Being your own judge

As an atheist, I don't believe in a deity. I don't believe in a final judgement in the afterlife that will determine whether I'll suffer in inferno or live eternally in paradise. As such, my morality comes from my own ideals and thinking of whatever repercussions will happen due to my actions.

Personally, I make my own moral code as consistent as possible. What I hate the most is being branded as a hypocrite, not by others, but by myself. Before I subject myself to the judgment of others, I judge myself. I am my own police, my own judge, my own jury, and my own executioner. Who else can better bear witness to your actions other than yourself?

But even this kind of morality is hard to apply. I criticize myself rather harshly, berating myself for being inconsistent, hating hypocrisy.

For those who subscribe to religion, all they have to do to be forgiven is pray to their deity and poof! The sin goes away just like magic. Wash, rinse, and repeat. No need to be held accountable. You'll be rewarded in heaven as long as you repent, may it be on your deathbed or on the gallows.

There is always room for hypocrisy. Get yourself in a moral predicament? No worries! Just find a passage in the scripture that's contradictory to what you used to believe and stick with that. Anti-gay? The Bible has passages that can be interpreted to be against homosexuality. Pro-gay? Pick passages about indiscriminate love for all. Anti-abortion? Sanctity of life! Pro-abortion? Numbers 5:27.

For someone like me who doesn't believe in this codified hypocrisy, I seek out my own mentally codified set of rules, constantly amending any errors and inconsistencies. Any guilt I feel will be embedded deep into my mind, unwashed and unforgiven. I'm a cripple refusing to lean on the crutch of scripture.

I am incapable of fully forgiving myself. I am a flawed human being and I don't need a deity to tell me that.

Christian Music

I think Christian worship music only sells because of the attachment people have to the religion itself, not because it holds any actual merit as musical work made with skill and talent.

I never liked worship music even back then when I was still a believer.

Just saying.

Paintings

One fine sunny day, a mall held an art exhibit.. It was situated in a part of the mall where people are bound to see it even if they're just passing by. The art pieces, being colorful as they are, caught the attention of some people, myself included. I looked up at the paintings and took good long gazes at each piece that I found interesting, looking at the coloring styles, brush strokes, and attention to detail. I even went as far as to think of probable symbolic meanings or messages those works might have conveyed.

It would've been nice if everyone else did the same but that's not the case at all. I was the only one who did what a person is expected to do at an exhibit. The others posed in front or beside the works of art and took pictures, which I assume they'll post in their Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, just so they can mindlessly post something along the lines of "Look! There is a painting beside me! I'm an art buff". Somehow, I think social media thrives on this form of pretense.

I can't help but feel insulted. As food is made to be eaten and music is made to be listened to, art is made to be enjoyed by the eyes, to be looked at and be beheld in wonder and awe. Those pricks probably think that what they're doing is some shortcut to art appreciation... but no such shortcut exists.

I wonder what the artists would feel if they knew that their art is being misused as a conduit for human stupidity, being what degrades culture instead of enriching it. Their artworks are defiled by the mere gazes of those mongrels and the flashes of their phones.

I think I was born in the wrong universe.

Spices

I don't dislike the dubstep but I used to be a fan of the original dubstep genre before the it became a very popular. With the advent of Skrillex and the divergence of what dubstep purists call "brostep", I wondered and asked myself "What is in dubstep / brostep that people like?" Though it isn't wrong to say that a lot of people don't like the genre because of its noise aspect. But I was inclined to think that this very aspect is what attracted its fans.

Before listening to dubstep, I've heard some extreme noise subgenre samples like Merzbow. For someone new to it, I found it harsh to my ears but eventually, I took a liking to it (though, I don't listen to it very often like I would if I truly enjoyed it).

So what about this noise? A few people like brostep and even fewer can appreciate the pure essence of "noise". Obviously, it's a matter of preference but I see it somewhat differently. People can only tolerate "noise" in small amounts and can't take it once the level has been raised. The noise aspect in brostep spices up the music but brostep fans who dislike the noise genre can't tolerate its pure form. They still need the electronica aspect of the music in order to listen to the "bass drops" they like.

