that tackled this issue and even called them as bad or feeble arguments against god. The book was Atheism Explained: From Folly to Philosophy written by David Ramsey Steele.

It was really a very interesting subject matter because I committed some of these follies. Yep, GUILTY AS CHARGED!

One of the most common mistakes is to believe that religion is the number one cause of mayhem in this planet. The argument seems to be very convincing, but sad to say…it is really an empty argument. You see, religion might be guilty but there are other belief systems who share the same crime. A good example is ideology. War in ideology can also bring havoc to society. The cold war was not from religion issue. The Bay of Pig incident that nearly plunge the United State into nuclear war was not religious…so does the prevailing war with the NPA here in the Philippines.

How about those suicide bombers? Well… religion is not their only motivation. According from the studies done by Robert Pape, there are other beliefs that may prompt a bomber other than Islam. Suicide terrorism can also be cause by political issue. Their hate with the Jews for occupying the Gaza and West Bank and the extreme hatred in American imperialism can be a cause. Look at the Tamil Tigers…They are not doing it for the Hindu cause. In the Philippines for example, the MILF issue can also be considered political and territorial (they want to have an independent state of Mindanao). Oh sure…you may say that their religion stimulate them to be separatists, but even without religion, certain group of people can still be motivated by territorial concern (just look at what happened in the American Civil War).

The prevailing issue that I have found so far, here in the Philippines is the extreme resentment of some atheists to anything that is religious. Yep…the anger is so much that atheists themselves become as close-minded as the average theists are. Religion does not always represent the delusional and not all believers are morons, stupid and half-wits. Remember, a believer discovered the Big Bang and Genetics. We also own much of our philosophies from believers. Art and Humanities have been some of the great products of churches.

If you will remember, I have said that I am also an anti-theist especially when it comes to Christianity and the Bible. That’s because I find Christianity quite far-flung from the ethics that it want to express. I also resent the violation of the separation of church and state and I find some biblical teaching quite repulsive. Again, that is not about atheism. However, that does not mean that I will destroy Christian icons nor rip the Bible in front of a crowded park. That is not atheism. That is a street sideshow. How about pissing on some Jesus’ pictures, or vandalizing churches? GOSH! Are you still convinced that these activities represent atheism?

As an atheist, you pride yourself for being rational, logical and scientific. So is pissing on Jesus’ face a sign of rationality? I think this is a sign of immaturity. An atheist does not have that kind of agenda. I am an atheist because I don’t believe in the existence of a god, PERIOD! Speaking of agenda, I wrote this blog to tell to the world why I do not believe in a god or gods, but I’m not goading others. I created a group so people like me can share ideas but not to provoke detestation and willful devastation. We make dialogues to believers to establish certain points, but that is for intellectual discussion not to cuss them and their belief system. Creating an agenda is a different matter. We create an agenda for non-believers to do a certain action, actions that will benefit both the non-believer and the society in which he is included. We act against discrimination. We act in opposition to the violation of the separation of church and state. We act against politicians who seem to give more importance to the church than to the general welfare of the public. We act to the enrichment of education through secular means. We act to the promotion of science. We act against the division produce by ecclesiastical interpretations. However, we do not act to spread destruction, damnation and doom. We are not promoting vandalism or irrational, emotional hatred against the church and religion. Let see…I am promoting Secular Humanism in the Philippines as an alternative to communism so non-theists will have a voice – that is my agenda. To promote mutual respect and admiration to society even if they do not have any god-belief – that is my evolution from atheism.

The “A” in atheism doesn’t mean anarchism, anti-law and to think of a better word “an asshole”. We are not a bunch of social misfits, deviants and misanthropes whose disbelief has grow to total hatred to culture and society. We are not narrow-minded meathead or biased faultfinders who cannot even see something beautiful in this society. Loathing is not the fruit of atheism. We are always reminded that atheism has brought “thinking” back in our brain, but thinking does not mean irrational cynicism. We must now show the world, that after retaining our “thinking ability” we as atheist are now challenging ourselves on using it properly.

John the Atheist

Still not over yet...

2008-08-10T09:27:00.004+08:00

I thought PGMA already killed HB4110? Yet it seems seems the CBCP is still not satisfied. Huh...KILL IT AND BURY IT!

Well,what do us secular Filipinos going to do about it?

Now here's something to sink our teeth in.

Pastoral Statement from the Archbishop

On May 1, 2003,
I received a text message from our CBCP Legal Office which says:

"LATE
NEXT WEEK IS THE EXECUTIVE MEETING (puro congressmen lang) EXTREMELY DANGEROUS -
THEY DECIDE AMONG THEMSELVES - NONE OF US CAN ENTER - PRAY AND CONVINCE OUR
CONGRESSMEN TO BE PRESENT AND VOTE VS HB4110. This is our LAST HOPE. Mga OBISPO
.... GISING IN JESUS' NAME WE PRAY."

HB4110, aside from other things
would desecrate the sanctity of life in many ways the most consequential of
which is its destruction in the beginning stages of it.

Politicians who
call themselves 'Catholic' or even Christians in general cannot in good
conscience vote for it.

We cannot allow a person who doesn't promote the
sanctity of human life to appear that he or she was all for the reproductive
help of mothers and thus, so they say, help their children when he or she is
killing the unborn--the most defenseless of al'

People need to
understand that you cannot call yourself a Catholic in good standing and at the
same time publicly hold views that are contradictory to the Catholic faith.

One cannot use the argument that women should retain the right to decide
to kill their own children by aborting them, under the guise of making their own
decisions about their bodies in the guise of reproductive health.

We do
not own our bodies. We are not proprietors. We are stewards--stewards of a
sacred trust. We all must decide how to care for our bodies. But abortion
entails another body, that of the infant.

The prohibition of God and of
the law of nature is abundantly clear: "Thou shalt not kill."

As your
bishop, I have to say clearly that anyone--politician or otherwise--who thinks
and publicly proclaims it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in
very great error, puts his or her soul at risk, and is not in good standing with
the Church.

Such a person should have the integrity to acknowledge this
and choose of his own volition to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he
has a change of heart.

We have to practice our faith. If one publicly
holds positions contrary to our faith in such a serious area, then one needs to
examine oneself in relation to teaching of the Church and draw the necessary
conclusions and take the necessary action.

It goes back to 1 Cor
11,27-29: if you are in disharmony with the Church in whatever way, then you
should recognize that you may be eating and drinking judgment upon yourself, and
take the necessary steps.

If such a one ignores an invitation to abstain
voluntarily from the Eucharist, he should be denied the Sacrament--for the good
of his soul and the welfare of the Church.

One cannot be "personally
opposed" to abortion, yet support its legal protection and even probably its
public funding on the ground that they must not impose "private" religious
judgments on their fellow citizens.

The status of the child in the womb
as a human being is not a matter of revealed religious dogma; it is a plain fact
of human embryology and developmental biology.

The obligation of the
politicians to protect the child against deliberate homicide follows from the
principle that every member of the human family, irrespective of age, size,
location, stage of development, or condition of dependency, is entitled to
equality under the law.

