Why I’m not an Atheist…

In my previous entry “Is there a God?”, you would have noticed that I never had my answer to the question I posted, that is because I really never intend to give one. I was thinking of an alternative way to satisfy the question. So here it is…

At one particular time in the past, it occurred to me if those people from the other side of the fence are true to the assumption or idea that there is no God or Creator – that everything just happened by chance, and so I asked myself  some questions – “is it possible or logical to conclude or to even assume that there is no Supreme Being or Creator responsible for everything? How does everything came into existence if there is no Creator, then?”

Big Bang? Don’t ever think about it, you will find yourself more in trouble if you bring this subject up for discussion…hehe… I would love to have this one on the table…next time dude, next time…

Okay so to answer the questions, I have to look into all the possibilities that everything around us, seen and unseen, quantifiable and none quantifiable, indeed, came into existence by mere chance or by random act of nature. But gathering and looking into the facts are just one step to finding the answer.

You don’t have to have a brain like Albert Einstein or that of Stephen Hawking in order to figure out the logical conclusion. All you need is a pair of right tools to make a sound judgment. So how it works?

They say that extra-ordinary claims such as the existence of a Supreme Being requires extra-ordinary evidence. But I say you don’t need extra-ordinary things or evidence to arrive to a sound conclusion for extra-ordinary claim such as God’s existence.

They say that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of any God as it is impossible to prove the negative. I say is it impossible to prove that I’m wrong when I say that there is another satellite aside from the moon orbiting the earth?

I wonder why would these people do the things that are impossible for them to do. Why the hell would they observe the things that are unobservable or falsify the non-falsifiable?

I say there are enough data and facts science has collected over the years regarding our physical world and using that gray mass in their nutshell, calculate the possibilities on how all these things around us can exist by itself, including the cosmos or how this non-sentient universe was able to create a sentient being like us. Does the universe even aware of its own existence? Damn! even if I don’t believe in any God, my logic/reason would simply tells me that it is a lot easier for nature to make a working mobile phone, a car or satellite transmitters over a period of million or billion of years than to produce a single cell bacteria.

What I’m saying is that, the design of human life and the cosmos in general, are far more complex than this machine I’ve mentioned. If, by random acts, nature was able to combine the right components to produce a single cell over a period of million or billion years, it is, I guess easier to find the components to make the non-sentient machines to work in a lesser period of time.

But it took more than thousands of years to see one simple wheeled vehicle at work. The fact that this machine is far less complex than the human life, considering the higher probability to combine the right components in a much lesser time to make this machine works, must have been available billion of years ahead of man’s existence. But none of these uncomplicated machines were in existence prior to man’s appearance on earth. Why is that?

Plain and simple. No person in his right mind would tell you that simple machines such as wheel borrow, kitchen knife, a ladder, umbrella and cooking pots or architectures such as the great wall, pyramid, a tree-house or even bricked walls are products of random acts of nature. That is because by logical standard and definition, these must have been placed or put together with intent by some geniuses to exist. This is, by default the response of human brain – someone, somewhere made these things to exist and made it to appear like what they are. Although they deny the existence of a Creator, I am sure their brains function this way too.

That’s commonsense.

And those science fanatics told me that man and the universe need no sentient creator to exist – Bullshit!

The Fifth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill….(updated)

The Fifth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.


This is in response to the call of some Bishops and conservative Catholic “kuno” to end the spate of killings happening around the country.

Well, to be fair, it is really alarming to see the rising number of killings happening on daily basis. That is if one has no idea how serious the problem on illegal drugs is. We can view this numbers as an indicator as to the magnitude of the problems of illegal drugs has become for failure to address them in the past. It tells us how serious the problems of illegal drugs in the country is.

But it seemed that those who questioned and doubted the sincerity of our police force in its efforts against illegal drugs are generalizing the situation and attributing all these killings to the Government as if it’s a State-sponsored affair carried out by the PNP. This is plain idiocy.

We can picture 2 different scenarios on how these “killings” are happening: 1) those deaths resulting from legitimate police operations, and; 2) those deaths resulting from non-police sanctioned operations (vigilante style – but not necessarily the work of legitimate vigilantes).

