Why Atheism Won’t Succeed in the Philippines

librado says:

Let me play the devil’s advocate here, theists and atheists both wake up in the morning breathing but do not share the same thinking about the existence of God.

Papapau says:

Wait..

“I used to embrace atheism…”

tapos,

“I still believe that there is not enough evidence yet that I have witnessed and experienced that would offer sufficient proof (and arguments) for the existence of the theistic god”

So after all that you’ve said, you’re still an atheist.

Right Hector Gamboa? You just blabbered lang pala.

gHoSt vVriter says:

The topic subject is based on the fallacy of denying the antecedent. It denies the other possible points, such as not all Filipino atheists are generally arrogant; success is not merely based in attitude; the analogy is not close to it’s counterpart situation. The argumentative proposition to it is in the form:

Not all Filipino atheists are arrogant.

Implies: Some Filipino atheists are arrogant. (Acceptable.)

Not all Filipino atheists are trying to spread atheism.

Implies: Some Filipino atheists are trying to spread atheism. (Questionable. As supported by studies and observations, atheists are not promoting atheism, mainly because they preserve atheism as the simple disbelief in god, atheism is not dogmatic, and nothing is promotable in the sense that each atheist is an atheist in their own reasons.)

If the questionable implication happen to get resolved, the form would become:

Not all Filipino atheists who are arrogant are trying to spread atheism.

And, not all Filipino atheists who are trying to spread atheism are arrogant.

The original author is also using a logical fallacy of denying the antecedent:

Not all atheist who are arrogant are Filipinos.

Yet, the entire article is lacking any rectification for that fallacy, thus implying that:

All Filipino atheist are arrogant.

All arrogant atheist are Filipino.

The author clarified that he’s also an atheist, but he did not clarified if he’s also a Filipino or not, but rationally evaluating his own fallacy arguments:

“Given that my view on the
existence of the theistic god hasn t changed, why
do I find myself being drawn away from atheism? If atheism is favored by science, evidence and reason,
why is it such at a disadvantage against religious
beliefs that often comes with credulity? The biggest
word that comes to my mind when I think about
this question is Arrogance . As long as arrogance
lingers amongst the vocal proponents of atheism in the Philippines, I just do not see it prospering in the
country despite the feeding programs,
conventions, public debates and media mileage its
organizations have.”

his subjective claims made from self-profession runs in the circle of being, by definition, arrogant.

Arrogance, as defined by Merriam Webster online dictionary is;

an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

which reflects from these specific statements:

1) Given that my view on the
existence of the theistic god hasn t changed, why
do I find myself being drawn away from atheism?

2) As long as arrogance
lingers amongst the vocal proponents of atheism in the Philippines, I just do not see it prospering in the
country despite the feeding programs,
conventions, public debates and media mileage its
organizations have.

Evaluating from these statements, it does confirm that the author is merely founding his own arguments on his own observations without given hints and evidence of done verifications. Thus, the ” attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner”.

In the sense that the author talks exclusively about Filipino atheists also include the antecedent that he’s exclusively observing Filipino atheists, and/that he’s only exposed to Filipino atheists.

Implying from these antecedents, we can conclude that this author is possibly living in the Philippines to make it possible to interact with Filipino atheists, as the other point: he’s living in other country where he’s free to observe carefully Filipino atheists is improbable to the fact that atheists aren’t that much of a number, nor are numerous enough to gather to a group whose number becomes sufficient for the observer to observe in an efficiently, outside the Philippines.

The main fault of the author of the article is then, as to be agreed, standing against his own standing, given that he did not give any rectification to how was he different from what he’s criticizing. Instead, he included himself in line with his own subject of criticism, the atheists:

” I still believe that there is not enough evidence yet that I have
witnessed and experienced that would offer
sufficient proof (and arguments) for the existence
of the theistic god. Given that my view on the
existence of the theistic god hasn t changed, ”

as well as he failed to present his claims and assumptions logically, free from fallacies and unverified, unobservable, and even unsupported statements (in his own article), which by definition, is arrogance. The same point of criticism he agreed to focus on. The following are the summary of assumptions which requires proving, otherwise intellectual honesty of accepting he is wrong, which are a few of possible things he could do to rectify his arrogance in his own article.

1) atheism is favored by science, evidence and reason, at a disadvantage against religious beliefs that often comes with credulity?

2)religious beliefs often comes with credulity

3 arrogance lingers amongst the vocal proponents of atheism in the Philippines

4) feeding programs,
conventions, public debates and media mileage its
organizations have.
- which organizations in particular? Is atheism an organization?

