First, before I begin, I would like to extend my apology to Mr. Christopher Hitchen for using the title of one of his chapters in his book, “god Is Not Great”.

The hatred of pigs is more that food issues in some religion. There was even news that the Saudi television banned Miss Piggy. It is not only on Muslims but also in some Christian sects like Iglesia Ni Cristo and Jehovah’s Witnesses. What is with pigs and religion anyway?

The hatred of pigs was neither a Muslim nor Christian original. It all began in Jewish folklore. There are no religions prior to the Hebrews that loathed the swine. In the Book of Leviticus 11:7 and Deuteronomy 14:7-8, God declared the pig unclean for believers. In Isaiah 65:2-4 and 66:17, God issues a severe word of warning against those who eat pork. Today, this religious inanity is being warrant by using science as justification. Believers will attempt to persuade people that eating pork causes diseases such as heart diseases, worm infestation, strokes, high blood pressure and even cancer.

So what make the pig an unclean food?

In prehistoric times, our ancestors hunt wild boars for food. That is what our Filipino ancestor hunt for foodstuff and there is no dietary taboo to eat pork meat on those times. The Hawaiian eats pork before Christians discovered their islands. So does ancient Chinese. Ancient Egyptians even venerated the pig. So what happened?

As superstition and ignorance have spread throughout some part of Judea and the Middle East, everyone started to believe that eating pork contributes to immorality and shame. Thanks to Judaism, pigs were to become synonymous to greed, indolence, indulgence and filthiness. Soon it becomes an insult to call a person a “Pig” because that means he/she demonstrates these negative characteristics. Therefore, when you eat like there is no tomorrow, they will say that you eat like a pig. Sloppy people are pigs. Slow fat people are hogs. Untidy rooms are like pig pens and so on. That is why pigs became unclean. However, that is not all. Even the pig’s cloven hoofs become a reminder of the devil. The cloven hoof, or trotter, became a sign of diabolism. Therefore, the poor pig becomes a symbol of the devil himself!

Because of these common misconceptions about pigs, (that they tend to eat their young, that they are filthy and that they quarrel a lot) they become synonymous with evil and many negative characteristics. However, wild pigs (unknown for many) seem to be very clean and peaceful. They also tend their young and are quite intelligent. Pigs are next to dolphins when it comes to intelligence. They also make good pets. Pot-bellied pigs and miniature pet pigs are gentle. They also are quite useful in the field of medicine. Pig’s heart is use as a good replacement parts on heart surgery.

Now here are the facts: Eating too much “balot” (boiled duck’s embryo) will also increased your cholesterol level. Do you know that if you have eaten at least 3 to 5 “balot”, it is enough to give you a headache? Too much chicken eggs will raise your uric acid level. Beans and legumes also cause high level of uric acid and it is not advisable to eat beans when you are suffering from arthritis. Beef fats are also risky. Too much beef fats will cause harden arteries and blockage, which will lead to stroke. Notice the accumulation of “sebo” (oily gunk and grease) on beef stews as it cools. The issue here is that even with the so-called “clean foods’, if someone ate it in excess, he/she will also notice some ill effects.

Since “religious reason” is not a good reason to damage the reputation of pig consumption, it is time for the believers to use science on their side.

So according to these non-pork eaters, if someone ate pork...well you are an easy victim of trichinosis or worms or worst...other horrible sickness known to humans. Come on! With such logic, (if you call it logic...I call it religious stupidity) everyone who has eaten pork barbeque, bacon, sausage or Escallopes de Porc a la Milanaise has already died a gruesome death!
Every meat (beef, pork, chicken, veal, lamb and fish) are potential health risk when eaten raw or half cooked. You can also suffer tapeworms when eating fish. Many “sashimi” aficionados suffer tapeworm infestation from eating raw fish. There was even a small barrio somewhere in Mindanao where there was an epidemic of some intestinal worms because of eating raw tilapia. Chickens and ducks can also inflict flu (remember the bird flu?). According to believers, consuming large amounts of pork may lead to heart failure, stroke and obesity; due to its high cholesterol and saturated fat content. However, this goes for all sorts of animal flesh as well. In fact, pork meat is quite lean - leaner than most other domesticated animals - as long as its protective layer of fat removed. On the problem of round worms (Trichinosis), the best thing to do is to cook your pork. I wonder who wants to eat raw pork. Anyway, after the invention of refrigeration and the feeding of commercial hog feed on legitimate piggeries, cases of trichinosis have decreased.

That is that on the issue of pork. I did not bother to include the vegetarian’s reason for not eating pork...come on; they do not even eat eggs. Therefore, my stand on the issue of porcophobia is religious. That is the same reason why Hindus does not eat cow. But if you ask me, I will always prefer the three little pigs compare to The Big Bad Wolf who’s wearing a religious priest’s (or Imam’s) clothing.

Until next time,
John the Atheist

Recently, I have a very bad conversation with a certain Christian who calls itself “tutti”. I think this fellow really does not have any idea what an atheist is. He keeps giving me Bible verses to prove his point. It is not really a surprise.

Majority of Christians that I have met used the Bible in their argument as if the Bible is the epitome of truth and answers. Well if you think that the Bible is the word of a certain omnipotent, omniscient deity, you will take its word as certainty. Remember, Christian fundamentalism accepts the Bible as a credible source in science and history. If you really like to hear idiotic responses, try talking to a Christian fundy about the Bible.

Opinions about the Bible vary from different atheists, but majority think that biblical criticism is futile. The American Atheist Center even feels that it is demeaning to an atheist to argue with a Fundy over his “holy” book. The problem about Bible topics is that the book is by faith, not reason. Oh sure, a person cannot be swallowed by a fish, yet the Bible said so. Man cannot walk on water, but the Bible said so. Water cannot supernaturally change to wine but the Bible said so. An egg cannot “sit” in a castle wall, but Humpy Dumpy said so. Wolves cannot dress up like Grandma, but Little Red Riding Hood said so. You see when we talk about the Bible, we are entering the Christian fundy’s fantastic realm of gods, angels, demons, messiahs, dungeons and dragons. You cannot win a logical discussion when Peter Pan and the Fairy God Mother confront you.

Then why will a Christian Fundy like “tutti” use its chapters and verses when discussing to an atheist? What is the point? I really do not have the slightest idea why Christian fundies use the Bible to an atheist. Maybe because they think that atheism is also a religion or that an atheist will accept his/her verses because the “holy spirit” is on their side.

A Christian can also use the biblical descriptions of sin and hell. Surely, it will scare an atheist out of his wits. In the first part of tutti’s response, he did not forget of putting sin, salvation and the damnation in hell first. I remember when I am still a Born-Again Christian; I also use a lot of this scary concept to discourage free inquiry in relation to biblical subjects. However, is it effective?

Let me put this straight. Atheists do not sin. Surprised? It is easy to explain. You see, according to Christian belief, sin is the transgression of god’s law. Since an atheist does not believe in the existence of a god, VIOLA! Sin does not exist too. Therefore, what is the point of talking about sins? What is the point of talking about salvation from sin? Moreover, what is the use of the concept of hell? So what is the point of using the Bible to justify your belief to an atheist?

Here is another problem about the Bible. It seems Christians have a divided issue when it comes to Bible interpretation. I am not really in the position to say who the real Christian is or who is not. So let us say, all these Bible fanatics are Christians. According to their belief system, Christians trust the infallibility of the Bible yet it seems there is a big problem in interpreting the book. There is really a wide range of different Bible hermeneutics. For example, suppose I am talking to three Christians belonging to three different Christian sects. Now one person is explaining to me about the trinity. The other two might disagree with him. It might even end as a debate between the three Christians.

Roman Catholic can justify their stones and wooden saints using the Bible, yet fundamentalist Christians can castigate the Roman Catholics for worshipping graven image using the Bible. The Iglesia ni Cristo can wage war of words to Eliseo Soriano’s Church of God, International using the Bible.

Do you know that different Christian sects interpret a single verse like John 1:1 in different ways?

Now what truth and answer shall I derive from that?

If these Christians cannot even reconcile their differences, then why will they expect a heretic like me to take their claim seriously?

I just hope that someday, there will be more legitimate Philippine humanist/scientific skeptics other than Poch and Joshua Lipana.

Ciao!

Well...sabi ko na nga ba. After some head on collision with the Christian faith, it’s time for the Muslim to convince their readers about the existence of Allah.

I don’t know if Ricky here intended this post for the Christians or for the non-believers in this group. Well...in the first place, you’ll notice that proving the existence of Allah is no way different from proving the existence of the Christian god. Have you notice it?
So @ Ricky...this is how an Ilhad (like moi) will answer your alleges.

