Imbak para sa religion

The INC Delusion

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , on Agosto 29, 2015 by Blue Dela Kanluran

The biggest piece of news for the day is the vigil/rally that members of the Iglesia ni Cristo held on EDSA last night. The mass of people was so immense that it caused a gridlock in Manila’s busiest high-ways; trapping people on the road.

This is causing so much controversy online that it’s almost impossible for people not to get passionate on either side. Personally, I’ve always been averse to religious groups demonstrating on behalf of their faith, especially when it hampers the lives of people who don’t have a stake in what the group is fighting for.

Now, living in Manila for 25 years has made me numb to the inane need for the faithful to proclaim their beliefs – mostly I just ignore them – as do most other people. But, the INC take their shenanigans to a completely different level that ignoring them is just impossible.

The group already has an infamous reputation for helping form the political culture of the country through their practice of bloc voting, which they of course deny. It’s, however, displays like this “vigil” that prove what most people already suspect about the group and its members – they just do whatever they’re told.

Granted, I do say that anyone referring to a faith-based system of belief for guidance on EVERY aspect of daily life have no ability to think for themselves. But, to the credit of other religions there’s at least an attempt at trying to understand the issues confronting its members. No such attempt is ever made with the INC, and it’s given its members a warped understanding of reality – or an even more warped version of reality anyway.

The main point of contention stems from the purpose of the rally. A few days ago some ex-ministers of the church filed a complaint with the DOJ about mis-treatment from current ministers.

As its their directive to investigate complaints filed with them, the DOJ went about its job…which is wrong apparently.

Most of the rallyists claim that the investigation is a violation of the separation of Church and State and that the government should leave the internal politics of the INC alone. This not only betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Separation of Church and State, it also displays how idiotic people can get en masse.

FIrst of all, yes the Separation of Church and State is a concept that supposedly prevents religious institutions from exerting influence over government to prevent the corruption and prejudice of European monarchies in the past. Likewise, governments can’t dictate what its citizens should believe.

The reason why this case is NOT a Separation issue is because THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF FAITH! It’s one person lodging a criminal complaint against someone else. This literally happens everyday. The only reason this is an issue is because the defendant is an INC official and he wants the charges dropped.

This is one of the most blatant examples of corruption in recent memory, and the biggest tragedy is all the people at that rally are more than happy to oblige. But, the most brain dead thing about the whole issue is how the members actually try to defend this idiocy.

There have been some attempts to liken this protest to the People Power Revolution

Not even close

The problems with this are obvious. People Power is about defending human rights from a dictator after years of censorship and oppression. The INC rally came together because they got a text massage to go there.

The location of the protests doesn’t even make sense. The DOJ is on Padre Faura, Malacanang is in San Miguel; Why the hell are you protesting on EDSA? This all reeks of nothing more than using the masses to exert pressure on the DOJ.

It’s sickening, stupid, and corrupt. This is the definition of herd mentality and the very reason why democracy continues to fail in this country. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, religion dulls the mind and the world will be better off the sooner it’s gone.


Pascals Bull

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , on Nobyembre 15, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

A little background; Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist who lived in the 17th century. Considered a child prodigy he invented the mechanical calculator. He wrote extensively on projective geometry and corresponded with Pierre de Fermat on probability theory, influencing economics and social science. Later in life he had what he called a second conversion and abandoned scientific work and devoted himself to philosophy and theology. He wrote the Pensees but died before he finished. Within it we find the in/famous Pascals Wager.

Back in my first year of college our philosophy class taught us Pascals Wager. The idea that if one was unsure of the existence of God you can simply treat the question like a bet and decide depending on the possible rewards and losses if you were to pick the correct or incorrect choice.

In a nutshell Pascals Wager states that: (1) If you chose to believe in God and he doesn’t exist you lose nothing. But, if you chose not to believe in God and he does exist then you will lose everything by burning for all eternity in hell.