4) We don t have to look far to see similar arrogance in
organizations and folks with (militant) atheist
leanings in the Philippines.
- we’re not even looking to any. This statement requires proofs that there is anything to look on. It doesn’t fall to being false, but being insufficient as a conclusion for it lacks enough proposition to reach to this line. Thus, ad hominem.

5) they (Filipino atheists) are trying to pontificate their projections and
about a lot of the things .
- I would like to emphasize the phrase “a lot of things” here, which has failed to be sustained by a single instance supplied in the original article.

6) Some of them say that they are
there to learn from theists and some say they are
there to test their own non-belief in the existence
of God (in a form of discussion or debate). However, if we notice their approach and especially
when they refuse to rationalize their own
arguments and perspectives to the same kind of
critical assessments that they demand of theists,
their sincerity comes into question.
- then, how does your approach differ? Positively, there are atheists who refuse to give proofs because of the umbrella that the burden of proof is given to them as the opposite side of the claimer of God’s existence.

7) In other words,
when one spends so much time in a prolonged debate with one or more of these types of self-
professed atheists, it becomes very apparent that
there is absolutely no real desire to engage in a
balanced, open, and reasonable discussion with
theists.
- a fallacy of denying the antecedent that this is also the case for theists, as a reason for the lack of a balanced, open, and reasonable discussion.

8) They express no desire to actually learn
about what theists believe.
- One of the core first question about some Filipino atheist (and most atheist I encountered, given that I might be biased for this) is to let the theist define the god they’re claiming to exist, as it was a common fact among atheist community that most religious people take god as a personal abstract, and each person perceive god in some specific point. This, in turn, as a perceived weakness of the theist, refuses to comply to do so. So, if this is a common fact known among atheist community, the author shows lack of awareness and knowledge about what he’s trying to criticize.

9) Instead, they continually articulate the same old straw man
arguments emphasizing their stereotypical
characterization of theists (e.g. Christians) because
it makes it easy for them to justify their rejection
and in some cases, hatred of theists.
- Emphasizing the word “hatred” here as a claim, can you in any logically acceptable way, prove this so?

10) Anyway, what is atheism? Dr. Gregory Neal from the
Errant Skeptics Research Institute offers a very
interesting explanation that atheism is the denial of
the existence of a deity or deities. You will be able
to follow his arguments in this link: Self-professing atheists place atheism in two forms
active and passive. The active sense, is regarded
as the denial of deities , while the passive sense is
merely a lack of belief in deities , as self professing
atheists claim. But as Dr. Neal points out, there is no
difference between atheism in the passive and active sense after assessing the linguistic and
historic invalidity of the passive sense of the term.
His argument summary states: 1. The particle a must be applied to the Greek
word theos, not to the English word theism,
thus reflecting the negation of the object, not
the predicate. 2. The passive negation of the theistic precept
isn t attested to in the historic usage of the
Greek word atheos. 3. Active negation of the theistic precept (either
in general or in particular) is exceedingly
common throughout Greek literature, thus
reflecting the morphological formation of the
word atheos. How different would the assertion: I do not
believe a deity exists be from I believe a deity
does not exist. ?
- In the etymology of the word “atheist”, or “atheism”, the more acceptable definition is, people who are embracing the, or is the: mere disbelief in any deities’ existence.

Atheism is the disbelief in a deity,

A Implies ((NOT B) Implies D/E),

is different from Atheism is the belief that a deity does not exist,

A Implies (B Implies (NOT D/E)).

Two statements contains different words receiving the negation. That is the basic difference of the two statements, which, if you are not able to identify, implies the possibility that you are not aware of using logic to weigh the logical values of statements.

Atheism is the disbelief in a deity, the more narrower definition, is the one commonly used by people covered by the same definition. One important side which the author may have not noticed is that his self-professed active definition takes the presupposition that a deity actually exists as the default nature of things. Thus, as the proponent of his own argument, he made an implied claim which puts the burden of proof to him, to justify that the existence of a deity is the default nature. We only ran in circles by then.

The passive negation of the theistic precept
isn t attested to in the historic usage of the
Greek word atheos.

-even if it does not attest to the historic usage, it doesn’t mean that the definition is invalid. In fact, the active definition is rather theoretical than the real definition of the word. The argument presented by the author here is another fallacy of denying the antecedent, the point that the definition of words evolve, increase and change it’s meaning regardless of how was it first derived as opposed to its common use. We prefer to use the narrower definition because it is derived from the scientific means of eliminating assumed definitions asserted to the word making it ambiguous, which is commonly known as the Occam’s razor.

