About

Imagine yourself lazing around one fine Sunday afternoon. Suddenly, a man knocks at your door and tells you, “Congratulations! You won a million dollars and a round trip ticket to Hongkong! All you have to do is hand over your wallet. ”

You vaguely remember betting on a lottery and you never met or heard about the man in your life. Would you hand over your wallet without asking for evidence of the man’s claim?

It seems unwise for you to do so.

What if the man claims you won eternal life and to claim your prize, you must believe an ancient book, an old institution and in a powerful being whose existence have not been proven? The man cannot give you evidence. The man tells you to take it all on faith. If you’re living in the Philippines, chances are you already did, your parents encouraged your decision or you never really remembered making that decision.

Religion knocked at your door and claimed great rewards or punishment await you. Religion asked for your money, time, mind and most likely, you gave all these without asking for proof. Religion has not provided any extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims and it will continue not to do so.

Will you keep taking it all on faith?


This is the blog of The Atheist Freedom Wall. 

We’re a group of (Filipino) atheists, agnostics, skeptics, secular humanists and infidels. 

Atheism is NOT a religion. It’s a result of skepticism and critical thinking.

We do not seek to forcibly convert. We ask that you think. 

A QUICK INTRODUCTION TO WHAT ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM IS ALL ABOUT

join us at Facebook

email us at atheistfreedomwall@yahoo.com.

Blog Directory for the Philippines

Religion - Top Blogs Philippines

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “About

  1. Pingback: Updated “About” Content | The Atheist Freedom Wall

  2. I am actually thinking and i am born a Filipino so i hope everyone in this site will accept my view on how atheism stand against The Bible. THIS IS A CRITICAL THINKING: DO WE REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS ORIGINATED? as long as science don’t lie we will find the answer, so far it’s good…

    You don’t have to take anyone else’s word for it – you can use the Random Mutation Generator to find out for yourself how Darwinian evolution really works.

    by Perry S. Marshall

    Responses to skeptics and Frequently Asked Questions

    According to the experts, Darwinian evolution is driven by a combination of Random Mutation and Natural Selection:

    “Cumulative selection is the key to all our modern explanations of life. It strings a series of acceptably lucky events (random mutations) together in a nonrandom sequence so that, at the end of the sequence, the finished product carries the illusion of being very very lucky indeed.” -Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

    It all starts with random mutation, from which natural selection can choose winners. Since DNA is a language based on a four-letter alphabet (A, C, T, G); since letters form words (Codons) and words form instructions (Genes) we can test the concept in Plain English.

    The program gives you a piece of sample text “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.” You can paste any text you want into the Random Mutation generator – computer programs, English, Spanish or whatever. And you have some choices:

    1. How many mutations do you want at one time? (1, 2, 5, 10)

    2. What kind of mutations do you want? Text mutations cause individual letters to be randomly substituted with other letters, numbers or punctuation marks. Binary mutations cause changes in the 1’s and 0’s that represent the letters.

    How People Imagine Random Mutation Works

    Most people have never seen a true simulation of random mutation and natural selection, and imagine that it works something like this:

    You start with a sentence “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog”

    And then random mutation generates a bunch of variations:

    The quick black fox jumped over the lazy dog

    Too quick black fox jumped over the lazy dog

    The jumped fox quicked black over the lazy dog

    A quick brown flop jumped over the lazy dock

    A quick brown dog flopped over the lazy clock

    It would seem reasonable that is you substitute enough different words over a period of time, you might end up with a really great sentence like

    The ferocious black fox leaped over the sleeping dog

    Which your English teacher might feel is a much more colorful, more descriptive sentence.

    …Now we add Natural Selection

    With English, Natural Selection equates to people preferring one sentence over the other.

    One of the best real-world examples of natural selection is advertising. Let’s say you sell quick brown foxes and you want to advertise them on the Internet. You could write a paid Google advertisement (you see them running down the right side of the screen when you search) that says something like this:

    Quick Brown Fox

    Jumps Over Your Lazy Dog

    Other Colors Available too – Black, White

    http://www.QuickBrownFox.com

    One of the cool things about Google is you can write several ads and they compete with each other for clicks. You could write a different version of the ad

    Fast Black Foxes

    Jump Over Lazy Dogs

    Black, White, Brown – 50% off

    http://www.QuickBrownFox.com

    You run both ads simultaneously for a day or two.

    Let’s say the first one gets clicked on 1% of the time, the second one gets clicked on 3% of the time.

    That means the second one is 3 times better than the first. The second one wins, the first one gets deleted. (This is exactly how it’s done, by the way.) In fact Google is the ultimate Darwinian advertising machine! The winners rise and the losers fall.

    And again, if we’ve never actually seen Random Mutation before, we might imagine that the Random Mutation Generator would be quite helpful in writing new ads.

    See For Yourself The Random Mutation Generator is NOT Helpful AT ALL…

    If you experiment with this yourself, you will quickly discover this doesn’t work at all – because random mutation seems to only destroy your sentences:

    The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

    after 5 mutations becomes

    Qhe qu4ck brown fox jimpeX over.the lazy dog

    and after 10 mutations becomes

    Qhe qN4ck brown fox Vim3eX oeer.the lazy Iog

    Or let’s take these ads we’ve just written:

    After 5 mutations:

    Fast Black Foxes

    Jump Ove6 Lazy Dogs

    kylack, White, Brown – 50% off

    whw.QuickBrownFox.coL

    After 10 mutations:

    Fast Black Foxes

    Jump3Ove6 LaSy Dogs

    kylack, White, Browf – y0% off

    whw.QuickBrownFod.coL

    If you play with the Random Mutation Generator for about 10 minutes, you begin to see that in order to get your sentence to evolve in any useful way at all, the mutations would HAVE to focus on individual words and leave the other words alone. But maddeningly, the mutation generator doesn’t do that. It just randomly destroys the stuff that was already good. Random mutation is blind and has no respect for what is already working fine.

    And it doesn’t matter how many times you hit the reset button and start over. The most you can ever get from this is a minor spelling change from a few mutations. But once you’ve attained some kind of very modest change, the random mutations continue to destroy what you’ve built. After 20-30 mutations it’s not even recognizable as English anymore!

    There’s an Even Bigger Problem

    Let’s say you want the word Brown to evolve into the word Black. Shouldn’t be too hard, should it? Only four letters need to change after all. But even if you could get the mutations to concentrate just on those four letters, you’d still get a mis-spelled word, which natural selection would eliminate before it ever evolved into the correct spelling.

    Let’s try it, one mutation at a time:

    Brown > Brorn > Brorb > BrorW > qrorW > qKorW > qKoJW > qKoyW > qFoyW > qjoyW > qjTyW

    After 10 mutations we didn’t have a single letter remaining.