[Ricky wrote on Mon, 28 April 2008 04:04]Consider this : An archaeologist digs deep into the desert sand and finds a piece of an old clay pot. After his investigations, this archaeologist can tell us, from this little old piece of dusty clay, so much about the civilisation that existed thousands of years ago that produced it; he can tell us about the types of ovens, temperatues, and dyes that they worked with, the raw materials that they used, and thus assess the level of their artistic skill and technological ability, etc. All this from a small piece of clay lying in the desert.
Did this archaeologist ever see the civilisation that produced this pot ?

How does he know that it ever existed ?

He knows because he saw that the piece of clay was produced by someone who designed it, and shaped it, and had the intelligence to be able to heat it and produce the pot, and not only that, they also had the ability to colour it and make it look beautiful.

Design ==> Designer.

To the archaeologist the existence and intricacy of the piece of pottery is conclusive proof of the existence, intelligence and ability of the people who made it.

Look around you: at the beautiful sunset on a summer evening, at the moon and the stars on a cloudless night, at the water that you drink, at the trees and how they grow from tiny seeds.

Think about yourself: your eyes with which you see, your ears with which you hear, your tongues with which you taste and talk, your hands and your feet, your heart and your brain.

Consider how these things are so complex in themselves and yet work together in such perfect harmony.

Ah the old “Argument from Design”. Christian apologists have already used this so it’s really not new. I was expecting a more philosophical approached like the Kalam argument of Ibn Hazm. Anyway, as I have always tell my opponents, that the Design argument is really an argument from analogy. The better the analogy, the convincing it become. So you see @ Ricky, we have to look at the analogy if you think your argument is valid.

So base on your post, the analogy is between the pieces of potter’s clay vs. well...natural objects.

So let us look at the analogy.

The piece of clay pot that the archeologist found was created with a pre-existing material – which is...well you guess it...CLAY! While the universe and the human body parts weren’t. In fact, every natural object was not created in pre-existing material. Both really aren’t the same so the analogy is rather weak.

Now we go to the issue of design. When you said “design” well...what is the first thing that enters your head? The word design implies purpose, so that means when Allah created everything, there is a purpose. What’s the purpose? If the purpose of the whole creation myth is for mankind, then the universe doesn’t manifest such purpose. If nature was created for mankind, then we must see any manifestation of a purpose. Yet there isn’t any.

I think there might be a difference between the Christian’s purpose and the Muslim’s purpose. According to Sura 51.56, Allah created humans to serve Him. (I have created the jinn and humankind only that they might serve Me.) Which is quite odd since Allah is supposed to be perfect and all-mighty so why does he need to create being whose sole purpose in the universe is to serve him? Anyway, going back to the topic, may I ask, “What will be the use of creating the planet Jupiter to be a thousand times more massive than planet Earth on the worship of Allah?” For starters...you will not see the wonders of planet Jupiter in Mecca. But that’s just a tip of the ice berg.

If the purpose can’t be established then the design and designer issue falls into pieces.

From the movement of the galaxies to the complexities of the interaction of molecules, from the dynamics of eco-systems to the intricacies of DNA, all lead to the obvious fact of the existence of the great Wisdom, Knowledge and Power that allows our Universe to exist and function.

To any perceptive person the existence and intricacy of creation is conclusive proof of the Existence, Knowledge and Wisdom of the One who creates, organises and sustains it.

Ah not really @ Ricky. You see, complexity doesn’t really necessary follow the existence of a great wisdom, knowledge and power. Let me explain.

Have you seen a snow flake? Hmmm I guess not...neither do Mohammad (he lives in the desert). Anyway, if you look at a snow flake under a microscope, you will notice that it forms beautiful intricate patters. Each snow flake design is really unique. As they say, no snow flakes are the same. Yet the pattern of a snow-flake was formed in random. It’s just how carbon dioxide and water reacts with freezing temperature. I guess nature doesn’t need a brain to “create” the snow-flake pattern.

Again, to speak of wisdom and knowledge, there must be “meaning” and “purpose”. So let me ask you again, what wisdom are we going to use if we would try to establish the reason why the universe is immeasurably huge to benefit the sole purpose of human existence according to Sura 51.56?

Most people naturally recognise the existence of the Creator, and we find reference to the Creator in all cultures and religions. Even the atheists, communists and (disbelieving) scientists cannot avoid this reality, but avoid the term 'creator', for phrases like 'Mother Nature' and 'the amazing way nature has designed...

This is an example of an appeal to numbers. Such an appeal really carries little weight in the discussion. Let me explain. Before Copernicus most scholars believe in Ptolemy’s model of the solar system. Well...they believe that the Earth is at the center of the Universe while the Sun, the planets and the stars revolve around it. So why do you think our ancient ancestors believe that planet Earth is in the center of the Universe? Well, because you see the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. You sometimes observe things in a wrong perspective.

So maybe you know where my explanation is going to? Not because “most” people recognized a “creator” prove that such “creator” exist. Does an atheist (I really don’t care what the communists and the disbelieving scientists’ thinks) accept this “reality”? (what reality?) – Ah that most people recognized a certain creator? – To tell you frankly @ Ricky, atheist like me doesn’t recognized any self-profess “creator” of the cosmos. We’re already fine and dandy with a creator-less universe.

The word “nature designed” is really a prosopopoeia @ Ricky. You know a prosopopoeia don’t you? A prosopopoeia is representing an abstract quality or idea as a person or creature. Nature is a representation of the natural world, isn’t it? So telling “nature designed it” is a prosopopoeia. It’s the same way how Albert Einstein used the word “god”.

How strange in the face of this, that many today reject the belief in the existence of the Creator. Perhaps this is due more to fashion and the desire to justify a materialistic attitude to life rather than real observation and comprehension of reality.

This is a manifestation of ignorance and religious biases to other religious system. If you are familiar with Buddhism and Jainism, you will notice that both religions don’t believe in a so-called “Creator god”, but both religions abhor materialism.

For example, according to Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada of the Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc., “Only in one sense can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal omnipotent God or God-head who is the creator and ordainer of the world and who can miraculously save others. The word ‘atheism’, however, frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications which are in no way applicable to the Buddha’s Teaching. Those who use the word ‘atheism’, often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing beyond this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism advocates nothing of that sort.”

Something stranger still, and perhaps another reason for the trend to deny the Creator, are those who claim that a man, or men, who walked on the earth, breathed air, who had bodies and souls subject to the Laws of the Universe, are the Creator, or manifestations of the Self-Subsistent One.

This is of course a complete contradiction in terms. Something cannot be the Creator and created at the same time, needing air, food and drink and being self-sufficient, being temporary and eternal!

If you are one of those who believe that a man such as Buddha, or Krishna, or Jesus is the Creator and Controller, then think again.

Gosh...
Maybe this needs more of an FYI.
In religious sense (I’m not speaking as an atheist here but rather someone who understand some religious system) I think Ricky (unless this is another copy-pasted article eh Ricky?) here doesn’t have the slightest idea what he’s talking about. Well expect this if the intention of the author (or Ricky) is nothing but blatant religious propaganda.

Buddha (the awaked one) never claimed to be a creator or a god. In Buddhism, the Buddha was a unique human being who was self Enlightened. In the Anguttara Nikaya, He said: ‘I am indeed not a deva (deva means god- John the Atheist) nor any other form of divine being; neither am I an ordinary human being. Know ye that I am the Buddha, the Awakened One.’

Krishna is the 8th and most important avatar of Vishnu; incarnated as a handsome young man playing a flute. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead according to Arjuna. The Bhagavad-gétä described Krishna as the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth, the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, and the greatest. (This of course is synonymous to a god)

Jesus is believed by most Christians as the ‘Son of God”. For them, long before the world was created, Jesus already existed. He was called “the Word”.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (John 1: 1-4)

You can ask A b y for more details on this Jesus character @ Ricky.

We were created from a drop of despised fluid, in which was a microscopic sperm, which in turn fertilised a microscopic egg and we grew in our mother's womb in stages predetermined, over which we had no control. We came from our mother's womb, urinating and defecating, needing constant attention and care. Without food we will die, without air we will die ... and then such a one is God?

I think the best word to use here is “formed” not “created”. Generate is more likely...You see @ Ricky to be created we must established raw materials. The word “created” is best-suited to man-made objects. Like “I created a masterpiece” or “I created a new car design”...eh enough of this grammatical technicalities.

Anyway, I would just like to comment to this Qur’anic based quote, the sperm cell doesn’t come from a “despised fluid”.

Indeed any intelligent person would recognise exactly how dependant life, the universe and everything is on its Creator.

