The Subjectivity of Truth

My Constitution professor in college used to say, "One country's terrorists are another country's freedom fighters." Makes sense. As a realist, I am a firm believer of the subjectivity
of truth, i.e., truth (and morality and everything else) is dependent on the perspective of each person. It is shaped by the customs and traditions one grows up in, and can be altered or strengthened as that person knows more and more about the world. Like religion.

So there's no absolute truth. What is true for one person may be false for another. And who's to say that either is right or wrong? Take my professor's saying as an example. The al-Qaeda believes their fighters are waging a holy war against infidels and insurgents. They're fighting for their beliefs. That they're gonna get their 72 virgins quickly. Killing is no problem for them, if it is for their greater good. But their target countries don't always share the same belief. Parents lose their children, and vice versa. A country can lose a leader. When their important figureheads are taken down, the nation's morale plunges as well. They view the acts as terrorism, as wrong, as evil. And you can't blame them. And neither can you blame the "terrorists."

Don't get me wrong, personally, I'm against terrorism. But I'm pushing for realism here; I'm saying that if you were born among those extremist organizations, it's more than likely that you'll grow up believing in their fundamental truths. Same goes for growing up in that "victim country."

That's the whole point. We, as groups, shape our own truths. Different groups of the human race have different definitions of "truth," and given the opportunity, no-holds-barred debates about morality, religion and truth can and will go on forever. With arguments being repeated and reworded again and again. The only thing giving people objective truths are religion. And the human race has different religions. That makes the very concept of religion subjective as well. Are you getting my point here. I'm saying that anything that can be labeled as objective will always have something subjective about them.

Until we can rationally prove the existence of a deity or supreme being that dictates an objective truth in the universe, human conflict will always be present.

- AngryF

Read More

Because It Works!

A Secular Explanation on Morals, Science, and Reason

One of the biggest objections on secular thinking and freethought is the question: How can you trust *blank* without *blank*? 

Our society has become so intertwined with theistic thinking that it's virtually impossible for them to consider the possibility of a life without one. They base their activities, their purpose and their meaning on the assumption of a divine supervisor.

Well, obviously that's not necessarily true. The important thing to ponder on this subject is, religion does not have a monopoly on meaning, truth, and purpose. Science, reason and empathy can generate those equally, and in some cases, better than religion. But since religion, especially the monotheistic corporations, have so much influence and power over these subjects, secular thinking just cannot fully lay out their alternative views on life and purpose.

Thus, questions like these are often asked by the believers who, by the teachings of their dogmatic doctrines, have assumed that life and reason without their deity is impossible.

How can you trust your moral judgment if you have no absolute moral law-giver?

Absolute laws are for robots. Laws tell us what to do, not how to do.  The thing about absolute moral laws is, it's inherently dictatorial. It attempts to unite all people under a set of rules. But of course, that's nonsense.

NO ONE has the authority to impose standards. Does that mean we should be rudderless and lawless? No, of course not. The absence of absolute laws does not make us barbaric and immoral in anyway, because we have a goal. A natural goal that emerges universally in all cultures and species.

That goal is simply, the promotion of well-being, comfort, and survival of one another, and the promotion of progress of society. This is where we non-believers base our morals from. Why? Because it works! By working to achieve these goals, we actually survive and progress. It works, and there's no need for standards and absolute laws to achieve this goal, just the same as you don't need to have a specific hammer to be able to drive a nail down. If an act promotes well-being, survival and progress, it's a morally good act, period.

One may ask, can we trust these goals to incite us with a good moral judgment? Well, yes. Why? Because this is a natural, universal phenomenon. As social animals, we have evolved to have this innate sense of cooperation and kindness towards one another. Colonies of ants, hive of bees, prides of lions, packs of wolves, and families of apes all exhibit this behavior. Social animals tend to develop a goal to value cooperation and well-being for the benefit of the community that they're in. This behavior, this goal is of natural origin. We can trust it, because it's been refined through evolution, and it works. 

How can you trust science or the scientific method if it's the product of flawed men?

I think I'm just going to quote Richard Dawkins on this one.

"[Because] it works!  Planes fly, cars drive, computers compute. If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design on planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works, bitches!"

Need I say more?

Yes, he actually said that.

  
How can you trust your own thoughts if it's just chemicals and molecules interacting?

This is just like saying, "how can I trust the answer in my calculator if it's just electrons pushing one another inside?" Sounds silly? Of course! We trust the calculator because we know that it's not just mere electrons. It formulates answers based on the whole circuitry of many electrons interacting with one another to produce results.

You see, degrading the definition of the brain to "just chemical reactions" doesn't get anyone anywhere. It just ignores the fact that nobody can still fully understand the nature of the mind and consciousness. Scientists know that there's more to our brain to discover and explain.  Attempting to reason out that we cannot trust our thoughts because nobody can still fully explain it is akin to asserting that we shouldn't trust gravity because nobody can fully explain it yet. Of course, inserting divinity through these unexplained areas simply calls for a god-of-the-gaps, and we all know how that would end.

The reason that I say this is because saying "our brain is just molecules, therefore we can't trust it unless there is a higher power, etc." is utterly nonsense. We have two solid reasons for trusting the thoughts emerging from our brain. One, our brain is changing. It can be refined, updated, and improved. Our thoughts continue to change in accordance with the change in our world. Second, because it works! Mathematics, logic and science emerged from our minds. Take a look around you.  The computer you're using, the shelter you're currently into, the technologies that we all take for granted, all of these are products of the human brain. We may not be able to explain it fully, but the fact that it works completely justifies our trust in it. Even if it tries to fool us sometimes.