    Maybe we need to do more than 1 mutation at a time? If I do 5 at a time maybe I can make the leap in one step:

    Brown > Vr17n

    Remember: In real life, mis-spelled words will cause our ads to go extinct. A mis-spelled ad with garbage characters can’t compete with a correctly spelled one – nobody will respond to it. Mis-spellings are not what we want and they’re NOT good!

    Our only hope is some kind of “punctuated equilibrium” where big jumps happen all at once. What’s the chances of evolving Brown > Black in one step?

    You can easilycalculate the statistical chances of this. For each letter there are 52 possible letters (including lower case and caps) and 10 numbers, plus a few punctuation marks. There’s a total of about 65 possible characters per letter.

    So the chances of evolving Brown to Black in one step are one chance in 65 to the power of 5, which is one chance in 1,160,290,625 (just over one in a billion).

    One in a billion odds against evolving just ONE WORD – that’s pretty remote.

    …And it only gets worse

    Remember, that’s just ONE five-letter word. For a whole sentence like

    The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

    which has 44 characters, there are 5.8639153496314421699960747595891e+79 possible combinations.

    That’s about the same as the number of particles in the entire universe.

    Now obviously there are many possible sentences that can be constructed with 44 characters, maybe billions. Maybe even trillions. But even with billions or trillions – compared to 10 to the power of 79, all you’re doing is knocking off a dozen zeros. Whether you do this experimentally or statistically, you quickly realize – this is hopeless!

    The problem is this: It’s impossible to re-write a sentence one or two letters at a time without getting fatal spelling errors in between – which cause your sentence to become extinct.

    Oh, and there’s one other problem: The longer the text, the worse it gets. It’s fairly easy to produce a few real words with the Random Mutation Generator if you start with only five or six characters. But a complete sentence, like The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog, is nearly hopeless, as we’ve already seen. Every single letter you add to your sentence makes your odds worse by a factor of 65. Those 65’s multiply real, real fast. An entire paragraph or page of text – that’s a disaster!

    Your own DNA contains as much information as a stack of encyclopedias. Would you even dream of trying to edit an encyclopedia with a random mutation generator? (Anyone who wants to is welcome to try.)

    Short Easy Sentences vs. Real DNA, Real Biological Systems

    Again, we’ve just played with a 44 character sentence. But what about real life?

    The simplest known micro-organism is a parasite called Nanoarchaeum. It’s got 490,885 base pairs. In other words its DNA has a string of almost half a million characters, each of which is the letter A, C, G or T. A simpler living organism is not known to exist.

    Our sentence The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog requires 308 bits (1’s and 0’s) to represent in binary computer language (ASCII). Nanoarchaeum’s DNA, by comparison, requires 981,770 bits to represent in binary computer language. Nanoarchaeum contains 3000 times more information than our simple sentence.

    If a short sentence like The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog can’t evolve through random mutation, then even “simple” microorganisms that are thousands of times more complex won’t be able evolve through random mutation either. Random mutation does not create new information, it only destroys information.

    Evolution through Random Mutation:

    Possibly the Greatest Myth in Modern Science

    The idea that random mutation creates biological diversity fails computer simulations*; it fails if you compute the statistics; and it fails biologically. This observation was confirmed by Theodosius Dobzhansky’s fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt’s gypsy moth experiments, and others. Decades of research were conducted in the early 20th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures. These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies.

    A bit of experimentation with the Random Mutation generator makes it clear why:

    Language, plans and instructions do not evolve from the “bottom up.”
    Language, plans and instructions do not evolve in microscopic increments, one or two letters at a time. They evolve in increments of entire words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs.
    Language, plans and instructions evolve as an expression of ideas which come first.
    When you write or speak, you begin with intent which becomes a sentence made of words which are made of letters. When you translate from English to French, for example, you cannot translate one letter at a time. And you can’t really translate one word at a time either, that’s a disaster. You have to translate idea for idea. The same is true when you edit a document that you or someone else has written – the letters are subordinate to the words, which are subordinate to the ideas. Ideas come first.

    Evolution via Random Mutation is nothing more than an urban legend. Why does this superstition persist? I believe it’s because 99.9% of the people who believe it and talk about it have never conducted an experiment like this to see with their own eyes that it just doesn’t work.

    Randomness vs. Science

    The entire enterprise of scientific inquiry has always been the assumption and discovery of underlying order. NOT disorder! From Copernicus, Galileo and Newton right up to the present day, science has always succeeded by assuming in advance that there are specific undiscovered causes for the behavior of the physical world. Scientists have always been motivated by a belief that these causes could be discovered. In fact science itself was born from a philosophical worldview that believed (for mostly theological reasons) that the universe was governed by an unchanging, predictable, discoverable set of laws.

    Could life and DNA have risen randomly? There is perhaps some remote chance that they did. However I contend that such an explanation does not even qualify as a scientific explanation at all, simply based on the dictionary definition of science itself:

    sci·ence (sī’ens) n. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

    Chance or accident as a proposed origin of anything defies observation, identification, description and experimental investigation. So “Randomness” per se not only doesn’t explain how anything operates, it is categorically not even an explanation.

    It doesn’t produce a testable hypothesis. It doesn’t give anyone the ability to reproduce what happened in the past.

    Whenever randomness is said to be an explanation of any particular process, then that explanation by definition can never be reproduced or tested. It only evades the question and ties the powerful hands of science behind its back.

    “Randomness” as a theory of biological diversity is not merely bad science, it’s a wholesale avoidance of scientific inquiry. It leads to theories and terms like ‘Junk DNA.’ (An October 2004 article in Scientific American described the Junk DNA hypothesis as “one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”) There is no junk in DNA, and to assume there is just eliminates the possibility of making new, important discoveries.

    A Newer, 21st Century View of Evolution

    G.K. Chesterton, the well-known 20th century intellectual, said “The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle.” Chesterton is suggesting that battle over ‘creation vs. evolution’ is, to some extent, a false dichotomy.

    The real issue, both scientifically and philosophically, is naturalism vs. design.

    Random Mutations cause birth defects, tumors, cancer, death and extinction; mutations are helpful in only the rarest of circumstances and are completely incapable of introducing significant improvements.

    The current dogma which says random mutations drive evolution is almost completely false.

    So the faster we can discard this wrongful notion, the faster we can get on with real research and understanding.

    “Is the Ability to Evolve Pre-Programmed?”

    If random mutations are not the source of adaptation, could there still be an adaptability mechanism pre-programmed in biological systems? Could DNA re-write itself? As you can see here, random processes simply are not the answer.

    When I discovered this for myself, I wondered if evolution could be engineered to happen.