Many Catholic politicians abroad and here have
unconsciously seized upon the misguided idea that religion is a purely private
matter to justify their support for abortion and other moral evils.

How
can the Church help Catholic politicians in their task of being faithful to
moral principles? The first responsibility is with the laity. In the domain of
politics, and especially as voters, Catholic citizens should resolve to withhold
their support from politicians who fail in their obligation to afford to all
--including the child in the womb-- the equal protection of the laws.

We
must miss no opportunity personally to stress the truth, powerfully reaffirmed
recently by the Holy See, that support for legal abortion and its public funding
is incompatible with Catholic faith.

We must remind politicians,
especially the Catholic ones, of the need to give priority to the cause of
justice for the unborn and other vulnerable persons, simply because they cannot
protect themselves.

I privately spoke to our representative in the
southern area of Misamis Occidental, and I am happy that she answered favorably.
She said she would vote against HB4110.

--------------------------
So if you want support for HB4110 please write your support to the honorable Congressman Edsel Lagman. It think they will need all the support we can give. You can also help them by distributing information regarding REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL (HB 4110).

For my part, we are planning to include this on the 2nd issue of The Free Thinker's Reader and I may post more issues regarding this bill in the coming months.

The opposition may be strong, but if we're all going to move united in this issue, we can slay the dragon.

John the Atheist

-----------------------------------------

Please sign this petition (from The Philippine Atheists)

Hi,

I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:

"Support Reproductive Health Care Act of 4110"

I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes less than a minute of your time.

Thanks!

Need For Salvation?

2008-08-09T10:01:00.001+08:00

“Dear God, Please save me from your followers.”

A typical believer’s trump card is the word salvation. Yeah! You’ll gonna hear a lot of this when you attend their fellowship. Typically, salvation means the state of being saved or preserved from harm. Harm from what?

Now here’s a usual Christian claim about the need for salvation:

“Your absolutely right, fear. I fear that day if i caught unprepared. i know myself, i am not clean living, i am also sinner, as wicked as ordinary person here. i talk lies, i steal (use pirated or downloaded music), i dont want to see any sexual stimulating pictures but deep inside my old adamic nature really surface thats why i know i am really weak and theres nothing to be proud of it, i always forget to say thanks to all the blessings i recieve etc. but after all those things, i believed He will save me from that day because my lawyer is His Son.

Most Christians have struggle deep inside because when you already baptized and accepted Him, the things you love to do before will not be justifiable to continue, it should be now avoided as far as you can although you like to do it again. most Christians drag themselve to change. its hard but i know it worth someday because you know your saved.”

…i am not in the position to tell you that you are not save, it is His full discretion, not mine. it is between you and Him and i have nothing to do with that. you and me are the same, the only fine line that separate me from you is faith and fear to Him.

yes i dont have a balls to gamble regarding judgement day and i am not ashame of that. its like upcoming court hearing and we know it will come, the only question is when. for security, i ask the greatest Lawyer i know to defend me so that i will not be send to jail. fortunately, His service is free of charge.

for me, the thought of jumping on the boiling water is unimaginable, i know it is very painful. i always have a freezing feeling about that, i am really scared thats why i said i dont have balls to gamble to judgement day. if the thought of jumping on the boiling water makes me really afraid, what more if it is a burning sulfur.

So what salvation are we talking about?

Maybe it is best to see what believers mean of the word “salvation”.

Salvation is really a manifestation of the need of a believer. Generally, believers see that human beings are in some kind of unfortunate condition and may achieve an ultimately good state either by their own efforts or through the intervention of some divine power. Very commonly, there is belief in a savior God, that is, a God whose special concern is with the welfare of the human race. Where God is a personal object of worship typically salvation has to be effected by the deity, and this is where doctrines of grace and their analogues come in. Even here, it is assumed in some way that the human being cooperates even if only by calling on the divine name for help. Where there is no such personal God, the individual must prepare himself, often through rigorous methods, in order to be in a position to gain eternal freedom.

There are many forms of “salvation”…since there are many forms of religious beliefs. Some are in the form of enlightenment – like that of the Buddhists and Hinduism. In these religions, ignorance is believed to be the cause of world trouble. These people don’t need an after-life. If Christians want to get in the concept of an eternal life, Buddhism and Hinduism is trying to get out of it.

Therefore, their salvation is the liberation from an endless rebirth (samsara). Enlightenment is the key for a person to attain the final liberation (moksa) to achieve nirvana.

Christianity believes in a different form of salvation. This is base firmly on the doctrine of the fall of man. Majority of Christian believe that when man fell because of sin, they become far from receiving grace from God and Jesus Christ (God’s son) is the only way to reconstruct this link.

The problem with Christian salvation is that it seems they (the Christians) are not unified with the doctrine. The Gospel message about salvation is not completely clear. It teaches that one can be saved by following a very strict moral code and that one can be saved by giving up everything (something Christian preaches today can’t accomplish) yet some Christian (Evangelical) says that the Bible teaches salvation through being “saved by grace through faith”. Some even went to the extreme to say that once a person believe in Christ, he/she will be save, whatever he/she will do in the future. That’s what we called the doctrine of “Once save is always save.” Roman Catholics believe that faith and works are both needed in order to achieve redemption while other believes salvation is by works. If these Christians cannot even agree with each other on the issue of salvation, then what is the point to teach salvation to non-believers? Who’s answering the phone here when I dial 911 (117 in the Philippines)? Hello???

Base on the Christian’s posts, fear is the motivation to believe in the promise of salvation. Therefore, that means fear is the motivation of Christian ethics. Generally speaking, the Christian doctrine of salvation is about rewards and punishments…This reminds me of Maslov’s dog…Anyway, Christian salvation only posit two options: A “good” conduct will give you the rewards of heaven and the alternative to heaven is often seen as hopeless – Hell and eternal damnation.

Christian priests and preachers capitalized with this trepidation to achieve absolute power. Since there is no God to judge the believers…His lawyers- the priests and preachers appoint themselves, as God’s rightful representative in this world – and the first thing to do is to interpret the Bible base on their own idea and understanding. I thought that its God’s instruction plan. I wonder if believers are getting their instructions to God or the coaching of the preachers.

To achieve salvation, believers often claim that they have to leave their former lives. Some even accuse “modern living” as the factor for sinning…as if their “new lives” is free from the curse of human disintegration. Yet many people have believed in a god, even before I was born…many people have accepted a Savior and claimed to be “born again”. Still the world is plague by evil (something their omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God still have not got rid off).

After reading the Bible, I asked myself; what did this god have achieved so far? Well…just like other ancient belief system and religion, the Bible didn’t do anything to elevate the lives of women. It didn’t stop war. In fact, it even promotes war and genocide. It didn’t preach human rights and equality to all race. It promotes slavery and inhuman punishments. It never gave us knowledge on how to use some herbs as medicine…It didn’t even eradicate any disease.