Read More

Minds are like parachutes.

Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when they are open.
- Sir James Dewar


TF launches its new promotional poster in line with one their projects this year. TF aims to increase the number of their members and reach out to more Thomasians who value reason, freethought and secularism.

This year, TF is planning projects like holding lecture-discussions, publishing pamphlets, and of course, maintaining the official blog. A documentary film showing hosted by TF is scheduled on Saturday, June 22, 2013 at iChill Theatre Cafe. Regular meetups are also being planned.

TF is looking forward to a productive 2013 for all its members.

Read More

On Death without Afterlife

Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium, published by in 1997, is the last book written by renowned American astronomer and science popularizer Carl Sagan before his death in 1996.

The book is a collection of essays Sagan wrote covering diverse topics like global warming, the population explosion, extraterrestrial life, morality, and the abortion debate. The last chapter is an account of his struggle with myelodysplasia, the disease which finally took his life in December 1996. (read more)

The following is an excerpt from the last chapter, In the Valley of the Shadow.

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
I want to grow really old with my wife, Annie, whom I dearly love. I want to see my younger children grow up and to play a role in their character and intellectual development. I want to meet still unconceived grandchildren. There are scientific problems whose outcomes I long to witness—such as the exploration of many of the worlds in our Solar System and the search for life elsewhere. I want to learn how major trends in human history, both hopeful and worrisome, work themselves out: the dangers and promise of our technology, say; the emancipation of women; the growing political, economic, and technological ascendancy of China; interstellar flight.

If there were life after death, I might, no matter when I die, satisfy most of these deep curiosities and longings. But if death is nothing more than an endless dreamless sleep, this is a forlorn hope. Maybe this perspective has given me a little extra motivation to stay alive.

The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

We all have a tendency to succumb to a state of despair about the destructiveness and shortsightedness of the human species. I've certainly done my share (and on grounds I still consider well-based). But one of the discoveries of my illness is the extraordinary community of goodness to which people in my situation owe their lives.

Five thousand people prayed for me at an Easter service at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, the largest church in Christendom. A Hindu priest described a large prayer vigil for me held on the banks of the Ganges. The Imam of North America told me about his prayers for my recovery. Many Christians and Jews wrote me to tell about theirs. While I do not think that, if there is a god, his plan for me will be altered by prayer, I'm more grateful than I can say to those— including so many whom I've never met—who have pulled for me during my illness.

Many of them have asked me how it is possible to face death without the certainty of an afterlife. I can only say it hasn't been a problem. With reservations about "feeble souls," I share the view of a hero of mine, Albert Einstein:

"I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

- Carl Sagan, 1996

A pdf version of this book is available. Download here.

Read More

5 Reasons Why I think the Christian Religion is Man-Made

I should preface this article by saying, I do not propose that only Christianity is man-made; I believe all religions are the product of man, but I happen to be raised in a Christian upbringing, and so this is my forte. After a year-long analysis of my faith and doctrine, one of the conclusions that I finally made (with the help of Hitchens and Dawkins), is that god did not create man, but man created god. 

What kind of problems? Hatred and violence would be one of many.

This idea is not new; in fact there are numerous philosophers that surmised just as much, using only reasoning and observation to come to this conclusion. This here is my my personal "top five" reasons that I think concisely and irrevocably illustrates my justifications for saying that religion, or Christianity in particular is man-made. 

5. The Biblical Creation Account

Let's review what we know about the Genesis creation story:

Day 1: God created the heaven (his territory, I presume) and the earth (the planet earth. With waters on its surface) and spoke light into existence. Evenings and mornings were created.

Day 2: God made the atmosphere. A notable feature of this atmosphere is the firmament, a cosmic divider which separated the waters from the waters.

Day 3: God told the water to move back, so that dry land may appear. From there, he made the whole of the plant kingdom.

Day 4: God made the sun, moon, stars, and every celestial body in the universe. And where did he put these things? In the firmament.

Day 5: God made sea and air animals, and he granted them permission to perform intercourse as they please.

Day 6: God made land animals, and he granted them permission to perform intercourse as they please. Oh, and he also made Adam and Eve. In his own image. 

Day 7: It's finished. And god, the all-powerful deity who spoke the universe into existence, rested.

In a nutshell.

Do you notice something in this story? Does this seem realistic? Does this accurately represent the universe as we see it? No, of course not. Many will argue that Genesis isn't to be taken literally, but figuratively. But many of these Christians don't realize that that's just their opinion. They don't know that there are people who are so close-minded in scientific evidence and so firm on their faith in the Bible, that they chose to take every letter of the Creation story literally. All of it. 

This is a destructive view. It is a slap in the face of science, history, archaelogy, and reality, to have people teach this story as factual. In fact, it is quite evident that the structure of the Genesis creation account is very akin to a mythical story-telling perspective. Furthermore, there's no definitive agreement as to who really wrote the first five books of the Bible. 

Clearly, this is a man-made story meant to be told only at Bronze Age eras, nothing more. If the beginning of your book is man-made, isn't that enough basis to suspect that the religion formed around this book is also man-made?


4. Original Sin

And God said, "I hereby declare that the sins of the parent shall be passed on to all of the generations of their children! Oh and by the way, they need my son to be saved. From myself." Sound familiar?

An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god made this decree himself; no interpretations, no wordplays, just pure, objective look at the bible verses. This unreasonable decree ensures that the people will beg-- yes, beg redemption and salvation from their curser. Yes, curser. Still not clear to you? God cursed all of humanity, then he demanded that we cure ourselves using his son. Neat, huh? 