Usually, the final step in cooking is to adjust for seasoning to see if it is to your taste. A dash of salt and some spices would be enough for that final step. Different people like varying degrees of seasoning. But when asked to ingest the spices in their pure form, they choke and spit the spices out. Their taste buds are too weak to ingest it. They still need the rest of the "normal" ingredients to eat the spices they like.

This "spicy" way of thinking can be applied to many aspects in life. One being the lifetime favorite: religion.

When turning into an agnostic, people begin to question their faiths and seek whatever is beyond. In my perspective, those who stay agnostic theist simply took a half-hearted step into agnosticism instead of taking one step further into atheism. Similar to the noise and the spice, these people are too weak and too afraid to embrace the fact. Afraid, they stubbornly stand in the middle of the road or they find convert back into theism, albeit a different religion/sect. No offense to those who prefer to remain agnostic theist - this is just what I think you're doing.

I like my life with salt and a few dashes of pepper, sometimes with habanero hot sauce.

Altar Decorations

I went to a Catholic wedding recently. Weddings are happy events, celebrating the continuity of life and intertwining of the couple's happiness. I see it as a happy moment for the couple and their family and friends.

Everything was decorated nicely. Each flower and fern has been placed aesthetically. The columns were draped with cloths. The seats have been wrapped in ribbons. A red carpet was on the center aisle on the marble floor. The altar - white and gold. Smiles were painted on people's faces. Everything looks fitting for a joyous celebration...

... except for that statue of a corpse of a bloody dude hanging by his hands and feet on nails attached to a barbaric torture device...

Tolerance vs Adherence

Several years ago when I was still a faithful christian, I sought to look at all religions open-mindedly, thinking that they all deserve their own special place in the world. I did some textbook readings about some of the major religions, especially the Abrahamic faiths, and looked at some of the common aspects. I respected others' beliefs.

I was young and rather innocent. I wasn't able to fathom why the Abrahamic faiths had to diverge from one another. Moreover, seeing as the Christian faith itself is split into several denominations, I failed to understand the reason why. Still, with my innocence, I regarded the religions as equal. I would've probably tried joining other faiths if I had the time, resources, or the opportunity. I merely settled with Catholicism out of convenience.

As a Catholic, I went to Church and prayed regularly. But sometimes, I was being bugged by the assumption I made that the three Abrahamic religions supposedly worship the same deity yet have conflicting beliefs. Christians believe in the prophets of the Old Testament and Muslims acknowledge that Jesus is a prophet himself (disregarding the "son of god" business).

It turns out that these differences in beliefs have caused several conflicts among religions, each wanting a bigger slice of cake than the others. Conflicts ensued to the point of death and destruction. Tolerance was out of the question.

Viewing the religions as individual humans, we can see that it is but a mere conflict of greedy egotistical narcissists who won't back down from a royal rumble until the other opponents are dead. Greed for the limelight. For sole supremacy. For not just the largest slice of cake, but the whole cake itself.

I say this to my naive younger self: "You can indeed respect and tolerate other religions. But a religion demands belief and adherence, not respect or tolerance. What are you hoping of achieving from mere tolerance?"

Those with a deep-seated belief are, ironically, beyond redemption..

Higher Dimensional Being

I'll go a bit deistic for this post.

Imagine a flat 2D universe on, say, a piece of paper. A resident of that universe, say, a stickman, would only be able to move in two dimensions only with movements such as up, down, left, and right. In his universe there is no forward or backward. It can't visualize the thought of an extra dimension the same way we can't visualize four. Forwards or backwards is impossible for two dimensions but we in three dimensions can do that pretty easily. Our daily lives involve moving in three dimensions.

Let's say you look at this piece of paper the stickman calls his universe. Anywhere he looks and anywhere he goes, you can see the stickman. No matter what the stickman does, it cannot escape you. To him, you could be considered omnipresent. Even if the stickman encloses itself in a square house, four "walls" would mean nothing to you.

It cannot fathom the simplest of things you are able to do. The ideas of "forward" and "backward" are, to it, very stunning and revolutionary. You would probably shrug it off like nothing but to it, you are everything. All it can see of you are your fingerprints.

We cannot turn our backs on a 4-dimensional being. Think about higher dimensions. No matter where we face, it can see us.

We cannot even notice the beings in our own dimension. What are worms and ants thinking about? DO they even realize that humans exist? Would they fathom the concepts of "capitalism", "mersenne primes", "neutrinos", or "skyscrapers"? No, they don't. Even if we give them the information, they wouldn't be able to understand it.