Again this is a false statement due to lack of insight on different theistic belief. So how can you claim that life is dependent to its Creator? In deism for example, after creating everything, the “Creator” just left and leave his creation on its natural mechanism.

Our dire need for His help makes itself plain in times of great distress. Imagine yourself in an aeroplane and you know it is going to crash...

Who do you turn to for help then ?

Or on a ship in the sea, thrown helplessly up and down by towering waves ...

There will have been a situation at one time or the other in your life when you called upon your Creator alone, forgetting everyone and everything else, hoping, trusting, wishing that the Being you know in your heart and soul that has power and control over all things would help you. The only One you know can save you!

If you don’t believe in some type of a supernatural 911, you won’t call for its help @ Ricky. Humanists for example trust humanity more than some sort of an invisible support. In a personal level, then I was nearly hit by a train in Dapitan 4 years ago, the first thing that entered my mind is Rotten.com. not god’s hotline.

Oh by the way...I just delete the Qur’an quotes. Extracting verses to so-called “holy scriptures” isn’t really that convincing.

Until next time,
John the Atheist

In all the major religions, it seems that Buddhism have won most Filipino atheists' approval. That’s because most believe that Buddhism is the most peaceful religion. It is said that there are no wars that were insinuated by Buddhism. I also have the same fondness with Buddhism and I also believed that the religion is quite passive. Maybe I’m not really looking very hard.

I have read Joseph Grosso’s article in Free Inquiry (February/March 2008) entitled Buddhism: Blood and Enlightenment and I were enlightened (no puns intended) by the facts that Buddhism is really not so different with other religions when it comes to violence and war. Maybe because when I think of Buddhism I always imagine the image of that burning monk in protest of the Vietnam War. I thought they always stand against hostilities...I never knew that there were wars that were started by the Buddhists.

Modern hostilities is found in Sri Lanka where the Buddhists hold a “principal” place in the country’s 255 member Parliament and there are reports (in the New York Times – February 25, 2007) about Buddhist monks disagreement with anti-war protestors in behalf of the Sri Lankan offensive against the Tamil Tigers. – So who said they are always passive and anti-war?

There was also a time when Buddhist leaders supported Japanese imperialism before the end of World War II. It was also recorded that Buddhism supported Japan during the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95) and at the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05).

I think the most problematic doctrine in Buddhism is the Law of Karma. Well...in comparison with Christianity’s resurrection, the Law of Karma is more into “cause and effect”. That’s because punishment in Christianity is base on a certain God’s standard that the adherent didn’t follow. That’s what the concept of sin is for. The Law of Karma is a universal, immutable law (according to believers) which adjusts effects to causes. It is sometimes referred to as a "moral law of cause and effect." It is said the Karmic law places the responsibility for someone’s own destiny. Karma is both an encouragement to do good and to avoid evil, as well as an explanation for whatever good or evil befalls a person.

So what’s bad about that?

Well it teaches people to accept their fate because it was his/her punishment in his/her past life. Suppose you’re not living as poor as a dormouse. Will you just sit in the corner of your house accepting the fate because you believe that this is your punishment when you were a rich spoiled kid in your past life?

This is more damaging in feudal states like Tibet. Serfs are taught to believe that they are helots and are bound to the land and owned by the feudal lord because they were evil in their past lives while those rich elites who took advantage of them deserves their glorious wealth because it is the rewards for their virtues in earlier lives. There is really no social mobility in this type of mind-set.

I didn’t say that the Buddha is as crooked as the money-grabbing Christian pastor down the street. Buddhism does share some of the best teaching a person can exemplify. Yet Buddhism also contribute to the same violence and twisted logic other religions offer.

Until next time,
Pinoy Atheist

This is really a new scenario. A long line of women together with their children, standing under the sun, waiting patiently for their turn to buy a few kilos of rice. The poorest of the poor has their own line in buying cheaper rice, mostly located in the baranggay’s parish church. Poverty really took its toll in the Philippines, which makes me sometimes wonder, is the Filipino ready for humanism? Can you imagine Filipinos thinking themselves at the center of the cosmos?

The term is too alien to the typical man in the street. Here in the Philippines, you won’t encounter the term “humanist” in everyday conversation. But how about in the past? Four hundred years of Spanish occupation has ruled out any possibility for the Filipino to use rationality to think for themselves. Roman Catholicism seems to obliterate it. It was the Spanish friars who fasten the sense guilt to every Filipino...the guilt of being poor and ignorant. As if God has sealed every Filipinos’ fate. The Filipinos are now bonded by the belief that they are all sinners and needed to be punished. This sense of guilt has achieved its purpose. It has broken the Filipino spirit to resist these European invaders. It has broken the spirit of every Filipino to seek change and improvement until now.

There are but few people who fought this. Yet they were labeled as rebels instead of a humanist. Dr. Jose Rizal for example fought for social reforms. In his travel to Europe, he have witness how education and reason have bring to the fore the status and life of European nations. Rizal wanted this kind of philosophy to enter the Filipino mind. He also saw the difference of how religious belief was being questioned. Aha! So it can be questioned, religion can be put in the stand! Rizal never really left his god-belief and Christianity, yet because of his European travels, he was influence into deism. For him (Rizal), the best religions are those that are simplest, most in conformity with nature, most in harmony with the needs and aspirations men. (Rizal-Pastells IV, &; ER 4:120) Christianity is greater not because of how God discloses himself in the pages of the Old and New Testaments, but because it conforms to nature and fulfills the needs of the human person. Rizal states that he believes in God’s existence “through reasoning and necessity than by faith (Rizal-Pastells III, 4; ER 4:85) and that his faith in God is a conclusion of deductive reasoning process.

In Rizal’s novel, Noli Me Tangere, Elias (one of his characters) believe that miraculous intervention from God is an impossibly. A miracle, as a contravention of the law of nature, is a contradiction. It may reflect Rizal’s own belief in relation to the Spanish rule in the Philippines. Ferdinand Blumentritt, Rizal’s German friend, introduce to Rizal the spirit of free inquiry.

Rizal’s idea is really not humanism (its more rationalism) but it’s the only thing that is very near to the humanist philosophy. We really don’t know if humanism will developed as Rizal matures but we know that his life was cut short. He was sentence to death and was shot on December 30, 1896 in Bagungbayan (Luneta)

How about today? Are Filipinos ready for humanism or did it died with Rizal?

Before we answer the question we have to explore what humanism is.

Humanism is a human centered philosophy focusing on the human individual’s pursuit of identity and meaning amidst the social and economic pressures of mass society for superficiality and conformism. Hmmmmm...The idea is too vague for a typical Filipino. Every Filipino might say that every one is pursuing identity and meaning.

Maybe we need to specify things a little bit.

Luckily I have a copy of Mr. Paul Kurtz’s affirmations of humanism. Maybe I can use one or two of its paragraphs to see if the Filipino is ready to become a humanist.

A humanist is committed to the application of reasons and science in solving problems. And he/she uses human intelligent free from superstition. How about the Filipino? Jose Rizal has shown the benefit of using reason – but did the Filipino today listen? There was a time when Filipinos work by cooperation; we call this “bayanihan”. I really don’t know what happened to this positive Filipino trait? Filipinos these days are more into controversies and what we called “crab mentality” when facing national concerns. “Hey if that’s our problem, let us all sink in the mud together.” So how does Juan Makabayan (Filipino Nationalists) resolve his problems? Well...maybe you have seen a lot of militant rallies going on in the street of Mendiola. That’s how they solve it.

And Juan dela Cruz (the Filipino masses) believe that every incidents, is an act of the will of God. Oh yes...and did I forget to tell you that they also believe that their life is just borrowed from God. Yeah...like life is being forfeited in some divine pawnshop.

Superstition hinders knowledge and what more damaging is the belief that a so-called supernatural deity that watches every humans destiny. Success is seen as a manifestation of godly favor. This idea suggests that what you become is what God’s will you to become and not because of your own struggle. So what happened on your efforts? Well it seems every Filipino’s action is really not his own. So when failures and obstacle come, the answer is prayer- Prayer to turn God’s favors back to you. It diminishes any sense of accomplishment and responsibility.

And the cost?

Then because of this unhinge inspiration, the Filipinos tend to become less scientific and counter productive. Even the education system in the Philippines is becoming less result oriented. Instead of producing more intellects and technocrats, we are producing more domestic helpers to send abroad and wash some old Caucasian’s ass.