A nice business strategy includes giving the people the sickness, then selling out the cure. The Christian religion is a man-made business, and it's saddening that people just take this horrible concept like it's normal, and a good thing. Is punishing the children for the sins of the parent normal? Is it morally good to pass on the crimes of the parent to their innocent offsprings? If it's not, then God clearly is immoral. 

 3. "Man"-made religion

 

Yes, man-made. Not woman-made. The Christian religion was designed with a patriarchal dominance in mind. God was referred to as a "He". Eve was the first one tempted. Eve ate the fruit first. Many verses portray women as inferior, submissive, unimportant, and spoils of war. The more you read the bible, the more apparent it is that gender equality is certainly out of the equation here. Actually, the three Abrahamic religions have this in common: they portray women as inferiors!

 I wonder what Christian women do with these verses. Cherry-pick them out, perhaps?

In the Old Testament, only men were recorded in genealogies. Men were always the head or leader. Men were allowed to have several women. Women were supposed to shut up and let the men do all the decisions. Women had constrained rights. In the New Testament, all of Jesus' disciples were male. Jesus said that the church was to be headed by Peter. The whole of Vatican is today controlled by men! In fact, the entire Christian powerhouse is dominated by men. 

The Christian religion is a patriarchal corporation. Any Christian woman who wishes to have equal rights with men must first ask themselves, "What am I doing in a religion which seeks to promote my inferiority?"

2. The Bible and God 

Inaccurate and inherently contradictory, this "divine book" was clearly authored by imperfect men. Let's take a look at Yahweh, the almighty bearded man in the heavens. As a start, this is not original. Ever heard of Zeus and Odin? 

 What is it about beards that makes these deities superior?

Next, why would an all-knowing, all-present god have to ask "where are you?" Why would an all-knowing god have regret? Why would an all-knowing god have to "remember" things? Why would a perfect god have jealousy? Why would a perfect god demand worship or sacrifice? Why would a perfect and all-good god keep anger forever? Why would an all-powerful god have incapabilities? Why would an all-powerful god have weaknesses? Why would an all-powerful god need to wait for some time to defeat an evil that shouldn't have existed in the first place? 

 It's all part of their business strategy.

Do you see that these attributes are clearly human-like? A God with god-like powers but human-like imperfections, can only exist in one place: In the minds of men.

1. The Vatican 

One look at the glittering corridors of St. Peter's Basilica can immediately help us draw to a single conclusion: This is a man-made, patriarchal business corporation, and the whole of Vatican is their profit. Ever wondered why almost no believer can abide by this bible verse? 

 And this, this, and also this.

The biggest sect of all of christianity has all the luxury, all the benefits, all the resources, and they can't do this one simple piece of advice that their deity had said in their holy book. Why? Of course, they wont! Because you can't do business if you give away all of your earnings! The corporation would collapse in an instant! 

You would think that they should be confident about that NOT happening, because they believe they had god on their side, but no no. They would rather stick to their money and gold and play it safe behind their walls, than to give all of it away to the less fortunate, and pray that their god somehow replenish their supply.

Does this show faith? Does this show unconditional charity? Does this show the ultimate goodness that their deity had been proclaiming? 

Of course not. Because their deity is man-made, and their corporation is hanging on a slim hope that their people would not discover the true structure of their controlling agenda.

 

Read More

Science, Religion and the Environment

What follows is the January 1990 text, sent by scientists to religious leaders, of "Preserving and Cherishing the Earth: An Appeal for Joint Commitment in Science and Religion."

The Earth is the birthplace of our species and, so far as we know, our only home. When our numbers were small and our technology feeble, we were powerless to influence the environment of our world. But today, suddenly, almost without anyone noticing, our numbers have become immense and our technology has achieved vast, even awesome, powers. Intentionally or inadvertently, we are now able to make devastating changes in the global environment—an environment to which we and all the other beings with which we share the Earth are meticulously and exquisitely adapted.

We are now threatened by self-inflicted, swiftly moving environmental alterations about whose long-term biological and ecological consequences we are
still painfully ignorant — depletion of the protective ozone layer; a global warming unprecedented in the last 150 millennia; the obliteration of an acre of forest every second; the rapid-fire extinction of species; and the prospect of a global nuclear war that would put at risk most of the population of the Earth. There may well be other such dangers of which, in our ignorance, we are still unaware. Individually and cumulatively they represent a trap being set for the human species, a trap we are setting for ourselves.

However principled and lofty (or naive and shortsighted) the justifications may have been for the activities that brought forth these dangers, separately and together they now imperil our species and many others. We are close to committing — many would argue we are already committing — what in religious language is sometimes called Crimes against Creation.

By their very nature these assaults on the environment were not caused by any one political group or any one generation. Intrinsically, they are transnational, transgenerational, and transideological. So are all conceivable solutions. To escape these traps requires a perspective that embraces the peoples of the planet and all the generations yet to come.

Problems of such magnitude, and solutions demanding so broad a perspective, must be recognized from the outset as having a religious as well as a scientific dimension. Mindful of our common responsibility, we scientists — many of us long engaged in combating the environmental crisis — urgently appeal to the world religious community to commit, in word and deed, and as boldly as is required, to preserve the environment of the Earth.

Some of the short-term mitigations of these dangers—such as greater energy efficiency, rapid banning of chlorofluorocarbons, or modest reductions in the nuclear arsenals—are comparatively easy and at some level are already under way. But other, more far-reaching, more long-term, more effective approaches will encounter widespread inertia, denial, and resistance. In this category are conversion from fossil fuels to a nonpolluting energy economy, a continuing swift reversal of the nuclear arms race, and a voluntary halt to world population growth—without which many of the other approaches to preserving the environment will be nullified.

