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

3 Bisexuality myths

I am the B in LGBT. I am the bisexual.

Myths about bisexuality pervade society. Some of them are really negative and powerful that it can affect a person identifying as a bisexual badly. This is a post that aims to shatter some of these assumptions.

Myth 1: We are just lying (shh! we're just afraid to say we really are gays and lesbians).

Just like a good myth or stereotype there is a grain of truth in here. It's really true that some gays and lesbians come out first as a bisexual even though they know inside of their hearts they aren't. And I have no problem with that. We need to understand that they are still trying to test the waters of acceptance and being out. We all have our reasons. But, to assume that every person who identify as bisexual is either gay or lesbian is an affront. It's akin to saying that our sexual orientation does not really exist or we are just confused - I know that gay and lesbian people know how much it hurts when people say that, I think you understand us.

There really are bisexual people. We are not confused or just trying to be cool. If you're not convinced, here's the evidence.

Myth 2: Male bisexuals does not exist

What am I? Actually we are existent.

The finding is not likely to surprise bisexuals, who have long asserted that attraction often is not limited to one sex. But for many years the question of bisexuality has bedeviled scientists. A widely publicized study published in 2005, also by researchers at Northwestern, reported that “with respect to sexual arousal and attraction, it remains to be shown that male bisexuality exists.”

Myth 3: We cannot be monogamous.

This is really a bad one. Some bisexuals undergo this kind of biphobia. Especially with some of their partners. Some people in relationships with bisexuals  suffer from the fear that their partners are having an affair with someone of the other sex - it frustrates them and their partner. Of course, some bisexuals are in polyamorous relationships, but reasons for this set-up are different. Some have them because of pure love for two people, some for fun, the list goes on. But as do bisexuals can sometimes engage in this, this is no truer than the fact that straight people can two-time too. We can be as monogamous as straight, gay, lesbian and trans couples too.

Read More

I am an Atheist, therefore I am

There are only around a few thousand Atheist, Agnostic or Freethinker in a country of 100 billion and we cannot avoid looking at the world through our black-tinted glasses. We are struggling the same fate as our fellow LGBT. There are many closet Atheists out there due to the fear of social prejudice. For those who already came out of the closet, some were rejected while some were accepted.  Among those who were accepted by their families and friends, we still cannot avoid those half-baked acceptations.
As an Open Atheist, here are some common misconceptions based my experience and my fellow Atheists’ experience:

1. You are an Atheist/Agnostic therefore you are immoral, evil and misguided.

- Just like in other religion, not all Theists are good and vice versa. The same thing is also true for Atheists. Most Atheists do have morals and treat our fellow humans in a humane manner. 

2. You are an Agnostic therefore you are stupid and unsure.

- Yes, it is true that we are unsure whether if a god or gods do exists. There is a possibility that they do exist and a possibility that they do not exist. The term “god” is an example of an unfalsifiable idea. For example, I have a mini flying spaghetti monster hovering around my shoulders that only I could see. You are not me and therefore cannot prove whether it exists or not. There is a possibility that it might exist and a possibility that it might not exist.

3. You are an Agnostic Atheist therefore you are even stupider and unsurer.

- Again, it is true that we are unsure about the existence of a deity but we are also unsure about many things in the universe. Some doubt their own existence and if reality really exists and some doubt the validity of theories yet many accept them as if it were true. We may or may not be stupid, we just think and question things a lot.

4. You do not believe in a god therefore you are a Satanist.

- Not all Atheists are Satanists and as a matter of fact most Atheists reject the idea of Satan actually existing. In the first place, Atheism is not a religion.

5. You do not believe in god because you hate him.

- Just because we do not love your god that we automatically hate him. Although we do enjoy stories some of these godly stories, especially the gods and goddesses in Greek Mythology.

6. You are an Atheist/Agnostic therefore you worship evolution.

- We do not worship evolution. It is the same thing with gravity, social stratification theory, mathematical theories, the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, the divine creation theory and other theories out there.

7. You are an Atheist/Agnostic but someday you will believe in him again especially on the verge of death.

- In the first place, most Atheists or Agnostics have already decided that they do not believe or need a god or gods. We did not choose to become Atheists just for show which is another misconception. For the fact that we are informed about science, reason, logic, history, culture, society and so on, we became Atheists and Agnostics.

8. You are an Atheist/Agnostic therefore you hate Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and other religious groups.

"I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." –Mahatma Ghandi

 - This quote pretty much sums it up what some Freethinkers think (which means it includes some Theists.) The big religions out there actually have some good ideas about humanity and such although we cannot ignore the fact that there are other absurd and inhumane religions that exist out there that you might not even heard of.

- Though, there are also some Freethinkers out there that reject or hate religion in general but do not dislike the person believing in that said religion.


(Note that Buddha is not a god and that there are both Atheistic and Theistic Buddhists, but mostly Atheists.)

9. You are an Atheist/Agnostic because you have a miserable life. 

- If there are optimistic Theists, there are also optimistic Atheists. Whether the individual views his or her life in an optimistic, pessimistic, realistic, or other point of view, it is up to him or her and not the religion itself.
10. You are an Atheist/Agnostic therefore your life has no meaning.

- Most Atheists and Agnostics live their lives meaningfully even without believing in any deity. Although there are some Atheist, Agnostics and sometimes even Theists who believe that there is no meaning to life.  


We are the minority and we are often misjudged by religion. If we are well-informed, these things could be avoided. As a matter of fact, most Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers came from Catholic Schools and we became what we are today because of the knowledge we gathered about the world and not just science – knowing the history of your own religion, understanding society, logic and reasoning is just a gist of it.

As members of this society, we must inform ourselves and avoid these prejudices. What we are experiencing today is not so different from what Jews and Christians experienced back in the days. We are not rebelling against god but rather voicing out the injustices that we are experiencing. Let us therefore remove our black-tinted glasses and see the world more clearly.