Now… why will I believe the Christian claim that this god can change my life if this god seems to be incapable of changing anything in the first place? If this god is powerless of changing anything, then how do you expect me to believe the Christians claims of salvation?

I think this god is the one who needs the salvaging.

John the Atheist

Natai's god

2008-08-07T09:29:00.002+08:00

Nitai_Gauranga wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 23:38 Does God Exist?

Many people nowadays claim that God does not exist, that there is no such thing as God. Before we proceed further with this discussion we should understand what we mean by the word "God." God means the origin of existence.

That’s new. What I know is that god is defined as creator, provider, and lawgiver, but I never saw any literatures that define the word "god" that way. The word "god" doesn’t mean "origin of existence" @ Nitai Gauranga. Are you creating your own dictionary? God is supposed to be the reason of the "origin of existence" (AKA necessary being) – that is one of his claims but that is not how we define him. Hmmmmmmm…it’s like this @ Nitai - a dog is defined as a member of the genus Canis (probably descended from the common wolf) that has been domesticated by man since prehistoric times; occurs in many breeds. You do not say that a dog means "with fur".

Let see what Mr. Webster have to say. According to Mr. Webster, the word god means, "The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions."

If you still doesn’t trust this…

God /God/ (?), a. & n. Good. [Obs.] Chaucer.

God /God/ (gŏd), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got, G. gott, Icel. guð, goð, Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup, prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. hū, p. p. hūta, to call upon, invoke, implore. √30. Cf. Goodbye, Gospel, Gossip.] 1. A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol.

He maketh a god, and worshipeth it. Is. xliv. 15.

The race of Israel . . . bowing lowly down
To bestial gods. Milton.

2. The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.

God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John iv. 24.

3. A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard.

Whose god is their belly. Phil. iii. 19.

4. Figuratively applied to one who wields great or despotic power. [R.] Shak.

Act of God. (Law) See under Act. -- Gallery gods, the occupants of the highest and cheapest gallery of a theater. [Colloq.] -- God's acre, God's field, a burial place; a churchyard. See under Acre. -- God's house. (a) An almshouse. [Obs.] (b) A church. -- God's penny, earnest penny. [Obs.] Beau. & Fl. -- God's Sunday, Easter.

God /God/, v. t. To treat as a god; to idolize. [Obs.] Shak.

There are other definitions base on different theists. According to the German theologian Melanchthon (1497-1560), "God is a spiritual essence, intelligent, eternal, true, good, pure, just, merciful, most free and of infinite power and wisdom." Thomasius more briefly defines God as "the absolute personality." Professor W. N. Clarke says, "God is the personal Spirit, perfectly good, who in holy love creates, sustains and orders all" (Outline of Christian Theology, 66). According to E. Caird, "while all religions involve a conscious relation to a being called God, the Divine Being is in different religions conceived in the most different ways; as one and as many, as natural and as spiritual, as like to and manifested in almost every object in the heavens above or earth beneath, in mountains and trees, in animals and men; or, on the contrary, as being incapable of being represented by any finite image whatsoever; and, again, as the God of a family, of a nation, or of humanity." (E. Caird, Evolution of Religion, I, 62).

Professor W. Adams Brown: "A god in the religious sense is an unseen being, real or supposed, to whom an individual or a social group is united by voluntary ties of reverence and service" (Christian Theology in Outline, 30). Many similar definitions are given: "A supersensible being or beings" (Lotze, Asia Minor Fairbairn); "a higher power" (Allan Menzies); "spiritual beings" (E.B. Tylor); "a power not ourselves making for righteousness" (Matthew Arnold).

So the question is this: Does existence have an origin or is it simply existing on its own? To answer this question we can use the modern day scientific method known as empirical observation. Do we have any experience of something that exists on its own without being caused by something else? The answer is no. We have never observed such a phenomena. Therefore we can rightfully conclude that since everything we have ever observed has a cause for its existence, existence itself must have a cause and therefore God must exist.

Base on your own observation and conclusion @ Nitai, then your god was also created.

Please read and examine your own premises:

It is impossible for something to exist on its own without being caused by something else.

God exist.

Therefore, god must have been cause by something else.

Are you hitting your head with your own hammer @ Nitai_Gauranga?

Ciao!

John the Atheist

Playing with Paradox

2008-08-07T09:12:00.002+08:00

While reading some open books in the shelves of National Bookstore, I came across this article regarding one of Bertrand Russell’s paradoxes. It is called “the barber’s paradox”. It goes like this: Suppose there is a town with just one male barber; and that every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven: some by shaving themselves, some by attending the barber. It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule: He shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves.
Under this scenario, we can ask the following question: Does the barber shave himself?

Asking this, however, we discover that the situation presented is in fact impossible:
If the barber does not shave himself, he must abide by the rule and shave himself.
If he does shave himself, according to the rule he will not shave himself.

No one really understands what a paradox is. I heard one person in LU saying that paradoxes are nothing but semantic mistakes. I guess he hasn’t been reading a lot of philosophy books lately. Some dictionary define a paradox simply as statements that contradicts itself, but I think a paradox is more better understood as an argument that derives or appears to derive an absurd conclusion by rigorous deduction from obviously true premises.

Zeno of Elea (circa 495-430 BCE) is best known for his paradoxes that is said to be the first recorded examples of argument of ‘reductio ad absurdum’ (literally, reduction to absurdity) in which an opponent’s view is shown to be false because it leads to contradiction. The paradox of Achilles is perhaps the best known of Zeno’s puzzles. Swift Achilles is to run a race against a tortoise, and the tortoise is given a head start. Zeno argues that, no matter how fast Achilles runs, he can never overtake the tortoise. First Achilles must reach the point atwhich the tortoise started, call it P1. By the time he does so, however, the tortoise will have traveled some short distance further, to a point we can call P2. So Achilles’snext task is to run from P1 to P2. By the time he achieves this, the tortoise will have traveled a bit further, to P3. SoAchilles’s next task is to run to P3. But by then the tortoise will have reached P4, and so on.

Thus, according to Zeno, Achilles can never pass the tortoise and win the race, because, no matter how fast he runs, each time he reaches a point where the tortoise was, the tortoise will have moved a bit farther on.

Stating the conclusion more carefully, Zeno’s argument does not (and was most likely not intended to) show that Achilles cannot overtake the tortoise; rather, it demonstrates that there is a conceptual puzzle regarding how he does so.

Another famous Zeno’s paradox is the runner, who, before she can reach her destination, first has to reach the point halfway there, and who, before reaching the halfway point, has to reach the quarter point, before which she must reach the point one-eighth of the way to the destination, and so on. The conclusion is that no runner ever reaches her goal, or even gets started.

Aristotle tackled Zeno’s paradox and said that it was not possible to partition Achilles’s path into infinitely many parts. Any segment of Achilles’s course can be divided in two, so that there is no finite bound on how many pieces the path contains, but the process of partitioning the path never concludes in a path with infinitely many parts. The number of segments that make up the path is said to be potentially infinite. The moral Aristotle drew from Zeno is that there is, in nature or in mathematics, no actual infinite.