(2) Conversely, if you chose to not to believe in God and he doesn’t exist then nothing happens. But, if you chose to believe in God and he does exist then you will be rewarded for all eternity in heaven.

So, by gauging the possible rewards and losses of the four different scenarios Pascal concludes that the better bet would be the one that favors Gods existence.

This was an intriguing argument that reinforced my Catholicism with apparent reason and logic before even greater reason and logic caused it all to crash and burn after I searched for the wagers rebuttals. For in my mind Pascals Wager must have flaws and rebuttals for non-believers to continue to exist despite this seemingly strong argument. And rebuttals it had indeed.

I feel it would be petty to fault our former professors for providing us with only one side of a flawed system. But in trying to see it from their point of view they were working for a highly religious institution however, this still struck me as a little dishonest regardless of the situation.

Pascal described the Wager in the Pensees in this way;

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….

…”God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Before we dive into it I hope you will all humor me in being a smartass. Pascal described God as being infinitely incomprehensible which means we will never understand the nature or essence of God no matter what we do but in being able to describe God as being infinitely incomprehensible we understand that God is beyond our understanding which means that he is not. Because comprehending that he is incomprehensible is comprehension in itself.

As well as to contest the point that God has no limits. If we point to the argument “can God make a stone so heavy that even he can’t lift it?” either way we can see that God is limited. Being all knowing he cannot not know something, being all powerful he cannot not do something etc.

Here he states that both proving and disproving the existence of God are equally impossible given the “infinite chaos” that lies between him and our reason and that he is infinitely incomprehensible. In an earlier post entitled Proving a negative (1999) I transcribed an essay which explains that not only is the burden of proof on those that make a positive claim (ie there is a God) but that the negative claim (ie no there isn’t) is vindicated and does not need to do anything more to prove their side if the positive side provides no satisfactory evidence.

This system is used by all people when discussing dragons and unicorns. If there is no evidence for the existence of dragons and unicorns then they do not exist and there is no reason to suppose that they do. Everyone agrees on this but suddenly shift their perspective when the discussion turns to God.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.”

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

Here he criticizes agnostics. Those that neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God. Agnostics are sometimes described as people who do not wish to chose any side of the argument. Pascal argues that agnostics cannot exist in this case and all must make a wager and refusing to participate is impossible because whatever we do we are “living the choice”. In other words there is a certain degree of theism and atheism in all of us, even agnostics must acknowledge that. There is no absolute middle ground. Some agnostics will lean more towards theism and some to atheism in the way they live their lives or in how they think, whether its by degrees of 1% or less does not matter, one side is greater (no matter how slightly) than the other. In this vein I agree.

“That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much.” Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.

And this is the wager itself which I described earlier except for the part about hell which he did not mention because he thought that arguing on the basis of reward alone was sufficient reason to bet on the “I believe” option. And I’d also like to add that the idea that “if one believes and God does not exist then nothing is lost” is not entirely accurate since people dedicate large amounts of their time and money and in some cases their entire lives for the religion (even died for it) and if found that there is indeed no God then all sacrifices made for the religions would have been in vain.

The proposition did not live long before it was criticized by Voltaire who described it as “indecent and childish”. But since then, there have been two dominant arguments against Pascals wager that could not be addressed fully since Pascal died before the Pensees were even published but at least one was anticipated nonetheless.

The first is called the Argument of inconsistent revelations. Since there are countless religions with even more countless gods throughout human history they all indeed need to be factored into the wager. This assertion is based in the argument that since Pascal is trying to prove the greater chance of infinite reward by believing in a God that begs the question “which God?”

The “which God?” question is a valid point considering that no God of the modern era has more evidence to his existence than those of the ancient ones. The only reason that modern religions still persist is through sheer number of believers, but that is hardly evidence for existence since the truth of any topic is not subject by the number of people who believe in them. Therefore Ra, Zeus, Thor, and Quetzatcoatl are all eligible to become part of the wager.