As on issues of peace, human rights, and social justice, religious institutions can here too be a strong force encouraging national and international initiatives in both the private and public sectors, and in the diverse worlds of commerce, education, culture, and mass communication.

The environmental crisis requires radical changes not only in public policy, but also in individual behavior. The historical record makes it clear that religious teaching, example, and leadership are powerfully able to influence personal conduct and commitment.

As scientists, many of us have had profound experiences of awe and reverence before the Universe. We understand that what is regarded as sacred is more likely to be treated with care and respect. Efforts to safeguard and cherish the environment need to be infused with a vision of the sacred. At the same time, a much wider and deeper understanding of science and technology is needed. If we do not understand the problem, it is unlikely we will be able to fix it. Thus there is a vital role for both religion and science. We know that the well-being of our planetary environment is already a source of profound concern in your councils and congregations. We hope this Appeal will encourage a spirit of common cause and joint action to help preserve the Earth.

The response to this Scientists' Appeal on the Environment was soon after signed by hundreds of spiritual leaders from 83 countries, including 37 heads of national and international religious bodies. Among them are the general secretaries of the World Muslim League and World Council of Churches, the vice president of the World Jewish Congress, the Catholicos of All Armenians, Metropolitan Pitirim of Russia, the grand muftis of Syria and the former Yugoslavia, the presiding bishops of all the Christian churches of China and of the Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Mennonite churches in the United States, as well as 50 cardinals, lamas, archbishops, head rabbis, patriarchs, mullahs, and bishops of major world cities.

How do we respond?

Simple.

Read More

Exceptions

Recently, one of my favorite youtuber released this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ0Vtk9ffGI&list=UULhtZqdkjshgq8TqwIjMdCQ&index=1

I found the logic of the video quite interesting and I've decided to extrapolate DarkMatter's message a little bit. Of course it would be better to watch the video itself and in fact I'd suggest that you stop reading this blog right now, click on the link instead, and watch it. It'll save you the trouble and don't forget to subscribe to him if you liked it.


Here goes,
To summarize the video, its about Batman trying to save Gotham from the clutches of the temporary evil overlord Bane, his planned method however, is to take all the firstborn sons of the citizens of Gotham as hostage. Then when he threatened the big bad with his plan, Bane offered to be pals with him. Of course Batman didn't accept, he then asks for advice from Superman who suggested to flood Gotham to kill everybody but commissioner Gordon and his family.

See the similarities? The Christian God supposedly drowned everything on earth once by the use of a global flood save for one family and an ark full of animal pairs, and supposedly killed all the firstborn in Egypt to free the supposedly enslaved Israelites. If people were to employ the same tactics now, what would you think of them? If Ra's Al Ghul plan to wipe Gotham off the face of the earth to destroy the evil people in Gotham was considered as bad, why is the Christian God's plan wasn't considered as one? If I were Ra's Al Ghul, instead of destroying the whole city, I'd employ a regiment of snipers, pick off evil people in Gotham and enforce the law, infiltrate the government and education system to make sure the youth don't follow the mistakes the adults did, and finally free pizzas for everybody. The last part wasn't necessary to the plan but you get the point. Why didn't God just struck evil people with his Godly Lightning Bolts(of doom)? Why kill all the puppies, kittens, pandas, hamsters, koalas, squirrels, human babies, and all the other animals who are considered amoral by christian standard? Why kill all the good and honest people? In fact, why kill them at all? the Christian God can supposedly do anything, how about doing something to change all the evil people to good? Appearing to everybody in a literal sense would settle everything won't it? Even in today's feud of worldviews, wouldn't that solve everything? God appearing on every screen, on the door of every government of every country, wouldn't that end all of the problems regarding worldviews? Isn't the current plan of just letting puny humans do what they want to do until they destroy themselves and come crawling back to God an inefficient plan?

As DarkMatter aptly put, why does the Christian God's actions must be constantly reminded as GOOD?
A little food for thought.
How would you answer that as a Christian if you are one? If you're not, but you are still subscribing to a deity centered religion, how would you justify similar events if there are some? Do you even have an answer? or are you going to your local religious leader and ask for some comfort on why these bad atheists are making you doubt your deity? Would you settle for the old "God works in mysterious ways"? or maybe "God has a perfect plan"?  Why am I asking all of these questions?

Okay, that was a lot of questions, and I apologize if I lost you somewhere there however, please try to answer the questions yourself, you might find whatever answer you came up enlightening, then again you might not.

If you think you've had enough, lost interest, or otherwise bored, I suggest that quit reading and go watch TV or Google lolcats.




My kinda blunt answer:

{Since time immemorial, people have always been afraid of uncertainty, afraid of death, afraid of petty things like thunder, small insects, ghosts, etc. Religion have provided a way of relieving people these insecurities with, IMO, answers that is based on "IDK". I mean really, getting one of those "God has a plan for you" when you ask for advice in what to do is the same as getting an "IDK". Some people take comfort in these things yet people, religious or not, ends the same way, either by luck or chance, both religious and non religious people can become rich or poor, happy or sad, etc.
Why do people make exceptions to their deity? Why doesn't people hold him in standards that they would set with their fellow men? Simple, they like the charade. They like the feeling of being on the supposedly winning side. They don't like being plagued by hard questions that will only lead them to face their own responsibility(like explaining why they condone such actions). Exceptions made for God allow them to continue the feeling of someone good watching over you, it allows for the image of an omni-belevolent deity to prosper. Is it bad? Yes, because sweeping it under the rug doesn't do squat. If I am wrong, I still won't change, I'll continue my path, I have regrets as much as the next guy but I can live with it. But what about you? Remember when your God told you to leave your friend because he's of a radically different religion? Or when you constantly tried to convert him and things ended badly? How would you feel about that now?
If you automatically assume that what your God does is good, what won't you assume as good?


