Skip to content

Freethinkers or Free-FARTERS?

February 11, 2010

Yes, the New Atheists are the new mystics of our modern age…

These New Mystics really think they scored the religionists...

These New Mystics really think they scored the religionists...

I don’t really talk much about my atheism because I don’t consider it a big deal at all. I don’t believe being an atheist will make a person more rational and more sensible. For me, atheism is not an end in itself. It’s never a guarantee for anyone to live as a rational human being. This is the reason why I don’t mingle with some people in these parts who label themselves as “Freethinkers” (whatever that term means).

There are several self-proclaimed godless people today— the so-called New Atheists—who band together like fanatical followers of a secular religious cult. They talk about their atheism as if it’s one of the means to achieve secular salvation. They exert so much effort to recruit believers to embrace godlessness as if it’s part of their secular duty on earth. Like the Catholic priests, protestant pastors and passionate televangelists, these New Atheists have been embarking on secular evangelism, hoping to recruit more people to their cultist fold. If the more than one billion Catholics have Pope Benedict XVI and the Muslims have Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, the New Atheists have Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens as the high priests of the global secular cult.

What then is the earthbound glue that binds these New Atheists together? Hatred of religion is the main reason why these New Atheists think and behave like most religionists do. They say they are advocates of reason, science, and secular principles, but are they? They have declared war on religion. They are engaged in an unusual religious war on all religions and religious sects which they decry as invalid, mind-thwarting, self-perpetuating, and deadly.

To validate their claim that religion causes misery and death, the New Atheists point out the crimes of religions, such as the Inquisition and Crusades and Witch Trials of early Christianity, the deadly Jihad waged in the name of Islam today, and so on. However, the defenders of religion rebut this claim by saying that there were more people killed by the atheistic regimes of the past century.

What most New Atheists failed to understand is that they share similar “code of morality” with the religionists whom they fanatically denounce. This “code of morality” that empowers the two destroyers of our civilization— Faith and Force— is Altruism. Yes, altruism is the morality that deeply polluted the minds of both the New Atheists and the religionists. This type of man-sacrificing ethical system conceptualized by Auguste Compte, states that it is the moral duty or obligation of individuals to serve the good and welfare of others and put their interests above their own.

According to Greg Perkins, atheism is not itself an ideology because “there is no such thing as an “atheistic mindset” or an atheist movement.” Thus he states the following:

“Atheism per se hasn’t inspired and doesn’t lead to anything in particular because it is an effect—not a cause—and there are countless reasons for a person to not believe in God, ranging from vicious to innocent to noble. The newborn baby lacks a belief in God, as does the Postmodern Nihilist, the Communist, and the Objectivist—but each for entirely different reasons having dramatically different implications. So lumping all of these together under the “atheist” label as if that were a meaningful connection is profoundly confused. Yet this is exactly what the New Atheists do and encourage: they talk about how there are so many atheists out there, and advocate their banding together into an atheist community to seek fellowship, foster cultural change, build a political voice, and so on. But what would a committed Communist and an Objectivist have in common—regarding what they do believe, why they believe it, how that leads them to live personally, the sort of social system they would strive for in government? Nothing. They are polar opposites in principle and practice, across the philosophical board.”

Perkins further states that the New Atheists will not be able to debunk the fervent apologists of religion “because they lack the objective philosophical perspective necessary to penetrate to the core of these issues.”

“In this case, their struggles reveal a failure to genuinely appreciate how religion is not itself the fundamental problem—irrationality is. Religion constitutes just one form of unreason, and the only thing that makes it particularly noteworthy and dangerous is that it has at its heart an explicit, committed, philosophical attack on reason: extolling faith as a virtue,” Perkins says.

In his article entitled “The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists” published in The Objective Standard, Alan Germani says Hitchens may be adept at pointing out religious absurdities, the problem is that he fails spectacularly when it comes to providing a valid secular alternative to the moral guidance provided by religion, as he endorses essentially the same ethics as do religionists (altruism) and he arrives at this ethics by essentially the same means (mysticism). “If this is the best the New Atheists have to offer in their efforts to lure people away from religion, they should not be surprised to find religionists ignoring them,” he says.

Germani further states:

“Like Hitchens, Harris advocates altruism, the notion that being moral consists in living for the sake of others, or, more precisely, in self-sacrificially serving others. And although Harris acknowledges that “there are millions of people whose faith moves them to perform extraordinary acts of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others,” he claims that “there are far better reasons for self-sacrifice than those that religion provides.”

“The best “reason” for self-sacrifice, says Harris, is that “the social feeling of love is one of our greatest sources of happiness; and love entails that we be concerned for the happiness of others.” This, he says, “suggests a clear link between ethics [by which Harris means altruism] and positive human emotions. The fact that we want the people we love to be happy, and are made happy by love in turn, is an empirical observation.”

“The happiness that Harris advocates is not the happiness that comes from the achievement of one’s own self-interested, life-promoting values. Rather, it is a “higher happiness,” which allegedly comes from sacrificing one’s own interests for the sake of others.”

It is true that it takes some amount of courage for anyone to disparage religions, particularly Islam, and the existence of an all-powerful deity. But like Germani states, “it takes greater courage to challenge the even more widespread belief that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving others.” Criticizing faith and the existence of God is not enough to encourage people to forsake religion. Religion is not the very root of misery, ignorance, and mysticism on earth, and this is what most New Atheists fail to see. If they want to encourage believers to abandon their faith, they must muster the courage to discover reason and to reject and challenge the morality of altruism. Yes, the New Atheists are the new mystics of our modern age.