How the fuck can anyone even think that a being from a higher dimension would give a fuck about abortion, homosexuality, or pre-marital sex?

Carlos Celdran is an asshole

I've been reading some rather old news about Filipino atheists or freethinkers or whatever they call themselves. I am Filipino and an atheist but I'm not the type of person who joins a group for a cause no matter how noble or evil or how close their ideologies may be to mine.

A particular human caught my attention recently - a certain Carlos Celdran. His name appeared in the news for barging into a church, holding up a placard and yelling "Damaso" while wearing an outfit attributed to Jose Rizal, the country's national hero. Padre Damaso is a character in Rizal's book who symbolizes the wrongdoings of the Catholic Church during the Spanish occupation. Filipino atheists lauded Celdran as a hero for his actions, placing his name alongside Rizal's.

I am a Filipino and an atheist but I think of Celdran's actions as downright despicable in my opinion. What he did was creative but tactless. If these humans want to get things done, this flamboyant attitude won't help their cause.

I've been to the arrogant gnostic atheist stage myself when I was just in my first year (or so) of "enlightenment". I admit I was rude, arrogant, and closed-minded as most gnostic theists - defeating the point of agnosticism. But as time passed, I tried to become more and more open-minded as I became more attuned to the agnostic part of agnostic atheism. Celdran is branded as a hero by these upstarts and whatever arrogance they had with their immaturity is exacerbated by Celdran's own arrogance. Oil has been spilled over the fire. I have never met anyone with this level of serious arrogance.

And I hate seriously arrogant people. I don't want to meet him. Ever.

I have no respect for religions for what they strive to be; rather, I only respect religions for what they are: lifestyles, though not all lifestyles have primitive beginnings and *ehem* child-molesting priests. Since most Filipinos are Christians, being rude won't help get your point across, especially with age-old traditions and indoctrination. Let's face it: the Filipino masses are helplessly blind and religious (or blindly religious). The population is still attached to the umbilical cord of religion. Severing the cord recklessly won't do it any good.

I am a passivist, the opposite of an activist, and I ceased pushing my own beliefs to others. Instead, I post on this blog to share to my friends (and hopefully, to the world) my views. I admit that posting on my blog isn't gonna do much to change the world. But hey. I like what I'm doing.

I won't reclassify myself as just an agnostic like what Neil deGrasse Tyson did, since "agnostic" implies "agnostic theist". I'm a Filipino who doesn't believe in a deity because I think the evidence that points to one is lacking, making me an agnostic atheist. Celdran and his immature joiner flock, on the other hand, are "antitheists" rather than atheists.

Plus, I'm also apolitical.

Edited.

Pushy Hypocrites

There comes a time when a christian would damn someone, telling him to "Go to hell" for his atrocities towards the christian god. Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist followers are undeniable examples of this but there are also some less extreme christians with minds of temperamental 16-year-olds who say the phrase without meaning it... Or sometimes actually meaning it.

So they're the polar opposites of well-wishers, wishing instead for a person's eternal punishment. When atheists like George Carlin and Christopher Hitchens died, there's the typical "He is now in hell" send-off. One thing is clear: they expect people to be sent to hell.

Though, if they really expect people to be sent to hell, then why do they have to try to mess with their lives and push their "values" unto them? If they're pretty much okay with condemning someone, why can't they just simply leave them alone? They're going to hell (so they say). They're gonna live their afterlives in hell anyway so why not just let them live their "sinful" lives in peace?

If they seriously cared for a person's afterlife, they wouldn't wish for his eternal punishment - not that I believe in any of that bullshit.

Suicide

Like murder, suicide is also taboo. The traditional Catholic way of thinking condemns those who have committed suicide, saying that it will automatically send them to hell without any chance of salvation. However, more recent Catholic ways of thinking state that one shouldn't condemn suicide victims but should be prayed for. Indeed, that is a better thing to do than flat-out damnation but still, I'm not really a fan of prayer.