I would like to thank religion...yes that old time religion whose lies and propaganda have turned Juan Dela Cruz a walking “uto-uto” – you can picture it like a newly hatched duckling that aimlessly following empty promises and authoritative doctrines based on fear and superstitions. (A good case example is that of the EDSA revolution of 1985 and 1992) It is said that EDSA revolution was kindled by prayers. Sure...majorities of faces in that revolution was nuns and priests and it claimed God have changed Philippines forever. To commemorate it, we now have a large statue of the “Virgin Mother” there at EDSA and a church near a large shopping mall. So? What changes did it do so far? We are now worst compare to the Marcos Era! It is said that Philippine society began to disintegrate after EDSA. Compare to the Marcoses, a lot of people have observed that we are now more chaotic. Graft and corruption didn’t go away; in fact we have worst cases. Oh yes...the church says that we now have the freedom compare to the Martial law years...yet they forget to include responsibility.

And until now, Juan dela Cruz still anticipate for divine intermediation to someday resolve his problems. So if God has the power to help the Filipino on their difficulties, why should they trouble themselves to look for solution? As a result the Filipinos are contented in believing that God will help them if they will just pray for these evils to come to an end. If not, then it means God was displeased. God is displeased on his government, on how they are not worshipping Him properly, on how immoral the Filipinos became and so on. In each failure that occurs, it was God’s anger and reckoning. National crisis became a sign of divine judgement and retribution.

And what kind of solution does this mentality can accomplished? Whether we like it or not, the Philippines has a very inferior quality of education compare to its Asian neighbors. Poorly paid teachers give poor kind of education. Today, a lot of our public elementary schools are deteriorating both physically and mentally. We now have poorly equipped classrooms with children too weary to study and teachers too busy selling commodities to subsidize her low take-home pay. Well some people will say as an excuse in contrast to Japan, we Filipinos can speak the English language efficiently. But is it really something to be proud of? The Japanese employer using his crooked English tells his English-speaking Filipino employee what to do, while the Filipino nursing aid, using his fluent English, asked his Chinese employer in Hong Kong what else to do. Gosh!

It wasn’t the Filipino’s fault that that become like that. It’s not his fault that the government is entertaining more partisan politics. It’s not his fault that rice production becomes scares. It’s not his fault that a lot of people don’t have a job and most international capitalist are leaving. It’s not his fault why the government doesn’t have enough money to subsidize fuel prices. Nope, it’s God’s punishment to the Filipino people for not being too “Christian” .Yet He still love our President. God bless us.

And how about science? When will Juan Dela Cruz accept the benefits of science? Here in the Philippines, the word science is mostly synonymous to a child’s nursery rhymes. No not because we excel on it, but because majority of private schools in the Philippines are run by religious organization. Do you think they will be very happy to teach those rich kids about evolution and the advancement of science against religious superstition?

So when a typhoon or an earthquake struck it is divine will. Forget about ozone depletion and the Green-House effect. Forget about the floods cause by caiñguins and illegal loggers. Forget about CFC and pollution cause by vehicle exhaust; forget about the effect of global warming, cyanide fishing and “moro-ami”. Nope it is a sign that the Filipinos are losing faith to the Lord...Halleluiah!

Back in the 70’s, the Philippines was known as one of the best rice producing country in Asia. A lot of our Asian neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam have sent some of their best farmers and technicians here in the Philippines to learn from us new technique in rice planting and harvesting. Now we are importing rice from those nations! What happened? What scientific achievement had the Filipinos done in the last 30 years?

The Banaue Rice Terraces in the Mountain Province is now deteriorating and instead of sending technicians and archeologists, we are sending Born-Again Christian missionaries to convert the pagans to Christianity - Alas! We are now come witnessing with a sad adieu the disappearance of the Mountain Province’s heritage and culture.

Filipinos have been fond of saying that they have been fighting for freedom, democracy, tyranny and poverty all the time. Some are even saying that it’s time for the Filipino to tell the truth? Damn! Even the Catholic Church is saying that the Filipinos should fight for the truth. But what truth are Filipinos fighting for? Are we ready to admit that religion has never really opened our eyes so we can perceive what we have become? What’s the use of liberty if we are still chained in the neck by superstition and ignorance? For centuries we are taught that the dignity of man was not his own possession. That we are judge by a deity, whose invisibility have become the excuse of conniving conmen whose only purpose is to enriched themselves with money and power from the very hustles of the Filipino masses who allowed themselves to be used and abused. This is what’s happening to the poor Filipino.

The Filipino is not ready to take the humanist’s stand. But when will he accept his self-worth? When will he makes an effort to elevate his knowledge. When will he accept the power of his own understanding? When will the Filipino start paving his destiny?

I often wonder why Christians love to discuss too much about atheism yet they always make their own explanation about it. Take this Christian article for example which came from a certain Christian Internet site called “Does God Exist”.

I really think that this article was really written for Christians so they may have a wrong idea of what atheism is (?).This kind of article won’t really convince an atheist...in the first place the article was choked by Bible verses...which really not that very important to a non-believer.

Now, why present your brethrens wrong information? So what I’m doing here is to offer Christians the correct facts about atheism.

Atheism is the view that God does not exist. Atheism is not a new development. Psalm 14:1, written by David in around 1000 B.C., mentions atheism – “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Recent statistics show an increasing number of people becoming atheists, with up to 10% of people worldwide declaring themselves adherents of atheism.

According to the article, atheism is not really new because the Psalmist has already written about it in 1000 B.C. But I think atheism is much older than that. Atheism was born when the first village priests invented their gods.

But how about atheism as the Christian author suggested? Is the Psalmist correct when he thought atheism means a person that believes “there is no god”? Unfortunately, most Christians really don’t have any idea about atheism in the classical period. It is only about a decade after Socrates’ death, in Plato (ca. 429– 347 BC), that we start to find the Greek word atheos, which originally was used in the meaning “godless, without gods, godforsaken,” denoting intellectuals who denied the gods of the city or any form of deity. As suggested by Plato’s Apology, speculating about the heavens was indeed already connected with atheism. But that is too far from the meaning of modern atheism.

Another example is by Epicurus (341–270 BC.) Epicurus himself was not an atheist, but later philosophers; probably the Stoics, attacked the premises of his physical system written in his 12th book On Nature which surmised that the gods had no necessary place in his system, and labeled him as an atheist.

Early Christians were also labeled as atheists. Polycarp was accused as an atheist. Tatian (Oratio ad Graecos 27.1) even mentions that the pagans called the Christians atheotatous, “the most atheist ones”! Justinus admitted that the Christians were indeed atheists regarding their attitude toward the pagan gods. Julian the Apostate (Contra Galileos 43) even stated that the Christians had inherited their atheism from the Jews.

If atheism is a negation on the existence of a god, then why early Christians were accused of being atheists? See I told you the Christian author doesn’t have a clue on what is he talking about. Remember, in earlier usage, atheism means someone who doesn’t worship a certain god-idea. Atheists in those times were men who do not worship the dominant deities prescribe to the society. Even if you are a god-believer, yet you worship a foreign, unorthodox deity – you are condemned as an atheist.

Why does atheism even exist? Why doesn’t God simply reveal Himself to people, proving that He exists? Surely if God would just appear everyone would believe in Him! The problem with this idea is that it is not God’s desire to just convince people that He exists. It is God’s desire for people to believe in Him by faith (2 Peter 3:9) and accept His gift of salvation (John 3:16). Yes, God could appear and demonstrate once and for all that He exists. The problem is that God clearly demonstrated His existence many times in the Old Testament (Genesis chapters 6-9; Exodus 14:21-22; 1 Kings 18:19-31). Did the people believe that God exists? Yes! Did they turn from their evil ways and obey God? No! If a person is not willing to accept God’s existence by faith, then they are definitely not ready to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). That is God’s desire – for people to become Christians, not just theists (those who believe God exists).

Why atheism exists? It exist because it questions the arguments and proof presented by the theism...It is really the antithesis of theism. Doubt is coeval with belief.

Does atheism is only a propos to a god that doesn’t reveal himself? No...Example in Hinduism, cows are considered sacred...yet an atheist doesn’t believe that. Prior to World War 2, the Japanese believe that their Emperor is a god. An atheist will not agree to such an idea. So that doesn’t mean atheism is only about unrevealed gods like the Christian god-concept.

Suppose a certain being just appeared to me face to face and told me that he’s the Christian God...should I instantly become a believer like the Christian author is trying to imply? Not exactly...How do I know that he is certainly “the God”? I remember this episode of Star Trek: the Next Generation where “Q” is trying everything to convince the crew of the Star Ship Enterprise that he’s God...Kudos to captain Jean Luc Picard for not believing him.

So why a loving god would wants his subjects to believe at him by faith?