With this, let me quote Germani’s concluding statement:

“Fortunately for those who do have the courage to follow reason and challenge the validity of altruism, Ayn Rand has already discovered, demonstrated, and codified a morality based on and derived from the demonstrable requirements of human life, happiness, and coexistence: rational egoism. By first asking the question “Why does man need morality?” she proceeded to discover that man, as a being who must make choices, needs morality as a guide to life-promoting action. She discovered that man’s life is the standard of moral value—which means that actions that advance man’s life are moral and that those that retard or destroy man’s life are immoral.

“Unlike religion and secular altruism, rational egoism neither entails nor permits any claim on the lives of other men. It holds that each man should act in his own best interest and that each man is the proper beneficiary of his own thought and action. And because egoism recognizes that it is right for a man to think and act in his self-interest, it also recognizes that it is wrong for others to violate this right through physical force or fraud. Rational egoism not only serves to guide an individual’s actions; it also serves as the foundation for a rights-respecting, civilized society.

“It is beyond the purpose of this article to elaborate the ethics of rational egoism. But those who see the glaring need for a rational (i.e., non-mystical), life-serving (i.e., non-sacrificial) morality—a morality for living and achieving happiness on Earth—will find it elaborated in the works of Ayn Rand.”

MUST-READ ARTICLES:

The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists published in The Objectivist Standard by Alan Germani

Why the New Atheists Can’t Even Beat D’Souza: The Best and the Worst in Human History by Greg Perkins

53 Comments leave one →
  1. February 11, 2010 3:38

    I have never understood why atheists would want to band together … why would they in essence want to form their own ‘religion’ ? I have found that when dealing with people in general as long as both parties deal fairly and honestly with each other .. whether a person is Christian, Buddhist, etc … is irrelevant.
    Ed

    • February 11, 2010 3:38

      Yes, that’s also what’s boggling me. I’m from Philippines and there is this group of atheists here who band together like the way religionists do. I can assume that one of the main factors that bind them together is their hatred of religion. They simply thought that abandoning faith is the way to “secular salvation.” They claim they are the new advocates of reason and science, but I do believe that that’s not their main motivation. If they really understood the concept of reason, then they wouldn’t act like the way hippies and cultists do. They wouldn’t think that it’s necessary to form a so-called atheist movement to fight religion. I believe they thought that atheism is an end in itself. And yes, most of them are altruists and socialists. Some say they’re not socialists, but they believe in redistribution of wealth, universal health care, government intervention, and that they rarely talk about individual rights and liberties.

  2. February 11, 2010 3:38

    Careful, now, Vincent: “they wouldn’t act like the way hippies — do”. You’re dealing here with an old hippie .. and proud of it. Ha !
    I think I would hate to find myself in a room full of politically active atheists … wouldn’t be able to find the exit door fast enough !
    Ed

    • February 11, 2010 3:38

      Ok. I am interested in politics because I believe this is the venue where I could protect my rights. I’m still young and I never see myself as a politician in the future. Political career is the farthest thing in my mind.

  3. February 11, 2010 3:38

    To have a career in politics does not mean to necessarily hold political office. For someone with your grasp of politics and how you think there are many avenues open to you. Just beware the ‘non-profit’ sector …
    Ed

    • February 11, 2010 3:38

      Of course! Since I’m selfish and greedy, I consider “non-profit” or “otherism” idea evil. Thanks for you insight, Ed. I appreciate it.

  4. clay barham permalink
    February 11, 2010 3:38

    Ayn Rand clears it up for me, which is why I miss the libertarian 19th century true Democrats, the ones who followed Jefferson and Madison and were closest to Rand, not the ones like Obama who now follow Rousseau and Marx, as cited in The Changing Face of Democrats on Amazon and claysamerica.com.

  5. February 12, 2010 3:38

    I’m from Cebu, and I have yet to see the heathens myself. However, it is meet and just for me to say that such characters eventually show no reverence for human life, is it not?

    • February 12, 2010 3:38

      Aegis-Judex, you said: “However, it is meet and just for me to say that such characters eventually show no reverence for human life, is it not?”

      What does this mean? Honestly I don’t understand who you are referring to when you said “such characters eventually show no reverence for human life.” The New Atheists or the atheists? Well, I am an atheist but I don’t behave like the way the New Atheists do. I stated my reason above. You cannot generalize all atheists. There are many motivations why a person abandons religion. I forsake faith because I don’t want to destroy reason, and because no one can prove the existence of God. For me it is wrong to accept the concept of God psychologically, because that means you have to accept things on faith not on reason.

      • February 17, 2010 3:38

        Pardon my fanatical statement. It happens when I’m worked up on something. However, as far as religion is concerned, I think the one good thing about it is that it gives us a sense of human dignity, an absolute moral scale.