Why do people make exceptions? To keep up the charades. }



Thank you for reading and I hope this post has stirred your curiosity.

Read More

Answering "Questions for Atheists" Posed by Matt Slick of carm.org

A Reasonable and Logical Response to an Apologetic's take on Atheism

A theist posted this to me, in an effort to understand how an atheist views the world. Thirty-one questions, some are reasonable, some are malformed. Some are challenging, some are plain dumb. I don't know how long this link was posted, but nevertheless, I feel compelled to answer them, for the benefit of curious theists. This may also serve as a guide for atheists when they are confronted with similar questions as these. 

1. How would you define atheism?

 -----Exactly as it is. Theism meaning "belief in god" and the prefix "a" meaning "not or without". Simply put, it is a position of non-belief in any god.

2. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?

-----This is a very malformed question. Based on the definition above, atheism is NOT a belief, but a REJECTION of a belief. It means that in atheism, you are not exercising any belief. So, to answer the question specifically, I act, and live my life as if there is no god. Therefore when it comes to the god subject, I act according to what I don't believe in. 

3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?

-----In my case, I'm not attempting to show that god doesn't exist. What I do is I REFUTE the arguments for god's existence. There's a big difference here. What I'm doing is very consistent with my non-belief, simply because the burden of proof is always on the believer. I do not believe. Someone who believes will then show me arguments. I refute them reasonably, and therefore I have every right to reject their belief.

4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?

-----Define reality. Reality is 1) the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them, 2) a thing that is actually experienced or seen, 3) the quality of being lifelike, and  4) the state or quality of having existence or substance. Unfortunately, god cannot be seen, he doesn't exist in any conventional way, and he does not manifest himself to be experienced with qualities of life-like and substance. So, yes, my atheism reasonably represents actual reality.

5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?

-----I'm not, because atheism is just a REJECTION of a belief. I can continue to reject theistic beliefs because of the lack of convincing evidence. But the moment someone steps forward and show undeniable proof of god, then I would concede and admit that I'm wrong. Until then, I'm sticking to my default position of non-belief. 

6. How would you define what truth is?

-----A statement that accurately and undeniably describes reality.

7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?  

-----Because for every argument that I have ever heard for the defense of theism, there are always reasonable and justifiable counter-arguments that refute it. If you're not reasonably convinced, you have every right to reject it.

8. Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?

-----I am neither. I wonder what's these got to do with atheism. If you do not believe in a god, you're automatically an atheist. You're not required to follow other belief systems or worldviews. But for the sake of the question, I am a skeptic. I have a general doubt on things with no reasonable evidence.

9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview?  Why or why not?

-----Yes, atheism is a worldview. Atheism, theism, and agnosticism changes the way you look at yourself, other people, and the whole world in general.

10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?

-----I'm not, but Christopher Hitchens defended this antagonism by saying, "Religion now comes to us in this ingratiating way, because it had to give so much ground, and because we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had god on its side."

11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?

-----I didn't deny, I refuted the arguments for his existence. This is a loaded question, for it presumes a claim that god already exists.

12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?

-----Honestly, yes. Every moral teachings that is taught by religion is good whether there is a god or not. Remove religion, and their moral teachings would still remain, because moral teachings does not come from a god. It comes from man.

13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?

-----Same answer as number 12.

14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?

-----No. Scientists agree that humans have a tendency to seek patterns and formulate meaning to them. Belief in god is a natural brain phenomenon. Still, it doesn't prove a god exist.

15. Must God be known through the scientific method? 

-----Depends. Does that god have a physical effect on the universe? If so, then it is necessary to use the scientific method to determine this god.

16. If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God? 

-----You have just made an assertion that god is immaterial. Prove this first. 

17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?

-----There is no "ultimate" purpose. Humans are entitled to their own purposes.

18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?

-----Refer to number 17.

19. Where does morality come from?

-----Morality is not imposed by any supernatural authority, but a product of human progress necessitated by evolution and the progress of civilization. Humans, as social creatures, are required to have a definitive set of relative rules in order to be effective as a group. This allowed civilizations to prosper and refine morals to improve this progress.

20. Are there moral absolutes?

-----No, there is none. That would be disgusting.

21. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?

-----There are no moral absolutes, but there is a "common moral goal" that every successful civilization has. And this "common goal" is a process that says any action is considered moral if it promotes the well-being and survival of mankind and the progress of society.

22. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil?  If so, what is it?

-----Yes. There are no fixed definitions of evil. People have different viewpoints about it. As for me, it is the behavior that purely promotes the abolition of morals.

23. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?

-----Yes. And actually, I can judge him by his own standards. His commandments say that 'thou shalt not kill', but in the first five books of the Old Testament alone, he has killed more people than Hitler. Remember Job? Your god practically wrecked Job's life just because of a silly bet he made with Satan. Remember the Plagues of Egypt, where he murdered infants and innocent boys just to make a pharaoh change his mind? By my judgment, these acts prevent the well-being of people and the progress of society. Ergo, Yahweh is immoral.

24. What would it take for you to believe in God?

-----Divine intervention. Though I would accept perfectly logical and scientific arguments.

25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?

-----Refer to number 24.

26.  Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?

-----Refer to number 24.

27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer?  Why?

-----I think it is irrelevant whether the rulers are christians, muslims, atheists, or whatever, as long as they do not impose their personal beliefs on their subjects. They must remain objective and unbiased at all times.