    Microbiologist James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago has done extensive research on this very question and has published a number of papers confirming that yes, there is an adaptation mechanism in DNA that is marvelously sophisticated. Mr. Shapiro has discovered that a protozoa, subjected to extreme environmental stress, can splice its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces (!), re-arrange them in a highly systematic fashion, producing new protozoa that inherit a new set of characteristics.

    In other words DNA can be likened to a computer program that re-writes itself on the fly. In fact this is how our own immune systems adapt to a nearly infinite range of possible threats and ward off attackers – through this kind of sophisticated adaptation.

    Mr. Shapiro published a fascinating paper in the Journal of Biological Physics called “A 21st Century View of Evolution.” In this paper, the failed “Random Mutation” view is discarded and replaced with a much more sophisticated, engineered process. Instead of seeing DNA as a static database that is acted on by outside random forces, it is now seen as being more like a intelligent operating system that repairs files, corrects errors, and adapts to changing circumstances. It’s nothing short of amazing.

    Listen to “If you can read this, I can prove God exists” by Perry Marshall
    http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/

    • Cog Nex, dude. Not that it’s illegal, but WordPress classifies your post as SPAM because it’s copy pasta longish with lots of links. Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with skepticism (or the about page anyway).

      Fact that you can’t refute: religion has no evidence for its claims. Do you hand over your head, heart , life and wallet for something that doesn’t have a guarantee?

      At least we are of the same opinion that the Bible is junk or something. We think it’s mostly junk. I don’t know about you. It has been awfully wrong and stupid about certain things; not the material that can be a representative for a nice loving god who is deserving of worship. lol

  3. it is a contrast response post. i do not know that you only want members to post in you about. This is not the first time i posted with links so if that is a problem let me know like i said to you before you have options. And if you only see long post with lots of links then you are misunderstanding the message because that post is not about long post and lots of links. And i don’t need money to gain this because it is all free. Why do i have to hand over my head and heart when i am using them? And that video by the way is not even close to what is atheism and agnosticism but he just explain the contrast between atheist and theist perspective in general nothing more. So why not respond with a contrast?

    • You misunderstood. WordPress marks your comments as spam. I keep making them “not spam.” All I’m saying those multiple links of yours make your comments look like “spam.” I didn’t say you were getting money out of it. LOL. And your response has nothing to do with the “About” page. The “About” page supposedly tells the visitors what the blog is about. But hey! I DID APPROVE your comment, so I’m helping you exercise your “free speech” here. :D

      • Yeah i know about WordPress you told me about it 3 times now every since the first time i commented, and this is not even the first time i’ve don’t it with the links also no reason repeating your self if you have no issue about it. If you like to allow me to exercise my free speech why mention it again are you a fan of little achievements? And i never said anything about wanting any money out of this because the info i get is free in the first place that what i mean actually if you didn’t get it. My response is a contrast to your claims so technically it has allot to do about everything you said, and your about page. Knowledge is free to have why ignore it.

      • if you know it, then try commenting something from your own head. but ok ok free speech. COMMENT WHATEVER LOL. you were the one who first mentioned money; read your own dramatic comments, will you? copy paste = achievements? LOL. ok, man. pls don’t be too surprised if your comments don’t show up .

      • really, did you invented atheism in your own head too?
        If i copy/post doesn’t disprove the veracity that scientific study is more clearer that atheism. You talk about wallet first doesn’t that mean money figuratively or your just bullshitting? Drama, you mean about WordPress drama? Like i said you’ve mentioned it 3 times now so if there are no problems why bother mentioning it again? lol. And about achievement, what i mean is that; are you a fan of mentioning little achievement like give me a way of free speech? You’re the one that actually act surprised because it’s not the first comment i have made contrast to atheism, agnosticism, secular humanist, etc.

      • lol. okay man, you are getting emotional. don’t get too offended if i don’t find your comments appealing. if you can criticize the posts, then don’t get butthurt when someone criticizes your comments. the video is not about scientific study. you’re confusing ideas again. it’s in line with skepticism, which is what the post is all about. don’t worry, i won’t tell you again your comments are spammy since you get all huffy. and who said about achievements? it was you who first mentioned it. LOL.

      • You make me laugh Cést moi Robyn. nobody is offeding me not even you why would i feel offended by an atheist. And i am not criticizing your ABOUT page i am post a contrast to what this blog believe if you feel creticised, why not find a better argument? I can argue back to point out somethings you missed, is that hard to believe that i can respond to anything you say contrary to what is true? I know that video is not about scientific study because atheism dogma is not meant to study scientifically only the people that study true sceince that knows who is god that he is not a big mystery, lol. So who’s confused between us right now Cést moi Robyn? The idea of science is to break free from skeptcism; i was meant to discover thats is science to make known of everything we don’t know. Did you know bible predicted that in the latter days everything will known and faith will be useless because everything will be revealed. I’m actually in good mood not huffy. Yes, i did mention acheivement first in a form of questioning: if you are a fan of mentioning little achievements.

        “Quick trip to Wikipedia” is that how you gain your understanding, with quick trip and wikipedia? sorry but that is not how i study. Are you aware that David Whales is frustrated with wikipedia that is overun by criticism; that they can’t control the the flooding of disinformation worlwide, lol, cause by wikipedia. He will keep wikipedia in business as long as he gets his millions of dollars donation every month and keep the disinformation going 24/7. So if i were you double check your sourses. You should stop and think because all the links i posted in your site are allot informative that wikipedia’s controled information. If you can’t stop going to wikipedia try to go down to their references, that’s where they get their second hand post.

        To point out what you are missing from quoting wikipedia, if you didn’t understand it. Wikipedia said that Random Number Generation is artifcial because it is not DNA based and that is true but why would Richard Dawkins using random mutation generator to prove how the world come to an existance randomly if his random generator is artificial and cannot sustain real results? Again if you did read my copy and paste (not pasta) article then read it again. He is trying to explian that Random mutation generator and evolution by Darwin is debunked by science and anaylogy, here’s an example:

        Short Easy Sentences vs. Real DNA, Real Biological Systems

        Again, we’ve just played with a 44 character sentence. But what about real life?

        The simplest known micro-organism is a parasite called Nanoarchaeum. It’s got 490,885 base pairs. In other words its DNA has a string of almost half a million characters, each of which is the letter A, C, G or T. A simpler living organism is not known to exist.

        Our sentence The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog requires 308 bits (1’s and 0’s) to represent in binary computer language (ASCII). Nanoarchaeum’s DNA, by comparison, requires 981,770 bits to represent in binary computer language. Nanoarchaeum contains 3000 times more information than our simple sentence.

        If a short sentence like The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog can’t evolve through random mutation, then even “simple” microorganisms that are thousands of times more complex won’t be able evolve through random mutation either. Random mutation does not create new information, it only destroys information.