  6. February 12, 2010 3:38

    A very quick look at the web site of the man from Cebu indicates that it probably makes no difference to him whether you are a ‘New Atheist’ or just an atheist. That being said, though I try to adhere to the basics of Rands’ philosophy in my daily life, there are times when there are not enough facts available to make a reasoned decision … then one must make that decision on faith ..
    Ed

    • February 12, 2010 3:38

      Yes, Ed. That’s also how I understand it but I’d like him to clarify that statement. For me, faith designates blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof. That’s the definition of Ayn Rand and I accept it. I grew up in a very religious family. In fact, my aunt was shocked to know on Facebook that I converted to atheism. In this blog I described this transition as a “very rigorous and painful process. It is painful because I had to reject things that I embraced for years- like religion, philosophical dogmatism, belief in altruism, etc.”

      • February 12, 2010 3:38

        Accepted. Unfortunately, most people of ‘faith’ do not think their faith is blind; they have the Bible to point to as a physical manifestation of what they believe in. And, for many, their faith is what gives them their self-esteem; take their faith away, without something to take it’s place, and eventually you will have “such characters(that) eventually show no reverence for human life”. And I think the man from Cebu knows this.
        Thanks for your responses … it has been a while since I have been able to express my opinions in a friendly format with a knowledgable(sp) person.
        Ed

      • February 12, 2010 3:38

        Thanks, Ed. I respect you opinion.

  7. Twin-Skies permalink
    February 13, 2010 3:38

    The jig is up , my fellow non-believers.

    It seems we will have to wait another millenia before Lord Myers ascends to his rightful place as the next C’thulu incarnate.😦

    A shame. I really liked squids.

  8. Twin-Skies permalink
    February 13, 2010 3:38

    Vince, Bioshock 2 is out. You’ve gotta try it. You’re missing a lot🙂

  9. February 17, 2010 3:38

    “However, as far as religion is concerned, I think the one good thing about it is that it gives us a sense of human dignity, an absolute moral scale.” It also requires that you use the longest running lie that man has uttered as a crutch …
    ED

    • February 23, 2010 3:38

      So it could work both ways. Would you prefer Marx’s “Radiant Future?”

      • February 23, 2010 3:38

        @ Aegis-Judex.

        What’s the business of Karl Marx in this discussion? Are you trying to assume that all atheists are Marxists? If that’s the case then that’s one of the worst myths in our history. Your assumption would have been right if you’re referring to the Filipino Freethinkers, er FREE-FARTERS! Most of them are socialists but just don’t know it.

      • February 24, 2010 3:38

        In condemning religion as the “opiate of the masses,” Marx prescribed a less effective drug: “the radiant future.” When I said religion gives man human dignity, I meant he is more than an animal. Capitalist societies see self-interest as the goal, right? How can it be such if the people are treated no less than animals, which is the case for socialists?

    • ACPatagnan permalink
      February 23, 2010 3:38

      There is no sense of human dignity in religion. metaphysically, epistemologically, and morally. Religion is the caused of human indignity.

  10. February 24, 2010 3:38

    @ Aegis-Judex.
    Karl Marx condemned religion because he had this mystical understanding of reason. What do I mean by “mystical understanding of reason? Marx was not actually a proponent of reason, in fact his Communist Manifesto is a refutation of reason. He was a mystic. Yes, he rejected religion and even called it “the opiate of the masses,” but he was preaching mystical materialism, which means a whim worship of the state or a tyrant dictator. The byproduct of his evil idea were the Soviet Russia, Maoist China, and now Cuba, Venezuela, etc.
    If you read my blog above, you would understand my fundamental premise. Yes, the modern-day Marxists and socialists reject religion, but they don’t know that they embrace the same CODE OF MORALITY as the religionists- ALTRUISM. Both the religionists and the New Atheists (socialists, secular humanists, members of the Filipino Free-FARTERS) preach the morality of ALTRUISM.
    I consider altruism both myth and evil. I explained this in my previous blogs.

    • February 24, 2010 3:38

      Aegis-Judex,

      Kindly expound on this statement:

      “When I said religion gives man human dignity, I meant he is more than an animal. Capitalist societies see self-interest as the goal, right? How can it be such if the people are treated no less than animals, which is the case for socialists?”

      You premise “that religion gives man human dignity” is a floating abstraction. In the first place, no one can ever prove the existence of God. I don’t lambaste religion like the New Atheists do. I believe that religion is a private matter. I don’t have the right to impose my belief on you, and the religionists also don’t have any right to impose their beliefs on me. But I think religion makes men irrational and that it gives them the excuse to take things on faith. Religion was once a world order for more than 1,000 years and look at the result of their worship of an entity that’s beyond the grasp of man (God). It was more than 1,000 years of stagnation, witch hunting, suppression of science, etc.

      You said: “Capitalist societies see self-interest as the goal, right? How can it be such if the people are treated no less than animals, which is the case for socialists?”

      First, rationality is a choice. Man, unlike animals, has the faculty to bring his perceptual level to a conceptual level. He has the faculty to identify and integrate the material provided by his senses- REASON. Is man a sacrificial animal or an end in himself. If your answer is the first, then that’s what the religionists and the New Atheists and most godless mystics preach, since their code of morality is altruism. If your answer is the second, then you admit that man is the master of his own life, that he must not be sacrificed to other people in the name of God, the state or the common good, and that he owns his life. Self-interest means you are not the means to the ends of others; you are an end in yourself.

      Capitalism is a system that is consistent with man’s life, nature, rights, and purpose. This is based on the tenet that contradictions cannot exist.
      I have written several blogs about capitalism, man’s rights and nature and purpose.

