Missed the Mark!

CR made his response... 

Sadly, it didn't hit the goal post.

Ang simple lang naman ang sinabi ko eh: "Faith is not an assumption, therefore science is not relying on faith."

All CR has to do is to prove that faith is an assumption so that his article will fit the bill. I have to wait for CR to do the task before I can do a response.

Until then. 

Walang “Science” kung Walang “Faith. Sounds interesting.

Ang artikulo na binabanggit ko ay katha ng isang nangangalang ContemporaReformed at kanyang pinamagatang “Real Talk: Walang “Science” kung Walang “Faith.”

According to CR (ContemporaReformed), “Science isn’t opposed to faith because science itself is based on faith. Ito ay dahil mismong ang science ay naka-depende sa mga “faith assumptions” patungkol sa reality na hindi maaaring patunayan ng science.” Explaining further, CR said, “Ang tawag sa mga faith assumptions na ito ay preconditions of intelligibility. Ito ay sumasagot sa tanong na, “Ano ba dapat ang mga kalagayan o kundisyon sa reality na kailangan munang maging totoo para maging posible ang objective knowledge natin patungkol sa anumang bagay?”

I don’t know about CR, but I don’t think that faith assumption and precondition of intelligibility is the same thing. Faith assumptions are assumptions that may be false or true yet but for some practical or moral reasons to trust you just go alone with them while precondition of intelligibility are reality that must be consistent with itself like the Laws of Logic, the uniformity of nature, to shape our worldview…

OK, enough of the meanings. Let’s talk about science, assumption, and faith.

CR wrote, “Every scientific endeavor has to rely on these faith assumptions...”

So when CR talks about science and faith, what does he mean about the word “faith? “ If we look in a dictionary we see that the word faith has several meanings, but I will just concentrate on the first 2. One is that faith is a complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Second, faith is defined as a strong belief  based on conviction rather than proof.

So according to CR, science itself is based on faith because every scientific endeavor relies on assumptions that may be false or true yet that are taken for granted because of reality that must be consistent with something that we need in order to make sense out of the world - Laws of logic, uniformity of nature, existence of a real physical world “out there,” the “I,” the existence of other “minds...” (Which presuppositionalist apologists call precondition of intelligibility). 

But here’s the problem: Faith is NOT an assumption.

When we talk about faith, we are talking about a complete trust or confidence. On its second definition, faith is said to be based on conviction. Since science will always leave a certain amount of uncertainty on its assumptions, then we are not talking about faith. Let say that we assume the Sun will always shine tomorrow. Really? Are you 100% certain? We have a high confidence rate that the Sun will shine tomorrow because the supporting evidence of the claim is high BUT, in the face of new evidence or new information, the confidence rate changes. 

A good example here is quantum physics. Back in the old days of Newton, we believe that the Law of Physics is fix and predictable. Then BOOM!  Quantum physics entered the picture. We discovered that when we talk about quantum physics, the Laws of Logic doesn’t apply - electrons can be a wave and a particle at the same time (Have you heard about Schrodinger’s cat?). That quantum particle can be in different places at the same time (known as entanglement) etc.  – All defying the laws of logic. That pissed off Einstein but Bohr won the bet. 

In other words, science changes its assumptions when new information comes in. If science does not change its assumptions especially when new evidence and arguments show that the assumptions are untenable then its method won’t get close to the truth.

Since CR used the bible in his article, I think it would also be OK for me to use it. So here goes…

Faith is defined in Hebrews 11: 1

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (ASV)

Faith is a complete trust, an assurance (a guarantee) on what you believe (conviction) even without any visible evidence.

So faith is an assurance (a guarantee) and unlike assumptions, it doesn’t change. No amount of evidence or new information will change a guarantee. If you have faith (a guarantee on your conviction) in Jesus as “the Son of God” and that if you “believe it as true you get eternal life” no amount of proof, evidence and argument will change that. 

Because most lay Christian believers (or those who really doesn’t understand their own holy book) are equivocating the meaning of faith with making assumptions, they say that science also have faith. Sadly, these “Christians” are the one who gives their faith a bad rep to non-believers like me. 

If you cannot understand a simple word defined by Hebrews 11: 1, and if you cannot even understand what faith is, then how can you explain to me why I need to believe the Christian claim? 

Tough luck, eh? 

Until next time.

Ciao!

(Note: I have read ContemporaReformed entire article, but most are really off-topics. The real topic is Walang “Science” kung Walang “Faith and I guess this short 818 words article is enough to topple CR’s myth.)

Kontrabida: Mayroon ba o wala?

Most of the time Faith Defenders get tangled with their own explanation. Consider this one:

A Christian was asked why his god let Satan live since everybody knows that this Omni-god has all the powers to kill Satan instantly, yet how come this Satan still exist?