According to Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Now this will be quite the opposite of all the verses that was written in the Christian’s claim. Surely, a morally perfect God would show himself more clearly. If God perfectly loves his creation then he may not be hidden, elusive and distant or even absent to any culpable activity in our part. A perfectly good god should not limit himself to mere speculation by faith.

Now is it a mere speculation to conclude that if a man didn’t accept God’s existence by faith, then he will not accept Jesus Christ? Hmmmm let see...Suppose I receive an e-mail that tells me that I have won a million pesos. Gosh! A million pesos! Wait a minute...I never saw the man’s face, just an e-mail...I don’t even know if it’s just a bot. Will I just accept it by faith that this is really not a computer scan and that I really won a million pesos? Now how about if I saw the actual person and I saw the actual raffle and that I won a million pesos...yes it might be a scam too but don’t you think that I will have more confidence about my winning compare to an impersonal electronic mail? No, I’m not saying “to see is too believe” and this is not a contradiction about my earlier statement but I would just like to disagree to the idea that faith will boost someone to be more acceptable.

Now do you think that if I talk to God face to face or I saw all those thunder and lightning together with that baritone voice from heaven saying he’s god and his son is the savior of mankind, that I might at least have the chance to ask him personally on what I think, that I can scrutinized his claims compare to a skinny pastor telling me Jesus will save me from hell while giving me an envelope for my “love offering” amounting to P100.00?
If God’s desire is for people to become Christians, I think making a personal appearance is more effective than letting his “pastors’ do the work from him. Don’t you agree?

The Bible tells us that God’s existence must be accepted by faith. Hebrews 11:6 declares, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.” The Bible reminds us that we are blessed when we believe and trust in God by faith, “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).

The fact that the existence of God must be accepted by faith does not mean belief in God is illogical. There are many good arguments for the existence of God. Please visit our “Does God Exist?” page. The Bible teaches that God’s existence is clearly seen in the universe (Psalm 19:1-4), in nature (Romans 1:18-22), and in our own hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11). With all that said, again, the existence of God cannot be proven, it must be accepted by faith.

Let first see what this faith is all about. According to Christians, faith is to believe something which has not yet come to pass or for which there is no evidence which constitute evidence for its actuality. Is that logical? Now...if a person accepts faith, that automatically considered as illogical. Remember, in faith there is no reason and logic. Kierkegaard said that reason can only undermine faith, never justify it. For even though one might indulge in rationalistic proofs of God’s existence, in the manner of Anselm or Aquinas, these nevertheless have nothing at all to do with a belief in God.

So belief in god is really the absence of reason and without reason then we are face in a boosted illusion of wishful thinking. What Christians has to offer to replace reason? It then replaces it with an appeal to authority without the guidelines of reason and an appeal to fear which really not a ground for truth.

Now...does the author of Hebrews 11:6 know that since faith is unreasonable, he then appeal for man to seek this being to reap rewards? Hmmm this reminds me of Maslow’s dog. Anyway, since faith is grounded by authority and fear...what do we gain to it since it doesn’t really established knowledge? An appeal to rewards is really a predictable outcome.

At the same time, it takes just as much faith to believe in atheism. To make the absolute statement “God does not exist!” is to make a claim of knowing absolutely everything there is to know about everything – and of having been everywhere in the universe there is to go – and having witnessed everything there is to be seen. Of course, no atheist would make these exact claims. However, that is essentially what they are claiming when they state that God does not exist. Atheists cannot prove that God does not, for example, live in the center of the sun, or beneath the clouds of Jupiter, or in some distant nebula. This cannot be proven, so it cannot be proven that God does not exist. It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist.

So after proving the Christian error, the Christian has no other way but to accuse atheism of the same issue that haunted the Christian god-belief.

Does it really take much faith to be an atheist? Not really. To say that “I don’t believe in a god” doesn’t really require faith. To lack theistic belief it is really not necessary for an atheist to know absolutely everything there is to know about everything.

Also, contrary to this Christian article, it is really impossible to prove a universal negative. There are 2 ways to do this: 1.) if it leads to contradictions and 2.) by carefully looking and seeing”.

In the first example, we can say that a 4-sided triangle doesn’t exist, right? That’s because a triangle has 3 angles. So therefore a 4-sided triangle doesn’t exist. Now...according to Christian belief there is only one true God, right? And that other gods like Allah and Brahma doesn’t exist. That’s also claiming a negative, don’t you think? If you are a Trinitarian...well if you believe in a Trinitarian God, then Allah, YHWH (the Jewish one) and the Christian trinity cannot exist together at the same time.

Now on example number 2...If I say that as I type this article (April 27, 2008 at 1:15AM) I have with me a three-headed girl with 7 arms and 20 legs. So it impossible to prove that there’s no such being exist with me at that very date?


The same can be applied with the god belief. An atheist can rule out the possibility of such being using both methods. And as I have said, it doesn’t require faith.

Well I hope this clarifies a lot of misconceptions regarding atheism. Oh and feel free to ask if you want to know more.

Until next time,
Paalam.

Pinoy Atheist.

I have been an atheist for a long time now...15 years to be exact and I have met fellow “pinoy atheists” for the past years, but I still ask myself, “Is the Philippines ready for atheism?”

There have been a lot of developments on atheism lately, thanks to the following authors who wrote best-selling books that deal with the subject. Authors like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. BBC has also presented a series about the history of atheism and I think the Internet is a big help.

Now I believe that some of the information did reach the Philippine soil and I am very glad to find copies of “The God Delusion” and “god Is Not Great” in local bookstores. There are also quite a number of atheist blogs in the Internet that is run by a Filipino; some are even presented in American blogs...like that of “truth seeker”. But even with these developments I still have my doubts.

400 years of Spanish rule down the drain. That’s not quite simple. The Filipinos have been living in fairy tale land and it seems we really not doing anything about it. We have been hiding in parables, in mysterious supernatural realm. And the benefits? Well we are now facing our problems just above our necks.

“Bahala Na”
Yes...that’s the answer a typical Filipino will utter, “bahala na” which means “God’s will be done.” Etymologically, the word “bahala na” came from the word “Bathala Na”. Bathala is another Tagalog word for “god”. Most often, when confronted by difficulties, a Filipino believes that it is God’s will. Well, most say that we also have an adage that says “Nasa diyos ang awa, nasa tao ang gawa” (I really can’t find the nearest English translation of this, but it seems to imply that you can find pity in God yet man has still the one to do the works.) Anyway, the saying implies pity in every hard deed.

The Rice Problem
Take a look at the rice problem the Philippines is now facing. I heard that a certain public official have already warn the government of this impending calamity (I think it was Gov. Panganiban...I just forgot...silly me). To top the problem there is also as shortage of flour. Bread prices just sky-rocketed! (I just found out in NBC Nightly News that this problem is really world-wide,)

Gosh! We now have to fall in line just to buy a cheaper variety of rice. Sometimes the line is too long that an average person takes 4 hours to take his turn. I remember the time when I take buying rice for granted. I just come inside the market and viola! There are a lot of stalls that sell any type of rice. No one really take notice of the NFA variety, because the rice grain is too dark and small. Some even say that it doesn’t taste good compare to those commercial varieties. Now even middle-class families’ fall in line just to avail the P25.00 American rice. And the P18.25 NFA rice is being sold to the poorest of the poor. The Philippine government stills deny that we are now facing a rice crisis. Yet still majority of Filipinos hangs in the belief that prayers will fix the problem.

I have heard in the news that bakers can add flour made from “kalabasa” (squash), “kamote” (sweet potato) and coconut from the typical wheat flour to double its volume. That will make the prices of bread cheaper...but why now? We have the technology and the resources, yet why haven’t we tried developing this before the problem started? That’s what happened when you don’t take science seriously. And so a typical Filipino will just shrug his shoulder and let God do his miracles to intervene with the problem... “bahala na”.

Filipinos are still too dependent on divine intervention. They are still convinced that solutions to problems are a prayer away to be solved. They are still drunk with ecclesiastical promises.

It looks as if we are stuck with this way of thinking. Every time a Filipino utter the word “bahala na”, he’s facing an idle mindset that prevents him to solve his problems efficiently. But for how long will it sustain the Filipino?

Well...got to fall in line
“baka maubusan pa ako ng bigas”!

Ciao!
Pinoy Atheist

Some sonofabitch just hacked my Yahoo account and now they're using it on their "Nigerian Scam". This is to warn the public. If you see a message that is address from "pinoy_atheist2000", that's not me.

So just be very careful accepting messages from "Yahoo". If you find an e-mail that said Yahoo is deleting accounts and that they need your personal informations to prevent Yahoo from deleting your account...DELETE THAT MESSAGE! That is not from Yahoo.