This in turn was later use by the Arabs in their Kalam Argument for the Existence of God, which in turn was made famous by the Christian apologist William Craig Lane.

According to this Christian apologist, there are two types of infinite process: actual or potential. An actual infinite series is one that is completed. A potential infinite series is one that continues to go on without end. (I think Norman Giesler also promote this definition) Since it is absurd to imagine something infinite that can be completed, then actual infinites cannot exist. Potential infinite in the other hand, can only exist through ideas (abstract). Numbers are good example of a partial infinite.

Thanks to these wonderful Christian apologists, their god is now ensnared on their own ridicules explanations. God is said to be infinite. So is he partial or an actual infinite being? If you say actual, then he cannot exist, but if you say he’s a partial infinite, then he’s an abstract idea. In addition, if actual infinite does not exist, then how the Christian can god becomes “omnipotent” and “omniscient”. According to the divine attributes of omniscience, god has all the ideas of infinite knowledge because “he is the greatest being conceivable” (compare to worldly knowledge that is said to be finite). If actual infinite is impossible – then an omniscient being cannot exist.

This brings us back to Russell’s Barber paradox. The puzzle about the barber has an easy solution. – Such a barber does not exist. Now does the Christian god also suffer the same conclusion as Russell’s barber?

John the Atheist

A retreat to agnosticism

2008-08-06T14:49:00.001+08:00

Have you ever encountered the following argument from believers?

"Hah, then what makes you thing God must be bound to a mere 4 dimensional being? Perhaps he is a 10 dimensional being, perhaps he's a 12 dimensional being. That theory support such possibilty." and worst, "what makes you think you're capable of comprehending all that God is?”

If god is completely unknowable, the concept of god is therefore meaningless and devoid of content. For a believer to say that god exists yet believe that humans are not capable of comprehending god is proving nothing.

To say that god is inexplicable yet being cock sure that he exists is a contradiction. How can you be sure of its existence if you do not know what this “it” in the first place? When one claims that something is unknowable, can he produce knowledge in support of it? The believer who will explain the content of the unknowable is in effect saying, “I will explain the concept of this inter-dimensional being known as God, which is totally unknowable.” – Any person who is into this appears to be behind the door when brains were given out.

Until next time,
John the Atheist

Big Bang and Origins

2008-08-06T14:40:00.001+08:00

Believers must always insist that there is a “first cause” and a “prime mover”. Naturally, they must rely on these ideas to bring their god into the picture. It really is more of a philosophical idea but sometimes they always stem out of the line of science to make their claim…eh…realistic.

The idea of a “prime mover” is base on a person’s worldview. If you believe that everything started static, well then you will have a pre-conditioned belief about the Prime Mover – just like Aristotle.

It is considered that the Big Bang is the starting point of matters, space and time - that the Big Bang is space itself, as well as everything contained therein, sprang from a single point of infinite density and temperature, and grew to the volume observed today. (Note: Notice that the Big Bang does not say that energy started before or after it – You have to remember this one.)

Mind stretchers (that is what I called theorists) have some new ideas about the Big Bang. I heard one that says this present BB is just one of an infinite number of BB that has occurred. Yet on its present state, cosmologists can now say with confidence that the universe started out in a very hot and very dense state somewhere between 8 billion and 25 billion years ago (whew! And believers says that the universe is just 6 thousand years old. Shame on them!).

Speaking of believers, they think that the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics is a contradiction with the Big Bang. Since the BB is the starting point of matters, space and time, matter was created in the BB. Therefore, it is erroneous to say that it needs no “Prime Mover” since movements of matter have started after the BB. Therefore, a Prime Mover started the ball rolling.

According to believers (especially Christian believers) matter had a beginning since matter cannot cause itself. Therefore, the material universe has a cause. Other than this, God (the Prime Mover) just hit everything with a cue stick to start it moving. That is ancient physics. Thanks to modern physics and quantum mechanics, we are now looking at things in sub-atomic levels. Today we now know that there are probabilistic causes. Atomic decay and molecular movements are good example of causeless effects. Probabilistic causes are now the talk of the science town. In fact, the Christian god idea is a good example of probabilistic cause and if probabilistic causes are impossible, then that is synonymous to the impossibility of a God that is consider as a “causeless first cause”.

Going back to the issue of a “Prime Mover”…since matter is created it is now…eh…wait a minute…So do I believe that matter was created? I once believe that matter, can be neither created nor destroyed (Conservation of mass), yet. the special theory of relativity of Albert Einstein have demonstrated that matter can be eh… created for instance, by the materialization of a photon (quantum of electromagnetic energy) into an electron-positron pair; or it may be destroyed, by the annihilation of this pair of elementary particles to produce a pair of photons. Matter can be created out of energy and can disappear into energy.

So therefore, there is a first cause and a prime mover. Viola God exist!

Eh not exactly. So it seems to appear that matter emerge after energy. That matter is just a by-product of energy. The principle of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, although it can be changed from one form to another. If so, then there no reason to conclude a so-called “first cause”, since energy in infinite (without beginning nor end).

In the issue regarding the so-called “Prime Mover” , since matter can be created via the materialization of a photon into an electron-positron pair – then why would I believe that matter started in a non-moving position? According to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, particles behave in some respects like waves: they do not have a definite position but are “smeared out” with a certain probability distribution. Protons are positively charged particle, right? They are always spinning around. If mater developed in these moving particles, then they started as moving particles. We do not need someone to push the strings.

But where does all that energy comes from? The First Law of Thermodynamics states energy must come somewhere.

The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a close system remained fixed. According to Prof. Stephen Hawkins, “In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. This does not happen in the normal expansion of the universe in which the matter energy density goes down as the universe gets bigger. It does happen, however, in the inflationary expansion because the energy density of the supercooled state remains constant while the universe expands: when the universe doubles in size, the positive matter energy and the negative gravitational energy both double, so the total energy remains zero. ” (A Brief History of Time p, 129).

So if quantum mechanics have counteracted the premise of the First cause and the Prime Mover argument, they what is the need to posit the god question?

That wraps it up.

John the Atheist

We are now known as Center For Inquiry / Philippines

2008-08-04T00:07:00.003+08:00

Hi guys,

Hello! The Center For Inquiry has finally given us the blessing to make a branch here. For those who are unfamiliar with the name, CFI is A Global Federation Committed to Science, Reason, Free Inquiry, Secularism, and Planetary Ethics.

We are now accepting members so if you guys are interested E-mail us joshualipana@yahoo.com pocholosuzara@yahoo.com or pinoy_atheist@yahoo.com so we can work something out.

We are also looking for some people with the passion in writing for the next newsletter.

Sincerely,
John Paraiso

John the Atheist answers LeastOfBrethren

2008-08-02T12:12:00.003+08:00

Gosh! It seems a lot have already been talk about while I was away. Sorry, about that bud…the crisis here in the Philippines has caught with me and to add insult to injuries my computer broke!