        Your own DNA contains as much information as a stack of encyclopedias. Would you even dream of trying to edit an encyclopedia with a random mutation generator? (Anyone who wants to is welcome to try.) by Perry Marshall.
        ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

        “There is a great deal of evidence behind Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. There’s a scientific consensus behind it.” hmmm i wonder what that is, maybe crazyness?

        This is quite a startling idea. It was in fact Earth-shattering when Darwin first presented it.
        According to William Provine [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “Naturalistic
        evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.

        • No gods worth having exist;
        • No life after death exists;
        • No ultimate foundation for ethics exists;
        • No ultimate meaning in life exists; and
        • Human free will is nonexistent.”
        Of course there are those evolutionists who would take EXCEPTION with the likes of
        Dawkins and Provine. Some evolutionary scientists even claim the title of Christian – like
        evolutionary biologist and famous apologist Kenneth Miller (from Brown University) who is a
        “devout Catholic”. Francis Collins, who first sequenced the human genome, is also an active
        Christian. Of course, these evolutionary scientists draw a distinct line between “science” and
        So, what is the difference between “science” and “religion”? For many if not most who
        are religious, religion is based more on feeling or desire or a personal “experience” with a God
        or God-like “higher power” while science is more empirical, testable, and repeatable by others
        outside of ones self and is able to generate “predictive value” with use of the “scientific method”.
        My question is, what is the point or value of one’s religion or “faith” if it has absolutely no
        basis in any sort of physical, testable, potentially falsifiable reality? How it this sort of religious
        belief or faith any different from a child’s belief in Santa Claus? Sure, it might be able to provide
        warm fuzzy feelings of goodness, but when it comes to a solid hope or assurance, a source of
        true deep comfort that is more than wishful thinking, what good is such a religion or faith?

        real world:
        As it turns out, there are a number of prominent scientists who are cautiously if not openly
        questioning the very basic assumptions of naturalism and Darwinian-style evolution. Even
        when it comes to the non-living aspects of this universe a number of famous scientists are
        starting to see clear scientific evidence of deliberate manipulation – of intelligent design.
        For example, Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley
        professor makes the following interesting argument:

        “Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be
        quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this
        way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at
        all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic
        theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to
        be here.
        Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes
        and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well,
        that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really
        are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for
        each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has
        come out so specially.”

        Eugene Wigner (Nobel Prize in Physics) also noted in his widely quoted paper, The
        Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences, that scientists often take
        for granted the remarkable–even miraculous–effectiveness of mathematics in describing the

        “The enormous usefulness of mathematics is something bordering on the
        mysterious . . . . There is no rational explanation for it . . . . The miracle of the
        appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of
        physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”
        Interesting comments for an acclaimed “modern” genius with a Nobel Prize in physics.
        When it comes to living things, there are also a number of prominent scientists who are
        beginning to doubt the power of mindless nature alone to explain both the origin and the
        diversity of living things on this planet. Sir Frederick Hoyle [first proposed the Big Bang Theory]
        and Chandra Wickramasinghe (well-known mathematician) wrote:
        a random beginning . . .
        “No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had
        From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous
        information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in
        our view be generated by what are often called ‘natural’ processes, as for instance
        through meteorological and chemical processes. . . Information was also needed.
        We have argued that the requisite information came from an ‘intelligence’.”
        From their book, There Must be a God, Wickramasinghe and Hoyle explain:
        Once we see . . . that the probability of life originating at random is so
        utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the

        in the following passage:

        or even trillions upon trillions of years of time.
        favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect
        ‘deliberate,’ or ‘created’.
        I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in
        which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to
        invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . .
        We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our
        conclusion, but there isn’t.”
        Wickramasinghe was especially shocked by this conclusion. He notes his bewilderment
        no logical way out of it.”
        “It is quite a shock. From my earliest training as a scientist I was very
        strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind
        of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite
        uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is
        So, while it is quite clear that apparently mindless natural processes do have certain
        powers that are often amazing, it is also quite clear that these powers are limited in explanatory
        power when it comes to certain features of both living and non-living things in our world and in
        our universe. When it comes to living things in particular, Darwinian-style evolution does
        actually work to produce some rather mundane changes over time – to include certain forms of
        antibiotic resistance, flightless birds on windy islands, cavefish without eyes, sickle cell anemia,
        and the like. But, it also has very clear limitations that remain statistical limitations given billions

        The Theory of Evolution: True Science or Dogma? by Sean D. Pitman, MD

        Are you getting this now or you needing more explaination?
        Don’t get confuse yet this is just a small part.

      • There is a great deal of evidence behind Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. There’s a scientific consensus behind it.” hmmm i wonder what that is, maybe crazyness?

        Okay buddy, you know jack shit about science. HAHAHAHA! You don’t know why falsifiable hypothesis are important and you don’t know what a scientific consensus. And I hate to break it to you, man. Creationists are LIARS who says humans live with the dinosaurs.

        Evolution does not disprove god. LOL. It doesn’t even touch on the theory of how life came to be. Evolution just says you don’t need a deity to create these many species on earth. hahahaha! That’s the problem when you believe a bunch of bullshit.

      • There is a great deal of evidence behind Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. There’s a scientific consensus behind it.” hmmm i wonder what that is, maybe crazyness? read it all the way through.

        “Okay buddy, you know jack shit about science. HAHAHAHA! You don’t know why falsifiable hypothesis are important and you don’t know what a scientific consensus.”

        Did i said that falsifiable hypothesis is not important? I didn’t read my comments again.

        Scientific Consensus means An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:
        all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress,
        the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.
        Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of “Certain Truth”.

        “And I hate to break it to you, man. Creationists are LIARS who says humans live with the dinosaurs.” You did not break anything, man, lol. You probably just break your head a bit.

        If i mentioned creation by god doesn’t mean i am talking about creationism or creationists, man, there’s a big difference.
        Creationism is only created for the people that don’t believe in evolution while distorting The Bible in the process.
        I tel you about Carbon dating 14, here:

        Suppose we want to use 14 C dating to determine when Abraham Lincoln died. We could dig up his casket and take a sample of the wood
        from it.  If the tree that made the casket was cut down 135 years ago, the ratio of 14 C to 12 C in that wood sample divided by the ratio of 14 C to 12 C in the air today should be 0.983803. But suppose our equipment for
        measuring the ratio is only accurate to 0.1%. Then our measurement could
        be off by one digit in the third decimal place. In other words, our measured
        thousand years ago though not so well for things that died recently.  