You have been warned!

John the Atheist

The warning signs are present , even here in the Philippines . Drought is felt during the rainy season and typhoons strike in the summer months. Sea water level is on the rise and more areas experience flooding . These are only some of the symptoms of a serious and growing global phenomenon: climate change. This environmental crisis puts the lives of millions at risk, hitting the poor countries hardest.

In response to the call for environmental awareness, GMA Public Affairs presents Signos (Fatal Signs), Philippine television’s first full-length documentary on what is considered the most pressing environmental issue today – the world’s changing climate as a result of decades of unchecked human activity. Following in the tradition of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth", Signos aims to bring the concept closer to home through a nation-wide investigation of the manifestations of climate change.

Award-winning journalists, Howie Severino, Maki Pulido and Raffy Tima travel to different parts of the country to prove that the impact of climate change reaches far beyond the glaciers of the Polar Regions. Severino visits Bicol, where a 150-meter fault line and intensifying typhoons threaten to bury towns with landslides. Pulido discovers a town in La Union that has dwindled to more than half of its original size. In El Nido, Palawan, Tima ventures underwater to investigate a phenomenon called coral bleaching.

To provide the most in-depth report, Signos brings together scientists from local and international institutions, including Filipino NASA Senior Research Scientist and Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Josefino Comiso, and experts from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Marine Science Institute, Greenpeace, and World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), and other climate change experts. Signos brings Filipino viewers a comprehensive look on climate change, its causes, effects, and the measures that must be taken to prevent its disastrous consequences.

There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew. ~Marshall McLuhan, 1964
HAPPY EARTH DAY EVERYONE!

I wonder why do these lists of questions claimed that non-believers can’t answer well? Maybe that’s because Christians assume that when a person answer differently from their standards and pre-conceive ideas that means you can’t answer it well. So without further adieu...let’s begin.

There are the basic world view questions:
1. Origins: Where did life and humanity originate?

2. The Problem: Why are there suffering, sickness, and death?

3. Solution: What is the cure for man's suffering, esp. his existential loneliness?

Men . . . have had the vanity to pretend that the whole creation was made for them, whilst in reality the whole creation does not suspect their existence. — CAMILLE FLAMMARION

This is always the very first question a believer asks an atheist. If a person doesn’t believe in the Christian god then how did life and humans originated? As if the question about god is synonymous with the question of origin.

Fortunately, not all religion in this planet shares the same enthusiasm about the question of origins. Buddhism for example believed that the question about origin is meaningless. Questions which are speculative in nature, and any answer to such questions will only create more confusion. People can discuss such questions for years without coming to a conclusion. They can only answer such questions based on their imagination, not on real understanding.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that there are no stupid questions...yet answers that are base on speculations and assumptions don’t really answer anything.

As a Filipino I am always akin to my ancestors’ story of origin. I don’t know but I find the story of Malakas and Maganda very pleasing. Here’s an original story... I can’t recall on any foreign version of this OPM (Original Philippine Mythology). So before the Spanish conquerors landed in Cebu and brought the Bible together with their sword, the Filipino already has a tale of their origins. In this story (unlike the sexist version of the Bible) the first man and woman came out inside a bamboo which is of course very hygienic compare to dust and muddy clay. Oh and did I forget to tell that both emerged inside the bamboo at the same time...no one comes first and last...ah the beauty of sexual equality.

Ancient cultures have different versions of origins, and the Bible story is really not very different. Every story is unique. It just up to you what story you will prefer. But myths are stories...they are not factual.

So after the origin of life we now focus with life’s greatest question - Why is there suffering, sickness and death?

Most people dislike facing these facts of life and prefer to lull themselves into a false sense of security by dreaming and imagining and religion plays a role in keeping people from hallucinating. Many people don’t even like to hear of the word ‘death’. They forget that death will come, whether they like it or not. Unfortunately, (or fortunately for some people) one way of understanding life is to face it...or as what my mother say, “Hold the bull by his horn.” We are living a life that does not always proceed as smoothly as we would like it to. Very often, we face problems and difficulties. We should not be afraid of them because the penetration into the very nature of these problems and difficulties can provide us with a deeper insight into life.

So what does this mean? Well...as long as you are alive there will always be suffering, sickness and death. These things are part of life...they are not problems.

So as an atheist what do I do to confront them?

Different atheists might give different answer to this...not because the question of suffering and death is a toughie...Nope...That is because of individuality. “Different atheists, different reasons.” In my part, instead of focusing on an imaginary world free from suffering, I spend my time making the most out of it. Every Saturday, my Dad always watches this TV program where a poor unfortunate person’s wish is granted... The title of the program is “Wish Ko Lang” (Just My Wish). Anyway, I’ve seen some stories in that program in which I really sympathized...like that 89 year-old woman who still selling rattan fans (abanikong paypay) near a Catholic University in España, Manila. I sometimes compare my situation to these people. Yes I’m poor, but there are other people out there who are live more miserable life compare to my situation. I asked myself, if that old lady never given up her hopes, then why would I feel hopeless. Compare to her situation, mine is chicken feed!

Unlike the traditional belief that suffering is a result of the fall of man...for a non-believer, suffering is really an emotional response due to some unplanned drawbacks. Well I mean suffering is really a natural result derive from misery resulting from affliction. Not that I’m a pessimist, yet I have already accepted that suffering cannot be separated from life itself, and that the celebration of life necessary means acceptance of suffering. You will never get rid of suffering, yet we can alleviate it a little. I sometimes thought to myself, “Maybe that’s why people created religion in the first place”. We suffer because we lost someone, or we are in pain, and so on. Well that’s life. That’s the undesirable consequences of life. That’s the set-back of having human emotions You may reflect on beautiful things, divine promises and wishful thinking, but it won’t go away. If you don’t want to suffer, well you have to erase all your emotions and feelings first. But don’t blame me if you’ll become one of Sky Net’s T-800 robots.

Yet we can create a purpose on suffering. I know what you’re thinking...Do you think I’m referring to that loving, omniscient god up there in the sky who created a world full of suffering so he can test 6 billion people, while sitting in his sofa, eating some chips like a useless couch-potato as angels play their harps around him as he watches his pets in 6 billion TV monitors? Come on, the purpose of suffering is deeper than that. Suffering in life builds one’s character.

When I say “building character”, I’m saying it in a natural manner, not some supernatural gibberish. We are survivors and a billion years of evolutionary process have given us the ability to adapt in our environment. Like every living organism in this planet, human beings are a product of more than three billion years of selection for the will to live. That’s really a product of evolution...not some old fatso in the clouds! Suffering creates value. When you witness someone suffer, you start to build character because of the fear of facing the same situation. You see a cancer patient and you began to think how you can prevent it from happening to you. When we see suffering, we sympathized with our fellow humans.

And how about death? So what can I do about the Grim Reaper? Nothing. Dying is the natural end of living. Since I don’t believe in a god and immortality, I know that my life is final. Death is neither necessary nor sacred. I don’t need to pretend, to fantasize and I can proudly say that I’m not afraid with reality. I can deal with death authentically than any believers I know.

Speaking of death, believers assume that since an atheist believes that there is no God, then life for an atheist is bleak and empty. That humans are existential lonely. According to believers, belief in a god gives human life a sense of cosmic purpose. Yet we can also have a sense of purpose without a god belief. Every individual action serves a purpose, that’s already a fact.

Let me quote Nietzsche:
My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be other than it is, not in the future, not in the past, not in all eternity. Not merely to endure that which happens of necessity, still less to dissemble it...but to love it. (Ecce Homo)

Here’s a good reason to have a purposeful life. It really doesn’t matter how unfair life is, how it is full of suffering, of sickness and death. Still you have to say “yes” to life...with all the ugly packaging. In his Will to Power, Nietzsche said that a great person, a tragic person, is strong enough to accept “even a monstrous amount of suffering”. And trying to elevate your life thru all that hardship is already a good purpose in life.


Questions of Meaning and Value:

4. How does an atheist assign meaning to human activity? Is all meaning subjective, or do some activities have self-evident and objective worth and meaning. If so, what are these activities, and how to you arrive at their value?

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? — DOUGLAS ADAMS

I really can’t understand why believers always insist that without a god, life would be meaningless. I don’t need some religious reassurance to give my life meaning and value...Why can’t a believer understand that the meaning of life need not to be mysterious and difficult. The meaning of life is view of a person’s fundamental purpose in which he/she can continue to live. The very simple reason that I want to live is a proof that I have a meaning in my life. If my sole purpose on this world is to survive then that’s the meaning of my life. Everyone in this world is trying to survive, isn’t it? So that makes the meaning of my life quite objective.