Unfortunately, I will be leaving (to some “god-forsaken” place) and might not be writing anything for about a month or two. Nevertheless, as General Macarthur said, “I shall return!”

O.k. enough of this melancholy. Hmmmmm….let see…I just posted this answer in a separate thread @ LeastOfBrethren. Seems I just can’t catch up with the topic so I will just compile all your message to this one posts. Hope that’s OK with you. Oh and I just posted those whom I think is important.

The Bible talks about God and gods but the Bible is very clear about distinction between the two. LORD GOD are very attentive to warn and even put to right path when His children, Israel, about gods of their neighboring country. He gave a very clear instruction not to worship other God because there is no God than Him. Yes, there are gods that mentioned in the Bible, those are the gods worshipped by their neighboring country and the reason why LORD God ordered His children to wipe them out.

John the Atheist: No one has the monopoly of claiming a “true” god. Every god is true base on what the adherents’ believe.

I think every god believer in this planet have the same impression. They all believe that the god that they worship is the true god while other deities are consider as false gods. Egocentrism appears to follow religion.

In Islam for example, the god ordered Muhammad to destroy the idols in Ka’aba. Even in ancient times, those who conquered other civilizations most likely try to erase the gods of the occupied territories to stress domination. Example, in Easter Island, a dominating culture tried to eradicate the worship of the “moia”. They even destroyed some of those impressive 4 feet megaliths. In ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh Akhenaton (died in 1358 BCE) established the worship of the Sun cult (Amon-Ra) and decreed all Egyptian gods banished but one Supreme Being—Aten, the god of the fully risen sun. Throughout all of Egypt, the images of all the gods desecrated or destroyed. In addition to denigrating the ancient gods of Egypt, Akhenaton moved his capital city to Tel el Amarna, thus denying the region of Thebes and Karnak their prestige as sacred ground.

Many gods are of the jealous type. I do not know about green-eyed gods…the creator of the universe being pisses-off when his lowly subjects worship other gods and flattery is use to appease Him. You call this a “god’? Jealousy is a very weak kind of emotion. Classical theism does reduce the greatness of a Supreme Being.

just like a father showing his power and strength to his children against his enemy. He showed how He gets angry, He doesn’t give a second thought of wiping them out when you are His enemy. Our LORD God has actually putting fear to His children towards Him because fear of God is the start of wisdom.

John the Atheist: Fear is the start of wisdom? I thought curiosity and skepticism is the start of wisdom. Anyway, speaking of fear I have read somewhere that…God is Love, real love is not fear..eh…strange isn’t it?

Speaking of fear, most despots have the same approach like your god when it comes to their subjects. One of the best examples I know was The Grand Moff Tarkin (played by Peter Cushing) in the movie Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope. A soulless conference room deep inside the Death Star, high-ranking Imperial Officers were discussing about the benefit of the new battle station. According to The Grand Moff Tarkin, fear will keep the local systems in-line.

Tyrants have employed the use of fear to thwart public opinion. Maybe you had forgotten the Marcos regime. Feudal and warlords use it to prevent rebellion. So why do these LORDS use it? That’s not about love or wisdom…it is use to instill power and control. Christianity was founded from this fear…Look how the Church used this fear to plunder the lands of our ancestors. The same fear is use today to pillage wealth and resources from devotees. Shock and awe has nothing to do with wisdom. There is no truth in fear, only coercion. To utilize fear as basis of wisdom will only create a mind full of hate and intolerance. That is the reason why most wars are instigate with the belief in a vengeful, warlike god. Now base in your own description @ LeastOfBrethren , why would you like me to worship such a fiendish bully?

The anger of this god is really the greed of the Christian evangelists.

the story about LORD God is not a myth, the baal's and greek (romans, egyptians) mythology are the myths. everybody knows about what happened in egypt when our LORD God rescued His children. He send plagues to egypt which zues, jupiter, ra cannot do even a single one thats because it is a myth or came from man's imagination.

lets take for example zues. if zues is really existing, why his people or believers are gone now? do you know anyone who still worship zues or even can testify his presence? if he is existing, atleast he take care his people until now so that people like us now in modern times can hear his teachings like our LORD God does. from time of abraham until now, we can freely hear His teachings inspite of hardship gone thru the ages. thats why there is Christians, and Judaism. Muslims can also testify that there is God but that is deifferent story. were are those RA's people now? if he is really existing, why his teachings cannot be seen now? suppose RA is god, and we know God is powerfull. if you are powerfull, protecting your people against hardship thru the ages are an easy task for you. no matter what happened, your legacy and words will remain regardless of time. you cannot see any remnants of RA, jupiter, zues because they are just man's imagination and that is the perfect example of myth. but our LORD God is not a myth, i am here testifying that He is Almighty because He protect His people until His words reached to my time. imagine, those words were written thousand years ago?! thats amazing!

John the Atheist: Are you suggesting that the Hindu gods are real because until now there are still at least 900 million people who still worship the Brahman or even can testify his presence, even after all those years (7000 years.- Wow! That is older than the Judeo-Christian creation story!) Better watch your arguments @ LeastOfBrethren, an atheist retort may sometimes be very fiddly.

Gods are recyclable @ LeastOfBrethren. Don’t you know that you may still be worshipping the same god that the Egyptians worshipped every time you worship Jesus. Remember, both Horus and Jesus is The Way, The Truth and the Life – only Horus came a bit 3,000 years earlier than Jesus.

About the 10 plagues…hmmmm…well only the Hebrews believe this had happened. However, according to the Egyptians, it is a bad case of urban legend. Therefore, I guess, Horus still guards his turf against Christian fakers.

Seriously, you cannot see any of these so-called “events” in the walls of Karnak. Oh sure, you might say that the Egyptians delete all these accounts from their history. Well, that is your burden of proof. As long as you cannot show me any historical evidence that the Exodus happened, I will not accept any rhetoric explanations.

Historically speaking, you may have some problems regarding the Exodus. First, it will be quite difficult for you to prove to me that Moses (the hero of the story) is an existing fellow. Second, archeological evidences suggest that the story of the Exodus all the way to the Book of Joshua never even happened. It is quite doubtful that 2 million refugees escape Egyptian slavery without some sort of mention in the Egyptian records. Gosh! Egyptians are meticulous record-keepers.

Second, can you explain to me how two million people wandered in the desert for 40 years did not even leave a single archeological souvenir?

There is even this debate about the Red Sea and Sea of Reeds.

Therefore, the Exodus story is definitely a myth.

Now @ LeastOfBrethren, you say that your god is better than Zeus huh? Yet you still utter Zeus every time you say “Diyos” (The Pilipino word for god). The word “diyos” came from the Spanish word “deos”, which etymologically came from the word “Zeus” – that “theo” for you @ LeastOfBrethren.

Now for the bad news @ LeastOfBrethren, Christianity is long dead. What we have here are syndication re-runs. Just like other ancient gods, the Judeo-Christian tribal god was already buried. What we have are just spin-offs. Christianity…just like other religions has assimilated into popular culture. That is why we have “Born-Again Christians” today.