If all these supernatural deities were to be considered then the simple coin toss Pascal proposed suddenly turns into a roulette wheel. With greater chances of betting wrong (choosing the wrong god to believe in) and thus not gaining any reward while simultaneously suffering whatever punishment is decreed by the “correct” choice (if one is provided). Utterly destroying the mathematical advantage the wager claimed in believing in God.

To illustrate:

If it were between Christianity and Atheism the odds of getting it right or wrong are 50% each.

If we were then to add Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, Roman mythology, Norse mythology, and Paganism (not to mention all the different sects that disagree within each religion); the chance of your choosing right are drastically reduced to 8% and the chances of being wrong is 97%.

Pascal anticipated this argument in the Pensees saying:

What say [the unbelievers] then? “Do we not see,” say they, “that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us,” etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us.

A lot of people have a lot of opinions on this short and confusing passage. Basically he’s saying that people who are satisfied with the many gods counter are lazy and are not interested in the truth of whether or not Christianity is like every other religion and that this argument may suffice in other questions of philosophy but not here where “everything is at stake”.

Pascal scholars note that when Pascal said “look at it in detail” he was referring them to his chapter “on other religions”. Thankfully, Pascals views on other religions is summarized.

As far as Pascal is concerned, the demise of the pagan religions of antiquity speaks for itself. Those pagan religions which still exist in the New World, in India, and in Africa are not even worth a second glance. They are obviously the work of superstition and ignorance and have nothing in them which might interest ‘les gens habiles’ (‘clever men’) Islam warrants more attention, being distinguished from paganism (which for Pascal presumably includes all the other non-Christian religions) by its claim to be a revealed religion. Nevertheless, Pascal concludes that the religion founded by Mohammed can on several counts be shown to be devoid of divine authority, and that therefore, as a path to the knowledge of God, it is as much a dead end as paganism. Judaism, in view of its close links to Christianity, he deals with elsewhere.”

As you can see, Pascal does not even take the counter argument seriously and dismisses it outright without considering it. A combination of arrogance and ignorance on the part of Pascal drastically reducing the credibility of the wager.

The second argument against the wager is called the “argument from inauthentic belief”. Some people argue that merely believing in a God just to be safe is not true beleif and is therefore dishonest and unacceptable to God. This arguments works under the assumption that God does exist.

What critics are objecting to is Pascal’s subsequent advice to an unbeliever who, having concluded that the only rational way to wager is in favor of God’s existence, points out, reasonably enough, that this by no means makes him a believer.

Pascal argues that if the wager is valid, the inability to believe is irrational, and therefore must be caused by feelings: “your inability to believe, because reason compels you to [believe] and yet you cannot, [comes] from your passions.” This inability, therefore, can be overcome by diminishing these irrational sentiments: “Learn from those who were bound like you. . . . Follow the way by which they began: that is by doing everything as if they believed, by taking holy water, by having Masses said, etc. Naturally, even this will make you believe and will dull you. -‘But this is what I am afraid of.’- And why? What have you to lose?

But we find that the wager is invalid and non-belief in anything unsupported by evidence (therefore unjustified to be believed) is the height of rationality. Pascal argues that if you act as if you believe for long enough then pretty soon you will. If you’ll notice his exact words were “this will make you believe and will dull you” How appropriate.

However belief alone would not be enough to gain access to heaven. According to the Bible, more is required for salvation than mere belief in God. One also needs to believe in God’s son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds, esp. for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26).

No doubt Pascal and the wager were formidable lines of thinking however because of his untimely death Pascal never had the chance to fully regard its criticisms and was unable to refine it to the level in which it would have been nearly irrefutable. Today however it is seen only as an outdated argument in theological debates and not even considered as valid because even modern apologetics fail to cover the gaps left by the wager. Instead what we have is a genius’ greatest legacy is at the same time his greatest failure.