The Christian answered that to show how good God is, he needs a "kontrabida" (a villain) because your movie will be considered as nonsensical if there are no villains.

Yet then, the same Christian said that God didn't made Satan as a "kontrabida" because he gave his creatures a choice.

So is Satan a "kontrabida" or not? Will you make up your mind.

Let Us Build A Straw-Man

Do you see what's wrong with this picture? Come on, take a good look.

According to this uh, "Christian propaganda" an atheist doesn't accept that a god created all things yet we believe that we are a product of dirt from the bigbang and somewhat magically evolved into humans.

Wow!

It is very obvious that the dork who created that message and those people who post this doesn't understand science, The Bigbang, and evolution. 

So let me clarify this... 

Atheists are not convinced with the first claim because "god" is a supernatural explanation.

First, supernatural explanations are not scientific explanations. The reason for this is that science focuses on the natural world. Gods, devils, angels, genies. leprechauns, and faeries are outside the rules that govern the natural world.

Second, supernatural claims are not testable.

And third, supernatural claims can't be falsify.

Now, there are no dirt that came out with the Bigbang (that is IF you consider matter, space and time as dirt.) Also, the Bigbang is not considered as "the origin" of the universe." 

Now, humans don’t come from dirt. Only an ancient religious book has such an idea, but scientifically speaking humans evolved from a common ancestor where other mammals and apes also evolved from. That doesn't require magic. It only needs 3 conditions: 1. There is a population of things that make copies of themselves. 2. The copying process is not perfect. and 3. The copying errors lead to differences in the ability of offspring to survive and make copies of themselves. 

TADAH! 

Creating straw-man arguments doesn't make you win an argument. It just shows how dumb you really are.

Until next time.

Who's Stupid Now?

I remember an episode of the Simpsons when Homer confronted Pascal's Wager - "What if we're worshiping the wrong god and we're just making her madder and madder?" 

And Homer was suppose to be stupid? 

We know that Pascal's Wager is just making the Black and White Fallacy but let us just explore why this is a very poor bet for convincing an atheist.

According to the post, the Christian believe in God and the afterlife. The atheist don't. Now, there are just two and only two possibility: (A)There is a God and an afterlife and (B)there is NO God and an afterlife. Really? Only 2 possibilities? 

Let's look at his two senarios.

Senario #1- there is NO God and an afterlife. Does the Christian loses nothing?

Let say for more than 30 years, the good Christian attended his church diligently every Sunday for 2 hours (not including travel time), and giving his salary's 10% for his weekly church tithes to pay the Pastor's salary and to buy the church new jet plane tax free - includes the Pastor's daily expenses for his multi-million mansion and holiday cruise travel. He also have Bible studies every Wednesday evening and weekly church donations. Then he dies. Just imagine all those wasted time and money he could have saved and used for a better and tangible purpose for himself and his family. 

Senario #2 - Now what if there's a God and an afterlife? 

Did the Christian won the gamble? 

What if he is a members of a "false church?" 

The Christian seems to forget that there are so many Christian denominations (Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day saints, , Iglesia Ni Cristo, Episcopalian, Evangelical (Born-Again) Christians, Ang Dating Daan, etc.) and they are all accusing each other as being a false church. As Jesus said, not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom in heaven (Matthew 7:21).  Now imagine what will happen to this Christian if he was attending the "wrong Christian church?"

Then, there are those other religions like Judaism and Islam. According to Islam for example, Christians will be send to hell for worshiping Jesus as Son of God. 

I guess the Christian here just made a very bad bet and LOSES BIG TIME! 

This only proves that Homer Simpson is wiser compare to an average Christian who still uses Pascal's Wager. It is considered a very useless argument because gambling is not always a good, sure bet.

Until next time.

Prime Mover Argument

With all the new scientific discoveries in the 21st century, I never thought I will still encounter someone using 11th century scholasticism. I guess some Christian apologist never upgrade. 

A good example is the Prime Mover Argument. 

Using Newton's Law?

 

As stated by Newton's First Law of Motion, bodies do not alter their motions unless forces are applied to them. A body at rest stays at rest. A moving body continues to travel with the same speed and direction unless acted upon by a net force. In other words, a body at rest or a body in motion will continue till some net force acted upon it.  

So what does Newton have to do with it?

Well, proponents of the Prime Mover argument believe that the whole Shebang (the universe) started in static till "someone" started the ball rolling and that someone is the theist's Big Daddy in the Sky called GOD. 

It's Not Scientific

The concept behind the Prime Mover argument is not scientific. The idea came from Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) on one of his arguments on proving the existence of god called Quinque Viae. Aquinas based this not on physics, but from his favorite Greek philosopher Aristotle. Oh yes, this is the same Aristotle that believed the universe is made up of four basic elements - earth, air, fire and water. Anyways, Aristotle believed that the natural state of any body is to be at rest - the same idea that Aquinas used. 