Nietzsche (1844-1900) was right when he said ‘God is dead.” as John Shelby Spong explained - According to his friend, the ex-Anglican priest Michael Donald Goulder, that the God of the past “no longer had any real work to do.” The task assigned to this God by traditional wisdom, he suggested, have been slowly but surely stripped from the divine side. This God no longer fights wars and defeats enemies. This God no longer chooses a special people and works through them. This God no longer sends storms, heals the sick, spare the dying, or even judge the sinners. This God no longer rewards goodness and punished evil. (Why Christianity Must Change or Die p.44)

The God of our traditional past, who was the source of our values, the definer of our sense of right or wrong, was simply no more (Why Christianity Must Change or Die p.40)

I don’t think Bishop Spong is talking about Zeus or Ra.

The Bible is not a historical book but for believers like me, we believed that Bible is history book written in advance consisting of parables to explain what will happen in the future, it is written in parables and other ways so that non believers cannot see nor understand what is written in advance no matter how they tried to understand it until they confess in their mouth our Lord God is Almighty.

John the Atheist: It is not about what you want to believe @ LeastOfBrethren. The question is does your claim has any morsel of facts in it?

Facts are not use to make a clean breast about something @ LeastOfBrethren. Non-believers use it to see if a believer’s explanation is flawed. If you will try to excuse yourself on your claims by saying that “non believers cannot see nor understand what is written in advance no matter how they tried to understand…” , then there is really no good reason to tell us of this gimcrack you called “The Bible”.

Scrutiny is the best defense on predictive claims. If your aver regarding Biblical history as written in advance stands up @ LeastOfBrethren ,then we have no reason to doubt it. Regarding Biblical prophesies, most Christian apologists reason out that most “unfulfilled” prophesies in the Bible are just events that still have to happened in the far future (is this your same excuse @ LeastOfBrethren?), but when confronted with historical facts, there are some so called “prophesies” in the Bible that never really took place. Here are some examples:

• "And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever; there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it" (Jer. 49:33). People never stopped living in Hazor and continue to do so.

• According to Ezekiel, Tyre will fall to Nebuchadrezzar and be destroyed by him. He will plunder Tyre's riches. "For thus saith the Lord God; Behold I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings.... He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field:...and with his axes he shall break down thy towers...he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches...." (Ezek 26:7-12) and "All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more" (Ezek. 28:19). Yet, Nebuchadrezzar did not take Tyre or make a spoil of its riches. His 13 year siege failed. He took the outworks but the town was on an island and remained impregnable. "Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had performed against it. Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchardrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry of its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt as his recompense for which he labored...." (Ezek. 29:18-20 RSV). Tyre was not conquered by Nebuchadrezzar, so God gave him Egypt as compensation. No historian either Greek or Phoenician mentions Tyre being taken, plundered, and destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. Alexander the Great actually conquered Egypt 240 years later.

• "And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and they shall take away her multitude, and her foundations shall be broken down. Ethiopia, and Libya, and Lydia, and all the mingled people,...shall fall with them by the sword.... And they shall know that I am the Lord, when I have set a fire in Egypt, and when all her helpers shall be destroyed.... Thus saith the Lord God; I will also make the multitude of Egypt to cease by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon. He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, will be brought to destroy the land; and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain. And I will make the rivers dry,...and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt: and I will put a fear in the land of Egypt....And I will set fire in Egypt" (Ezek. 30:4-16) and "thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against Pharoah king of Egypt, and will break his arms,.... And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries. And I will stengthen the arms of the king of Babylon, and put my sword in his hand: but I will break the Pharoah's arms,.... I shall put by sword into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall stretch it out upon the land of Egypt" (Ezek. 30:22-26).
(a) The multitudes of Egypt have never been taken away or dispersed among other countries.
(b) Ethiopia, Libya, and Lydia never fell along with Egypt. They never fell to a common destroyer.
(c) A large conflagration never occurred in Egypt.
(d) Nebuchadrezzar never destroyed the land of Egypt.
(e) A prince continued to rule in Egypt long after Nebuchadrezzar.
(f) The rivers of Egypt were never made dry and
(g) None of the evils which Ezekiel said Nebuchadrezzar would bring upon Egypt ever occurred.

• "It (Egypt) shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations" (Ezek. 29:15). Yet, in the 1820's Egypt took over and ruled the Sudan.

• "So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt" (Isa. 20:4). When did Assyrians capture Egyptian and Ethiopian prisoners and lead them away with their buttocks uncovered?

• "Israel will no longer expect any help from Egypt. Whenever she thinks of asking for it, then she will remember her sin in seeking it before" (Ezek. 29:16 Living Bible). How is this to be reconciled with the recent Camp David agreement?

if you use your worldy wisdom and you think you are intelligent enough to know Him using your scientific thinking, im sorry to tell you that you are missing the point of knowing Him. because it is written in 1 Corinthian 1:19 I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." (taken from Isaiah 29:14).

John the Atheist: *sigh* The worldly wisdom excuse again. *sigh*
I am really flummoxed with this worldly wisdom claptrap. Geez! Is there a “heavenly wisdom”? If there is, then what is it? The god concept was created in this “world”, isn’t it?

Anyway, I’m not really that interested with boring palavers.

Brethren, think of this. suppose there is no God and suppose one day we theist eventually discover that there is no God and everything is just an imagination. what do you think you can get from that? you atheist are rejoicing that finally you are justified that there is no God and you must be proud, walking head upright just like a king walking in the middle of his people. we thist will very shock for days, months or years and after years of living we are all dead and our life will ends from that. - you get nothing but a temporary happiness.

Lets turn the table, suppose there is God. and suppose one unexpected day, The Son of Man came from the sky thru the clouds on His feet. everybody is crying because they are not prepared and your one of them. that day and time, you and the rest of non-believers will run and hide under the stone and mountains (as what was written in the book of revelation) so that the wrath of God will not struck you. no matter what kind of hidding you will do, you will be send in front of great white throne to be judge. and after that judgement, you will be punish for not listening to what believers has said over and over again and not reading and believing the Bible. while you are being send to your eternal punishment, you will see the great happiness of believers while they are sending to their final destination, in heaven where everything is perfect.

while you are being tormented painfully in your final destination eternally, you will see the great new city that God has prepared to his people along with the 12 tribes of Israel, being happy for their perfect life.

now do you think it is worth your soul and spirit to bet in this gumble? you are actually investing your soul and spirit in the future by putting your beliefs to one of two opposite sides and in this case you put your faith in non-believers side. do you think it is wise to bet your soul in non-believers side after those consequences i shown to you?

John the Atheist: You assume too much @ LeastOfBrethren. When a believer is being pinned-down, he releases his so-called powerful arsenal (as dictated by the Holy Spirit). Ladies and gentlemen…Pascal’s Wager (applause! applause!)