Under legitimate police operations, we can further subdivide these killings or better say police operations into two(2) subgroup, namely: a) Police Operations that are compliant to PNP’s Rules of Engagement and, b) Police Operations that are non-compliant to PNP’s Rules of Engagement, that resulted to the deaths of the suspected criminals. I think we will all agree that those deaths resulting from non-police sanctioned operations were immoral and unlawful. There’s no argument about it. So let’s just skip this one for now.

For brevity, let’s assumed that all police operations are compliant to PNP’s rules of engagement for now. I will deal the subgroup non-compliant Police Operations that resulted to killings in another post.

So the question that remains is >> are those deaths resulting from legitimate Police Operations moral and lawful? I am not a Bible Scholar so before some religious lunatics charge me with contempt for using erroneous mode of Biblical Interpretation, let me say this that in expressing my opinion my point of reference is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. For those who do not know, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the point of resource or reference on essential Catholic teachings. There is no interpretation needed as ‘Catechism’ is part of the Church’s official teachings through a Synod of Bishops called by Pope John Paul II. So, yes this can be used by ordinary faithful like me to understand better what God meant when he said: “thou shalt not kill (murder)”. As Pope JPII said Catechism “is offered to all the faithful who want to understand better the inexhaustible riches of salvation.”

First of all, let’s clarify the word used in the Bible on “killing”. Sabi ng mga Jewish scholars mali daw ang Bible translation ng mga Catholics. The word used in the 5th commandment was “ratsach” (murder) instead of “nakah (kill). Ratsach is a Hebrew word meaning “murder” in English. When St. Jerome translated the Bible to Latin (Latin Vulgate-the 1st complete Christian Bible with Old & New Testament) he used the Latin word “occidere” (to murder) instead of “interficere (to kill). Thus, the phrase “thou shalt not kill” shall be understood in this sense all through out this article.

Murder – “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought” – Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Sa kaso ng mga pulis, in the performance of their official duty, in a legitimate police operations, during an armed encounter that resulted to deaths of the suspects, the police officers didn’t commit murder. It was an act of preservation of innocent life, the life of the police officer and the civilian whose life may be in danger. As the Church explains through its Catechism “legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.” – CCC 2265

In every legitimate Police Operation, it is assumed that its intention is to bring the criminal to justice and to hold him accountable for the crimes he committed against the State. This is in keeping with the mandate of the PNP as stated in RA 6975, sec. 24.

The State has a duty to keep the land peaceful, pursue the criminals and bring them to justice. These Police Operations are carried out in keeping with its Constitutional mandate, that is to serve and protect the people, maintain peace and order, protect the life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare essential for the enjoyment by all the people. – Phil Const. Article 2, sec 4 & 5

The Church recognizes “the efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.” – CCC 2266

In the same Catholic teaching, the PNP, in the performance of its duty, resulted to the death of a criminal, is justified when the act is to preserve innocent life. “Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow…”. It is not murder. – CCC 2264

The Church teaches through the one voice of the Bishops in the Synod,  that “the legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.” – 2263-Catechism of the Catholic Church

– – xVladskx – –


In Response to religious “fanatics”

What is a fanatic?

A person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause: RELIGIOUS FANATICS” – Oxford online dictionary

Many religious people attack Duterte for being morally inept to lead the country. I cannot blame them the person is not a holy man and he knows he’s not. So does the rest of us.

Different religious groups from different sects came up with their “unofficial” checklist for president. The funny thing is, they tend to measure the capability of a candidate to lead this country against their own religious belief or preference and made these as a criteria in choosing the next president. Criteria that focused heavily on the religious stand of the candidates, which in my own humble opinion defeats the purpose of what the constitution mandates him/her to do. To remind everyone, we are looking for president who is most fit to lead this country not a saint.

politics-and-religionFor me it’s really silly to have a voter’s checklist that looks like a criteria for a sainthood (exaggeration intended) rather than coming up with something that would help me choose the “right” president. You can argue all you want, I don’t care. All I care is to have a president who can resolve the problems of crime, corruption, illegal drugs. A president who respects the right of the people, a president who values the life of innocent rather than the criminals. A president who can deliver justice and peace to this ailing country.