Proving a negative (1999)

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , on Setyembre 6, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

by: Richard Carrier

(An essay on how the negatives of reality ie. Unicorns, Dragons, Goblins, Vampires and ultimately God do not exist can be proven disrupting the evasive theist argument that the belief in such things are justified given the lack of evidence to their disproof.

Considering that the argument “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is purely elementary and a blatant example of shifting of the burden of proof this essay will further demonstrate why it is logically the theists who should and must be the ones looking for evidence of their claims (and not the other way around.) and how they have spectacularly failed to do so.)

I know the myth of “you can’t prove a negative” circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can.

As it happens, there really isn’t such a thing as a “purely” negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, “there are no crows in this box” entails “this box contains something other than crows” (in the sense that even “no things” is something, e.g. a vacuum). “Something” is here a set restricted only by excluding crows, such that for every set S there is a set Not-S, and vice versa, so every negative entails a positive and vice versa.

And to test the negative proposition one merely has to look in the box: since crows being in the box (p) entails that we would see crows when we look in the box (q), if we find q false, we know that p is false. Thus, we have proved a negative. Of course, we could be mistaken about what we saw, or about what a crow is, or things could have changed after we looked, but within the limits of our knowing anything at all, and given a full understanding of what a proposition means and thus entails, we can easily prove a negative in such a case. This is not “proof” in the same sense as a mathematical proof, which establishes that something is inherent in the meaning of something else (and that therefore the conclusion is necessarily true), but it is proof in the scientific sense and in the sense used in law courts and in everyday life. So the example holds because when p entails q, it means that q is included in the very meaning of p. Whenever you assert p, you are also asserting q (and perhaps also r and s and t). In other words, q is nothing more than an element of p. Thus, all else being as we expect, “there are big green Martians in my bathtub” means if you look in your bathtub you will see big green Martians, so not seeing them meansthe negative of “there are big green Martians in my bathtub.”

Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, “there are no big green Martians” means “there are no big green Martians in this or any universe,” and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition–we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question.

The Method of the Best Bet (not Paschals Wager)

Logicians note that it is easier to prove that there are such beings than to prove there aren’t simply because we only need to find one of them to accomplish our proof, and thus will not have to look everywhere–unless we are so unlucky that where the one Martian is just happens to be the last place we look. But in the final analysis, it is not being “negative” that makes a proposition difficult to prove, but the breadth of the assertion. For instance, “there is gravity on every planet in every universe” could be disproven by searching just one planet and finding no gravity, but if we kept finding gravity we could never decisively prove it true, any more than if we kept failing to find Martians in the universe would we be able to decisively prove that “there are no Martians in the universe.” Thus, what people call the “you can’t prove a negative” axiom is actually nothing more than the eternal problem of induction: since we can’t test a proposition in every place and at every time, we can never be absolutely certain that the proposition remains true in all times and places. We can only infer it.

In computers this sort of proof (of the positive or negative variety) results in an infinite loop (or quasi-infinite loop), and clever programmers can give software the tools to recognize such routines before executing them. Then, instead of executing them, they have them execute a simpler subroutine that equates to a “best guess.” Not surprisingly, we all do the same thing: since we have neither the ability nor the desire to devote a dangerous proportion of our time and resources to testing every proposition of this kind, we adopt a simpler rule: given insufficient evidence, then no belief. This is the same thing as “given sufficient evidence, then belief,” since insufficient evidence is the same thing as sufficient evidence for denial.

This amounts to a “best guess” solution, where we recognize that a statement may be true, but have insufficient grounds to believe it. Or, in the case of propositions for which we have abundant but incomplete proof, we recognize that it may be false, but have insufficient grounds to disbelieve it. This is the basic principle behind all hypothetical thought, from the theories of science, to the “sun will come up tomorrow” variety of common sense. Given the set of all propositions of the first kind (where there is a lack of evidence despite some reasonable measure of checking), nearly all of them are false, so it is a safe bet to assume they are all false until proven otherwise. Conversely, given the set of all propositions of the second kind (where there is continuous evidence after some reasonable measure of checking), nearly all of them are true, so it is a safe bet to assume they are true until proven otherwise.