Newton Again?

Using Newton's first law is not a good idea to defend the Prime Mover argument. As stated, the law says that a particle would tend to stay at rest or move (in a constant velocity) if no external force is applied to it. Hence it is as natural for a body to move in a constant velocity as it is for a body to be at rest. There is no need for a Prime Mover.

No Frame of Reference

As experiments done by physicists A.A. Michelson, and E.W. Morley in 1881 and 1887 it were found out that there are no standard and absolute frames in the universe. Albert Einstein used the conclusion of these experiments as one of his postulate in his Special Theory of Relativity. So therefore, these make the idea of a Prime Mover absolute nonsense.

It's Gobbledygook.

Which brings me to a question: "WHERE IN PHYSICS DOES IT SAYS THAT THE NATURAL STATE OF ANY BODY IS AT REST?" 

The concept of a Prime Mover is just ancient Greek speculations and scholastic gibberish. It's not physics, not science. THEREFORE, the Prime Mover is nothing but twaddle.

Until next time.

Tele-evangelists are no science teacher.

Letting TV preachers do your science homework? Now that's how to get an "F" in Physics.

 According to a certain "most sensible" Christian TV Preacher, matter perishes. 

Weh? Hindi nga?

Scientifically speaking, matter doesn’t perish. They just change from one state to another. When iron is oxygenated for example, it creates iron oxide (AKA rust). The matter in the iron didn't lose its "matterness" so to speak. It just changed from one state to another. 

Obviously, this "most sensible" preacher was trying to discredit matter using his weak understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Since the 2nd Law of thermodynamics states that entropy (disorder) increases so VIOLA! Matter perishes. Sad that his "sensibility" prevented him to learn something about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which stated that matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Matter only turns into energy and energy to matter as what Albert Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 demonstrated. The number of energy and matter in the universe remains constant. Nothing perishes. 

Some bible fanatics might argue that the preacher is just using a layman's standpoint. For a layman's standpoint, matter perishes. Wood rot or burn, rocks crumble and metal rust. Oh, so let us also add that in a layman observation, the Sun revolves around the earth, the Sun is not a star and stars are small. Remember that a layperson's opinion is not science, so if you would like to justify your religious belief by trying to use science yet getting ideas from a layperson's belief, then I guess being foolish would be that preacher's best quality.

Until next time.

Not A God

Dear Mr. Sensible (?) bible preacher, the Buddha is not a god and no prudent Buddhist will argue that the Buddha is a god (based on the idea you have from the word god). 

As told of the tale...

"Once, the Buddha was asked if he was a god. The Buddha replied that no, he was not a god. 

Then was he an angel? 

No. 

A spirit? 

No. 

Then what was he? 

The Buddha replied he was awakened."

Buddhism holds no such belief in a supreme personal creator god and, on the contrary, it denies the existence of a personal creator god. This would make Buddhism non-theistic.

Also, I’m just wondering. Why use your holy book (AKA bible) to reproach other religions? Your bible and your god have no power over other gods and religious beliefs - only blockheads like you will do such foolery.

Maybe instead of indoctrinating gullible folks with your fallacious preaching to get their bucks why not try attending a course about comparative religion so you will understand more and become a better person. 

Respectfully yours,

An Atheist

Morality from Scriptures?

"I distrusted people who claimed to know what God wanted, because it always seemed to line up really well with their own wishes." - Susan B. Anthony

It is often thought that when we talk about morality, it must come from an authority. For example, according to this theist, atheists hate the scriptures because they do not have any to call their own which could have served as their moral compass. 

To understand this issue we have to know what morality means first.

Morality is simply defined as the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Sounds simple, right? Well, that’s where it starts to get complicated, because people don’t always agree on what’s right and wrong.

I remember one of Mr. Poch Suzara's pamphlets which say that when people are doing something that will benefit himself and his society physically and mentally that can be considered as morally upright, while when he does something that will harm himself and his society physically and mentally, that is considered as immoral. That's morality in a nutshell. So, to think that morality is an effort to strive as much as possible for the well-being of sentient beings is a good definition. 

Also, moral behavior is not exclusive to humans. Apes in the wild have been observed doing things that would be interpreted as moral behavior, or at least the beginnings of moral behavior.

Moral development experts say most people figure out the ethical principles that make for a moral life not from holy books but through their own interactions with others — Yep, you get them while playing with other kids in the playground when you were still 4 years old. Your parents teach you to behave. You learn the rules of a game and other players expect you to abide them or you're out.

So, do I need an ancient book as a moral guide? Do I need to believe in the existence of a supernatural deity to work on it?

What Scriptures?

Then there's the problem of what scriptures will serve as my moral compass? 