This splitting of hair is what
self-professing atheists use to avoid having to
shoulder the burden of proof for their position
(denial of the existence of God).

- this accusation, ad hominem, doesn’t gain it’s weight as long as the existence of god wasn’t proved, since the word denial applies only to existing things, and you can’t apply the word to any thing questionable, controversial, arguable of existence. It puts the author in circular reasoning of self-contradicting himself in his position as a self proclaimed atheist. The word atheism shouldn’t have existed if we take the active definition as a word in it’s core is not logically valid to put into it. That’s the reason why the passive definition is derived. That’s the end of the argument otherwise you wanna go in circles of self-contradiction.

If atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, that
self-professing atheists just don t make any claims
about God and that they don t make any God
postulates or that they simply don t take God
seriously, that is okay. But if one is to make a claim,
such as God DOES NOT exist or God IS inexistent or God is a delusion or merely an imaginary
product , then the claimant also has the burden of
proof for the claim(s).
- the claimant of the statements: God DOES NOT exist or God IS inexistent or God is a delusion or merely an imaginary
product only passes this burden of proof if it is presented before any direct or indirect, implied or explicit claim regarding the existence of a deity, or in the absence thereof. If it is presented as a counter against a yet unproven claim, the burden of proof isn’t switched to the claimant of the statements the author is arguing about. The same explanation goes for the ad hominem statements below.

Self-professing atheists who
make such claims deny that God exists while, at the
same time, deny that they have a burden of proof.

As Dr. Neal points out, they want theists to prove their belief in God, but they don t want to have to
prove their belief in the non-existence of God.
In other words, they refuse to provide the evidence
for their belief while severely criticizing theists for
failing to do the same.
And if I may add, demanding that theists step out of their cocoon in order to meet the atheist mindset.

Well, as Dr. Neal correctly points
out, that is called hypocrisy and if I may add,
arrogance as well.
-at which degree to which method of evaluation used, do you consider this as “correctly”?

Don t get me wrong, I do agree that theism ought
to be subjected to critique but atheism should not
be about knocking down straw man in its critical
analysis of theism.
- criticism isn’t effective if you’re explicitly part of your subject of criticism. You only run in circles at some point. It does points back to you the same terms, by definition, self professing, in criticizing, and by definition, arrogance, as evaluated from your self-supporting claims based from another self-supporting claim. The theist have more right to criticize atheism, compared to an atheist criticizing atheism without making any credible distinction.

Projecting theists as merely non-
thinking coddlers of an imaginary being to suggest
more credibility to the atheist position is revolting and bone chilling at its very core. For thousands of
years, religious belief has been accompanied by
thought and intellectual discovery.
- specify.

In addition,
projecting that theists are primarily driven by their
own selfish motivation for salvation is smacking of
ignorance and lack of empathy. Self-professing atheists who make such derogatory projections of
theists do not do any service to atheism by
characterizing people (a lot who are sincere in their
goodwill intentions) that way.
- since, by definition, it is proven early that the author himself fall to being openly definable as self-professing atheist, it doesn’t make him exempted and in no sense different by projecting that atheists (not in particular sense) are driven by their own self motivation of smacking ignorance and empathy – especially empathy, whence the self-professing author, by definition, is making derogatory projections of atheists that do not service to atheism by characterizing people (a lot who are sincere in their goodwill intentions) that way, either. The author, once again, is running in circular reasons of self-sustaining and self-proving his own claims.

A lot of self-professed atheists assert that theists are
delusional.
- as a lot of theists assert that atheists are delusional.

A lot of self-professed atheists seem to
condemn theism because of its past record of
having caused too many atrocities and that it deals
with ridiculous life experience questions.
- this statement needs proving to the point “A lot of atheists seem to condemn theism because of its past record…” and another point, ” theism’s past record
have caused too many atrocities and that it deals
with ridiculous life experience questions.” This is an obvious fallacy of denying the antecedent, of begging the statement. The second point is an obvious accusation.