Most people commit suicide due to mental instability and thus, have lost control of their rational minds. Others who do it with a rational mind, however, have stronger feelings than just being unwanted and unloved. Take for instance the Japanese soldiers who commit the honorable seppuku or the atrocious kamikaze. Muslim terrorists also commit suicide with bombs and take the lives of others with them in the name of their god. That being said, people usually think "Is there really no way for an act of suicide to be moral and just?" In fact, there are.

Picture this scenario: Two hikers were walking on a rope bridge when the bridge suddenly snapped. Hiker A was luckily able to hang on to Hiker B's leg but the latter was not strong enough to pull them both up and both of them will eventually fall. Hiker A decided to let go because he thought that it would be better if at least one of them had lived.

Suicide that leads to a better good is just. Anything that leads to a greater good is always just. The end doesn't always justifty the means, but in cases like heroic suicide, it does.

"Thou shalt not kill" is bullshit

Murder has always been a taboo subject since it is the act of taking the life of another human being. Truly, it is a bad thing, but there are times when the act of murder is the most moral thing to do in certain situations. Humans have realized this and act accordingly but the moral stencil brought by the god of Moses known as the Ten Commandments (ironically) prevents us from making these moral decisions based on our own judgment.

Euthanasia is justifiable. Comfort is always preferrable to pain and for extreme pain and suffering, one will need extreme comfort, even if it means death. The only real decision to make is whether the sufferer is past his/her suffering threshold that euthanasia would be the only escape. Take Terri Schiavo for example. In that situation, the only two choices are more suffering for her and her loved ones... or euthanasia.

Revenge is a bit tricky but it still can be justifiable. Some revenge murderers have been set free while others were punished. It all depends on the gravity of the situation. In revenge, the murderer actually prevents further atrocities by killing the perpetrator.

Survival is justifiable. Self-defense is the most common example of this. But there are also life-or-death choices when limited resources are at stake; the death of some will ensure the survival of the rest and inversely, choosing for everyone to live will make everyone suffer or (ironically) die.

Laws are the foundation of society but there will be situations where one should decide for himself. With a critical and compassionate mind, humans can make the right decision when faced with this predicament.

After the Rapture

The rapture may have failed but one can't say that there are no victims in this "tragedy". Yes. The rapture indeed claimed lives and livelihoods though not for the non-believers.

Some christians have actually sold off their possessions and discarded their futures, thinking that there will be no tomorrow after May 21 of 2011. The concept of the rapture itself may be laughing matter but the effects aren't. I have no pity for the believers but I do pity those who have been dragged into this mess.

Still nothing wrong in believing?

_____

It's a good thing that most christians didn't believe what the crackpot Harold Camping had foretold. They are open-minded enough to doubt the claims of a mere man though not open enough to doubt the roots of their faith. It's somewhat a good thing, in my opinion but if these christians have the courage to doubt more than just the rapture prohpecies, that'd be even better.

It's somewhat similar to fanfiction. Camping, being a fan, merely coupled his own fantasies with pre-existing fantasies that had been established by most people as canon. But even the canon itself is mere fiction. The holy texts themselves are mere fanfictions of a story called Reality, as the writers wrote out how they wanted the world to be.

One more step.

Indulging in Materialistic Pleasures

I don't understand why some hardcore conservative Christians (or conservatives of any other religion) refuse to give in to their materialistic desires. I do understand that indulging too much in material pleasures isn't a good thing but to willingly discard even the slightest thoughts of it... that I do not understand.

They claim that their god had created and fine-tuned this world for all humans to enjoy. If they shun the material world, they're spitting on the face of the one who provided the world for them. If they argue that shunning the material world will cleanse their souls for the path to heaven, then what is the sense of god having to create and "fine-tune" a world in the first place?

What I don't like about conservatives is that they impose their boring lifestyle upon others who are having reasonable fun. In other words, killjoy.

I don't believe in gods or heaven. I believe that humans are a part of nature, not rising above from it. Partaking what the world has to offer is human instinct.

Why a Massacre is Needed

Children in some countries in Africa are growing malnourished with some even starving to death. Some of the more powerful nations reach out to the impoverished and provide them with their necessities which will only satiate them for a small amount of time. Once their supplies run out, those nations will have to provide for them again.

With the worldwide human population growing along with the scarcity of food, at this rate, everyone will starve to death, not only those in Africa, but the whole world. We will have to pick a post-apocalyptic ending for ourselves, the most likely one being "Soylent Green".