Almost all religions have their own scriptures: The Jews have their Torah, the Christians have their Bible, and the Muslims have their Qur'an and so on...

With that, these scriptures have different "god-given decrees" that their adherents simply believed to be moral laws. 

So whose scripture should I follow? 

Until next time.

Lost In Meaning

According to a certain Junjun Zamora, theories are always theories. Hmm... 

Looking at a dictionary, the word "theory" has several meanings. It can be about "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world." or “ a tentative insight into the natural world." or “ a belief that can guide behavior." Since Junjun mentioned evolution and the Big bang, I assume he's talking about "scientific theories." 

According to Douglas Futuyma, a biology professor from State University of New York, a scientific theory is a mature, coherent body of interconnected statements, based on reasoning and evidence that explain a variety of observations. The New Oxford American Dictionary defined it as "a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." Scientific theories are coherent body of interconnected statements, based on reasoning and evidence that explain a variety of observations. So when we are talking about scientific theories, we are not just doing speculative guesses.  I guess Junjun got a little bit confused about the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. 

Junjun also said that "the word of God" is truth. Well, is he talking about Aristotle's God of the Philosophers or Paul Tillich's Being of Beings? Is he talking about the Deist god or the pantheist "god?" Since he's obviously a Christian, is he a fundamentalist, a conservative or a liberal believer?  Is it the Mormon god, the Catholic or the Adventist god? I guess I really don't know which god he is talking about. That's the same with his "truth." You see the trouble when we talk about gods, and religion in general the word "truth" becomes too relative. It will become dependent on the idea or the doctrine of a particular god-belief or religion. Since "god" cannot utter any word. The "word" will come from human interpreters. 

On another subject, Junjun claimed that before ancient scientists knew that the Earth was a sphere, the bible authors already knew it. 

Weh?

He said the bible "tells in full detail" that the Earth is spherical. [Citation needed]

Sadly, Junjun didn't give us any details of his claim. Let's take a look.

Most Christians use Isaiah 40:22 which say "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth." Since the verse mentions "the circle of the earth," Junjun interpret it as a description of a spherical earth. But is it? 

The word circle here used the Hebrew word "chug" which means a circle. But, can it also mean a sphere?

A sphere is a three-dimensional closed surface such that every point on the surface is equidistant from the center. It is more of a ball than a flat coin or the base of a tent. The Hebrew word for "ball" like is "kadur" and it can be found in Isaiah 22:18. Just think, if the author of Isaiah wanted to depict a spherical Earth, why use the word kadur to be more precise? 

Also, it seems Junjun forgot to read the whole verse. According to Isaiah 40:22,  "and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." I don't think a tent is a sphere. Maybe Junjun would like to explain that to us in "full details?" 

The bible has given us a lot of verses that says it's not speaking of any spherical Earth. Verses like Daniel 4:11 speaks of a tree so tall that “the height thereof reached unto heaven and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.”  Note that it’s impossible to see a tree from all points on the earth, regardless of how far it ascends, because the earth is spherical.  In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke record a story in which the Devil took Jesus to an exceedingly tall mountain in order to show him all the kingdoms of the world (4:8 and 4:5, respectively). Again, you cannot see the entire world from a spherical Earth.

For your information. 

Anaximander (611-547 BCE) used observation (He observed the night sky looking for the movement of the North Star) and geometry to figure it out. 

Philolaus (450 BCE) by observing change in the stars, the way in which ships disappeared as they moved away, and the shadow of the Earth during an eclipse of the moon conclude the Earth is a sphere. In fact, Philolaus was the first man ever to say that the Earth was a sphere.

Aristotle (384–322 BCE), view that since everything was attracted toward the center of the earth, that meant that the Earth had to be a sphere.

The Greek astronomer, Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) discovered Earth was a sphere by only using sticks and shadows in the 3rd Century BCE. 

These old Greek scholars REALLY FIGURED IT OUT that Earth is a sphere using observation and experiments unlike those old Hebrew religious writers who still clings on the old idea that the world was a static flat circle floating on nothing yet supported by pillars which was loosely based on ancient religious concepts from neighboring ancient nations.

Until next time.

Hopelessly Feeble Arguments Part 2

More of the subjective, personal "feel-good" Christian arguments against atheism. 

Let us continue...

ARGUMENT 3:  Atheism has never been a satisfactory explanation for the universe.

REBUTTAL:  Fact. Atheism is not cosmology. Atheism is the lack of belief in any god(s).

Now, let us talk about "satisfactory explanation for the universe" according to theism:

Uhhh… that the universe is about a series of giant turtles infinitely standing on top of one another. Oh, ah... a god had a stomach ache and vomited the universe. The universe is just 6,000 years old. Wait? Oh, well, the universe is a big, black egg. No? Everything in the universe came from a god's body lint. 

Satisfied?