      Self-Interest versus Altruism
      Capitalism and Imperialism are contradiction in terms
      Why the Communists are Advancing to Take Away Our Freedom?
      Does Capitalism Produce Slavery, Monopoly, and Unearned Wealth?

      And this great article by Ayn Rand: Note of the History on American Free Enterprise

    • November 13, 2012 3:38

      lol.

      “Karl Marx condemned religion because he had this mystical understanding of reason.”

      Marx condemned religion as a reaction towards the (un)fulfillment of material needs. Get your head straight. And no, Marx did not have a “mystical” understanding of reason like those of his time: pretty much, the dialectical tradition gained from Hegel grounded him on historical materialism: and it’s not even the stupid Fichte form peddled in schools that it’s about thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis. Before you say anything about Marx, please do read.

      “He was a mystic. Yes, he rejected religion and even called it “the opiate of the masses,” but he was preaching mystical materialism, which means a whim worship of the state or a tyrant dictator.”

      -I challenge you to point out where Marx peddles this “mystical materialism” that you accuse him of. Probably, you haven’t even remotely studied Marx. The “opiate of the masses” passage was a critique of the social conditions – of concrete materials. In this case, in conjectures and without any reason at all, condemn him to be something which he is not because of your lack of understanding.

      And none of his writings preach tyranny. And none of his writings were pro-state. In fact, serious Marxists, not the Maoists that famously abuse and misuse Marx, are all anti-state, since it preserves private-property and capital.

      “Yes, the modern-day Marxists and socialists reject religion, but they don’t know that they embrace the same CODE OF MORALITY as the religionists- ALTRUISM.”

      -BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Please do clarify as this shows you’re only speaking out of your ass.

      • November 13, 2012 3:38

        “And no, Marx did not have a “mystical” understanding of reason like those of his time: pretty much, the dialectical tradition gained from Hegel grounded him on historical materialism: and it’s not even the stupid Fichte form peddled in schools that it’s about thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis.”

        Know what I mean by mystic. Marx suggestedthat Reason (translation: the ability to use logic or the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is not on the side of the proletarian struggle.

        He said: “Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form. The critic can therefore start out from any form of theoretical and practical consciousness and from the forms peculiar to existing reality develop the true reality as its obligation and its final goal. As far as real life is concerned, it is precisely the political state – in all its modern forms – which, even where it is not yet consciously imbued with socialist demands, contains the demands of reason. And the political state does not stop there. Everywhere it assumes that reason has been realised. But precisely because of that it everywhere becomes involved in the contradiction between its ideal function and its real prerequisites.”

        This suggests, that Reason, according to Karl Marx, is determined by a person’s social status. This is consistent with Horkheimer’s suggestion/claim that “logic is not independent of content”. Such view is utterly mystical. And I don’t think you even understand that Karl Marx political theory is full of mysticism.

      • November 14, 2012 3:38

        You really don’t get it, do you?

        You claim that Marx is a mystic because he criticizes bourgeois reason, then you argue for this claim by posting a quote that you don’t quite understand.

        First, you have to establish why Marx’s assertion that the “social being” being a factor of consciousness, is, mystical, when first of all, social conditions are factored and are results of material externality (that which does not belong to the sphere of mysticism).

        Second, Marx is employing the Hegelian dialectic here, by juxtaposing concrete and ‘ideal’ (“but not always in a reasonable form”) forms of reason. It is not, as you say and as per your misunderstanding, a mystical assertion, but in-itself, a critique of the ‘mystical’ philosophy that was famous at his time (know that still during his epoch, the Kantian metaphysics was still famous, as well as Schopenhauer’s moralistic positioning).

        “And I don’t think you even understand that Karl Marx political theory is full of mysticism.”

        -No. Unless if you can prove your non-sense and ‘Mystical accusation, then I’ll accept this.

      • November 16, 2012 3:38

        I do get it. Karl Marx’s political theory is mystical. His epistemology is mystical. His ethics is mystical. He was very consistent. His philosophy is against human nature and reality and science— and that’s what makes it mystical.

      • November 16, 2012 3:38

        lolno. Your allegations, are MYSTICAL because they came from nowhere. Your other assertion, that his philosophy is against nature is a joke. It just goes to show how little you understand philosophical parlance, as your “intellectual” posturing is exposing your ‘Rand-ist’ irrationalism. Again, prove your assertions.

        Again, if you can’t which you really can’t, then you just have to shut up about Marx because you know zilch. And that’s downright proven.

      • November 16, 2012 3:38

        “Your allegations, are MYSTICAL because they came from nowhere.”

        It’s because you don’t have enough brain cells to understand Karl Marx’s philosophy. Read what he actually said about Reason.

        “Your other assertion, that his philosophy is against nature is a joke.”

        Try to read his Das Kapital.

        “It just goes to show how little you understand philosophical parlance, as your “intellectual” posturing is exposing your ‘Rand-ist’ irrationalism. Again, prove your assertions.”

        I don’t think you understand what you just typed. If that’s how you argue, then you believe that Marx’s political philosophy is NOT against human nature, NOT against REALITY, and NOT against the SCIENCE of politics and economics. FYI, the word or term ‘mysticism’ or ‘mystical’ does not exclusively apply to religion. There are what some people call ‘secular mysticism’ or ‘Atheistic Mysticism’. You should have the courage to say and admit, ‘Yes, I agree with Karl Marx and I think that his philosophy is consistent with human nature and reality’. Your trying to focus on the word ‘mysticism’ and your HILARIOUS LOLs simply shows your incurable ignorance and near-insanity. Socialism or communism is a mystical political philosophy NOT grounded in reason, human nature and science.

