“What is the meaning of life?” The question has been pondered about by countless philosophers for centuries. It makes me wonder why… because I think it’s a pointless question. But I don’t think the question is pointless because I think that life has no meaning. I think it’s pointless because the question assumes that there should be a general standard for meaning and that it has to be defined external to the person asking the question.

There was a commercial before by the World wildlife foundation which I found to be a bit intellectually substandard. The commercial was about wildlife conservation. I don’t remember the exact words, so I will paraphrase: “It is perhaps the greatest question man has ever asked. We know that plankton exist to feed the whales, we know that zebra exist to feed the lions, we know that (insert species here) for (insert species here). What about us? What is our purpose?

I didn’t like the commercial for a variety of reasons. One, because it states that the inane question “what is our purpose” is the greatest question man has ever asked. Two, because it seems to assume that there is a universal purpose for why we are all here

From a lion’s perspective, a zebra’s purpose may be to satisfy its hunger. But from the zebra’s perspective, the purpose of its existence may be to get through life without satisfying the lion’s hunger. Purpose comes from either the lion’s or the zebra’s intent to achieve its own respective goals -Goals that are diametrically opposed to each other.

One may say that the purpose of fire is to give us warmth or to heat our food. But fire didn’t come into existence to serve man. Fire existed and then man found purpose for it. But that purpose only exists to those with minds to see benefit from fire. From fire’s perspective, it doesn’t care what man does to it. Fire itself has no intrinsic purpose for existence except for the subjective interpretations of purpose that man assigns to it.

Meaning is de(Read More)

I have a new blog. The blog will be exclusively about atheism, science and philosophy. I'll also be posting a lot of excerpts from some debates i've had

I'm not moving. This is still my main blog.

Here's the link: Lord of the Atheists.

For tradition’s sake: A most profound apology to you, my dear reader. If you’re wondering why you haven’t been seeing me online much lately, it’s because PLDT mydsl sucks. Also because my conversation skills have dropped to the point where I can’t even hold a 2 min long conversation anymore

Christmas came and went and I don’t have a Christmassy article. I actually wrote a really funny and witty article about jesus, santa and the real meaning of santamas but I figured It might be a bit offensive and I might scare some chicks away. That would totally defeat the purpose of this blog so I decided not to post it..

A lot of people think that because I’m an atheist, I don’t celebrate Christmas. Here’s a shocker: I actually love Christmas!! I love Christmas carols –even those that have the word “Christ” in them, I love seeing Christmas decors and Christmas lights, , I love having noche Buena, I love the Christmas spirit … and I actually don’t mind calling it CHRISTmas. I’m not one of those atheists who get offended when people greet them merry Christmas either(cough cough benj) I also don’t get offended when people send me Christmas presents even if it’s already December 27. Wink wink

But why should an atheist celebrate Christmas? A lot of the occasions that we celebrate have little or nothing at all to do with the original meaning of those occasions. How many people celebrate Halloween and how many of those people actually know or care what Halloween was originally about? Christ’s connection with the christmas is actually dubious. The bible didn’t give a specific date for christ’s birth

From wikipedia: Sextus Julius Africanus popularized the idea that Christ was born on December 25 in his Chronographiai, a reference book for Christians written in AD 221.^[15] This date is nine months after the traditional date of the Incarnation (March 25),

The Christian idea that Christ was conceived on the same date that he died on the cross is consistent with a Jewish belief that a prophet lived an integral number of years.^[20] Thus, the date as a birthdate for Christ is traditional, and is not considered to be his actual date of birth.

I celebrate Christmas because it’s a tradition, because it’s part of my culture. I subscribe to no religious dogma that says celebrating Christmas is wrong but I subscribe to the notion that gift giving, stuffing yourself with pasta, ham and kissing random people under a mistletoe is fun.

You have your own meaning for Christmas, I have my own meaning for Christmas. And they don’t have to be the same for us to enjoy the same merry occasion. So to all those people who dis Santa and say things like “celebrate the true meaning of christmas”, I say to you: don’t be a bunch of killjoys. Leave santa alone!!![/chriscrocker squeal]

belated Marry Christmas/xmas/happy holidays/jolly santamas/ to y’all

P.S: Christmas carolers annoy the hell out of me

Currently reading: atlas shrugged

This is a very short and condensed summary of my position. Talking in front of a camera makes me self conscious so pardon me if i was spacing out at times. If you want to read some of my more detailed articles about atheism, check out my "on atheism" category.