28. Do you believe in free will?  (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion).

-----Yes. And it's coercion. Sorry :)

29. If you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?

-----No, I don't. The brain produces reactions that trigger thought. Now human thought is unique because it manifests self-awareness, and this is what we call consciousness. There's a heavy debate about the concept of consciousness, and of course, until we discover what consciousness really  is, there's really no reason to use consciousness and free-will to assert the existence of any god.

30. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time?  If not, why not?

----First, I feel the need to clarify that evolution is not the Big Bang theory. They are separate fields of study, and I understand both of them enough to affirm their accuracy. Second, I am in no position to make a statement regarding that, since I am not a neuroscientist nor a physicist. As I said before, there is still debate regarding the nature of consciousness, and we cannot prove something using a lack of information.

31. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?

----Since I answered I don't know (which is a perfectly reasonable and honest answer), then my answer to this is the same.  

Read More

An Open Letter to my Christian Family and Friends

My "coming out" letter explaining why I'm not a Christian anymore

It was last year when I listened to a podcast of The Thinking Atheist entitled: My "Coming Out" Letter. And for a very long time, I had planned to make my own letter. After nearly a year of struggling with my faith and reason, I just felt that the best way for people to understand my position is for them to read it in a detailed way. Treating this as a conclusion of a long and hard conquest for truth, I finally made my letter yesterday. I want to share this to the freethinking community to help closeted atheists tell people their worldview, the same way the podcast above helped me. I haven't showed this to my parents and my closest friends, and if they somehow stumble across this blog, then so be it! Read it, and I hope you'll understand. Here it is, fresh from yesterday, unaltered and untranslated.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Sa aking mga magulang, kamag-anak, at mga kaibigang nagmamalasakit,

Ginawa ko ang sulat na ito para maiwasan ang mga debate, away, at di-pagkakaintindihan. Napakinggan ko sa isang radio podcast na ang pagsusulat ay nakakatulong sa pag-oorganize ng kaisipan, at nagsisilbi din itong therapy para makabawas ng bigat ng kalooban. Hindi ko ginagawa ang sulat na ito para magsimula ng diskusyon: nagsusulat ako para maunawaan ninyo ang mga reasons ko kung bakit naging iba na ang pananaw ko sa buhay. Sana pagkatapos ninyong basahin ito ay maging malinaw na ang posisyon ko, at maging daan ito para marespeto ninyo ang desisyon kong maging isang atheist.

Isa na akong ateista. Hindi na ako naniniwala sa kahit anong diyos. Hindi po ako nagrerebelde, hindi ako galit sa kung sino man. Wala akong tinatakasan, o iniinsulto, o minamaliit, o niyayabangan, wala lahat iyan. Hindi na ako naniniwala dahil tinubuan ako ng pakialam upang pag-aralan at pag-isipan kung totoo ba talaga ang diyos na pinaniniwalaan ko. At sa pag-aaral ko na iyan ay naconclude ko na: hindi na makatotohanan ang aking paniniwala at niloloko ko na ang sarili ko kung itutuloy ko pa ang paniniwala. Sana ay maintindihan nyo ito. Hindi ako makatiis na maniwala na lang habang sinasabi ng utak at puso ko na isang malaking kalokohan na ang lahat ng tinuro sa akin ng relihiyon.

Isa sa mga dahilan ng pagtalikod ko sa relihiyon ay ang tanong na ito: "bakit ako isang kristiyano?" Simula nung pagkabata ko, hindi pumasok  sa isip ko ang ganyang klaseng tanong. Ngayon, nalaman ko na wala pala akong matinong sagot para sa tanong na iyan. Bakit ako isang kristiyano? Unang obvious na sagot - dahil pinalaki ako ng magulang ko na maging kristiyano!

Mula nung grade 1 hanggang highschool, iyan ang tanging dahilan ng aking paniniwala. Dahil mahal ko ang mga magulang ko at ako'y bata pa nuon, sinunod ko ang turo nila, at pati na rin ang turo ng simbahan. Ang akala ko dati, puro kabutihan ang nasa kristiyanismo at puro kasamaan ang nasa ibang relihiyon. Ang akala ko ay perpekto ang bibliya at perpekto ang sinasamba kong diyos. Matinding mga pagkakamali pala itong mga pag-aakala kong ito.

Nuong pagtuntong ko sa college, nagbago na ang atmosphere. Pumasok na ang sekularismo, free-thinking, at skepticism sa aking sistema. Marami akong nabasang libro na nagchallenge sa aking paniniwala. First time kong tinanong--bakit ako kristiyano? Dahil lang ba lumaki ako sa isang kristiyanong pamilya? Kaya ko bang depensahan ang paniniwala ko? Kung sa India ba ako lumaki, hindu ba dapat ako ngayon? Yan ang mga tanong na bumagabag sa akin dati. At for the first time, nakita ko ang unfairness ng relihiyon. Naisip ko na kung tama ang kristiyanismo, kami ang maliligtas habang mapupunta sa impyerno ang mga taong mababait pero iba ang paniniwala? Magdurusa ang marami dahil lang sa ibang lugar sila pinanganak at iba ang kanilang paniniwala?

Duon ko napagdesisyunan na mag-iba ng relihiyon. 2nd year college nung tinawag ko ang sarili ko bilang isang "pagan deist" - ako ay naniniwala na merong iisang diyos, at kahit ano pa ang relihiyon mo, itong diyos na ito ang sinasamba mo. Hindi na ako naniniwala sa impiyerno, dahil napangitan ako sa concept na iyon. Nagdadasal pa rin ako nuon, pero hindi na nagsisimba o nagbabasa ng bibliya. So, iniba ko ang tanong ko: bakit ko kailangang maniwala sa diyos?Ang naging sagot ko - dahil kailangan.