      • November 16, 2012 3:38

        BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The ignorance is ASTOUNDING.

        I have already explained what Marx said about reason, and in what I’ve said, I have pointed out your mis-understanding of what Marx actually said (due to probably your lack of understanding of how dialectics work).

        And again, I challenge you, since you’re telling me to read Das Kapital (which I have), to point out and to prove once again that Marx is “mystical.”

        And yes, Marx’s political-economic treatise and his philosophy, if we can actually call it that, is grounded on dialectical materialism, wherein a rigid study of the interactions of the concrete vis-a-vis the abstract intertwine. We can then say it is scientific because it starts of with a philosophical assumption then investigates through a study of the concrete realities that surround that assumption.

        And no, your point about Mysticism and religion is moot. Saying so only exposes your lack of proof and foundation of your false allegations.

        And if you say that socialism is NOT grounded in reason (which is extremely stupid to say) and in human nature, please, as it is highly questionable, in the name of philosophy and science, to really assert that there IS a human nature. (And your concept of nature, I believe, because of your Randist beliefs, is un-scientific).

        Lastly, you have not taken to task the challenge I raised to you. Unless you do so again, you’re only accusing Marx with mystical crap.

      • November 17, 2012 3:38

        Wow! You don’t even know you’re the one who’s so incurably ignorant. What did you say about Marx’s view on reason? You don’t even know he despised reason for not being with the proletarian side. Are you insane?

        “I challenge you, since you’re telling me to read Das Kapital (which I have), to point out and to prove once again that Marx is “mystical.””

        You don’t even know his whole political philosophy is ‘mystical’. It’s not based on facts, reason, human nature, reality and science. Hegel’s philosophy was also based on mysticism. Did you read his book. Well, I read a few chapters of his book ‘Philosophy of History’. He was a mystic. He believed in God and he advocated the rise of mysticism. His views are so annoying I couldn’t even finish his book. Both reality and history repeatedly debunked his predictions.

        You may read these blogs to further educate yourself…

        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/the-altruist-collectivist-mentality/

        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/capitalism-defined/

        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/blog-debate-on-the-morality-of-capitalism/

        By the way, what is your definition of mysticism, idiot?

        Mysticism is defined as a “vague speculation : a belief without sound basis”. It is also defined as an “obscure or confused belief or thought”. It means that it is the the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof.

        Now, do you understand Marx’s political philosophy? He advocated socialism and communism. His philosophy can be summed up by the following maxim: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

        His collectivist ideology calls for:

        1. Collective or state ownership of all modes of production.
        2. Central planning of all human enterprises and activities.
        3. Abolition of private property.
        4. All collectivist programs

        His theory of alienation is so mystical that it is so inconsistent with human nature, reality and science. According to this theory, capitalism merely treats a worker as an instrument, a thing, not a human being. He said that in under a capitalist system, the worker will naturally experience alienation from his humanity because his worth or value can only be expressed through labor. This is why the stupid leftists like you claim workers are being exploited by businesses or private enterprises.

        Marx further explains: “Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have, in two ways, affirmed himself, and the other person. (1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and, therefore, enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also, when looking at the object, I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses, and, hence, a power beyond all doubt. (2) In your enjoyment, or use, of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential nature. . . . Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.”

        If you’re a moron, you’d definitely not grasp what’s wrong with that statement. But since you’re a MORON, you’d simply take that on faith because it was made by Marx.

        What were the societies that established collective farming and abolished property rights? China institutionalized collective farming and collective ownership of all modes of production during the reign of Mao. That evil, stupid program caused the death of about 70 million Chinese in peace time. Soviet Russia also applied Marx’s mystical, evil philosophy and it failed.

        Now, I don’t think it’s possible to educate an incurable moron like you. You may go on with your stupidity and insanity. But the fact remains that Marx’s ideas are mystical, evil and immoral. You don’t even understand his ethics, epistemology and politics. Well, it’s because you’re a MORON.

      • November 18, 2012 3:38

        Ok. Apparently this is all an “objectivist” can come up with.

        “Wow! You don’t even know you’re the one who’s so incurably ignorant. What did you say about Marx’s view on reason? You don’t even know he despised reason for not being with the proletarian side. Are you insane?”

        -It was not me who said something first about Marx’s view on reason, it was you. By claiming that a.) he had a mystical view of reason; and 2.) you claim that Marx rejected reason.

        What were your grounds?

        First, you quote a passage of Marx criticizing religion as the opiate of the masses then accuse him of mysticism with the childish and uninformed opinion that, “ [but] he was preaching mystical materialism, which means a whim worship of the state or a tyrant dictator,” which is so downright funny because it’s wrong.

        Marx did not have a mystical view of reason in his analysis and criticisms of religion and the state per se (as your last point is wrong because Marx and Engels had a definite theory of anti-statism, different from the examples that you list and also gulfs apart from Anarchist theory).

        His criticism of religion stemmed not from mysticism (which you stupidly accuse him of) but on the social-condition (the concrete or the material ontology of society) of human beings. The problem with you is, you leave out important passages of the quote which are:

        “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation…

        The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition, which needs illusions.”