I believe that it is the duty of the government (or president in this case) to implement/enforce the law – that includes the duty to protect the life of the innocent against unlawful elements, to uphold the right of the people to live peacefully. If the president is only upholding/implementing the law to protect its constituents, to bring peace to his country, is he committing a crime?

I remember what Paul writes to the Romans  “Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.” 

Takot ba ang mga kriminal kay Duterte, ang mga masasaming loob, ang mga kidnappers, rapists, magnanakaw, drug lords and drug dealers? Ang mga taga Davao ginagalang ba sya, sinusunod ba ang mga batas na pinatutupad nya? Ang sagot po jan ay malaking “OO”.

E ang mga matitinong tao ba sa Davao City takot sa kanya? Ang mga sumusunod sa batas takot ba sa kanya? Of course not.

Kaya nga ang sabi ni Paul “For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong.They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.” Romans 13:4-7

So Paul says that we must submit to authorities to avoid punishment. This implies that Paul recognizes the authority of government to punish those who violate the law. And for information, Roman Law sanctioned death penalty as of Paul’s writing. Did Paul make exemptions? No. Please spare me with your death penalty issues.

Peter was even more precise on the authority of the government to implement punishments to outlaws.

13 For the sake of the Lord, accept the authority of every human institution: the emperor, as the supreme authority,

14 and the governors as commissioned by him to punish criminals and praise those who do good. – 1 Peter 2:13-14

Ano ang punto ko?
It is the right of each person to live peacefully, to be free from any forms of oppression, etc, etc. It is the duty of the government to safeguard these rights and this will only be possible if government is able to dispense justice to all. Justice means punishing the evildoers and rewarding the good.

Marian Apparitions

Marian Apparitions.

The weaknesses of Evolution…

Animation of the structure of a section of DNA...

Animation of the structure of a section of DNA. The bases lie horizontally between the two spiraling strands. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I read an interesting article in the EVN about one paper entitled “Dissecting Darwinism” that appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It discusses on the failure or limitation of Darwinian mechanism to explain recent discoveries and advancement in various fields of science. In the said paper, the author argued in three areas where evolution is said to be weak for failure to provide compelling evidence to support its claims (these are the issues that were raised during the Texas State Board of Education testimony in 2010), which I will discuss in short here in my blog.

I believe that it is to the best interest of Science and of the ordinary Joe to be informed on matters of development in the field of sciences especially when it challenges the present theory that explains natural phenomenon. In the said paper, the focus was on the limitations of evolution in addressing new challenges from recent discoveries or knowledge from science itself.

Many of the average Joe are not aware of these various developments and advancements in science in the last decades and in recent years that have posed great deal of difficulties for Darwinian evolutionists in addressing the issues on the beginning of life and diversity of life. Darwinian theory on natural selection is slowly losing its ground in scientific battle of credibility for failure to adequately and compellingly support or explain new scientific findings and information/Knowledge in Molecular Biology and Genetics, the Cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity and information coding in DNA, etc.. And Darwinian lobbyists, supporters and forerunners are in total denial of the fact, that Darwinian mechanism upon scientific examinations cannot be accounted for the early formation of life, lest the sudden appearance of diversity of life during the Cambrian Explosion. Another equally interesting issue that the author discussed is on the issue on the evolution of man from primitive primate to Homo sapiens (this I will discuss in separate post).

The new challenges confronting Darwinian evolution are results of new developments in various fields in science. Darwinian Evolutionists, when confronted with scientific evidence that shows the limitations or flaws of the Darwinian mechanism would resort to unsophisticated arguments. This is the reason why I wrote about this particular paper that appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center entitled dissecting Darwinism. Khun outlined the problems or weaknesses of Darwinism, as follows:

  1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
  2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
  3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.

As to why the chemical origin of life is a problem in Darwinian evolution, Khun pointed out that “the fundamental and insurmountable problem with Darwinian evolution lies in the remarkable complexity and inherent information contained within DNA.” He added that “Darwinian evolution and natural selection could not have been causes of the origin of life, because they require replication to operate, and there was no replication prior to the origin of life…”

The limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell is well pointed out in the book Darwin’s Black Box, by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe. Khun noted that “irreducible complexity suggests that all elements of a system must be present simultaneously rather than evolve through a stepwise, sequential improvement, as theorized by Darwinian evolution.” Khun further argued that “that these irreducibly complex systems are specifically coded through DNA adds another layer of complexity called ‘specified complexity.'”