        between 3,312 and 3,337 years old. That is an error of 12 years, but it is only and error of up to 0.4% of the correct value. 
        3,325 years, what is 12 years, more or less?  So we see why carbon 14 may work very well for dating things that died a few
        Page 4 of 23
        protons and seven neutrons. Stable oxygen has eight protons and eight neutrons. But 14 C is not so well balanced. It has six protons and eight neutrons, which makes it unstable. Sooner or later, one of the neutrons spits out an electron and becomes a proton. This gives it seven protons and seven neutrons, which makes it nitrogen.  One cannot predict exactly when a particular 14 C atom will emit an electron and turn into 14 N, but the statistics are very predictable. Given a large number of 14 C atoms, we can say with a high degree of confidence that half of them will turn into 14 N in 5,730 years. This is called the “half-life” because half of the 14 C will disappear in that time. At the end of that time, half of the remaining 14 C will turn into 14 N in another 5,730 years (the second half-life).  As one would expect, the exponential curve of radioactive decay does not give accurate results at either extreme of the curve. It does not work very well
        on things that died a few hours ago, nor does it work well on things that died several tens of thousands of years ago. Let us plug a
        ratio might be between 0.982803 and 0.984803 because of the limited accuracy of our equipment. Plugging these two ratios into the equation that converts the 14 C ratio into time the calculation yields a range of dates between 143.4 and 126.6 years ago. What it boils down to is that a 0.1% error in the measurement produces up to a 6.2% error in the result.  
        Now, lets try a few other thought experiments and see what happens. Lets try the same experiment on King Tut’s coffin. King Tut died in 1,325 BC.  So, the wood in his coffin should be about 3,325 years old. The normalized 14 C ratio should be 0.668846. But, if the measurement is only accurate to 3 decimal places, it might be between 0.667846 and 0.669846. This would yield dates
        The absolute error (12 years) is larger than the absolute error for Abe’s casket (8.6 years), but when you are talking about
        As might be expected though, the same problems in dating young samples plague the accurate dating of very old samples.
        When the time since death gets very large, the slope of the radioactive decay curve gets very flat. This results in very large errors. For example, imagine a piece of wood from a tree that was cut down 50,000 years ago.  Its normalized 14 C ratio should be 0.002362.  A 0.1% error in measurement (0.001362 to 0.003362) yields ages ranging between 47,082 and 54,551 years.  That is
        an error of up to 2,918 years on the young side (which is 5.8%) and 4,551 years on the old side (which is +9.1%).  Remember that the ratio of 14 C to 12 C is about 0.6% today. If you multiply 0.6% by 0.002, you are trying to measure the amount of 14 C when it is only 0.0012% of the total sample. So, even a small amount of contamination will corrupt the results in a very significant way.

        That’s why 50,000 years is the generally quoted as the practical limit for 14 C dating generally mentioned in the scientific literature. Anything thought to be older than 50,000 years is said to have an “infinite” carbon age.
        Carbon 14 by   Sean D. Pitman M.D.

        What! carbon dating has a limit with in 50,000 years with 1% accuracy? So to assume that our planet is millions of years old using carbon 14 dating is absurd. Is this another assumption of scientific consensus because it’s not the first time they failed persuasion.

        “Evolution does not disprove god. LOL. It doesn’t even touch on the theory of how life came to be. Evolution just says you don’t need a deity to create these many species on earth. hahahaha! That’s the problem when you believe a bunch of bullshit.”
        You are bullshit, i never said anything about creating any species on earth i am not god and i never play like one. You just like talking shit for the sake of your egotistic argument, self righteous arrogance.
        —————————————————————————————————————————

        Are Dinosaur mentioned in the Bible? Yes of caurse, now i know you don’t study The Bible because you have no clue that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.

        Dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses ancient names like “behemoth” and “tannin.” Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term which includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squids, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs that may have become extinct.

        The Bible’s best description of a dinosaur-like animal is recorded in Job chapter 40.
        Job: What Can I Say?

        1 Then the LORD said to Job,
        2 “Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
        Let him who reproves God answer it.”

        3 Then Job answered the LORD and said,

        4 “Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You?
        I lay my hand on my mouth.
        5 “Once I have spoken, and I will not answer;
        Even twice, and I will add nothing more.”

        God Questions Job

        6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said,
        7 “Now gird up your loins like a man;
        I will ask you, and you instruct Me.
        8 “Will you really annul My judgment?
        Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?
        9 “Or do you have an arm like God,
        And can you thunder with a voice like His?

        10 “Adorn yourself with eminence and dignity,
        And clothe yourself with honor and majesty.
        11 “Pour out the overflowings of your anger,
        And look on everyone who is proud, and make him low.
        12 “Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him,
        And tread down the wicked [a]where they stand.
        13 “Hide them in the dust together;
        Bind [b]them in the hidden place.
        14 “Then I will also [c]confess to you,
        That your own right hand can save you.

        God’s Power Shown in Creatures

        15 “Behold now, [d]Behemoth, which I made [e]as well as you;
        He eats grass like an ox.
        16 “Behold now, his strength in his loins
        And his power in the muscles of his belly.
        17 “He bends his tail like a cedar;
        The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
        18 “His bones are tubes of bronze;
        His [f]limbs are like bars of iron.
        19 “He is the first of the ways of God;
        Let his maker bring near his sword.
        20 “Surely the mountains bring him food,
        And all the beasts of the field play there.
        21 “Under the lotus plants he lies down,
        In the covert of the reeds and the marsh.
        22 “The lotus plants cover him with [g]shade;
        The willows of the brook surround him.
        23 “If a river [h]rages, he is not alarmed;
        He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth.
        24 “Can anyone capture him [i]when he is on watch,
        With [j]barbs can anyone pierce his nose?

        The book of Job is written around 2,000 years before Jesus was born. Here God describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. It was a gigantic plant-eater with great muscles and very strong bones. The long Diplodocus had leg bones so strong that he could have held three others on his back.

        The behemoth were not afraid. They did not need to be; they were huge. Their tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars – one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world.

        After all the behemoth had died out, many people forgot them. Dinosaurs were extinct and the fossil skeletons that are in museums today did not begin to be put together until about 150 years ago. Today, some people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals certainly do not have tails like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees!
        Man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. There was never a time when dinosaurs ruled the earth. From the very beginning of creation, God gave man dominion over all that was made, even over the dinosaurs. by Paul S. Taylor

        TAKE NOTE ATHEIST: Dinosaurs were extinct and the fossil skeletons that are in museums today did not begin to be put together until about 150 years ago. The book of Job probably written around 2,000 years before Yashuah messiah was born. Without the help of any archaeological evidence the Bible explain the existence of Dinosaurs The Bible written by his prophets from God knows it all along, of caurse he created everything, duh. This is how archeology, and The Bible, and History, and science reveals everything that is hidden.