        What Marx is actually doing here is arguing against the “mystical” and illusory comfort that religion provides in lieu of material satisfaction. Which then points out how stupid and uninformed first point is.

        The last line, “The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition, which needs illusions,” is a direct statement oh his belief that conditions that make ripe a false solution, such as religion to concrete problems must be abolished will lead then, to a refutation of your second stupid point which is that Marx preached a, “whim worship of the state or a tyrant dictator. “

        Marx’s viewed the state as the superstructure that made class antagonisms through the insurance of private property an everyday and normal affair. The state can be surmised, then, as the necessary framework that keeps capitalism alive (even with those naïve-notions of neo-liberals that they don’t need the state – how stupid).

        This is affirmed by Marx when, in an article said, “The bourgeois state is nothing else than a mutual insurance for the bourgeois class against its own individual members as well as against the exploited class.”
        -Karl Marx, Marx-Engels: Werke

        But, to go back to your first accusation, does not this confirm the fact that Marx was not a “mystic” just like what a stupid objectivist claims him to be?

        Let us examine, again, another thought of Karl Marx, this time, from something readily available, his preface in, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.

        “My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations [rights, peace and order] nor political forms [state institutions] could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life.” (items in brackets added by me)

        Why then did the state, “originate in the material conditions of life?” When capitalism took hold of society, it placed a mode of production based not on satisfying the general needs of humanity, but on the creation of money and profit. But this can only be insured when a system of coercion (peace and order, law) is set in place to protect private-property, thus we see the concrete necessities of the state and law in maintaining capitalism. Private property and capitalist production is guaranteed safety by law through the acts of the state. Mystical? If you consider the state mystical then yes, but if you do, well, you’re probably an idiot.

        “Did you read his book. Well, I read a few chapters of his book ‘Philosophy of History’. He was a mystic. He believed in God and he advocated the rise of mysticism. His views are so annoying I couldn’t even finish his book. Both reality and history repeatedly debunked his predictions.”

        -Yes, I’ve read a lot of Hegel’s work. And no, he wasn’t a mystic. You only read a few chapters then conclude that he is such and such? Might it be that your conclusion is a product of your inability to grasp meaning and rationality? No. Hegel wasn’t a mystic. Nor did he believe in god. His Philosophy of History deals with “the general will” – which many who denounce Hegel without much sense, confuse as god or even confuses Hegel’s use of god as something of an acknowledgement of existence. But that’s just stupid.

        Anyhow, you claim “both reality and history repeatedly debunked his predictions.”

        Ok, so please then explain why up to now, Hegel’s prediction of the modern state holds true, with its employment of law, elections, necessary maintenance of estates private-property, and etc. Until then, this claim of yours only serve to my conclusion that you are delusional.

        And your blog posts are stupid – if you want we can deal with them one by one (I actually spent time reading them). Aside: Claiming that Karl Marx first coined the word capitalism is extremely ignorant of political-economy. Maybe stepping outside the comfort of your Randist clique will do you some service.
        “His philosophy can be summed up by the following maxim: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

        His collectivist ideology calls for:
        1. Collective or state ownership of all modes of production.
        2. Central planning of all human enterprises and activities.
        3. Abolition of private property.
        4. All collectivist programs”

        -Of all your allegations, this is the most stupid. Can Marx’s philosophy be summed up by that quote from the Gotha Programme? No. Only an idiot would say such a thing.

        And, no. Except for item three, that list of yours only shows your ignorance.

        Central planning of ALL human enterprises and activities?

        “…a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic… must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. “
        -Karl Marx, The German Ideology

        “This is why the stupid leftists like you claim workers are being exploited by businesses or private enterprises.”

        -Well of course. A study of history and political-economy will prove this to be true. Only by being ignorant can one be naïve of this fact.

        “If you’re a moron, you’d definitely not grasp what’s wrong with that statement. But since you’re a MORON, you’d simply take that on faith because it was made by Marx.”

        -Because I’m not an idiot objectivist, I know what that statement is and grasp it its essence. But since you are an idiot objectivist, that quote for the sake of quoting without even understanding anything, I will claim that you don’t know what is really being said. So then, because I believe that I can be proved wrong, i.e. you are not an idiot objectivist, only a naïve one, please point out what is wrong in this statement and supply at least, something with a little bit of logic and intellect, a fair amount of defense for your allegation.

        You should know that China and the USSR was a bastardization of Marxism. To claim such and such is not really adding up to your weak arguments, really. Maoism and Bolshevism is not Marxism. You should know that, if you are really objective, and don’t really judge things by their being “evil” and such stupid crap.

      • November 18, 2012 3:38

        Hey MORON,

        I think you’re not just a moron, you’re indeed an incurable moron…

        You said: “-It was not me who said something first about Marx’s view on reason, it was you. By claiming that a.) he had a mystical view of reason; and 2.) you claim that Marx rejected reason.”

        Read again what I said about Marx’s view on reason. I said: “Karl Marx condemned religion because he had this mystical understanding of reason.”

        In case you forget, MORON, that was a response to a commenter named Aegis-Judex who said: “So it could work both ways. Would you prefer Marx’s “Radiant Future?””

        Let me complete my response to Aegis-Judex: “Karl Marx condemned religion because he had this mystical understanding of reason. What do I mean by “mystical understanding of reason? Marx was not actually a proponent of reason, in fact his Communist Manifesto is a refutation of reason. He was a mystic. Yes, he rejected religion and even called it “the opiate of the masses,” but he was preaching mystical materialism, which means a whim worship of the state or a tyrant dictator. The byproduct of his evil idea were the Soviet Russia, Maoist China, and now Cuba, Venezuela, etc.”