5. Are humans of more intrinsic value than animals? Why or why not?
From the point of view of a tapeworm, man was created by God to serve the appetite of the tapeworm. — EDWARD ABBEY

This question echoes an Aristotelian concept: "Man alone of all the animals is erect, because his nature and his substance are divine.”
Religion has given humans the false impression that we are the caretakers of this planet and we were given the right to own everything in it. The Book of Genesis says that the Hebrew God have made man to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground. Yeah...whom are they kidding?
Do you know that fleas nearly eradicate every human in this planet? Just look at what happened to the Bubonic plague...the Black Death that ravage Europe in the Dark Ages. Do you know that the plague was spread in all Western Europe because of fleas? About 20 to 35 percent of the population died because of it.

Humans are not that special compare to all living things in this planet. Damn! Haven’t they known that humans are just a part of the Web of Life? We and all other living things in this planet are sharing a common ground. We are not a special creation. Think about it: If humans haven’t invented clothing, we will die naked because of exposure...unlike those wild animals that live in the forest. We won’t survive not have the ability to adopt in the environment without our tools. We can’t outrun the fastest of predators...what so special about that?

In order to survive, human beings must cease his pride and accept the fact that we are not the dominators of this planet, but an essential part of a common and fragile ecosystem.

Well speaking as an atheist and an environmentalist, I say that humans and animals and all living things in this planet share their own uniqueness. Every life form in this planet is special.

6. How does an atheist determine what is moral or immoral, right or wrong. Is there any objective standard or principles?

Morality is of the highest importance—but for us, not for God. — ALBERT EINSTEIN

Let me first put it straight: Atheism does not logically demand nor promotes any theory of ethics. So as an atheist you can always have options to different non-theistic explanation of morality or secular theories of ethics like relativism, nihilism or even objectivism.

Some atheists believe that morality is relative (these are the pragmatists and the moral relativists) while others believe in an objective morality (These are the realists). Personally, I believe that morality is objective. According to Sam Harris, “we can easily think of objective basis of moral order that do not entail the existence of a lawgiving God. For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality.”

The Dalai Lama for example essentially argued that our very first emotional experience, which is the direct result of biology – attachment of a newborn to his or her mother-forms the basis for all other human attachments.

For objectivist, morality is really a question about the happiness and suffering of sentient creatures. If we are in a position to influence the happiness or suffering of others, we have ethical accountability towards them – and some of these responsibilities are so crucial that they become matters of civil and criminal law. Now this is what rational morality is all about. Rational morality, in essence, is a code of values required by man for his survival, well-being and happiness.

Do morality requires a god belief? Just ask yourself: Do members of the National Academy of Sciences, 93 percent of who reject the idea of God, lie and cheat and steal with abandon? How about those pastors and priest who molest children? We have news of religious people committing crime, molesting children, stealing money and committing fraud. Now does the belief in a god deter a person to be immoral?

Nah! I wouldn’t waste my time collecting news clipping or prison records just to prove my point nor will I claim that non-believers are morally good compare to believers. In L.U. (Rizal Park) for example, there is this fellow who loves to hold his Bible and start preaching to every one the Word of God. He also claims that he is a “Born-Again” Christian and as a born-again Christian, his sole purpose on Earth is to save lost souls in heaven. Guess what he does in his spare time? Well...he just gaze for lonely women in the park and present cash for sexual satisfaction. Hey if you ask me, there’s really nothing wrong with “victimless crimes”, but I thought this type of activities is “no-no” to a Christian lifestyle?

Here’s my point. It really doesn’t change everything whether you are a god believer or not. Both do immoral acts whether one fear a god or one doesn’t believe it exists.

But isn’t it quite strange. God believers accused atheists of promoting relative morality unlike the “universal” morality religion has to offer, yet who’s really into relativism? The Christians for example have proudly promoted Jesus’ Golden Rule as a positive one in contrast to Confucius and Hiller, yet the same Christians have used the thumbscrew, the rack, the wheel and the torture chamber to impose their rule. They say that their religion have teaches men to love thy neighbor, yet in the pages of their holy books, all you can read is how they annihilated their neighbor...men, women and children. But why bother to compare the difference between secular morality and religions morality. There is really nothing “universal” with religious morality. Religious morality is not really about what is good and what is bad – it’s about authority. Religious morality serves the purpose of god, not man; and man is required to subordinate himself to the moral code. Obedience is the major virtue, disobedience the moral vice.

To end this part, I would like to recall how Bertrand Russell answered Frederick Copleston when Copleston asked Russell how he distinguished between good and bad. Russell answered, “By my feelings.” “The feeling is too simplified. You’ve got to take account of the effects of actions and your feelings toward those effects.”

Questions of Worldview:

Before anything else, let me state this fact: Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world. An atheist is simply a person who believes that the 87 percent of the population claiming to "never doubt the existence of God" should be obliged to present evidence for his existence—and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day.

7. What type of government does atheistic philosophy translate into? How does it understand the relationship between man and government? What type of government structures flow from an atheistic world view? Does it merely rely on someone else's system of thought, like the assumptions of naturalistic science?

If absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God? — GEORGE DAACON

I find this question quite amusing. What does atheism has to do with types of government?

Let see...since a Christian created this questioner, let me remind my readers that democracy was invented by pagan Greeks. The concept of "rights" is a product of thinkers of the Enlightenment who reacted against the Christian view that those who dissented from established dogma should be burned.

That is just a simple way of saying that between man and government, religion is really not an issue, unless you’re talking about theocracy.

The issue about political theories and atheism rises in the issue of communism. That’s because since Karl Marx was an atheist most believers assume that atheism and communism is the same. Karl Marx believed that religion is the opium of society. But communism is not a theological question rather a socio-economic issue. But Ayn Rand was also an atheist yet she disagrees with atheism. Here in the Philippines for instance, members of the Communist New People’s Army still go to church. I remember seeing a newspaper picture of communists’ party leaders attending a Sunday Mass.

If a person doesn’t believe in the existence of a god, that doesn’t automatically follow that, he/she, would prefer an authoritarian government or a communist state. Take a good look at France for example. Do you know that after the French revolution, the Archbishop of Paris publicly declared that the church was a sham? Yet look at France today, France is a democratic state...and we also have those secular Scandinavian state. They’re not communists yet they are quite secular.

So as an atheist, personally I prefer a government that takes care of its people. A government that promotes cooperation. A government that is stable. A government that is concern to its people’s welfare and education, Oh come on...as a Filipino I also ought to have a good government, not this circus that’s been running the Philippine republic for the last 8 years.

8. How does atheism view religions and religious faith? What about metaphysics? Is atheism purely materialistic and naturalistic?

We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. — JONATHAN SWIFT

Believers have always thought that atheism is synonymous with materialism and naturalism. Ok...Ok... here’s the fact, not all atheists are materialists and naturalist. Jainism for example believes in souls and spirit yet they don’t believe in a god or gods.

Religion – different atheist have different views regarding what religion is. But not only atheists...different people in fact define religion differently. So in this post, I will define how Daniel Dennett defined religion: A social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. But personally I define religion this way: When Ignorance and Fear met, they decided to get married and they have 2 children. One is religion and the other is superstition. Wherever this family went, they are followed by intolerance, war, deceit and bias.

I think religion is the most dangerous concept that human invented. Oh sure...you’ll say that religion help change the world. Yes it did, but have you forgotten how majority of wars were fought in the name of god and religion? It seems religion have done more harm than they have done good. When someone tells me that religion have changed lives...I always look at a postcard that pictures the once standing World Trade Center in New York...and I say, “Yep, it did changed lives.”

You might say that modern religions today respect each other. Hmmmmm just look at Quiapo, Manila. Now here’s a place where you can find Christians and Muslim living side by side. A Moslem Mosque in the right side and a Roman Catholic Basilica in the left side of the street. Yeah right...

Oh sure they’re living peacefully side by side. But that’s not because of their religion. That is because of secular ideas like human rights and democratic politics. But if you’ll read both their sacred books, both their gods have commanded these people to annihilate each other. The Judeo-Christian Bible tells us the destruction of non-believers and how non-believers and other religion should be dealt with, same with the Qur’an.

How about metaphysics? The dictionary defines metaphysics as the philosophical study of being and knowing. It is the study of reality, of existence as such – in contrast to specific studies of existence, such as physics (inanimate matter) and biology (living entities). Metaphysics investigates existence in terms of its most fundamental attributes. It deals with such concepts as matter, consciousness and causality.