So let see, what do an atheist get when god does not exist? Nothing really…for us life goes on. However, one thing is quite certain, if we sacrifice this one life in doormat subservience to a nonexistent god, then we have lost everything! Just imagine all the wasted productive time and resources…all those money that were use to built hospitals and schools instead of churches. All those papers, trees that were cut just to print those silly Bibles! Man! I’m not talking about temporary happiness here but about all those wasted resources that my children and my children’s children should have used. Not to mention all those wars, all those senseless violence and murders done in the name of a non-existing entity.

Now let us go to your second scenario. Suppose there is a god…Hmmmmm unlike your derange fantasy @ LeastOfBrethren, I (as an atheist) will not hide my ass from this freak you call god.

I will confront this motherfucker @ LeastOfBrethren.

Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he died and found himself confronted by God, demanding to know why Russell had not believed in him. 'Not enough evidence,
God, not enough evidence,' was Russell's reply. Unlike Russell, I will just ask Him, “Where the hell have you been all this years you ugly son of a bitch! Natutulog ka lang ba sa pansitan?” (Are you just sleeping in a Chinese noodle shop?)

(Note: When we talk about the Christian god…I sometimes can’t help my anti-theism showing. Excuse my language. Sometimes there is a little bit of a Christopher Hitchens in every Filipino atheist/anti-theist. Maybe we can talk about anti-theism some other time.)

Now let us make the wager more interesting @ LeastOfBrethren.

Suppose there is God and her real name was Brenda and she came down from the sky thru the clouds on Her feet. Everybody is crying because they are not prepared and you’re one of them. From that day, you and the rest of the Christians will run and hide under the stone and mountains because Brenda was so pissed-off with Christians for worshipping a male god. Now the wrath of Brenda will struck you, no matter what kind of hiding you will do. You will be sending in front of a great white love seat near a Jacuzzi to be judge and after that judgement, you will be punish for not listening with women right groups warning and because you believe the Bible (Brenda doesn’t like its sexist stories!). While you are being sent to your eternal punishment, you will see the great happiness of non-believers while they are sending to their final destination, in Brenda’s penthouse where everything is perfect.

While you are being tormented painfully in your final destination eternally, you will see the great new Metropolis that Brenda has prepared to her people along with the 12 jazz groups in Manhattan, being happy for their perfect life.

So how about that @ LeastOfBrethren?

Pascal’s wager is really a gamble. In a more staid tone, even believers will not have a good deal with the risk …There are many wrong turns. Suppose the Roman Catholic are right, that outside her church, there is no salvation, then what happened to evangelical Christians like you @ LeastOfBrethren. Remember, Blaise Pascal was a Roman Catholic. So what happened if Islam is the true religion and Allah is the real god, what happened to Christians? Pascal’s wager is not an effective way to convince a non-believer @ LeastOfBrethren. It is not worth the bet.

yes, there are myths and mythologies and it is clearly stated in The Bible. the myths are the beliefs of ancient people about gods like baal's. but our LORD God has given a very clear examples of those myths that are totally man's imagination against our LORD God who created heaven and earth. our creator is not a man's imagination, were are still on the stage of deciphering and studying His glory from His creation. our universe is one of many examples of His creation and until now we are on the stage of studying it. there is no being that can create something from nothing, do you agree with that?

lets not look further, lets say our heart. what do you think heart made of that it is continuously pumping your blood to your body 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for your entire life? you cannot find a mechanical parts there nor a dynamo that powers your heart. when you slice it into small pieces, you will see nothing, it is just a soft part of it. yet it pumps for your entire life, non-stop until your last breath.

John the Atheist: Are we studying god? Hmmmm can we place it in a laboratory? Anyway, I really can’t find the connection between myths, your Lord and creation stories. First of all, all creation stories are called myths and every gods in this planet has a creation story to tell. For your information, a myth is a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people.

Let see…according to your god myth, He created the universe in 6 days…But there are better creation myths than that @ LeastOfBrethren. For example, the Chinese creation story is nearer to the Big Bang than the Genesis account. If you will ask me, I think the myth of Panku is more scientifically symbolic than Genesis 1:1.

So again, may I ask why you assume that there is something from nothing? There is a possibility that something have always been a default beginning, is it?

Does the heart have any dynamo or mechanical parts to keep it going 24/7? Fortunately, there is. @ LeastOfBrethren. The heart muscle keeps beating because of your material brain. There are two types of nervous systems: The Somatic Nervous System and Autonomic Nervous System. The autonomic nervous system is a part of the nervous system of vertebrates that controls involuntary actions of the smooth muscles and heart and glands. That is why our heart is continuously pumping your blood to your body 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for your entire life.

do you have particular books that you want to recommend or your always reading to support your 180 degree turn? we Christians have Bible to base our knowledge, natural phenomenon that most of them cannot successfully explained by science and blessings that keep coming to my (our) life.

John the Atheist: Atheism is not about reading a particular book (something like what Christians do). We base our knowledge from different disciplines. Some atheists are more scientific, while others are more philosophical. I think a little of both is the best. However, this may be a bit of a surprise; some atheist became atheists by reading and understanding the Bible. Well…they become atheistic in regards of the Judeo-Christian god after reading and understanding the whole book.

you know, this will sound funny to you (because your non believer) but everytime i look at the clear sky and realized that i have a very good life knowing that most people nowadays are struggling to have foods to their tables, my happiness are overwhealming, that alone testifies that His existence really undeniable.

John the Atheist: Every time I look at the clear sky, I always wonder if PAGASA (Philippine weather bureau) is right with their prediction…seriously, it seems you are too self-centered with your assessment @ LeastOfBrethren. Doesn’t it ever occur to you that while you’re looking at the clear sky, savoring your junk food…as your spittle drips in every munch…thinking of how your good life was given by your god, somewhere in this world a child is dying from hunger…that alone testify that your god doesn’t exist.

why not try, even just for once in your life as an atheist to pray for anything you need and want? for example, a good job (when you pray tell Him the specific detail you want like good salary, easy job, etc then remember that and wait) then observe if it will come true but do not forget to wait because the things you want might come not in your time but in His time. i am speaking for my experience eh. just a suggestion.

John the Atheist: Why not pray for world peace for a change @ LeastOfBrethren.

Well *yawn* I’m getting a little bit sleepy…Those lounge jazz sure can hit the spot. Beside, typing this at 2AM surely does have its drawbacks.

I will be dealing with the issue of salvation on my next correspondence to this group. But first, I would like to congratulate every one in the news that this group became a Friendster fan…whatever that is.

Thanks for joining Pinoy Atheist @ Friendster.

This is John the Atheist…signing off.

"I have sinned against thee my lord." - Top 10 Christian Conservatives And/or Evangelists Caught in Scandals

2008-07-25T11:09:00.004+08:00

By KD Passmore, published Nov 09, 2007 on Associated Content

1. Jimmy Swaggart. Essentially, he spent his entire life as a Pentecostal preacher in the South. He was known to say pretty much retarded stuff like "I'm gonna be blunt and plain, if one ever looks at me like that (in a homosexual way) I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died. " So, clearly the guy had some bizarre issues. Anyway, he was caught on two occasions with female prostitutes, once in 1986 and again in 1991. In the first instance, said prostitute revealed that Swaggart had expressed interest in her 13 year old daughter. Yes, quite the *Man of God*. On an interesting note, it is believed that Swaggart was the initial *exposer* of the actions of our #2 Reverend Jim Bakker.