        I made it clear that Karl Marx was NOT a proponent of reason. But I never categorically said Marx “REJECTED” reason. That’s your claim, MORON, because you’re a MORON. In fact I was fully, completely aware that Marx believed that Reason exists. I even quoted him in my response to your utterly stupid, MORONIC comment. Marx said: “Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form. The critic can therefore start out from any form of theoretical and practical consciousness and from the forms peculiar to existing reality develop the true reality as its obligation and its final goal. As far as real life is concerned, it is precisely the political state – in all its modern forms – which, even where it is not yet consciously imbued with socialist demands, contains the demands of reason. And the political state does not stop there. Everywhere it assumes that reason has been realised. But precisely because of that it everywhere becomes involved in the contradiction between its ideal function and its real prerequisites.”

        Karl Marx’s philosophy is a NEGATION OF REASON. Do you understand Marxism? Now let me ask you, MORON:

        Is SOCIALISM or COMMUNISM consistent with REASON, MAN’S NATURE and REALITY?

        Is COLLECTIVISM and its many political applications and variants (e.g., collective farming, collective ownership of resources, etc.) consistent with REASON, MAN’S NATURE and REALITY?

        Is CENTRAL PLANNING consistent with REASON, MAN’S NATURE and REALITY?

        Is the abolition of private property or property rights consistent with REASON, MAN’S NATURE and REALITY?

        I think the only issue here is Karl Marx’s view on reason.

        Would you like to honestly answer those questions?

        You said MORON: “Marx did not have a mystical view of reason in his analysis and criticisms of religion and the state per se (as your last point is wrong because Marx and Engels had a definite theory of anti-statism, different from the examples that you list and also gulfs apart from Anarchist theory).”

        You are simply stupidly taking my response to Aegis-Judex OUT OF CONTEXT, MORON. Lemme complete again what I said: “Marx was not actually a proponent of reason, in fact his Communist Manifesto is a refutation of reason.” It’s NOT just Marx’s rejection of religion; it’s his whole, entire political philosophy. Do you understand Marxism or socialism or communism? If you clearly understood these isms, then you’d also understand that they are all a refutation of REASON. They are not consistent with REASON, MAN’S NATURE and REALITY. I know I am talking to a MORON here.

        Like I said, MYSTICISM does not merely pertain to religion. I know that that’s your stupid belief since you’re a MORON. I repeat: MYSTICISM does not exclusively pertain or refer to RELIGION or faith. There are what they call secular mysticism and atheistic mysticism. Like I said, Marx was a mystic. He simply based his political theory, views and philosophy on his subjective, ‘mystical’ understanding of man’s nature and reality; not on evidence, facts and science. I know you don’t understand Marxism since you’re a MORON.

        Then you quoted Marx: “The bourgeois state is nothing else than a mutual insurance for the bourgeois class against its own individual members as well as against the exploited class.”

        What is this “bourgeois state”? Well, all countries today are MIXED ECONOMIES. There is no purely capitalist state nowadays. America is a MIXED ECONOMY. Again, I know you don’t understand this because you’re a MORON. But if you have the brain to understand the difference between countries with more capitalistic features (USA, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, etc.) and countries with more socialistic features (Cuba, North Korea, China and Venezuela), you’d also know that people living in the first category (countries with more capitalistic features) are FREER, MORE PROSPEROUS and HAPPIER than people living in the second category. If there’s a kind of state that secures mutual insurance for the ruling class against its own individual members as well as against its exploited class, it’s a socialist state like North Korea, Cuba or China. Ever heard of the term politburo? Or the ruling elites in China that recently selected their premier thru a secret selection process? You don’t understand this because you’re an incurable MORON.

        You said: “Of all your allegations, this is the most stupid. Can Marx’s philosophy be summed up by that quote from the Gotha Programme? No. Only an idiot would say such a thing.”

        Now here’s an incurable MORON who thinks he knows what he’s talking about. That simply shows you don’t have enough brain cells to understnd the whole context of Marxism or Marxist philosophy. Even proponents of Marxism do not agree with you. Even Marxist sites do not agree with you, because you’re a moron. From this site: “Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm plus this site http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

        Educate yourself moron. For how can the socialists abolish private property and distribute all lands to the people without the imprimatur or authority of the state? That’s why Karl Marx’s political imagination is a refutation of reason, like I said.

        Also, collective ownership of goods and production follows central planning. In fact, a Marxist scholar named John C. Wood (in his book titled “Karl Marx’s Economics: Critical Assessments”) categorically said that Karl Marx’s “social ownership does facilitate central planning” (p. 247). Again, you don’t know this because you’re a MORON.

        Now, what you don’t know is that Marx’s Das Kapital is a refutation of Adam Smith’s ideas. He rejected capitalism because it lacks central planning, of private ownership, and of the desire to achieve profits. To expose the alleged ills or evils of capitalism, Marx created the theory of surplus value, which he described as the “gap between the value a worker produces and his or her wages.”

        It takes a lot of brain to understand Marx’s stupid ideas. It appears that you don’t have enough brain cells.