Pero nuong 4th year ako, na-challenge ulit ang paniniwala ko in the form of a christian friend. Siya ang nagturo sa akin ng tunay na ibig sabihin ng kristiyanismo. Maraming debate at pag-uusap bago ako ulit nakumbinsi na maging kristiyano ulit. Bakit bumalik ako sa kristiyanismo? Dahil sa FAITH na si Jesus ang nagbayad sa aking kasalanan. Tama, faith ang aking dahilan.

Napakasaya ko nuong 4th year ako. Tumino ako sa ugali at pag-aaral, marami akong nakilalang mga kaibigan, at nagkaroon ng bagong purpose ang buhay ko: ang i-glorify ang pangalan ng panginoong diyos. From that point on, nasabi at natawag ko na sa wakas ang sarili kong "tunay" na kristiyano. Araw-araw nagdadasal at nagde-devotion, nagpa-participate sa church activities, nagse-share ng word of god sa mga kaibigan ko, at masusing nag-aaral ng bibliya. Hindi ko inaakalang sa pag-aaral ko ng bibliya GUGUHO ng matindi ang aking iniingatang FAITH.

Nagsimula ang lahat nuong nakadiskubre ako ng isang contradiction sa bibliya: yung "anointing of Jesus" na story. Kada gospel ay may kanya - kanyang bersyon ng istoryang ito. Nagulat ako at nagtaka nung nalaman ko na wala palang nakakaalam ng tunay na nagsulat ng mga gospels!  Hindi ako makapaniwala, ang "perpektong" bible, may kontradiksyon sa loob, at hanggang "traditional agreements" lang sila sa authorship ng bibliya!

Marami akong tinanong tungkol dito. Walang nakapagbigay ng sagot. At halos iisa lamang ang advice nila - FAITH. Faith lang ng faith. Well, sa loob lang pala ng dalawang buwan mababasag itong faith na ito.

Summer vacation, nag-OJT ako. Nagkaroon ako ng free time sa gabi para sa aking libangan - internet. Habang nagsesearch ako sa youtube, nakadiskubre ako ng mga videos ng "The Atheist Experience." Ito ay isang radio show na nag-iinvite sa mga callers na tumawag at iexplain ang kanilang argumento para depensahan ang kanilang paniniwala sa diyos. Laking gulat at takot ko nung pinanood ko na isa-isang winawasak ng mga host ang mga argumento ng mga kristiyano. Nanghina ako nuong nalaman ko na ang mga dahilan ko pala sa paniniwala ko sa diyos ay ILLOGICAL at MALI. Para akong pinepwersa na buksan ang mga mata kong matagal nang nakasara. At sa loob ng dalawang buwang pakikinig sa mga interviews, debates, at opinions, NABASAG nito ang faith ko sa bibliya.

By the time na naging 5th year ako, dalawa ang nasa isip ko: 1) Ang bible ay hindi perpekto at hindi dapat pagkatiwalaan, at 2) Hindi na sapat ang faith para ako ay maniwala. Simpleng logic, kung may mali sa iisang parte ng libro, paano mo pa pagkakatiwalaan ang buong librong iyon? Paano mo masasabing "perpekto" ang isang libro kung nakakita ka ng mali dito? Paano mo gagawing ebidensya ang "faith" sa paniniwala mo sa diyos kung ang ibig sabihin ng faith ay "paniniwala kahit walang ebidensya"?

 Lahat iyan binalak kong diskubrehin noong 5th year na ako. Duon na simulang bumagsak ang lahat. Kinwestiyon ko ang bibliya na syang pundasyon ng aking christian faith, ayun, lahat na ay tumumba, including the concept of god's existence. Malinaw sa akin na MORE THAN FAITH na ang kailangan ko para madepensahan ang existence ng diyos, at pilit ko itong hinahanapan ng depensa.Pero lahat ng argumentong nabasa ko para patunayan ang diyos ay MALI. Hindi makatotohanan. Illogical. Wala sa tamang rason. Puro excuses lang. Mahirap mang tanggapin, pero talagang wala na akong makitang solid na ebidensya na may diyos. At dahil doon, nagsimula nang mawalan ng kaayusan ang buhay ko.

Bumaba ang grades ko, bumagsak ako sa mga subjects ko, lagi nang malalim ang iniisip ko, nawalan na ako ng pakialam sa mga libangan ko. Malungkot pala kapag yung paniniwalang matagal mo nang pinanghahawakan, ay madidiskubre mong mali pala. Gusto kong balikan ang masayang buhay ko bilamg isang kristiyano pero hindi na nito matatanggal ang pagdududa at mga katanungang walang makasagot. At pagtuntong ng 2013, tinanggap at niyakap ko na ang pagiging ateista.

Noong una ay natatakot pa akong tawagin ang sarili ko bilang atheist. Sigurado, maraming magtataka, magagalit, at magtatanong. Pero habang pinag-aaralan ko ang posisyon ng ateismo, nalaman ko na mas reasonable, mas honest, mas refreshing, at mas meaningful ang buhay na walang diyos at relihiyon. At sa kadahilanang ito ay biglang kong itinuon ang buhay ko sa science at logic, at for the first time, biglang bumuka ang mga mata ko sa mga bagay na pinili kong maging ignorante dati. At ngayon, sasabihin ko na sa inyo kung bakit ayaw ko nang maging isang kristiyano.