Unprovable Statements

Consider the negative case. When it comes time to decide what to believe, if we did not assume such “unprovables” were false, we would either have to choose which unprovables to believe by some totally arbitrary means, which amounts to a ridiculous “belief by whim” method, or else we have to assume that all such statements are true. Of course, we only have to believe true those unprovables that do not contradict other proven statements or that do not contradict each other, but even in the latter case we have no grounds for choosing which of two contradictory unprovables we will believe, and this is the same “belief by whim” dilemma. But even with these provisions, this policy would result in a great number of absurd beliefs (like “there are big green Martians in the universe”). Thus, when finally deciding what to believe, it is clear that the best policy is to assume that all unprovables are false, until such time as they are proved. In other words, it is reasonable to disbelieve a proposition when there is no evidence. Even if it is less certainly false than propositions which are actually contradicted by evidence (although even that does not amount to a complete certainty), it is still reasonable to regard them as false so long as we’ve done some checking, and don’t ignore new evidence that we come across.

A similar line of reasoning establishes the opposite in all positive cases. If we did not assume all such unprovables were true, we would either have to choose which unprovables to disbelieve by some totally arbitrary means, which again amounts to a ridiculous “belief by whim” method, or else we have to assume that all such statements are false. Of course, it would be plainly absurd to believe that all the statements for which we have some evidence are false. Although “absolute skeptics” actually claim to assume this, they put in place of truth a concept of assent which amounts to the same solution as I have discussed above: betting on the truth of a statement that we have many reasons to believe but can never be certain of. Thus, when finally deciding what to believe, it is clear that the best policy is to assume that all unprovables for which we have good evidence are true, until such time as they are disproved. In other words, it is reasonable to believe a proposition when there is good evidence. Even if it is less certainly true than propositions which are actually irrefutable, such as mathematical truths or “I am thinking, therefore I am,” it is still reasonable to regard them as true so long as we’ve done some checking, and don’t ignore new evidence that we come across. In all cases, we can perhaps move the bar up and down–changing the amount of “checking” that counts as reasonable and sufficient before resolving to believe–but this affects all our beliefs, as the bar cannot be set differently for different things without again engaging in “belief by whim” methods, and we will all find that there is such a thing as having the bar too low or too high, as one can find through the same reasoning as I have engaged in here.

The Unbelievability of Christian Theism

Christian Theism in its most basic sense entails observations that would necessarily be made by everyone everywhere and at all times, and thus it is as easily disproven as the alien in the bathtub. For instance, God is theoretically omnipresent, and granted us the ability to know him (to feel his loving presence, etc.), yet I have absolutely no sensation of any God or anything that would be entailed by a God, even though by definition he is within me and around me wherever I go. Likewise, God is theoretically the epitome of compassion, and also all-knowing and all-powerful and beyond all injury, yet I know that what demonstrates someone as compassionate is the alleviation of all suffering known to them and safely within their power to alleviate. All suffering in the world must be known and safely within the power of God to alleviate, yet it is still there, and since the Christian ‘theory’ entails the opposite observation, Christianity is false. Likewise, God theoretically designed the universe for a moral purpose, but the universe lacks moral features–animals thrive by survival of the fittest, not survival of the kindest, and the laws of physics are no respecter of persons, they treat the good man and the bad man equally. Moreover, the universe behaves like a mindless machine, and exhibits no intelligent action of its own accord, and there are no messages or features of a linguistic nature anywhere in its extra-human composition or behavior, such as we would expect if a thinking person had designed it and wanted to communicate with us.

