abortion, Altruism, Archeological, Architecture, Ateneo, atheist, Atheists, Bones of St Peter Catholic, Catholic apologetics, CBCP, Children, Church Church of Gesu, Communism, contraception, D'souza, De La Salle, dissenters, Embryo, Filipino, Filipino Freethinkers society, Freethinkers, homosexuality, Jesuits, John E. Walsh, Mao, Moral, mother teresa, Necropolis, Nero's Circus, Obelisk, Philippine, Population control, pro-life, proportionalism, Red Tani, Relativism, RHBill, Rome, Slavery, St. Peter's Basilica, Stalin, Vatican, Vatican tour
It was only a matter of time before this kind of garbage reached out shores. I am talking about the forthcoming and first ever atheist and agnostic convention this April 2012 sponsored by the neighborhood atheist society. The web press release states that Dan Barker, vocal atheist and author will be their keynote speaker. I have listened to Dan Barker debate with Dinesh D’Souza and each time I can’t help but think how a former Baptist born-again Christian comes to the conclusion that there is no God. Come on, what gives?
How does one go from following the “true light” to total darkness? I would not want to speculate on what catalyzed this shift but during the debates, there are some telling signs. Barker, for example, states that many of Jesus’ teachings are mean and unkind like when He (Jesus) says that if you divorce and remarry you commit adultery or that He (Jesus) talks about hell with glee. Really, Jesus talks about hell happily, really?, WHERE? The references of Christ to hell are always as a warning and He always compares that place to agony… helloooo Mr Barker, gnashing of teeth, wailing, millstone… where is your claim of Jesus’ cheerfulness here?
D’Souza says that atheism is a sort of moral cowardice, an escapism to moral accountability because to deny the afterlife is really to deny that one can be held accountable for one’s actions even if that person “got away with murder” during his lifetime. I agree with him, somewhat.
Science can prove only what science can prove which means that to look for proof about the supernatural in something that can only prove the physical, is an effort in futility. Yet, immaterial things exist. A molecular biologist once told me that consciousness is a product of neural and chemical interaction. So I asked him to kindly quantify consciousness because if impulses and chemical transmitters are quantifiable and if his premise is correct, that consciousness is merely a product of these interactions, then he should be able to quantify its product too, right? He said, “give us 50 years”… need I say more?
Going back to the atheist convention, my daughter actually said to me, “dad, when we have Catholic talks, we speculate about theology and talk about the purpose and meaning of different aspects of our lives as it relates to other people and what it means for the afterlife, since atheists don’t believe in that, what do they talk about?” She added, “do they just pat each other on the back reassuringly and bash believers?” I laughed but she has a point. When asked about purpose, atheists say “this is it, be the best person you can be.” Somehow, that has a rather shallow ring to it, doesn’t it? Imagine that we have a world that has so many resources, variety, characters and life and all they can say is “this is it, that’s all there is, this was all chance.” From a common-sensical point of view, that’s pretty lame. It’s like watching a movie where you never get the plot nor get to a climax and then it suddenly ends. If I were them, I would ask for a refund. Maybe that is why many, not all, atheists are so militantly against belief. It is because belief, unlike atheism, gives you a clear plot of that movie and allows the audience to participate fully. Heck, I would ask for a refund too if that happened to me. The problem is atheists know they can’t get their money back.