But on
the same token, self-professed atheists are being delusional as well if they think they can kill theism
simply by exposing theism s folly.
- and arrogance if ever it really was, among atheists can’t be killed by exposing atheism’s folly. This counter argument is valid because it comes with the same premise as the above argument. It usually, do not work in tu quque, unless proven that both premises are the same.

religious zeal in the past has resulted in
many atrocities and unimaginable terror the
Crusades and the Inquisition immediately come to
mind. However, atrocities and terror are not specific
to religious inclinations! In the Enlightenment
period, the proponents of anti-religion insisted that the universe and human nature could be
understood and controlled by the rational mind.
They saw the universe was ruled exclusively by
consistent laws such as Newton s law of gravity.
Such laws can be explained mathematically or
scientifically. The Enlightenment empowered those who argued that superstition, blind instinct and
ignorance had to be eradicated. Immanuel Kant, in
Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View
asserted that Africans were inherently predisposed
to slavery. The Enlightenment gave the world the
scientific racism adopted as an ideological reason for murder by 19th and 20th century despots.
Those who could not be educated and reformed,
radical Enlightenment thinkers began to argue,
should be eliminated so they could no longer
poison human society. The Jacobins who seized
control during the French Revolution were among the first in a long line of totalitarian monsters who
justified murder by invoking supposedly
enlightened ideals. Again, many lives were
devastated from the roots of arrogance and
powerlust. Mythology and even history seem to teach us that
whenever we try to put ourselves on the throne,
we seem to suffer for it.
- this fallacy of diversion went halfway too far from the original premise of the discussion, and even if you use it as an analogy, it is in no way analogical to the very assumption that atheists pushes atheism to people basically because it’s an assumption, and atheism is even far not interchangeable with scientific racism. As such, the fallacy of ad hominem combined with fallacy of diversion on this anecdote is a mere exaggeration of the arrogance being asserted to atheism, which is yet unproven and is waiting for proving as you carry the burden of proof for it.

Don t get me wrong. There
is nothing wrong with achieving great things.
There is nothing wrong with trying to do the best
one can do and strive for a little more. These things are not bad, it s when we use them to define who
we are and show others how special we are that
these things become personal towers of Babel.
- it s when we you them to define who you are and show other (self-professing arrogant) atheists how special (exempted from being arrogant and self-professing) you are that these things become personal towers of Babel.

It s the attitude, not the tower that is the problem.
- or it’s the attitude to the tower that’s not existing, is the problem. Basically, atheists don’t argue for flourishing atheism, but because they’ve been pushed by theists to defend their side whenever they’re pushed, attempted to be subject for conversion, or being coerced. That’s the antecedence you’re denying from this fallacy statement.

it is true that many of the members are intelligent
and articulate individuals
- prove this claim.

and while it is true that a lot of them have embarked on admirable pursuits
such as social activism and community support
programs
-prove this claim. These two assertions were commonly stereotypically used by some atheists, yet it’s still a fallacy unless proven.

a lot of them still seem to be unable to
recognize that genuine honor and respect are not
gained through noise and mere dole-outs and
bragging of one s intellect while undermining others.
-this statement runs in circle with the statement above. By definition, saying “it is true that many of the members are intelligent and articulate individuals ” and “and while it is true that a lot of them have embarked on admirable pursuits
such as social activism and community support programs” is bragging of one’s intelligence while undermining others, and respect can not be earned from this very same noise and dole out.

arrogance dominates the attitude of proponents of atheism in the Philippines
-this statement is ad hominem fallacy. Proofs needed.

I think atheism in the country won t succeed.
- It’s not even trying to.

My only personal message is to the author is that be certain about your position before creating a topic, especially criticisms. Another is that when you criticize, make sure you’re actually criticizing “something”. Given that you’re an atheist, you should have reconsidered viewing your article in the view you were denying as an atheist.

The core point on your article is that your accusations and circular reasoning, logical fallacies and contradictions used to sustain the unproven myth about atheist arrogance is not so different with the myth of deities’ existence. Easily refutable, disprovable by facts. I just don’t feel arguing a person who proclaimed he’s an atheist, regarding the existence of god (though your nature of atheism is even questionable after presenting what is clearly flawed logical arguments). But if you’re interested in doing so, or is ready to confess and prove my suspicion – though not actually accusing you – that you’re not an atheist for real based on your twist and turn logic, feel free to drop an e-mail to my address.

P.S. I don’t tolerate hate mails and arrogant (!) senders, spams and pransksters. Won’t read it, so don’t waste your time if your only intention is to fill my Trash box.

ghostvVriter [at] gmail [dot] com

nimrod mavel says:

It is a standard for Miracles to have no evidence and to occur in time wherein you cannot present evidence — parting of the red sea, holocaust, talking burning bush.. But it can be written in a book at a time where there are no internet, video cameras, or satellites. And that is so remarkable.
It can only be observed at those times.