But they're all myth! A Christian may reply. But remember, one person's religion is another person's myth. 

When talking about the universe, atheists only look at natural explanation for cosmology. Why not? Do I need to believe in supernatural fairies and elves to explain my garden? Magic, appeal to ancient texts, personal faith convictions, and subjective religious opinions are not explanations. 

Christian: But theism can give the cause of the universe, as stated in the Kalam argument: 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Weh? Noticed that your Kalam argument didn't said anything about a god. It only concluded that the universe has a cause, yet it didn't say that the cause is a supernatural Christian god.

ARGUMENT 4:  Atheism is emotional. Atheism is a rebellious act against God whom they perceive is unloving. Atheism is a reaction to hurt and pain. Atheism is a reaction to disappointment. Atheism is not unbelief in God, it is actually hatred against God. Listen how most atheist speak about God, religion, Christians, etc.

REBUTTAL: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. This is what one famous atheist said about god in one of his book (P. 31, Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.). 

Atheism is the lack of belief in any god(s) so how can I become angry on something that I don't believe to exist? Yet, we can be pissed off with fictional characters. That's why we are angry with characters like Valentina (Darna's archenemy), Captain Hook (Peter Pan's nemesis), and King Julian of Madagascar (He's just annoying).

Now why blame only the atheists for disliking the Judeo/Christian god? Marcion of Sinope (d. c. 160.) son of a bishop in Sinope denounced the god of the Old Testaments, as wicked and was the cause of evil in the world. He considered this god capricious, violent, and vindictive, a tyrant, and a petty-minded bungler. Now, don't tell me that Marcion was an atheist. 

ARGUMENT 5:  Atheism is not logical. Atheism is irrational. It deliberately ignores the abundant evidences for the existence of God.

REBUTTAL: Atheism doesn't ignore those so-called "abundant evidences for the existence of God." It refutes them. I really don't need to post all those refutations here in this article. Just use your Google search and you can see all those refutations.

Until next time.

Hopelessly Feeble Arguments

Some Christians are too emotional when confronting atheism. So, instead of facing the atheist's issue of an objective, empirical evidence of their god claim, they tend to concentrate more on subjective, personal "feel-good" problems. Now, here are some examples. 

ARGUMENT 1:  All cultures are religious.

No culture has been discovered which do not believe in some deity. This is because, no matter how far man have fallen away from God, there remains, no matter how minuscule, a remnant of the image and likeness of God in the soul of every human being.

REBUTTAL: 

I really find this argument funny. Religion is not synonymous with god belief. In that statement alone, the argument fails.  Also, the existence of religion doesn't prove that a certain god exists. When we talk about gods and religious belief, it can be a lot of ideas - it can be many gods, or even a goddess. There are even religions which worship animals with anthropomorphic qualities as gods. 

Religious belief is also a cesspool of traditions and different views. The diversity of religious belief doesn't even have a singular conclusion. Note that religious believers don’t even agree with each other, even on the most basic points. There is no consensus on what to believe: God's name, how he/she should be worship, his/her laws, his/her creation process, salvation, eschatology, what to wear in church, what food to eat and not to eat, what festivities to celebrate, etc. The argument just tells us that a lot of people believe in supernatural claims without any support of evidence - in simple words, a lot of people in this planet are considered to be gullible.  

It fails to provide a good evidence of the existence of a certain god (Example, the Christian god), but it does provide a good evidence on how humans can create many gods and how some people can easily be persuade to believe it. You learn what you believe, you don't discover it. Parents teach their children their religion that they also learned from their parents. Friends, or a certain influence (it maybe from TV or radio, a fad, a certain well-known preacher, or some kind of a book or pamphlet) teaches a person to leave his/her religion and join a new one. That's why we have so many religious believers and different form of religious beliefs. Humans keep producing gods by the dozen! It's really not about "a remnant of the image and likeness of God" but more of the images and likeness of gods concocted by someone that you choose to believe. 

ARGUMENT 2:  Atheism is not natural. Atheism is not normal.

No one is born an atheist. You have to intentionally, deliberately force yourself to un-believe in God. You have to go against the grain of your humanity to be an atheist.

REBUTTAL: “It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are Atheists, and were religion not inculcated into their minds they would remain so.” - Ernestine Rose

When a Christian used this argument, what does he mean when he talks about "natural" or "normal?" Does this mean believing in a god/gods is a basic human function? 

If god belief is normal as the Christian argument claim, then why does a Muslim parent need to teach his children that there is only one god and that the Christian concept of the trinity is wrong?  If god belief is natural as the theist suggested then why the many interpretations? Why the relative truths when talking about religious belief? Why the religious killings and religious wars? 

Humans eat. We breathe air. Whatever culture or religion you have, well...you still have to eat and breathe. Now, that's normal. 