Transitional form of ape-man (for illustration purposes only)

For one hundred years, textbooks illustrate the transition of specie from primate to man. They made us to believe in ape/human common ancestry. But according to the book The Myth of Junk DNA

“The DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed “junk DNA,” which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions.”

Khun added that “the ape to human species change would require an incredibly rapid rate of mutation leading to formation of new DNA, thousands of new proteins, and untold cellular, neural, digestive, and immune-related changes in DNA, which would code for the thousands of new functioning proteins.”

“The problem is that”, according to Khun, “this rate of mutations has never been observed in any viral, bacterial, or other organism”. Khun concluded that “The recently discovered molecular differences between ape and humans make the prospect simple random mutation leading to a new specie Homo sapiens largely improbable.”

How it is largely improbable, that I will discuss next.

Of course, as expected, after the “Dissecting Darwinism” appeared in the journal, many evolutionist proponents submitted their responses to the challenges on the weaknesses of Evolution put up by Khun. The funny thing about it is that, none of these replies scientifically addressed the challenges on the weaknesses of Evolution.

I will try to post some of the unsophisticated arguments from evolutionists next time, if I find time for them. But for those who can’t wait, i provided the link to the site below.

The full report explains the scientific bases and evidence of the claims here >>>> (Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1)(2012).)
Link >>> http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Research/Proceedings/Pages/default.aspx

Religion - Top Blogs Philippines

Dumbest questions in the Universe…the Miss U 2011

I never thought that the dumbest questions in the universe can be found in Miss U 2011 until my interest on the show grew due to some interesting stories I heard about for this year’s edition.

The Miss Universe Pageant, to distinguish it from ordinary beauty contests, is supposed to showcase the diverse beauties and brains of  women through this pageant. It promotes women as among the main driving force to the progress or growth of mankind as opposed to the old perception that women are the weaker gender in the society. It supposed to send a message to the world through this show that behind such beauty there lies a gray mass in that nutshell that works perfectly fine even when paired with such astounding gorgeous bodies such as the Miss U contestants. But if you’ve got the dumbest questions ask before millions of millions of people watching around the world, what these women are supposed to showcase before us? Nothing.

Let’s take a look of some of the questions once again the guys at the Miss U prepared for this year’s pageant.

For MISS UKRAINE:  Vega: If you could trade lives with anyone in history, who would it be and why? (what’s new with this question.. are they running out of ideas to ask?)

For MISS PHILIPPINES: Vivica Fox: Would you change your religious beliefs to marry the person you love? Why and why not? (could you guys do better that this?)

For MISS CHINA: Isabeli Fontana: Nude beaches are common in some parts of the world. Is public nudity appropriate or inappropriate and why? (who cares? those who wouldn’t want to see and get naked need not to come to such places..)

For MISS BRAZIL: Helio Castroneves: What would you do to avoid fighting a war that you did not agree with it? (wtf! as if these ladies can do something about the wars.. can we be more realistic here?)

For MISS ANGOLA: Lea Salonga: If you could change one of your physical characteristics, which one would it be and why? (this climbs up in my list… it’s always been the same old nonsense questions in different form… boring!)

I’m sorry, but this type of questions only shows how beauty contests stupefy women.  It seems that beauty contests such as the Miss u are only good for flaunting the almost naked bodies of gorgeous contestants before millions of viewers watching around the world. It sounds pathetic really considering that such pageant is supposed to gather resources (sponsors) for humanitarian works to be spearheaded by the crowned Miss U for the less privilege societies/communities across the globe. But tonight, such noble intent became a mere shadow of a puppet show headed by Donald Trump. Pathetic!

the significance of the Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary…

The Theotokos of Vladimir, one of the most ven...

Image via Wikipedia

The birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary is commemorated today by the Whole Christendom. As we take part of this celebration, let us call to mind that on this day some two thousand years ago, a girl was born of a barren woman named Anna who was married to a very old man named Joachim. According to tradition, Anna who never had a child was already very old to bear a child. God promised them a child despite of her advanced age. And Mary was the a fulfillment of that promise from God.

Non-Catholics may ask what is so special about Mary’s birth to us Christians?

The birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the anticipation of the coming of our Savior Jesus Christ. Through Mary’s birth, we have been assured of our salvation through her participation in the work of redemption. Mary didn’t do extra ordinary things nor did she perform miracles like the prophets did. Mary simply obey God’s will and nothing more. That is, she willingly accepted her role to become the mother of Jesus. When the angel appeared to her and announced that she will bear the Son of the Most High, Mary’s response was ” be it done unto me according to thy word.” (Luke 2:30).

The work of man’s redemption was preceded by the birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah (Isaiah 7:14). Mary was the first person to become a Christian, as she was the first person to accept Jesus Christ in her life (Luke 2:30). Mary was the first person to preach when she commanded the servants to listen to and obey Jesus’ words (John 2:5). It was through Mary’s word that Jesus performed his first miracle and manifested his glory (John 2:11).

As Jesus accomplished his work of redemption on the cross, He gave his own mother to be our mother too. At the foot of the cross, in the Gospel of John, we have learned that as Jesus fulfilled hi mission, the continuity of his work on salvation was entrusted to His mother. The whole of mankind was entrusted into the care of His own mother, Mary (John 19:26-27). For it is through Mary that Satan’s head shall be crushed (Genesis 3:15).

How many times in the past we have forgotten this sublime dignity we have with Mary as our Mother? Let us seize this moment to meditate on our spirituality as we journey in this life. There may be a lot of things running in our heads now and it’s sad that non of these are for our spiritual needs. I myself is guilty on this and may have taken a long step backward since the last time I have dedicated my life into something spiritual. Now I can only hope. I need to steer my life back into the right direction by taking Mary as an example to follow.

that ship has sailed…

When I opened my Facebook today, I’ve noticed that each person in my list flooded their status with words of gratitude and admiration for their mothers which I find interesting.

“Ah, so today is Mother’s Day,” I said to myself. Suddenly, a sad and empty feeling engulfed my whole being. Then my thoughts were filled with memories about my mom. It’s really true that happy memories make you cry. That may be the reason for this melancholic feeling that drives me crazy today.

Mother’s Days has been considered in most part of the world as the special day to thank the greatest person in our lives – our mothers.

For everything that they are and have done for us, for all the sacrifices, hardship and love that they have continued to shower us all through our lives, we consider this day a special day to thank her, to pay respect and to show gratitude and love for all the wonderful things that they have done for us.

But this time, I write to talk not about the great things a mother has done for her children. We all knew that already, I already knew how great this person is. There’ s no more to tell. The world already knew how important and special this person is that’s why we have this day to celebrate in honor of the mothers all over the world. But more than making this day special, are we doing enough to make the person special?

Yes, I am thankful for everything my mom has done for me. I love her. But then again I asked myself “is saying I Love You enough?”

Thoughts prey in my head (as usual).  I feel that I’m only doing a lip-service for this Mother’s Day and this make me feel bad about what the whole world celebrates today.

Am I doing enough to make her feel special? For all the time I have in the world, how much time did I spend with her?

When I drained the battery of my mobile phone for using it extensively, how many minutes I spent on the phone with her?

Did I spend my weekends with my mom or am I more excited to go out with my friends? And When I was home, did I spend some quality time with her and listen to her “bromidic sermons” or am I too busy managing my farmville to notice her?

Or may be I was too busy checking out status and comments of my friends on Facebook.

I may have my own excuses for not spending some of my precious time with the person I publicly proclaimed the greatest person on earth, but am I really doing enough to make her feel special and loved?

Personally, I feel that gifts or calling and greeting her on Mother’s Day would not be enough to make her feel special. Of course, my mom would certainly be happy, that’s for sure, if I call (she always seem happy to hear my voice). She would always appreciate little things you do for her. But if I do this once a year, what is so special about the person? We may call this day special because we set this day aside but let us not forget what makes this day special for all of us.

If given a chance, I would really love to spend more quality time with the greatest person on earth. Time is really so precious that you can only spend this once in your life and if you have spent it for wrong purpose, there is no way you can take it back. Good thing is, there is always a chance to make up for the lost time. And that’s how I want to spend this day and the days to come – this day would only be special if and when I am with the special person in my life – my mom.

Happy Mother’s Day, Mama!