2. Jim Bakker was the founder of PTL ministries. Back in 1966, Jim and his wife, Tammy Faye, worked with Pat Robertson on CBN. Together Jim and Tammy built a multi-million dollar ministry that went down in flaming hellfire ash due to rape accusations brought against Mr. Bakker. Anyone remember Jessica Hahn? Consequently, Jim was indicted on federal charges of fraud, tax evasion, and racketeering and sentenced to 45 years in federal prison. (He served 5.)

3. Father John J. Geoghan, deceased Catholic Priest, was accused by 130 people of sexual abuse and child molestation over a 30 year period. After being defrocked in 1998, Father Geoghan was charged with indecent assault and battery after fondling a 10 year old boy in a community swimming pool. he was sentenced to 9 years in prison and was murdered by another inmate.

4. *Unnamed Louisiana Pastor and Wife*, (names not released due to the fact that many victims shared a family name with the adult defendants), were arrested and charged with aggravated rape of a child under 13. Allegedly up to 24 children, ranging from toddlers to teens, were raped by the pastor and other adult parishioners of Hosanna Church. Also, one charge of crimes against humanity was brought against said pastor for alleged sexual acts with animals.

5. Parker J. Bena, Conservative Republican activist and very important figure in getting GWB elected as President, plead guilty to charges of possessing child pornography and lying to the FBI. Bena reported that he had been emailed images of child porn, but after investigation authorities found Bena had entered CP sites and downloaded the images himself. (Some of the images involved toddlers.) Bena was sentenced to 30 months in Federal prison.

6. Rep. Bob Allen of Florida. Not really sure if he's Evangelical, but certainly *conservative*, I'm adding him to the list because Mr. Allen's actions were not only skeezy, but racist as well. You see, Allen was arrested after allegedly offering an male undercover officer $20 to perform oral sex on him in a men's restroom. Mr. Allen's explanation was that he was *afraid* of the "burly black guy" and that he didn't want to "become another statistic". Ironically, Allen is now a statistic in the list closeted homosexuals getting their rocks off in public bathrooms.

7. Congressman Ken Calvert of California was a major force in the Christian Coalition organization. Not only was Calvert accused of not paying child support to his ex-wife, he was busted by police receiving oral sex from a prostitute in his car, after which he tried to flee the scene.

8. Congressman Mark Foley, a Catholic Republican resigned over a scandal in which he was sending sexually suggestive emails and instant messages to young boys acting as Congressional pages. Mr. Foley entered rehab the same year, citing that he *was not a pedophile, but an alcoholic*, and said communications between himself and the underage boys were made when he was under the influence of alcohol.

9. Trinity Broadcasting Network's founder, Evangelist Paul Crouch, reached a settlement with a young man who claims to have had sexual relations with the Pastor. After the man, a former employee of TBN went public with his claims of a relationship with Crouch, he was fired from TBN, and paid $425,000.00 to not discuss the situation any further. Crouch was 70 years old at the time of the allegations.

10. Everyone's favorite, Reverend Ted Haggard. Haggard was the founder of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. A *charismatic* pastor, Haggard was vocal about his anti-homosexual ideals, well, that is until he was outed by a male prostitute. Said prostitute and masseur, Mike Jones, was involved with Rev. Haggard for 3 years, during which time he was paid to have sex with Haggard. Jones also claimed that Haggard was a user of Crystal Meth, and that the drug was often present at the time of their meetings.

World Youth Day

2008-07-18T13:51:00.004+08:00

The World Youth Day is a youth-oriented Roman Catholic Church promotional event. While the event itself celebrates the Catholic faith, young people are invited without discrimination. In the month before the Extraordinary Synod, John Paul II took the occasion of the United Nations' International Youth Year to launch one of the signature initiatives of his pontificate-the World Youth Days that would draw millions of young people on pilgrimage to Europe, Latin America, North America, Asia, and Oceania.The idea of the World Youth Day, the Pope remembered, could be traced back to his young friends in Srodowisko and their exploration of the personal and vocational dynamics of adolescence and young adulthood. His early papal pilgrimages, in Italy and abroad, had convinced him that a pastoral strategy of accompaniment with young people was as valid for a pope as it had been for a fledgling priest. (Source: Wikipedia)

The Youth Day that happened in Manila on January 1-5 1995 was considered the largest Papal gathering. 4,000,000 current world record!!!

Criticism:
Taxpayer contributions to the Catholic Church's World Youth Day festival have passed $160 million, with NSW Premier Morris Iemma confirming the state Government would fund $86 million in services for the staging of the event this month. The only benefit of WYD is to stimulate the NSW economy and also increase Australia's appeal in the World Tourism Market.

There has also been significant opposition to World Youth Day on the grounds that it is a propaganda rally for the Catholic Church. Local activist groups, including atheist, freethinker, secular and gay rights groups under the banner will be protesting at World Youth Day 2008 by, among other things, handing out information and providing free condoms to attendees. Other groups including World Truth Day have various protests planned.

See: No To Pope Coalition

Youth Against "World Youth Day"

World Truth Day

Note: The Roman Catholic's 'World Youth Day', is not the internationally recognised 'International Youth Day' .

As for a personal responce, Pinoy Atheist doesn't support this so-called "World Youth Day". I think it's better that the Vatican do something on the prevaling issues of priestly pedophilies and sex abuse cases if this so-called church is really concern about the world's youth!

See: SNAP - The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests

John the Atheist

More on the Reproductive Health Care

2008-07-18T10:42:00.005+08:00

Garin clarifies stance on Reproductive Health Act: Backs Church on anti-abortion stand

"The Reproductive Health Care Act" is a bill that establishes the Reproductive Health Care Program of the country. It recognizes women's rights and gender equality and ensures universal access to reproductive health information, education and services," Representative Garin explained. "The bill further provides that comprehensive health care means the inclusion of measures that promote safe motherhood, care for persons with HIV/AIDS and other Sexually Transmitted Infections, infertility treatment, and male involvement in reproductive health."

Nowhere in the bill, the Ilongga solon pointed out, that State support for abortion is expressed nor implied in the Act's provisions.

"Family planning is not in the same context with abortion. Family planning is in the context of responsible parenthood. I am a doctor by profession and a parent myself. Fact is, we have hundreds and thousands of families living below poverty level denied of education and information on family planning services. No less than the World Health Organization (WHO) in its efforts to globally promote family planning recognizes this problem," she said. "Wouldn't we want to see a Filipino society with responsible relationships and responsible parents in terms of rearing another child into the family? It is about the promotion of safe motherhood and deeper male involvement in his partner's reproductive health."

See: Source

Click to see and read The Reproductive Health Care Act