Read More

Clearing Up Definitions and Misconceptions

For the past years, many articles and surveys like this, this, and this have given rise to this unsettling general consensus: Atheists are one of the least trusted people, almost in par with rapists and pedophiles. Well, you might think that these surveys are biased, outdated, and these only apply to Americans, but think again. A recent event had demonstrated the severe consequences of speaking your mind and daring to challenge the religious institution, which just goes to show how grossly discriminated the atheists are.

This roughly translates to "we want to kill them for expressing their views!"

Thankfully, the Philippines is much more tolerant when it comes to these matters, although "ignorant" maybe a better term. Here's a simple social experiment to test this study: try to ask ten strangers what they think of atheists. If you're a well-informed person, you will immediately notice how the majority of them will give you wrong definitions. Or go to your christian fellowship or community, and when asked of your religious views, tell them you're an atheist. Two things will surely happen: their facial expression will change (from a relaxed, pleasant face to somewhat concerned and indignant), and they'll start asking questions. Really malformed questions. 

I'm sure you will get responses exactly like this.

 

So why do the majority of the population still holds these misconceptions on atheism? The one simple answer is PREJUDICE. There was a great chunk of Philippine history where it was dominated by Spain. And for more than three hundred years, The Spanish Government had established its culture on Filipinos, including the Catholic faith. Of course during that time, Filipinos had no choice but to believe. Freethought wasn't really an option, for the consequences were dire. Well nowadays, society has now became more tolerant and reasonable, but the problem is, the old ideas remained. The Christian faith became more of a rite of passage, a requirement, a necessity. And preserved within that faith is both the fear and the bias against those who dare not believe. This lingering irrationality is one of the problems of this country, but sadly most Filipinos just don't have the care to solve it. Ignorance and apathy are the causes of prejudice.

So how do we remove prejudices? By taking out ignorance and apathy, of course! Now I can't make people give a damn about this; I'm not a very persuasive person. What I can do is to remove ignorance, using this article. There are many terms related to atheism which carry a lot of misconceptions, and we atheists need to stand up and clear these once and for all. These are some of the most misused terms that people use to define non-believers.

1. Skepticism: According to Wikipedia and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it is defined as "generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere." Also, "the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics." 

 

Note that this doesn't mean to doubt everything, but what it means is to have disbelief as a default position to evaluate an unproven claim. This is a critical attitude that almost all scientists have, because they cannot afford to be gullible when experimenting or observing. They can recognize which claims are bogus or authentic using skepticism.

 

2. Religion: "The service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance" and "an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

Take a look at the words "God," "supernatural," and "spirituality." Simply put, religion is any belief system concerned with spirituality or the adoration to a supernatural deity. I've heard so many people asserting that atheism and science is a religion. Well guess what, atheism is not a religion, because 1) it is not a belief system but a position of non-belief, and 2) it is not concerned with any supernatural and spiritual deities. Same goes with science. If there's no god, no spirits, or no supernatural, it isn't a religion, period.

3. Atheism: "In a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

 

You'll find either of these three in any dictionary. You may say that there are no differences with these definitions, but atheism is in fact more complex than what people might think. Basically, atheism is split into two parts: gnostic (strong) and agnostic (weak) atheism. Gnostic atheism is the position that says "I believe that god does not exist, and I have proof!" while agnostic atheism is the position that says "I don't believe that god exists, and all I'm just waiting for is some reasonable proof." Note that the former position implies a claim, and thus must have a burden of proof, while the latter just implies a lack, or rejection of a claim. So before you ask an atheist for proof of god's non-existence, be sure to check their positions first. They might be just agnostics.

4. Science: "A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." And, "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method."

 

I'm sure all of us here are familiar with the scientific method. How do we answer a question about the natural world? First, you observe a phenomena, then you hypothesize on it, then you perform an experiment to test your hypothesis, you collect data, and you experiment again, and again and again. After that, you draw your conclusions to see if it matches your hypothesis. If it does, then you have a theory. Lastly, you share your theory to other scientists for peer review (let them disprove your theory). This is how science works. If a field of study claims to be scientific but they're not doing this process, they are pseudosciences (bogus sciences lol).

 

5. Theory: "the term 'theory' refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science." And, "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."

 

The problem with this word is, people use "theory" when they mean hypothesis (speculations and guesses), and they equate this definition with that of scientific theories. That's why many people often shout with conviction such ignorant statements like "evolution and the big bang are JUST theories!" The fact of the matter is, a theory is what happens to a hypothesis upon being confirmed by repeatable evidence. A scientific theory is the highest form of explanation of facts and scientific laws using consistent, testable and repeatable experimentation. Therefore, a scientific theory is ALWAYS subject to many refinements over time, in fact it makes it more scientific and accurate.

 

Moreover, theories DO NOT become laws. Why? Because the two are completely different, and they're not connected in a hierarchy. Scientific laws describe a phenomena, while scientific theories explain how and why those laws work the way they are. In fact, scientific subjects like evolution, the Big Bang, relativity, gravitation, atomic and germ theories all comprise of two things: a descriptive law stating an observation, and a theory to explain that law.

In summary, these definitions are part of our reality. People don't get to create their own definitions to match their prejudices; they must adhere to the established rules and realistic definitions. Misconceptions only exist because people don't bother to study and research, but rely on obsolete understandings. Erase the misconceptions, and you erase prejudice and hate, in turn leading to a much better social interaction with people of different worldviews. 

 

For theists, the next time you meet a non-believer, make sure to check your facts first before spouting off biases and misconceptions. Your conversations would be better if you'd just care enough to clear things up.

 

 

References:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/ 

Read More