my first communion

Every atheist has a deconversion story. Through all my years of blogging, I had never written one until now. So here it is finally

My deconversion story is a rather boring one. It’s probably more of an explanation than a story. There was no specific person or argument that de-converted me. There was no sudden realization. No soul searching happened. There was only a very gradual change in my way of thinking. For me, it was like a part of growing up. Like losing my belief in Santa

I think I may have always had atheistic inclinations. Even when I was religious my sense of amazement never had any spiritual context. I noticed that with a lot of theists (not all), whenever they’re filled with a sense of wonder about the cosmos, when they see particularly awe inspiring visions like a beautiful sunset, images of nebulae or when they’re confronted by an emotionally moving moment, they’re overcome by feelings of spiritual upliftment. That is a feeling that’s alien to me. I was always filled with a sense of wonder but it rarely had any element of spirituality, even when I still believed in a creator. I’ve been “spiritually challenged” for as far back as I can remember.

I guess that’s also the reason why losing my faith was so easy and uneventful for me.I never had the need for it. I never felt that my life wouldn’t have meaning without a sentient, supernatural creator. I never felt that I needed to be guided morally or in any other way by such an entity.

I was born into a Roman Catholic family, though my parents weren’t exactly what I would call religious. My father almost never goes to church unless he really has to. I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say things that a lot of Filipino Christians say like “let’s leave it up to god” or “trust in god’s judgment”. I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen him pray and I don’t remember him ever telling us that prayers could solve anything. He believes in a creator but I think he also believes that man makes his own fate.

I became an atheist pretty early in my life. I think I was about 9 or 11. As a child, I never read any book that explicitly advocated atheism. I didn’t read Dawkins and I wasn’t even aware of his work until I was already an atheist. Until now I still haven’t read “The God Delusion”. My reading material then consisted mostly of science books and journals. I bought copies of discover, scienfitic American, nature, discover, astronomy etc. every month. There was not a single article there that explicitly advocated atheism

One of my earliest memories of being a nonbeliever was when I was in grade 6. I remember having debates with my classmates then, who ironically listened to death metal and had Satanist symbols on their notebooks. You must be beyond evil if the Satanists are holier than thou. My last memory of being religious was 2-3 years earlier. I remember having a private teacher who was fanatically religious. I remember her saying silly things like “If evolution were true, why do we still have monkeys” Since (Read More)

note: don't forget to check out the videos below

I can’t remember how many people have told me that when on my deathbed, I will want to believe in an afterlife. I haven’t crossed that road yet but Immortality is not something that I particularly feel is necessary for my existence, at least not in the same way that theists do. Sometimes I’m not even sure if I want immortality. The way my life is going right now, I don’t think I even want to make it past 30. But that’s a topic for another entry.

Whether I want immortality or not is irrelevant though. I don’t think that wanting immortality is sufficient reason to believe in an afterlife the same way that wanting to get a Canon 1Ds Mark III on Christmas is not sufficient reason to believe in Santa. So I don’t think I will want to believe in a spiritual afterlife when I’m on my deathbed. Besides if one’s rationale for belief should rest solely on one’s fear of death then wouldn’t it be more realistic to hope for drugs that would increase human lifespan indefinitely or future technology that could recreate the consciousness of people who have already died? Far fetched as they are, they still are a more realistic take on immortality than believing that you have a soul and it would detach itself from your body at the time of your death and go to a place called heaven where people get to live happily ever after. The concept to me seems childish and if I were dying and wanted false hope then I’d rather believe that I’ll be recreated someday in a computer. But as I always say, to each, his own. The comfort provided by religion to those who are grieving is unden(Read More)

“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 defined as the overall purpose of one’s existence. The claim that there is an overarching purpose for the existence of everyone or everything is a circular claim. The question “What is the meaning of life” is a question that proposes its own answer

Purpose requires intent, can only exist in minds that are capable of intent and is perspective relative. From a theistic standpoint, it’s a valid question since you may be of the belief that you were created by a mind that is capable of intent, for a purpose that it defined itself. It is valid to ponder what intentions your god had for creating you. Though I don’t see how you can get an answer unless you can ask him yourself.

However the question just doesn’t make sense in a secular forum because it presupposes true the assumption “purpose precedes existence”; That we were put here for a purpose that preceded our capability to define it and that the birds, lions, the whales and us are pawns fulfilling a purpose that was devised by a mind that is capable of intent –by asking such a question, you are already presupposing true the existence of a sentient creator

One of the most irksome questions that theists ask me is “If there is no god, how can our lives have meaning?”

Believers who can’t see meaning or purpose in life without god bother me. I just don't understand why some people can't grasp any concept of meaning or purpose without god. It seems like they’ve surrendered so much of their thinking process to their chosen deities that they’ve forgotten that purpose could also be defined from the first person perspective. They believe that they have a purpose, I believe that I have a purpose. The difference is that I don’t need other entities to define that purpose for me

It’s not just believers who misuse the word “meaning”. Some atheists claim that according to evolution, the meaning of man’s life is to spread his genes. I think that “meaning” is not the most appropriate word here. Evolution is a mindless process that is incapable of purposeful action thus it cannot ascribe meaning or have reason for anything that it “does”. Evolution gave us the capability and the motivation to procreate. Whether that will be the purpose of our existence will be determined by the individual who has the mind to conceive of purpose

The question “what is THE meaning of life” makes as much sense as “what is THE favorite color” which cannot be answered unless you have a reference point. For the question to have sense, you have to replace “THE” with “you” or “my”. So instead of asking: “What is the favorite color”, ask what is your/my favorite color

Instead of asking “what is the meaning of life”, ask: “what is the meaning of your life?” “What is the meaning of mine?”

If you want to read more entries like this, check out my “on atheism” or “philosophy” categories or check out my other blog.

tags: meaning of life philosophy purpose of man atheism

jaywalker_1982

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.

jaywalker_1982

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

jaywalker_1982

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)

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

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

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