Unang-una, ayaw ko nang maging kristiyano dahil ayaw ko nang maging ignorante at sinungaling sa sarili ko. Sa mga nakita kong kamalian, kontradiksyon, at immorality sa bible, matinding panloloko na sa sarili ko ang kelangan para maging kristiyano ako. Maraming aspeto ng science ang hindi ko mapag-aaralan ng tapat kung kristiyano pa ako. Maraming nagsasabi na arogante daw kaming mga ateista dahil gusto naming malaman ang lahat at gusto naming maging diyos. Kalokohan iyan. Hindi namin gustong maging diyos dahil tanggap namin ang sarili naming imperfections, at ang kagustuhan naming matuto ay para sa progress ng mundo. Kaya tayo may teknolohiya ngayon dahil sa mga scientist na kahit inaaway sila ng simbahan, patuloy silang nagdidiskubre ng mga bagay na makakatulong sa sangkatauhan. At isa pa, hindi ba't mas arogante ang mga kristiyanong nagsasabi na meron silang "personal relationship" sa creator ng universe? Habang kami itong mga atheist na naniniwala na tayo'y tao lamang na may limitadong talino at buhay, at kahit mawala tayo, walang magbabago sa kalawakan.

Pangalawa, ayaw ko nang ibase ang aking moralidad at meaning sa bibliya at kristiyanismo. Dahil narealize ko na bawat kultura at relihiyon ay may kanya-kanyang opinyon tungkol sa moralidad, at walang karapatan ang sinumang kultura na pwersahin ang kapwa na sumunod sa kanilang paniniwala. Pero, sa bawat maunlad na sibilisasyon at kultura, merong "common factor" ang ang lahat ng moralidad nila, at iyon ang morality na galing sa humanitarianism. Ang morality na nakabase sa well-being at survival ng lahat ng tao, at sa pag-unlad ng society. Kung lahat ng tao ay may ganyang morality, hindi na kailangan ng diyos at relihiyon. Dahil anumang morality na galing sa relihiyon ay DELIKADO. Matatawag mo bang moral at mabuti ang diyos na naglulunod ng milyong-milyong tao, o pumapatay ng mga inosenteng bata, at nag-uutos sa magulang na magsakripisyo ng sariling anak? Kung ako ang tatanungin, hindi diyos iyan kundi halimaw. Kayang kaya po nating maging mabuti kahit walang diyos na nag-uutos. Nabubuhay tayo sa mundong ito para ipagpatuloy ang nasimulang progress at kabutihan ng ating mga ninuno. Gumagawa tayo ng mabuti, hindi para pasayahin ang diyos, kundi para sa survival ng ating tinitirhang mundo. At para sa akin, ito ang tunay na meaning ng life.

At panghuli, ayaw ko nang maging kristiyano dahil sobrang imposible at hindi na ito makatotohanan. Kung tunay nga na ang diyos ay all-powerful, all-knowing, at all-good, bakit nya hinahayaang magkaroon ng patayan, rape, mga sanggol na namamatay, mga disaster at sakunang pumapatay ng mabubuting tao, at iba pa? Mahirap na sa akin ang maniwala na merong mabuting diyos na makapangyarihan at nanonood na lang ito habang may batang nire-rape sa damuhan, o batang minomolestiya ng mga pari. Hindi ko na kayang magdasal at magpasalamat sa pagkaing kinakain ko habang alam kong marami ang namamatay sa gutom sa Africa. Marami ang nagsasabi na dahil sa kanyang "gift" na free-will kaya di sya nakikialam. KALOKOHAN. Kung kaya ng diyos na magpatigil ng bagyo, magpaulan ng "manna", at magtaboy ng demonyo, bakit hindi nya ito ginagawa ngayon? Sya ay all-powerful, kaya nyang gumawa ng mundong may free-will pero walang evil - bakit hindi nya ito ginagawa? Para sa akin, kung sya talaga ay makapangyarihan, dapat ay matagal na nyang natalo ang kasamaan. Sabi ng iba, hindi ko daw dapat diktahan ang diyos kung ano ang dapat nyang gawin. KALOKOHAN. Kung ako ang diyos, hindi ko hahayaang humantong sa ganitong estado ang mundo. At isa pa, kung binigyan ako ng diyos ng kakayahang mag-isip, tapos pagbabawalan nya akong gamitin ito sa kanya? Kalokohan talaga eh.

Oo, mukhang mayabang ang sulat na ito, pero pasensya na, hindi maiiwasan eh. Kung may mali sa isang bagay, karapatan ng bawat tao na punahin ito at itama. Malinaw na may mali sa kristiyanismo. Sinusubukan ko lang itong intindihin. At ang aking kongklusyon: tayong lahat ay mas moral, mas mabuti, at mas matalino pa kesa sa taong gumawa ng diyos ng bibliya, at kailangan lang natin itong ma-realize.

Pasensya na kung nagmumukha na akong mayabang. Hindi ko intensyon ang mang-insulto, hindi ko rin intensyon ang mangwasak ng pananampalataya. Ito ay isang honest na sulat at sinulat ko lang ang mga justifications ko sa aking hindi paniniwala. Hindi ko habol ang debate, conversion, o kung ano man. Dalawa lang po ang hinihiling ko: RESPECT AND ACCEPTANCE. At sana, ang sulat na ito ay maging gabay para respetuhin at tanggapin ninyo ang desisyon kong maging isang tapat at mabuting ateista. Tandaan, respeto sa tao ang kailangan, at hindi respeto sa paniniwala.

Salamat sa pang-uunawa,

Jemuel Mararac
___________________________________________________________________________________

Yeah, it's a long letter. Deal with it :)

Read More