Killing these impoverished people off not only reduces the demand for food, but it will also ease their suffering. So-called "moral" people will think that the act of killing is immoral but why is it immoral? Must we wait for everyone to starve before we take action? Isn't killing off suffering people an act of mercy rather than barbarism?

Faith versus Faith

I find it annoying sometimes when some theists state that "it takes faith to be an atheist". But then I realized that the statement can either be right or wrong depending on the definition of the word "faith".

What is faith? There are a few definitions in my version of Webster's dictionary:

1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
2. unquestioning belief in god, religious tenets, etc.
3. a religion or a system of religious beliefs
4. anything believed
5. complete trust, confidence, or reliance
6. allegiance to some person or thing; loyalty

Among these, definitions #1 to #3 define the religious faith the theists have. Devout theists follow their religion without question and it is a well-known fact that they don't bother searching for real evidence other than the contradictory statements of their sacred books.

Atheist faith, or my faith at least, however, falls under the fifth definition. I, as a human being, will have to trust another in order to get by in life. Of course, atheist faith isn't anything like in the first definition as trust is normally gained through evidence and time. Though, this deal about faith and trust might not be the case for unreasonably paranoid skeptics who go as far as to not believe that the floor they're standing on is solid.

As an atheist, I do have faith and by faith, I mean trust, confidence, and reliance on other humans. There are times that I trust others and there are times that I don't. I'd rather put my faith on beings that I can see, hear, and touch rather than an invisible being whose existence I don't even have proof of.

"Irreducible Complexity"

"Irreducible Complexity" is a concept mainly used by the advocates of Intelligent Design aka Creationism. It states that something complex, like a bacterial flagellum (which is the advocates' favorite example), can't function the same way if some parts are removed from the whole, thus it can only be created through design, thus disproving evolution.

Take a significant part from the whole and the system ceases to function. Take the wheels out of a car; it wouldn't work the way it is intended. Take the engine out, it still wouldn't work. The car will only work if all the pieces are in place. The car is irreducibly complex.

I don't subscribe to this belief. Why?

The concept of irreducible complexity is an insult to amputees, the mentally challenged, the disabled, and anyone lacking fully functional organs or appendages that would deem you complete. More often than not, these individuals with disabilities can perform just as well or even better than people who have no disabilities. Artists without hands, athletes without feet, idiot savants... we all heard of these. They don't consider their disabilities as hindrances.

Furthermore, Irreducible Complexity opposes the concept of "Multiple Intelligence" wherein humans are classified according to their talents and abilities, which obviously differs from each human. Someone may be good at music and be bad at math. That doesn't make them less of a human being than someone bad at music and good at math. From what standard do we get the "control sample" of the "normal" intelligence and talents of a human being?

From this, I can say that Irreducible Complexity is definitely incorrect. The existence of disabled humans doing well with what they do is the hard evidence against it.

What if humans can see into the future?

Humans, some of them at least, have dreamed to be able to see into the future. History tells us that humans in the ancient times had been fixated in knowing the future: oracles of Delphi, the Norns, the prophets in the Abrahamic religions, and even until today. These so-called fortune-tellers and soothsayers dedicate their time (or maybe even their lives) to impart amongst the common humans the knowledge of the future. This act is regarded by the modern age as a lie or a mere hobby, but what if humans can actually see into the future?

Adherents of the horoscope hobby merely match up any events to the vague prophecy if hearing the prophecy comes later. Since horoscopes are made to be vague, there is a large enough chance that some event in the person's day is coincidentally similar to the prophecy. However, if the hearing the prophecy comes first, it might as well become a self-fulfilling prophecy when the adherent uses it as a guide to his life.

But what if humans can actually see into the future? If there is only a fixed future (a prophecy wherein foreseen events cannot be changed), then they will have to act accordingly and whatever action they do to act against this destiny will still coincide with the prophecy, like the story of Oedipus Rex. If the visions granted are those of possible futures, the adherent will just pick the one that is most desirable and follow the steps that leads to that outcome.

In this world where humans can see into the fixed future, the concepts of risk, accident, prevention, precaution, choice, chance, luck, et cetera will be abolished. They will be thrown into complacency and helplessness since decision-making will also be discarded. Any emergencies that will occur won't. They will literally have no choice but to follow their unchangeable destinies.