I just uploaded the video. It's still processing. If you can't view it yet, reload the page after a few mins.

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that I left a lot of unanswered questions in my last entry about atheism. The truth is that I’ve already answered those questions in the article itself and in my responses to some of the comments. I’ll repost some of the answers I’ve already given and try to expound on them

So I don’t offend people whom I don’t want to offend, let me first clarify:
I don’t generalize theists. There is a profound difference between normal theists and evangelists. I have nothing against theists in general. Unlike some of the more hardcore atheists, I don’t claim intellectual superiority over believers. I know a lot of believers who are a lot smarter than me. I think the main difference between atheists and “normal” theists is in their way of thinking, not in their intellectual capacities. Faith is a normal part of human existence. Even the most hardcore of atheists don’t always base their beliefs on empirical data or logic. Faith, though, is a very subjective and personal thing and therefore cannot be used in an argument

Faith can be a gift or it can be a flaw, depending on how it is used. For hardcore evangelists, their faith has become a serious character flaw. They've let their beliefs take over their lives and cloud their judgement
Evangelists tend to be extremely, ludicrously, preposterously fanatical. These zealots tend to be very gung ho when it comes to defending their religion to the point that they become very offensive and very personal. They reject scientifically accepted facts like evolution, make ridiculous claims like the world is only 6000 years old or that the entire scientific community is in a conspiracy to hide evidence supporting the noah’s arc parable. They end every other sentence with “amen” or “praise the lord” or “damnation to you, infidel”.

With that out of the way, let us now proceed to the FAQ

1.)Do you know how the universe began? Do you know how life began?etc)

No I don’t know for sure how the universe or life began. Science itself doesn’t know for certain how the universe or life began. What does that prove though?
There is a reasoning fallacy that is used in almost all debates about god. It’s called “god of the gaps”.. This type of reasoning involves trying to look for holes in science and then claiming that they are proof for god. Most of the evidence for god that evangelists have presented so far are of this nature. Examples of arguments you here a lot in debates: “The miller-urey experiment failed to create life out of non-life therefore god created life”, “You can’t find the missing link from this species to that species therefore evolution is false and god exists”

One major difference between the evangelest’s way of thinking and a free thinker’s way of thinking is that the former immediately assumes that god is the default answer to anything that can’t be answered as of yet.
There is no rule in reasoning that says god is the default answer to anything that science can’t answer. It’s also fallacious to equate what science currently can explain to what actually has an explanation. The proper way of proving the existence of a creator would be to provide direct empirical evidence for its existence or a hypothesis or model for how it operates and then support that hypothesis with direct empirical evidence. As of the moment, God is a conclusion without a working hypothesis.
By arguing that science doesn’t have a conclusive answer for a specific question, you only succeed in proving that science currently doesn’t have a conclusive answer for that particular question.

In science, a particular theory can only be overturned by a more complete and more plausible theory. You can’t overturn any scientific theory with any supernatural theory since, by definition, a supernatural phenomenon or entity cannot be objectively observed, tested and confirmed. Therefore a supernatural theory will only contain unverifiable claims and subjective interpretations without empirical backing

2.) The human eye, brain, etc is incredibly complex therefore they must’ve been designed right?

The argument “complexity requires intelligent design” is problematic since you’ll have to contradict your own argument at a certain point.

Furthermore, complexity naturally arises in nature without divine intervention. I wrote a few posts about the difficulty of differentiating between complexity and design. post 1, post 2

Occam’s Razor is a logical concept that’s used in science in mathematics. It basically stat(READ THE REST OF THE ENTRY)

Technorati tags: atheism faq creationism

My blog just got a review at the bloggy award and I got a decent rating. All I need to do is make fun of a few random people's faces and I'm on my way to internet superstardom.  ... To the reviewer, thank you thank you thank you even if I'm not exactly your cup of tea :)

Most of the points that can be addressed will be addressed. I've been too lazy to fix the broken links and the problems in my layout but I'll do that soon. I do blabber about  nonsensically and rather lengthily sometimes. It can't be helped though. It is a sickness for which a cure is yet to be found

"If you want controversy then visit the Infidel’s blog. There’s nothing like a debate-loving atheist to write posts that attract flamers. Although the author does love to post his insights on the subject of God or the absence of God there are other posts to be found of a different topic. What you’ll notice though is that almost all his posts reflect strong opinions. Yes this is one opinionated blog so that it draws people to comment even in his “lighter posts”.