        The Bible didn’t just said about a loving God most Christians only preach the loving part not the wrath of god against his enemies ans people that disobey him.
        For many centuries before the day of vengeance of Yahweh, the churches have preached the certainty of judgment of the wicked. In the generation which will see the execution of this judgment, most churches have discarded that idea. They only preach the idea of a God who is too kind to do anything harsh. The clergy have stressed only the love of Yahshua, and ignored or denied His wrath.

        The goodness of Yahweh could not take the form of rewarding the wicked, while allowing the sufferings of the good to go unavenged. While Yahweh is patient and long suffering, to offer men full opportunity for repentance, there must be a limit to this. We are given one clue in II Esdras 4:33-37. “And I answered and said, How long and when should this be and why are our years few and evil? And he answered me and said, You cannot hurry faster than the Most High: for you hurry for your own self, but He who is above hurries for many. Did not the souls of the upright ask about these things in their rooms, saying, How long must I hope thus? And when will the harvest of our reward come? And Jeremiel the archangel answered them and said, When the number of those who are like you is complete: for He has weighed the world in the balance, and has measured the times with a measure, and carefully counted the hours: and He will not move or disturb them until the prescribed measure is reached.”

        The reward of the good and the punishment of the wicked are only reserved for the great day of Yahweh, which we know is rapidly approaching.
        by Bertrand L. Compare

  4. and what does evolution got to do with atheism and the “about” page? atheism = lack of belief in an deity. no more, no less. and congratulations, you just copy-pasted an article that is trying to disprove evolution by disproving a random mutation generator, which is meant to be used as an analogy. and who ever wrote that article is distorting what evolution is really all about. they clearly have a misconception about it. and please try not to post irrelevant things. if you want to copy-paste something be sure that it is related to the topic. and if you want to copy-paste an article about evolution then do it in the right thread.

    • not that it has anything to do with skepticism or the about text, but to add, artificial “random generators” are actually not random. and the environment will be a factor in deciding which mutations/trait survive and get passed on.

      LOL. let him comment whatever. there’s this freedom to waste bullets.

      • Random Mutation generator is random that is why it’s called random because it is random. How can it be more simpler than that to understand. You know why it isn’t random any more? because Richard Dawkins modified it so that i can detect problems and fix issues now that isn’t random any more since Richard Dawkins believed that everything is random then why did he modified the Random Mutation Generator? Is that because it is impossible to prove that Darwin’s theory’of “evolution” is false and is not backed by logical explanation? Don’t act like your surprised because this is not the first time i made a comment. lol
        Like i said everyone will be judge accordingly by how we act but certainly for those who have not learned from the past will inevitably repeat it again.

      • @cog nex. Wow! A sequence of non-copy pasta comments? LOL.. A quick trip to Wikipedia would tell you how “random” is artificial random generation.

        1. On the “Randomness” of artificial random generators:

        “Several computational methods for random number generation exist, but often fall short of the goal of true randomness — though they may meet, with varying success, some of the statistical tests for randomness intended to measure how unpredictable their results are (that is, to what degree their patterns are discernible).”

        – Random Number Generation, Wikipedia

        Artificial random generators do not truly produce random numbers. And we do need “random numbers” for simulations and other things; that’s why these “random generators” are always being improved.

        At any rate, you cannot disprove evolution by showing “randomness” in genetics alone. Environment is a huge factor for the proliferation of genetic mutations.

        2. There is a great deal of evidence behind Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. There’s a scientific consensus behind it. It may have taken many many generations to see “evolution” occur, but there are animal evolutions that are currently observable.

    • evolution has allot to do with atheist, you’re an atheist you should know the history how atheism was started, or are you unaware of the connections between the two? Atheism is more than just lack of belief in any deity if you think that video link explains atheism then you don’t know even half of it. couple years ago i actually thought that atheists are the ones that knows allot about the bible because they are the ones that strongly disagree in the bible but little that i know, it appears they don’t even know even half of it. I thought that doesn’t make any sense how can you dispute something you’ve never known in the first place?

      I tell you what that article disproved evolution and random mutation generator simultaneous with the complete understanding of DNA sequencing. The idea is not to distort evolution but to understand the two things that Darwin have understand out of his mind. There’s only one reason why Darwin created evolution and that is to bend true science, in america ever since it was publish in 19th century it has been against science. I’m on the right contrast so don’t think this is irrelevant you can’t even disprove what he was claiming using science. Disprove it first don’t contemplate with your own thoughts because even that is not enough. Perry Marshall was Entrepreneur Press, 2nd Edition 2010 his got arguments that deals with Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists proving that God exist in truthful study of science.

      • “proving that God exist in truthful study of science.”
        – wow where is the empirical evidence? you seem to use science when it fits your dogma and throw away everything that doesn’t.

        there are atheists who doesn’t believe in evolution. the only thing that atheists are required to share is their lack of belief in an imaginary friend. YOU are the one who has no clear understanding of atheism. there were atheists even before darwin and even before the idea of evolution started. atheism is just a conclusion. there are many paths to it.

        and go argue about evolution somewhere else.

      • How do you know I haven’t read the Bible? I became an atheist because I read it. LOL.

        Epicurus debunked the idea of an omnimax god before Darwin’s theory got published. Not everything hinges on evolution. Evolution was science’s great idea. Others like Voltaire didn’t use science to “debunk” the notion of a loving god. Science just happened to be atheism’s friend.

        Science proves god? LOL. Karl Popper once wrote that to prove something, one must put forth a hypothesis that is FALSIFIABLE – that’s the scientific method for you. How do you falsify or verify the idea of “god” anyway? You don’t even know what god is. If you don’t know what god is, then how do you verify its existence?

      • To Cést moi Robyn,
        If you do read the Bible then why is it untill now you don’t know who is God? And i never said that evolution is the only dogma that atheist base out of, evolution is just a part of it. Must know science because it is knowledge given by God.
        lol, science was never a friend of “evolution” not even since Darwin published his book about origins of species, looks like you’re emagining unfamiliar friend there. I verefy God’s existance by knowledge; by learning the history of the bible where and how it was started because the places the bible pointed out did not happend in a vaccume; history, you need history to interpret the bible and the previous prophecies that was fufield; science, to study science with no corruption from darwin’s theory and Charles dawkins and the rest of atheism, Agnisticism, and Judaism; Chronology of the bible; chronology of history, our mainstrem school history is so messed-up that students is unable to relate chronologically; ethemology; lexicon; and of course concordace of the bible: English, Greek, Hebrew, etc… Bible alone is not talking about faith only but the most emportant part of esralites time how they created cevilization, and to bring back the lost house of Isrealites, and the restoration of the house of god. The reason why i do this? because the bible that we know now is corrupted by Medieval Munks, Agnostics, Judaism, and the rest of countless Judeo-Christians with their personal salvation doctrine, and universal. And since you’re ignoring knowledge, and you are in denial to understand the truth then you’ll remain an atheist.