Christians attempt to preserve their proposed theory by moving it into the set of unprovables that lack all evidence. They do this arbitrarily, and for no other reason than to save the proposed theory, by creating impassable barriers to observation, just as requiring us to look in every corner of every universe creates an impassable barrier for one who is asked to decisively disprove the statement “there are big green Martians.” For instance, the advanced theory holds that God alleviates suffering in heaven, which we conveniently cannot observe, and he has reasons for waiting and allowing suffering to persist on Earth, reasons which are also suitably unobservable to us, because God chooses not to explain them, just as he chooses, again for an unstated reason that is entirely inscrutable, to remain utterly invisible to all my senses, external and internal, despite being always around and inside me and otherwise capable of speaking to me plainly.

The problem is not, as some theists think, that we can find no explanations to “rationalize” a god in this world of hurt. I can imagine numerous gods who would be morally justified and even admirable, and others who would be neither evil nor good, and still others who are evil, but none of these would be the Christian god. The fact is that Christianity is the proposal of a theory, and like all theories, it entails predictions–but these predictions are not being born out. So Christians invent excuses to save the theory–excuses which have absolutely no basis in any evidence or inference, except the sole fact that they rescue the theory. This is Ptolemy’s epicycles all over again: the motions of the planets and sun refused to fit the theory that they all revolve around the Earth, so Ptolemy invented numerous complex patterns of motion that had no particular reason to happen other than the fact that they rescue the theory of geocentricity. It is simply far wiser to conclude that instead of this monstrously complex and bizarre architecture of groundless saving suppositions, it makes far more sense, and uses far fewer suppositions, to simply admit that the universe doesn’t revolve around the Earth after all. As for all the other theories–all the other possible gods–there is no more evidence for them than for this incredibly complex deity with a dozen strange and mysterious reasons that only too conveniently explain why we never observe him or his actions in any clear way.

Of course, even these groundless “solutions” to the Christian ‘theory’ do not really save the theory, because, to maintain it, at some point you must abandon belief in God’s omnipotence–since at every turn, God is forced to do something (to remain hidden and to wait before alleviating suffering, etc.) by some unknown feature of reality, and this entails that some feature of reality is more powerful than God. And this feature cannot merely be God’s moral nature, since if that were his only limitation, there would then be no barrier to his speaking to me or acting immediately to alleviate suffering or designing the universe to have overtly moral or linguistic features, since any truly moral nature would compel, not prevent, such behavior. Thus, the Christian hypothesis is either incoherent or unprovable, and in the one case it is necessarily false, while in the other it lacks justification, so we have no reason to believe it, any more than we have a reason to believe that there is a big green Martian on some planet in some corner of some universe. This is what it means to “prove a negative.”

I am an atheist

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , on Hulyo 11, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

In a post I made a few months I made my declaration that I was not an atheist that was when I was still reserved on what I believed and what I did not believe and one thing was absolutely clear to me then. That if there were a God there was no way he/she/it would be represented by the hypocritic, cruel and discriminative Church. I have made no secret of my distaste for the religious institution that dominates this country poisoning the education and political systems.

However, after conducting talking and listening to a lot of people, conducting my own research, finding my own answers to questions posed about morals, creation, the Bible, the Quran etc., and I found that religion simply has no suitable answer for any of those questions. And in fact propose and demonstrate values that are completely opposite of what are supposedly taught.

So, I hereby make a formal declaration that after finding answers for myself I have found no reasonable and justifiable cause to believe that a God exists. Based on the demonstrable evidence humankind possesses now, I reject the idea of the God of the Bible, the Yahweh of the Torah, the Allah of the Quran, and the pantheon of Brahman. I reject the divinity of Jesus, the sanctity of the Holy Spirit, the message of Mohammed, and the existence of heaven and hell. The Abrahamic books are a collection of fictional works compiled and edited by humanity not unlike the Odyssey and the Aeneid. These books hold no moralistic value whatsoever and are furthermore poisonous and downright evil.

I am an atheist.

No this is not a joke. If there are any questions, challenges, arguments and violent reactions fell free to contact me and I’ll answer as calmly as I can.