Something considered as natural compliments other natural act. Eating for example compliment that natural tendency of humans need of energy. God beliefs on the other hand, do not complement or support one another. Islam's belief doesn't support a Christian belief on the issue of Christ's divinity. Hinduism's polytheism doesn't complement Jewish monotheism. 

It is normal for humans to breathe air because our living cells need oxygen. God belief in the other hand all claimed to be true and accuses one another as false. You call that normal? 

According to this argument, "No one is born an atheist." Really? So, are babies born Christian? Christians are pissed when an atheist say that babies are born atheists. Yet, technically speaking no baby born into the world arrives with specific religious beliefs or knowledge. Haven't heard of the word "tabularasa?" Newborn babies are born without any belief - even religious belief, like a blank sheet of paper. By the age of 3 to 6, the frontal lobe began to developed, so does cognition - mental abilities concerning processing and storing information and all the mental activities associated with thinking, knowing, remembering, and communicating. In this time, religious belief are acquired when parents teaches the child what religion to believe. That is the normal state of affair. 

According to sociologist Phil Zuckerman if belief is "natural" then why is it that there are as many as seven hundred fifty million people (Zuckerman 2006) who don't believe in the existance of a god in the world? 

Consider Britain (31%-44% atheist) compared with Ireland (4%-5% atheist), the Czech Republic (54%-61%) compared with Poland (3%-6% atheist), and South Korea (30%-52% atheist) compared with the Philippines (less than 1% atheist). It is simply unsustainable to argue that these glaring differences in rates of atheism among these nations are due to different biological, neurological or other such brain-related properties. Rather, the differences are better explained by taking into account historical, cultural, economic, political and sociological factors. (Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns.")

Until next time.

Dismantling A Straw-man (Part 2)

As the straw-man continues, the angry theist is now talking about Pol-Pot, Stalin, Mao - obviously, communists leaders. 

OK, so these are communists’ leaders and they are guilty of committing such atrocities to mankind. Pol-Pot's Khmer Rouge for example has killed millions of people in Cambodia in the 70's but, did he and his fanatics made those killings in the name of atheism? No it's not. It's all about Pol Pot's efforts to bring about swift, total change to Cambodia. Pol Pot's “Democratic Kampuchea,” forced deurbanization and abandonment of learning and technology by using combined economic transformation on an apocalyptic scale and mass-scale forms of social engineering to create what he called as "Year Zero." This is the cause of those "Killing Fields" and not about atheism. 

Stalin viewed the churches and their leaders as political rivals that had to be neutralized for it to succeed in its goals. Other centers of power and possible resistance, such as trade unions, the press, and even the army, were also attacked.

Mao's regime caused death in enormous numbers through the use of purges and labor camps, as part of an unrelenting campaign to repress all opposition, programs of forced collectivization and urbanization; and atrocious mismanagement of China's largely agricultural economy that led to tens of millions of deaths by famine in the late 1950s and early 1960s—the time of the disastrously planned “Great Leap Forward.”

These are economic, political, and social issues, not atheism.

Now it's all about vinegar.

The angry theist is talking about "pure" and "impure" atheists. According to him, a pure atheist mind is dystopian because he denies the beauty of his god's creation by pointing to transient anomalies and suppressing the arguments for absolute justice. In other words, an atheist is considered pure if he doesn't believe his twaddle.

WOW!

Did the angry theist answer the atheist question? No he did not. All he did was to wag his busted tail and lick his wounds. To refute atheism, all you have to do is to prove objectively and empirically that your god exists. So what's the best thing to do if you cannot refute? Create a straw-man, beat it with a stick and claim to have answered the issue.

Until next time.

Dismantling A Straw-man

Do you have any idea on the fallacy concerning a straw-man? A straw-man is a logical fallacy in which someone misinterprets something to make it easier to refute. 

Here's a good example.

This angry theist is trying his best to refute atheist by uh...trying to refute communism, atheism as a religion, and having a dystopian mindset.

According to the post, "atheism" is a hateful word because it is a "religion" that is critical to other religion. So here's the first straw-man, define atheism as a religion. 

Fact check: Atheism is NOT A RELIGION. It is a label which theists use to distinguish those who don’t have a god-belief. It is not about hating. Doubting a claim doesn't mean you hate the claim. It just means you don't buy it. That's the same with atheism. Atheism is not about hating god. It's about calling in question the existence of a god/or gods due to insufficient evidence.

The post continued saying that atheism is devoid of moral value, and that it's about leaving someone with a dystopian mindset who believe that life is chaotic.

Again, this is plain straw-man.

Atheism is not about moral principles. If the angry theist would like to talk about morality, he should have talked about secular ethics instead. Again, atheism is just about not having a god-belief, but remembers, the existence of secular ethics only follows that we could be morally upright even without a god-belief. Something that the angry theist seems to forget.  