        Epicurus was an ancient Greek philosopher and the founder of the school of philosophy called Epicureanism. His parents, Neocles and Chaerestrate, both Athenian-born, and his father a citizen, had emigrated to the Athenian settlement on the Aegean island of Samos about ten years before Epicurus’s birth in February 341 BC.[1] As a boy, he studied philosophy for four years under the Platonist teacher Pamphilus. He was a pagan and a cult hero.

        “Karl Popper once wrote that to prove something, one must put forth a hypothesis that is FALSIFIABLE” — is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown to be false by a particular observation or physical experiment. Now i tel you what, if science can prove something why would you go back to falsifiable state when it is already been proven that’s is just don’t make any sense. Why would you find fault for something that is proven already? Sounds like the devil is in works…

        That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. Again did any Atheist or Agnostics completely falsified the bible, or science proving the order in nature, whey is your hypothesis?

      • So your logic is, “God exists because the Bible said so.”.

        It’s the same as Superman exists because the comics said so.

        The Bible is a bunch of ancient texts compiled by people who wanted to use it for their ends. The Bible presents a contradictory idea of god. The Bible says god is all loving, but generally have no problems condemning you to hell or wiping out humans instead of forgiving them. LOL. Even Genesis is a fairy tale by scientific standards. Earth was made first, then the sun and the stars? HAHAHAHA! That’s a bunch of bull.With only a bit of philosophy you can glean that Biblical god (all powerful, all good, all around, all knowing) is an inconsistent idea. Epicurus did not need to study science to know that. He just asked the right questions.

        Okay, you don’t know how science works since it doesn’t make sense to you. LOL. Before you perform a study, you make a falsifiable hypothesis. Google it, friend. :D

      • keep laughing atheist “So your logic is, God exists because the Bible said so.” you mention the bible part but not all of it, do have any problems, a selective hearing disorder or selective reading disorder? It’s typical in atheism. Do you the ancestry of Epicurus because it’s in the bible the dispersion of Isrealites.

        “Even Genesis is a fairy tale by scientific standards. Earth was made first, then the sun and the stars? HAHAHAHA! That’s a bunch of bull.With only a bit of philosophy you can glean that Biblical god (all powerful, all good, all around, all knowing) is an inconsistent idea.” This is an example of a person, how he talks in his mind with no proper understanding in the bible and science. Observe people, observe carefully.

        “Okay, you don’t know how science works since it doesn’t make sense to you. LOL. Before you perform a study, you make a falsifiable hypothesis. Google it, friend. :D” wait, did i said science doesn’t make any sense to me? do you understand English, seriously?

  5. Oh yeah that video is made clearly identified by a British accent so it’s not not even an idea originated by Filipinos so why worried about my copy and post articles? After all we Filipinos never had any original ideas that even adopted by any country because our language is supplemented by English to grow as a nation; an idea of nationality that was never ours. Just look at our own self my fellow Filipinos do we even use our own language to argue these things? Of cause not and it will never going to happen probably. So seriously if you want humility thrown in our own faces keep up; keep it coming my fellow Filipinos because i know humility in greater scale.

    • So what exactly are you gunning for here? Are you lamenting this blog is in English or we used a video featuring a British accent to facilitate the introduction to atheistic ideas? There are obvious reasons for that. Even the government uses English for documents.

      I “complained” about your copy-pasta articles because these articles RARELY hit the mark. Most of the time, I try to read your comments, but I don’t finish reading it because you’re not even addressing the points of the blog post. Nagsasayang ka lang ng bala. I appreciate the outlinks; but you don’t exercise quality control over what you classify as “facts.” This blog has too many posts giving people the knowledge to avoid being duped, as in the case of the About page content and a clone of Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit.. What are we to do if you keep believing garbage over a model with a scientific consensus?

      Moreover, you put too many links and some admin has to “approve” your comment for it to see the light of day. But hey – as I mentioned, you can keep commenting whatever you want as long as you’re not personally attacking the others. The admins and I perform the extra clicks because your comment is not really spam.

      What’s this about humility? You’re off topic again. LOL. Peace.

      • To Cést moi Robyn,
        It’s not gunning because i’m not using any gun, it’s not lamenting because i’m not in the process of griefing, it’s called pointing out what you are ignoring, of course our government is included on that too, duh. The reason why i bring that up, because you have such a problem with my copy and paste article when your blog is not even wholly original idea. Don’t try to change your reason because you said to me it is SPAM, you’re complaining that it has allot of links and wordpress block it all the time it’s not about articles RARELY hit the mark, what mark? “MOST OF THE TIME, I TRY TO READ YOUR COMMENTS, BUT I DONT FINISH READING IT” try to read it completely so that you can get why is it important, okay, no wonder why. Is that the reason why do decided to be an atheist because the bible is too long to read? that’s just a question by the way.
        What do you mean quality control? does that define free speech? Is this how your blog operates by quality control? i don’t know that, that you’re more focus on quality control that saying what is true or what is contrast of arguments.
        How can you understand what i am saying to you if you don’t even finish reading my comments “MOST OF THE TIME?”

        “This blog has TOO MANY posts giving people ‘the knowledge’ to avoid being duped” Are you saying that this blog was created to avoid being duped? I am not even duping i am presenting a contrast not duping anybody there’s a big difference. How do you know my argument is garbage when you can’t even argue head to head of the conversation?

        “What are we to do if you keep believing garbage over a model with a scientific consensus?” what kind of model with a scientific consensus you’re talking about? And i don’t know what you do if i keep commenting, who knows, just you C’est moi Robyn.
        btw, I thank you and other admins for doing extra work accepting my comments i appreciate it.

        You want a thorough response to your ABOUT PAGE?
        regarding the question: Will you keep taking it all on faith? this is the reason why i posted that article because i don’t give argument with faith alone! so just so you know i’m not off-topic.
        as you know it, since the first comments i have made it’s not talking about faith alone do i have to re-post all i commented to show to you that its is not all faith? Have you read all what Panin have discovered? that’s not faith that’s mathematical and analogical supporting that the bible is not based on human mind but by higher superiority being, that human is incapable of doing it alone. far knowledgeable than us, so who could that be? It’s no other than God. Have you research science disproving evolution? archeology proves evolution is not true, there’s some large evolution museum around america that has giant human bones all you need to do is ask them to show to you where the giant human bones and they will show it to you. Evolution museum don’t display that in public artifacts because it distort their evolution theory.