Let us blame Andronicus of Rhodes not Aristotle on the issue of metaphysics. In 30 BCE, Andronicus put Aristotle’s treatises and place them after physics...calling them meta-physics.

Aristotle totally rejected Plato’s theory of ideas as disembodied forms. In Aristotle’s meta-physics, the question of Being depended upon the notion of “substance” – that which endures through time and change, and which cannot be taken apart and put together again, nor broken up into more of the same kind. It describes the essence yet it is independent of such contingent qualities. To put it simpler: Matter and form equals’ substance.

For Aristotle, matter consists of two aspects, substance, which contains within itself the potential for an infinite number of transformations, and a kind of active principle, "energeia," which is an innate and spontaneous moving force. Yet something must have “moved” this force since in Aristotle’s time, they believe that non-movement is a default position? This "something," however, must be an eternal substance and actuality. Well according to Aristotle, that something is “God” – the Prime Mover.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) changed the definition of metaphysics to the science of the “limits of human reason”. He set limits to knowledge and distinguished it between “appearance” or phenomena and Reality which is noumena. Any mysterious in-between is what he called the ding-an-sich or thing-in-itself which was unknowable. According to Kant, the attempt to go beyond the phenomenal world, to apply concepts outside the limits set by their empirical application inevitably leads to paradoxes, fallacies and actual contradiction.

I think Kant’s thing-in-itself is the basic element of theistic belief in a god. It justifies the believer’s claim of an unknowable god - a god devoid of human knowledge and understanding. Theism, using Kant’s thing-in-itself, maintains god’s nature unknowable to man. That man will never understand god.

Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel (1770-1831) rejects Kant’s metaphysics. He argued that Kant’s claim that something which existed was unknowable was a clear contradiction of Kant’s own laws about the limits of knowledge. Hegel insisted that the Thing-in-Itself is an empty abstraction. If we take away all the properties of an object which are knowable, we are left with precisely nothing. Kant’s Thing-in-Itself is merely a way of indicating our present limitations. It is not a mystery, but a problem to be solved. What is today a Thing-in-Itself will tomorrow be a Thing-for-Us.

So why is the concept of metaphysics very important to believers? Because the word “supernatural” has metaphysical undertone and supernatural is the only place where their god can reside. The word supernatural really doesn’t have any natural meaning. It means something “beyond” or “above” natural. But what is this something that is beyond or above natural? Well... that means it is beyond the scope of natural laws, that god is not a part of the natural existence. So can a believer explain what “not a part of natural existence” is? No he can’t because if he can, then that means god is knowable...which will topple all of the believer’s trump cards. He’s stuck with an “unknowable god” whom he claims that he can “explain” to any non-believers (weird).


9. Who are the authoritative writers/books of atheism? What are the central tenets of atheism, and if they have a "greatest commandment," what is it? For example, arguably, Christianity's is "Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer. —ANONYMOUS

Contrary to popular theist’s belief, atheism is not a religion. That means atheism doesn’t have any authoritative writers or books. It doesn’t have these so-called “sacred book” which believers use to straighten their faith.

Well...if you mean atheist’s books available in bookstores...we have a lot of writers in the field. It’s really up to the atheist whose author he prefers. Today we have available books written by different atheists writers like Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris (my favorite), Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, George Smith, Michael Ofrey, Victor Stenger and Michael Martin.

A tenet? A tenet is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. Since atheism is not a religion, we don’t have any tenet or any religious doctrine. Now let’s talk about the Christian tenet: Love God in all your heart? Hmmmm I wonder how can I love something that sacrificed himself to himself to appease his own wrath? Well, this is what Christianity is all about isn’t it? Oh and does Christianity promotes neighborly love? I don’t think John Calvin have that in mind when he ordered Servetus to be burned at the stake. Tomas De Torquemada doesn’t really been thinking of loving thy neighbors when the Roman Catholic Pope appointed him as the Grand Inquisitor of Castile in February 11, 1482. Gosh 8,800 died on fire and 96,507 were cruelly punished yet Torquemada believed in Jesus Christ and this so-called Christian tenet.

In Genesis for example, the Torah forbid a Jew from having Jewish slaves yet a non-Jew neighbor, on the other hand, could remain in a state of servitude till he dies. Now here’s a good example of Loving God and loving your neighbor...Moses told his soldiers: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that halt known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourself.” – Numbers 31:17-18...Gosh!

Questions of Revelation:
10. What happens after we die?

From my rotting body flowers shall grow, and I shall be in them. —EDVARD MUNCH

Naturally, we rot – food for the microbes. Not really a pleasing sight. The bad news is that the world will continue even without you. So what should an atheist do before death comes knocking at the door?

If you’re rich, donate your properties to charity. Look for some secular school which is not run by any “ecclesiastic or sect”. I’m planning to donate all my books in case I bit the dust.
You can donate your body parts if you like. A lot of patients really need the spare parts like kidneys, heart, eyes, etc.

Until next time,
John the Atheist

Note: The article doesn't necessary mean that the author and John the Atheist share a common opinion.



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

Christianity: An Insult to Humanity
By: Joshua Lipana

The Christian religion from day one, after getting in this country, has done nothing but to corrupt the citizens of my country. Christianity is everything that hates the beautiful, the intelligent and the strong. It has made my entire nation weak. It has turned this beautiful country, lush in natural resources, value nothing useful. It has corrupted our culture into hating intelligence and free inquiry. It has produced the mightiest of contradictions. It has confused and denigrated millions of minds. For there to be any progress here, Christianity must be done away with.
Christianity is the expression of all hatred for what is here and now it’s the expression of everything that is weak and vengeful. At the same time, it exploits the weak and hurt. It takes the potential hero in man and destroys it.

It destroys the spirit just as it destroys the mind.


Christianity is the biggest expression of disgust for reality. Christianity has done nothing but to detach man from reality and enslave the mind to ignorance. Christianity is what happens when one says “I don’t want to learn anymore”.

Christianity is, out of all religions I’ve seen, the most offensive to the human spirit. It is the “I give up” of every man. It is the surrender of the human spirit. I say quite deliberately that Christianity produces nothing but decadence. With it embedded in a society, the state will slowly waste away into more human stupidity and weakness. They value the afterlife more than life itself.

Ah, but wait. Isn’t this bigotry?
At some point we have to admit that the Christian religion is just too absurd to be given this much respect. I do not advocate any extreme way to get rid of this religion. I just ask people to speak out. Christianity is given too much respect for such absurd teachings. Although once in a while they produce a decent human being. History has shown that the majority of what they have produced is a bunch of murderers and bigots who for hundreds of years did all they can to stop worldly humane progress.

Christianity has taken its eyes and has pointed them to our schools. Creationism re-branded as intelligent design is gaining ground abroad. I have nothing but contempt for this movement.
Intelligent design/Creationism is not science.

This is one of the most destructive movements Christianity has engineered in this century - the creationist/ intelligent design movement. I cannot stress this enough. Creationism is a non-science. It is bull shit.

Christianity slowly but surely regained their strength while most people slept peacefully thinking Christianity was a harmless piece of joy. And some rationalists thought reason alone could handle itself. Christianity was making a comeback. We have oftentimes underestimated stupidity and ignorance we forgot how determined these people were. The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, were more often than not Christianity’s doing.

We forgot the inquisition, the crusades and the countless witch trials….
Our leaders are now basing their decisions in superstition rather than reason and science.
We have had a lot of progress ourselves but they are back more determined than ever and outnumbering us by the millions all with blind faith in what they are doing all determined to get god back in our schools. Creationism as is Christianity is pure superstition.


This is a country where the fact of evolution is taught side by side with Creationism. This is the place where science is for children and fantasy and magical thinking is for the adults. This is the place where the government does nothing without the bishops approving it. This is where poverty is rampant and education and the government are controlled by the church. This is a place where overpopulation is astounding and where birth control is demonized. This is a Christian country.
Progress is scarce here.

My friends please don’t let America, the only super power left, be taken over by this sinister movement. In the guise of kindness they will marginalize intelligence and destroy you. They have taken over and wrecked my country. I warn you sincerely don’t let them win in the United States of America.

Dear A b y,
I know that the message was not for me ( it’s for a certain LEVI) yet since the massage is about atheism and some so-called proof about the existence of god, I think it will just be proper for an atheist (like me) to answer them.

Which side of Atheism are you in?

(1) the practical atheist who lives as if there is no God;

(2) the dogmatic atheist who openly repudiates God;

(3) the virtual atheist who rejects God by his terminology (e.g. Paul Tillich: God is the “Ground of all being”). This classification would include those who deny a personal God.

I think that these so-called “types of atheists” that you are referring are more of a Christian slander base on Christian apolo