But if that had been since the beginning, life in that world would be linear and monotonous. "Development" and "progress" will also be illusions since they're predetermined. In that world, games and adventures don't exist; their fun must be derived somewhere inconceivable in this world.

However, in the scenario of humans being able to see possible futures, they will have to live in a meta-life instead of the actual life. Instead of deciding what choices to make in a real life situation, decision will be escalated into choosing what possible future will be more desirable. Life itself would be meaningless since the focus is shifted to religiously choosing futures; since humans will be fixated in the future, they will forget to live in the present.

In all honesty, I can't see why humans are fixated in knowing future events supernaturally when living life is more fun when you are fixated in the present and oblivious to an extent to what will happen to the future. A subjective view, yes, but I'm talking from the side of beings that live in a world where premonition is impossible. Aren't we all?

Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.

Supply and Demand

The world of humans is governed by the Law of Supply and Demand. But I will discuss it from a different light.

If the demand for a commodity increases, consumers take more of it and the supply decreases. Therefore, the producer must increase the supply in order to meet the ever-increasing demand. As supplies decrease, the demand for it grows even more, thus creating an "upward spiral" that will cause unpleasant results.

Equilibrium is only met if the cycle of supply and demand is stable - causing no upward spirals. In an ideal state of equilibrium, supply always meets demand. There may be some fluctuations to this balance but not enough to create an upward spiral.

Humans need the planet's natural resources. Nothing can be done to change this fact.

In this planet where supply isn't infinite, an upward spiral would be inevitable. Supply will run out and it wouldn't be enough to meet the demand. The consumeristic instinct of humans drive them to create more of this supply but at this rate, the resources needed to achieve this is running out. So how do we solve this?

Eliminate the demand. If the demand is lessened, there will be enough supplies to satiate it. Whatever supplies that are left will be given to the remaining humans who deserve it.

Eliminate the population. Achieve equilibrium.

Talk about morals

Some theists point out how atheists don't have an objective basis of morals. Well, I think that is true. Indeed, atheists mostly have subjective morals instead of a single organized checklist of dos and don'ts. The reason is pretty obvious: atheists don't have a single "atheist leader" who dictates what they're supposed to do, basically because Atheism isn't a religion to begin with.

So what if Atheists don't have objective morals? Would that make them any less moral? Depends on what "moral" is. Trying to define what "moral" is already causing problems.

Is killing another human being downright immoral? Some would definitely say yes to that. How about killing as a result of self-defense? How about killing in the name of religion? Sacrifice? Righteous punishment? From just this, controversy already creates wildfire. All is subjective. It is only objective when talking to someone in the same religion but sometimes, it isn't even the case, hence the formation of divisions and sects.

More likely than anything else, the people who established the religions have made the moral guidelines from their own decisions. Faithfuls would argue that the rules were given to their leader by their gods, but I wouldn't delve deeper into that issue.

Where do atheists get their morals? From thinking, just like the founders of religions. Theists would probably be appalled by the idea but it's just the way humans are. Humans have minds and consciousnesses so they can think and be aware of the universe.

What is moral? What is not? You can ask. You can seek answers from yourself. It's all up to you.

A Few Little Taboos

Before the time of Jesus Christ, working on the Sabbath day was strictly forbidden. But according to the stories, he broke the taboo by doing something, which in his case, healing.

Prior to Abraham Lincoln's freeing of the black people, it wasn't accepted for them to become members of society. Nowadays, they become athletes, artists, musicians, and even leaders. Despite some people still refusing to accept this change, the culture of black people has, without a doubt, gained acceptance to the world.

Before Copernicus and Galileo, people belived that the sun revolves around the earth. Nowadays, people use the globe for obvious reasons.

Previously, it was taboo to cut up a corpse since a body is considered sacred, even after death. But if it wasn't for Andreas Vesalius, who studied and dissected human cadavers, the field of Anatomy wouldn't exist. Without his contributions, the medical field will still be in the Dark Ages.

Previously, it was forbidden for people to think against the teachings of their religion. But today, it is this rational thinking that brings us technological advancements that seemingly make life better and makes us discover what is beyond the world we live in.

Break a few rules, a few little taboos. You'll probably get farther than not. Don't worry. It's not cheating.