Visual Aesthetics - 7

Too black and gray. The color scheme wouldn’t have been so bad if the font-size weren’t so small. The color scheme, font-size, and inconsistent font styles isn’t really pleasing to the eye nor user-friendly. Of course I adjusted the font-size but it still didn’t make the blog look good. The header also needs improvement though it does reflect the author’s interests (atheism and digicams).

User Friendliness - 7

Again the fonts really need some working on. The categories are few but pretty much sums up what you can find in the blog. It is also reflective of what’s important to the author. The Archives link doesn’t work and simply brings you back to the main page. At least it has a link to the Homepage when you go to static pages but the downside is that the link sometimes leads to a 404 page.

Reading Enjoyment - 7

Too much heavy stuff. If you want to discuss ideas though and like to feel intellectual this would be a blog to visit since a lot the visitors along with the author claim to be real intellectuals. The posts also run very long so that although I personally don’t mind reading posts with substance the posts sometimes do tend to drag. This blog needs a little variation in post length.

Useful Info - 8

The author like to discuss things and go on and on about issues and ideas. If you visit this blog you’ll likely read information regarding atheism, current events, and a semblance of economics and entrepreneurship.

Overall Experience - 7

This blog does have substance but is too opinionated and to heavy for my taste. The posts are just plain too lengthy and a lot of them drag. Sometimes you don’t have to be too wordy to present our ideas. A few words read by more people can be more effective than a plethora of words that just select few will read."

Just as there are different levels of belief, there are also different levels of disbelief. For believers, there are the evangelists who take almost everything in the book of genesis literally -The type who raise their hands up in the air, scream like lunatics then faint during sermons; There are also the everyday normal people whom I don’t want to offend here too much since I know too many of them. For non-believers, there are the hardcore atheists and there are also agnostics whom I sometimes lovingly call weaker atheists

 

 

There are questions that seem preprogrammed in the most zealous of believers’ brains whenever they’re confronted by one of us non-believers/heathens/infidels

1.)“You don’t believe in god? What keeps you from killing, raping and pillaging?” When they ask these sorts of questions, they seem so befuddled that you’d wonder if fear of afterlife punishment is the only thing keeping them from doing the aforementioned acts.

I say to those people if you have any doubts about the existence of god, remove them all from your head and remain a zealot forever ...doing "good" things for fear of afterlife punishment is not morality. It's just sucking up

The most evil people in history believed in a higher being in one form or another. (Hitler, the poster boy for eviiiil, was Catholic) Some of the most evil acts in history have been inspired by religion in one way or another. Meanwhile most atheists go about their daily peaceful lives in their labcoats or pondering about deep philosophical questions free from ideologies that are really just dependent on the continent that people are born on or the European power that colonized their countries

So the two questions above don’t actually connect. In fact it would make just as much sense for an atheist to ask “You’re a theist? What keeps you from raping, pillaging and killing?”

2.)“You don’t believe in God? Then you have no purpose in life?”

If you’ve lived your entire life for one purpose only and that is to make your chosen god as happy as you can, All your immediate and long term goals are centered on him then I guess it’s understandable to perceive someone who doesn’t have such a central figure in his or her life as wandering about aimlessly without a purpose

Likewise, if everyday of your entire life revolves around a concept that to atheists is not too far removed from the realm of bogeymen, tooth fairies etc, then some of them may think the same of you

We just don’t need illusory, magical beings to convince us that our lives have meaning. In fact I personally think that life becomes more meaningful if it ends permanently at the time of your death or if you owe it to chance alone and there is no “mover” orchestrating things. Of course “meaning” is a very subjective word and so opinions may vary

Atheists define their own purpose in life. Reasonable, smart theists also do. Zealots let blind faith control their lives and surrender all logic and critical thinking in the name of belief.