Atheism is not a worldview. When we talk about worldview, atheism will not fit the bill since a worldview includes all your life's philosophy: personal philosophy, theories of value, epistemology, etc. So it would be fallacious to conclude that ALL atheists think life as chaotic. It will depend on the atheist's philosophy in life. He may be stoic, naturalist, or rationalist.  If the angry theist wishes to talk about different god-less worldviews, why not talk about nihilism, secularism, secular humanism, materialism, existentialism or objectivism.  

Dreaming of Justice

One thing the angry theist seems to be looking for is what he called as "Absolute Justice." According to him, atheism doesn't have absolute justice because when an atheist dies, everything goes. In short, believing in god gives comfort with the idea that evil deeds will be revenged!

I think that a theist's view, justice is almost synonymous with the wrath of god. A person dies and his wrongdoings (or sins) are judged by a god - will he be rewarded or punished?

Again, for an atheist like me this is a "comfort food." - You are comforted to think that an unpunished crime in this world will be punishing in the after-life. As I have already said, atheism is just about being a non-believer of god/gods. If you think that an after-life is needed to bring justice, why not be a Buddhists? The Karmic Law on Buddhism may suffice your quest for justice and yet it doesn't need gods. 

There is also another problem with the concept of an "absolute justice." If someone kills in the name of a god, will he be punished? Well, it depends. If he belongs to the victorious church, he will be deeming as innocent. I remember a part of history which the Roman Catholic Church massacred members of the Cathars in 1208. The Papal legate Arnaund, abbot of Citeaux ordered to kill everyone in the town of Beziers. Soldiers asked the abbot how will they distinguished a Cathar to a good Catholic. Arnaund replied to just kill them all and God will know his own. Is this the so-called "absolute justice?"

Now, how about a Muslim killing a Christian? The Muslim kills a Christian because according to the Muslim, the Christian mocked Allah. Let say the Muslim escaped human justice. If he dies will he be punished by his god? How will this scenario fit "absolute justice?"

There's no such a thing as "absolute justice" here on Earth, but just because life sucks, I will not assume (just to comfort me) that there such a thing in the after-life.

Bio Terrorist

I never knew that Osho was once a Bio-Terrorist. 

According to a report that I just read, he was once known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and he has this compound located in east of Portland, Oregon. In 1984, he tried to take over the local government by trying to join the county election through his cult followers. In order to win the election, Rajneesh's cult followers called Sannyasins (Truth Seekers) started cultivating salmonella bacteria and placed them in salad bars and coffee creamers on ten local restaurants. 

Despite the fact that this cause 750 people to get sick, it didn't work. They didn't win in the election. Because of this bio-terrorism act, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (AKA Osho) was deported back to India.

Angry At God

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), the 3rd President of the United State of America said,  'The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.'

Christian: Aha! Therefore atheists are just angry at god! 

Nope, Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not an atheist. Anyways, atheism is the lack of belief in any god(s) so how can I become angry on something that I don't believe to exist? Yet, it is also normal for some fictional characters to piss us off. That's why we are angry with characters like Valentina (Darna's archenemy), Captain Hook (Peter Pan's nemesis), Cinderella's stepmother and stepsisters, Emperor Palpatine and the Grand Moff Tarkin of Star Wars, Q from Star Trek, and Batman's The Joker. 

Now why blame only the atheists for disliking the Judeo/Christian god? Marcion of Sinope (d. c. 160.) son of a bishop in Sinope denounced the Creator (demeurge) god of the Old Testaments, as wicked and was the cause of evil in the world. He also considered this god capricious, violent, vindictive, tyrannical, and a petty-minded bungler. Don't tell me that Marcion was an atheist.

The late Philippine Senator Mirriam Defensor Santiago considered this god as an under achiever (just like Bart Simpson) yet she's no atheist.

When we talk about hate, I am more into disliking the bad effect of god-belief than the character. Well, the character is quite bad like the ugly effects that it gives: It is deterrent to innovations and progress. It allow superstitious, backward thinking to prosper - just think of how many children have died just because their parents forbid blood transfusion because they believed that their god doesn't allow it. It allows theocratic tyrants to justify their inanity. And the worst, it turns ordinary people into jerks. As they say, religion can make good men do evil.

Until next time.

A "Convenient Truth."

Offense is the best defense.  Let's answer this Facebook post from a very confused Mormon. 

The way I see this post, it is more of an emotional "sama ng loob" than an actual argument. I don’t know. Maybe the confused Mormon guy got trampled on a debate with an atheist. Anyways, according to his post, an atheist never gets merits by using science as an offense (What?) against religion and theism. Oh my...

An atheist on a debate doesn't just use science to get merits (?) when confronted by confused Mormon guys. Knowledge is a tool and an atheist is free to use different varieties of this handy tool. Here’s a good example...