        “Imagine yourself lazing around one fine Sunday afternoon. Suddenly, a man knocks at your door and tells you, “Congratulations! You won a million dollars and a round trip ticket to Hongkong! All you have to do is hand over your wallet. “
        You vaguely remember betting on a lottery and you never met or heard about the man in your life. Would you hand over your wallet without asking for evidence of the man’s claim?
        It seems unwise for you to do so.
        What if the man claims you won eternal life and to claim your prize, you must believe an ancient book, an old institution and in a powerful being whose existence have not been proven? The man cannot give you evidence. The man tells you to take it all on faith. If you’re living in the Philippines, chances are you already did, your parents encouraged your decision or you never really remembered making that decision.
        Religion knocked at your door and claimed great rewards or punishment await you. Religion asked for your money, time, mind and most likely, you gave all these without asking for proof. Religion has not provided any extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims and it will continue not to do so.”

        I think you’re talking about mormons that go to house to house knocking in your door and offer universalism or catholics that gather your coins in a basket every sunday!
        definitely i’m not mormon nor a catholic, not part of any churchianity or universalism, but i study the bible and understand it more accurately, and not trying to ignore it.
        Again how can you understand that god has being proven by science and that creation not evolution when you’re not doing any extensive study? Atheism is about not believing in a superior being or beings, that is not enough reason not to verify the any answers, how can you obtain answers when you keep ignoring everything that is left questionable.

        The question we need to ask is who’s controlling the current school teaching in Philippines? Who’s in control after school, the parents or the churches that controls our parents? Who’s in control in our government when there’s a war going on worldwide it’s not our business to made war against other country but why do we go for war when UN dictates it? Who created UN? Who control usury worldwide? How are the denominations of many gullible christians was created when there’s only one bible? there must be an answer, right? It’s not the bible or god’s fault if a person used the bible to manipulate people.
        Many Filipinos are in the rise of atheism and that is mostly because of the corruption of Roman Catholics in Philippines and many denominational church that only wanted more money; more deception; more power over freedom; over us. While our government are being busy kissing Zionist butt. They do claim they have the Holy Bible but no Catholic Priest has known the bible nor even study the words of the bible, You can’t even question them or you’ll be thrown out from the church. A dogma that you must not question is a cult. All they know is the current version of the bible they hold and their falsified doctrine that contradicts the bible in the long run, they don’t know history outside of their doctrine, or even know the original language of the bible. If Roman Catholics and Roman empire killed millions of hopeless people in Rome in the name of god, you can’t blame god because it wasn’t god’s doing obviously it was the Roman Catholics doing using the bible to manipulate people so why not read what the bible really says. The Spanish Inquisition is under Catholics doing but behind it was Jews who pretended to be a catholics and killed millions of innocent christians in the process that refuse to be converted as catholics. bolshevik revolution wasn’t even in our history, what happend on that time? I have a clue, the evidence pointing out who killed millions of enocent people that time is all over the internet. i posted a link pointing out those enemy of god and who’s doing all the genocidal killing, under the post: My atheism, Your atheism, the very last link.
        Apostole Peter never founded Catholicism and was never the first priest of Catholic it is all assuption by catholics part. The word “Priest” was never existed long before Emperor Constantine. Though Constantine was the first Emperor to become a Christian convert he never converted to Christian untill he was laying on his deathbed. The idea to legalized the practice of religion is influenced by political move and that lead to the rise of Neo-Pagan Catholics and many forms of Neo-Paganism, and accultism. The words of god was never fully explain ever since, mainstream christianisation doctrines is based on lies not by the bible. We are over run by bible commentators than teachers of the bible these days that is why we have a bunch of christian denominations who doesn’t know anything about the bible. Do we know any church that encourage their members to read the bible rather they just prefer Sunday sermons and listen to what their ears wanted to hear. Even that, long before, Agnosticism is long practice during the time of Christ.
        What is an
        agnostic? An agnostic is a person who takes a position of uncertainty toward God and the
        Bible. These people have no real convictions, for they know nothing for sure. Most agnostics
        have had more education than the rest of us, and they usually have a rather high opinion of
        themselves and their “open-mindedness.” In Acts 17:22-23, the Apostle Paul addressed some
        agnostics at Athens who had erected an alter to “THE UNKNOWN GOD.” Paul said they were “too superstitious.”
        Christianity is not a religion of uncertainty. We have an absolute Final Authority with absolute
        answers. For example, see John 14:6, Job 19:25, II Timothy 1:12, I Peter 1:18, and I John 5:13, and the rest of the bible.
        An apostasy is a “falling away” from a standing position. Paul wrote in II Thessalonians 2:3 that a great falling away, or apostasy, would occur in the last days, just preceding Yahweh’s return. We have lived to see this prophecy fulfilling in the process, for man has fallen further away from God in the past fifty years than at any other time since the time of Christ. Apostasy can be found most anywhere you look, especially in religion, education, politics, the media, and in music, just about everywhere.

  6. All this content did was encourage ask for evidence and look at how god-believers respond with red herrings. I think you hit the bulls eye on this one.

    Currently, I’m conversing with a religious fundie who ranted on about the text’s “assumptions” about people’s love for God. That religious fundie has a decent brain. Too bad he doesn’t use it to examine the beliefs he was indoctrinated in childhood.

  7. The analogy doesn’t really make sense to me. It is actually driving me more toward the god of the bible. God doesn’t want my wallet, he wants my life, I see what the article is trying to do, but my life is worth more than my wallet.
    And anyone who knows the bible, understands that true religion is taking care of the oppressed, the orphans and the widows that can’t take care of themselves. Your assumptions about religion are based on a catholic system from your part of the Phillipines. I personally am against the system that you have encountered, but to be quite honest the more i logically reason this out. I am considering being an agnostic-just simply not enough. This is a decision that i am NOT basing on faith alone.
    As I learn more about the bible, I realize it has hundreds of prophecies that came true.
    I realized that the disciples died brutal deaths, all they had to do was renounce the ressurection of christ. They didn’t. They were there and saw it with there own eyes. To me that is powerful.
    I hate the fact that the system of church near you is retarded. I think God hates that, there is evidence in the bible.

    There is a book about true religion that I read and what christianity is supposed to be. It is powerful. More so than these cut and paste articles written by upset, hurt, emotionally scarred or angry people. The tragedy many of us on this wall faced at the hands of the church just shows us that they are not truly serving the God of the bible. If this at all intrugues anyone let me know. I am starting to study the bible and would love some company. I am finding it amazing. The name of the aforementioned book is Radical by david platt. Crazy love by Chan also changed me to find the real God of the bible.
    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_19?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=radical+david+platt&sprefix=radical+david+platt

    • algebra is an example of analogy. If you have strongs concordance of the bible you’ll search what you’re looking for in the bible easily. ESV atlas or any atlas of the bible gives you an extensive archeological map that pin points every biblical location in the history. bible lexicon will give you translations word by word.

      • Yeah, specially when you don’t bring water with you when you have enough time to prepare one. Sorry happyhumanpinoy or to anybody if i break one’s sanity.

Penny for your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s