3.)“You don’t believe in god? Why do you hate him?”
First of all the two questions are incompatible. I cannot hate “him” nor even call him “him” if I do not believe that “he” is an actual sentient being that actually exists. I could hate the concept of “him” but I do not. I simply just lack the belief for it the same way that I lack the belief for Santa Claus, “tikbalangs” and “mananangals”. A lot of people claim that they became atheists because they feel their gods abandoned them. Those people are not actually atheists. they just temporarily hate their respective gods and will likely revert to becoming theists again after something really good happens to them

4.)“You don’t believe in God? You must think you know everything”
Though I can confidently say that I’m a little bit more knowledgeable than the average zealot, I do not claim to know everything. The difference between the zealot’s way of thinking and the atheist’s way of thinking though is that when the former is confronted with a question he can’t answer, he proclaims the question unanswerable and makes god the default answer. When the latter is confronted with a question he can’t answer, it just remains an unanswered question until an answer is found through less speculative and more scientific means –He will not go the easy route by saying “because god made it so” or “because god wills it so”

5.)“You’re an atheist?do you worship satan?”Webster defines Atheism as: “disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity” I would presume that “any other deity” covers satan …so no we don’t worship Satan nor do we believe in his existence. I occasionally listen to satanic metal music and love the color black though

6.)You’re an atheist? Are you your own government and religion
I am not a self contained government and religious organization. I’m perfectly happy abiding by the laws of the country I’m living in. I do not have a religion but that doesn’t mean that I worship myself. Once you've crossed over, you'd realize that "worship" is not as integral to human existence as you thought it was

For my arguments for atheism click on this http://www.tabulas.com/~jaywalker_1982/1215275.html#comment

Currently listening to: pantera, slayer

When I created this blog I wanted it to feel light. -informal English, light topics etc. But a little change of pace from time to time isn’t a bad thing. Plus it could attract more traffic :)

To new visitors, this is just one post if you’d scroll down you’d see that all my other posts are lighter reads. Comments, violent reactions and direct personal insults are very much welcome

 

A short summary of my position

 

 Most arguments for god aren’t actually arguments for god but arguments against science. Examples are “Using science, can you explain completely how the universe began? Aha you can’t therefore god created the universe!!” “Is your theory a law? Aha it isn’t therefore god exists!” 

However those sorts of arguments could only be valid if the alternative “theory” they’re proposing actually solves the questions you ask of science. If your argument for god is that nothing complex can sprout into existence out of nothing therefore there must’ve been a first cause then the alternative you’re proposing should also satisfy that logic. However if you use the same logic on your alternative solution (god) you’d end up with the same problem. -if everything has a first cause then god should also have a first cause. In fact the argument would be even more detrimental to the case of god since you’re not only considering the possibility of something as complex as the universe coming into existence but that of something complex enough to create the complexity of the universe (…and complex enough to be omniscient, omnipotent, sentient etc) If something as majestic as god can come into existence on its own then why not the universe

But let’s say for the sake of argumentation, fair logic be damned, that god doesn’t require a beginning even if the universe does …still we would encounter another conundrum since if god’s timeline extends infinitely into the past and the universe’s does not then that would mean that god had an infinite amount of time to create the universe which makes him statistically no better than chance …either way god becomes an unnecessary, redundant, complicating variable that needs to be trimmed by occam’s razor 

A lot of theist debaters would try to maneuver around this problem by saying that god is outside of time or outside of human comprehension so you cannot use common sense logic on him but that would be like a kid saying “you suck” when he’s run out of intelligent things to say. I could just as easily say that you don’t have full comprehension of how the universe operates so you can’t really say what is or isn’t possible regarding how it could’ve begun

You can attack theories in science on how the universe or life began all you want but that won’t help support your case. There is no rule in reasoning that says that the supernatural solution becomes correct by default if current naturalistic solutions fall a little short. Furthermore you can’t equate what is currently explained with what is actually explainable. Attacking a competing theory would only benefit your case if the “theory” you’re proposing is more complete than the theory you’re attacking. However if you ask any theist debater “What is the process by which god created the universe and the life in it?”, “What is the process by which god creates matter out of nothing?”, “ What is this being made of?” -you wouldn’t be able to get an answer that isn’t intellectually insulting. Giving a simple “because god made it so!” would be unfair to people who’ve spent so much time, effort and resources fine-tuning every facet of their theory.  

I grew up in a Christian family, knowing mostly Christian people raised with Christian values. I am not anti-Christian. This entry is just in defense of my position and in response to common debate arguments of theists. I have nothing against faith. I myself have certain things I believe in that are not necessarily supported by evidence. The problem with faith though is that it’s a very personal thing. It has very little weight outside the person therefore you can’t use it in a debate

Currently listening to: radiohead, soundgarden
Currently reading: still crime and punishment
Currently feeling: snobbish