Evangelicals, evolution and atheism: the 2011 Pew Foundation survey (via Why Evolution Is True)

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , on Hunyo 30, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

This is a guest piece by reader Sigmund, who read the entire 100-odd page Pew survey. My thanks for his written take on it. Compared to most developed nations, the proportion of evangelical Christians in the USA is far higher. In 2004 they comprised 26.3% of the population. At the same time, the level of acceptance of the theory of evolution is significantly lower. The question of whether there is a direct connection between evangelicals and the … Read More

via Why Evolution Is True

Another RH post (I seem to be doing this a lot)

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , on Abril 25, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran


I refrained from posting anything on my blog for the most part of the Holy Weekend for two reasons: 1.) I was on the beach (possibly lying) and 2.) Because it’s the Church’s one time to go all out for their faith, even though it was riddled with propaganda. I stopped myself to give them their time in the sun, but it’s Monday today and the ceasefire (from my end) is over.

You’ll notice the words I used were ‘stopped myself’. The reason behind this is mainly because the Church’s representatives have once again run their mouths off about how to run the world through their specter of view while simultaneously sounding authoritative and conflicting at the same time.

Recently the Church has doomed P-Noy for supporting the RH Bill calling him of less faith than his mother and sisters (I can’t wait what they’ll call me). As well as labeling those who support the Bill as misguided and lacking knowledge of the provisions of the Bill.

That’s hard to believe since the story seems to go the other way around. The Church staunchly resists the Bill because it allegedly legalizes abortions. While nowhere does it say there that abortion will be made legal. The in/famous Archbishop Oscar Cruz had explained in an interview in ANC that even though it is not written it is there, abortion will be allowed.

It’s not written but it’s there? I guess that makes sense for a guy that advocates something like the even though I can’t see, hear, smell, feel, or recognize it any observable way it exists as long its the unseeable, unhearable, unsmellable, unfeelable entity that I preach about. If it’s a different unrecognizable being of unobservable existence it doesn’t exist.

“We are against contraception to protect the right of the unborn child”. Newsflash: There is no unborn child yet! Contraception prevents the sperm meeting the egg therefore no unborn life to protect. Anti-contraceptionists are vying for the rights of individual cells. In which case they should charge every single woman of murder every month for menstruating.

Now for the conflicting part. In a recent story Jose Cardinal Sanchez said “He (P-Noy) is now losing his popularity. He has no firm idea on marriage. It is too much politics now and no longer religion. (His) mother (the late former President Corazon Aquino) and (his) sisters have more faith than him” he urged priests and bishops to go on what he calls a “charm offensive” a tactic that entails the clergy to befriend lawmakers to win them over to their side regarding the debate on the RH Bill.

In my old post “Look behind you no ones there” I mentioned that the Church should seriously start considering a change of strategy, almost exactly what Sanchez is suggesting after I made the post (someones been reading my blog :)).
Sanchez’s suggestion would have worked if it weren’t for the above-mentioned quote. What the “charm offensive” really is, is politics 101. Befriend who you need to befriend to get what you want. To which I ‘want’ to mention the separation of church and state. I ‘want’ to mention it but I won’t since nobody really understands what the hell that means anymore since the Church still has a death-grip on government and politics. Going so far as to call someone un-Catholic for reasons that are exclusively within the realm of political governance and not of the religious soul proves that.

I recognize that there are a lot of problems in the Philippines i.e. education, housing, employment. These are all essentially important sectors that have gone to the trash bin for various reasons I could never fully understand. Again, this could all be much easier to solve if there were at least some semblance of control on population. In the words of Archbishop Cruz “Do you think that the solution to everything is to have fewer people?” YES!

A smaller population is easier to control, educate, employ, police, and manage. We have thousands upon thousands of OFW’s working abroad, so much that they’re practically taking over various sectors of the countries they’re visiting (like Orchard Road in Singapore), and we’re still talking about overpopulation. That should be a clue as to how overpopulated we are.

Did I mention that there are also priests who are pro-RH Bill. It’s a miracle!