Let say the confused Mormon guy will claim so-called Nephites and Lemanites from ancient Palestine have occupied Mesoamerica in the pre-Columbian period (somewhere between 2,800 BCE to 400 CE) as according to Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon. Do you think that an atheist will just have to accept this word for word? Of course not! The atheist will have to question the confused Mormon guy's claims, and here where the presentation of evidence enters the conversation. Now, if the confused Mormon guy will present suspicious "evidences" to defend his claims, an atheist will not only use science but also history, anthropology and archeology as well. It's not about getting "merits." It's about presentation of evidences supported by credible data. 

"Prove it"

If the confused Mormon guy will claim that Nephites and Lemanites from ancient Palestine have occupied Mesoamerica in the pre-Columbian period, then he has to authenticate his claims. 

The question "Can you prove it?" is not an atheist's "self-defeated question" for justification. It is just an inquiry asking for the confused Mormon guy to substantiate his claims. Remember, extra ordinary claims needs extra ordinary evidence. An atheist will NOT just accept assertions without any supporting data presented. The confused Mormon guy should authenticate his claims. 

Two Versions of Truth?

The confused Mormon guy's rant ended with another claim: Two versions of "truth." According to him, there's a religious (spiritual) truth and a scientific truth. We have an idea that when we talk about scientific truth, it's a kind of truth that works. Example, it is a scientific truth to say that vaccines work against some diseases like measles, polio and flu. 

So, what about religious/spiritual truth? 

 

It is a convenient to the confused Mormon guy to split "truth" into two so he can always hide his doctrine's distorted facts by applying a dumb excuse that the truth of Joseph Smith's claims are all under religious truth. But wait...

Biblical Christians says that Mormons are not to be considered as Christians since Mormons deny 11 of the 16 essential Christian doctrines. Therefore they should be considered as a cult. That's a religious truth claim so, is it a religious truth? Christians also claims that The Book of Mormons and other books used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are uninspired books. That Mormon teachings and doctrines are not from Jesus. That Mormons are dubious, and heretical. That's also a religious truth claim, so are they religious truth? 

Having two or more "truths' is not a convenience. The more "truth" we claim, the more we become confused, just like the Mormon guy.

Until next time.

Gosh... so affected?

Well, just got a comment here from a certain KaM about the bat, the ostrich and uh...a Hebrew word. (I'll just post it as a screen-capture)...

Anyways, I guess that's how it ends. But why so pissed?

My issue still stand: if the preacher was correct that ancient Hebrews doesn't have any idea regarding taxonomy, then the claim of the so-called "scientific foreknowledge of the bible" is questionable.

The "ancient Hebrew word defense" doesn't really improved the situation. If the ancient Hebrew word ('owph) means bird, then the bat is not a bird. If the ancient Hebrew word ('owph) means "things that fly" or "flying creatures" then having an ostrich in the list is a big boo-boo.

Since KaM said that he will post his rebuttal on his page (which I really don't give a damn) then go ahead.

Time to move on.

Ciao!

Bird Bat, Bird Brained

Remember the post I made about a certain television preacher who said that ancient Hebrews doesn't have any idea regarding taxonomy (AKA animal classification) that's why they included the bat in a list of birds?

Well, my issue here is that if the preacher was correct, then the claim of the so-called "scientific foreknowledge of the bible" is questionable.

I received a comment on that post - a sort of an apologetic response - but, it really didn't tackle the issue. Instead, it tried to justify the list of "birds." According to the comment, Leviticus 11:13-19 was talking about "flying creatures" not just birds, because the "original Hebrew text" says flying creatures.

OK, so let's take a look at this.
Lev 11:13 'These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds;

Hmmm...
So, Leviticus 11:13 is a start of a list. A list of 20 "birds" that you should not eat. On that list, in Leviticus 11:19 it says that  "...and the bat.” The twentieth, and only the twentieth in the list, is not a bird. The bat is a mammal.

Other bible translations use the word fowls instead of birds. Well, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, a fowl is a bird.

To Create.

OK the theists demand something logical.

Let's talk about something logical for a change. Let's talk about the word "create."

When we hear the word create, what does the first thing that comes to your mind other than "Creator" and the "process of being created?"

OK so a shoe maker is a creator (he create shoes) and working on making a shoe is the process of being created. So how do a shoemaker create a shoe? He used wood, glue, nails, wood, leathers... etc. In other words, he uses raw materials. He doesn't just say ABRACADABRA! TADA! and the shoe appears ex nihilo! No, no, no, no, no...

So the process of creation is just about rearranging existing materials. When you create a chair for example, you don't snap your finger and VIOLA! A chair appears. You create a chair by rearranging wood.

Can you give me an example of a creating process without any pre-existing raw materials?