      • November 20, 2012 3:38

        It’s extremely funny now how, at first you pose yourself as someone who’s smart and after being exposed of your total ignorance and stupidity, now acts like a twelve-year old primadonna whose only claim to refutation is sound insult and backpedaling (you are even an insult to twelve year-olds).

        Anyhow, I won’t deal with your obvious stupidity but dwell on your repeated incoherence.

        First, your allegation that Marx was a mystic.

        You can’t even prove this. All you claim is that Marx is a mystic, and by your lack of IQ or that tragic event when you fell on the floor when you were a baby, you automatically – with extreme non-sense – accept this as truth. Even though you can’t even deal with the points I’ve said regarding this stupid point of yours. You have to establish why Marx’s assertions were ‘mystical’ in the sense that Marxism isn’t rooted in nature, science, and etc.

        Second, you claim that Marxism is a negation of reason. I’d like to negate this that this is utterly unreasonable and stupid. Unless, as you continuously fail to do so, prove that this is in fact, true, and is, symptomatic in Marxism.

        Third, you claim to know Marx’s whole political-economic program by citing the Communist Manifesto. Well, let me remind you, Mr. Damaged in the brain, Marx, latter in his life corrected some of the naive notions that he had on the Manifesto and that he and Engels, became more and more anti-statist in their latter years. If you claim to have read Das Kapital, this is point blank obvious, but since you can’t read anything outside what your cult leader Rand suggests, well, you just better give up, reading on the whole. And wtf quoting Bakunin?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Bakunin has a different program than Marx, and Bakunin himself was also anti-state. Hint: anarchism.

        “For how can the socialists abolish private property and distribute all lands to the people without the imprimatur or authority of the state?”

        -Simple. By abolishing the state apparatus that protects private-property relations. Any idiot who’s ignorant of history will not know this fact.

        And on the issue of central planning, yes, I’ll go for it. A critical study of the gains of the short-lived Spanish Revolution before it was hijacked shows that Central Planning, done right, actually produces more goods for the good of society than capitalist production.

        And it’s funny how you lump China as a “socialist” country, when in economy, it’s actually capitalist in the sense that the mode of production is heralded by capital relations, private-property, and etc. But of course, you wouldn’t know this because, a.) you’re an idiot; b.) you’re ignorant of economics, history, politics, and philosophy; or c.) both.

        I think C is the correct point.

        And LOL. If you happen to read the news, you’ll know that people in Cuba are relatively happier than people in capitalist countries. In the Happy Planet Index of 2009, Cuba ranked 7th in world happiness, while USA ranked 114th and Japan 75th.

        Now, Cuba ranks 12th, USA 105th, Japan 45th, Singapore 90th, Hong Kong 102nd, and etc. But these are facts, something unknown to a total dolt like you. So I suggest you download the data here, to maybe stem a little bit of growth in your brain:

        http://www.happyplanetindex.org/

      • November 20, 2012 3:38

        LOL! Try harder, moron…

        I gave you the generic definition of “mystic” or “mysticism”. I told you that Marx’s entire political philosophy is mystical for it is against human nature and reality.

        1. Marx’s society without private property will only work with savages and primitive people. Name a society that prospered without property rights, moron. Well, there is no private property in North Korea. The jungle people in the Amazon and remote African jungles don’t have a concept of private property. They live an utterly primitive life. That’s the kind of life people would get under Marxism. Try to live without the concept of private property, you primitive flea-brain.

        2. His communism is a stupid mystical fantasy only for stupid people.

        Read my previous responses again, IDIOT.

        3. You can’t even refute what I said that Marx’s ideas negate reason. You don’t even know the concept of reason.

        Now look at China. During Mao’s rule, which absolutely abolished private property and implemented a collective system, millions of people died. But when Deng Xiaoping betrayed and compromised Maoist principles and opened the Chinese economy to foreign investors and began to recognize the people’s property rights, China began to achieve economic progress.

        What you don’t know, IDIOT, is that there are degrees of freedom. The more socialistic a country, the more poor and primitive it is. The more capitalistic a society, the more progressive it is. This is evidenced by think tanks like DoingBusiness.org.

        I know you don’t understand these things simply because you’re an incurable moron.

  11. February 26, 2010 3:38

    First of all, the Filipino Freethinkers are not promoting atheism, but reason. Mind you, there are agnostics, deists, and even liberal theists in the group.

    You are right in saying that religion is not the root of the misery, but rather ignorance. However, you may have noticed that in the Philippines religion plays a key role in promoting ignorance. (You may also have noticed how medieval Filipinos were in the Feast of the Black Nazarene.)

    Religion (particularly the Catholic Church) is very powerful in the Philippines, influencing education and politics (remember the recently killed RH Bill?). As such, freethinkers are angry at religion, which has become the embodiment of ignorance in the Philippines and the major cause of poverty and overpopulation. Now what would be the logical and more effective thing to do, attack ignorance (an abstract concept), or religion (definite and concrete)?

    Vincent wrote: “I don’t believe being an atheist will make a person more rational and more sensible. For me, atheism is not an end in itself. It’s never a guarantee for anyone to live as a rational human being.”

    – Totally agree.

    Vincent wrote: ” This is the reason why I don’t mingle with some people in these parts who label themselves as “Freethinkers” (whatever that term means).”

    Had you taken the time to google it, you would have found this in Wikipedia:

    “Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.”

    Again, not all freethinkers are atheists. Freethought is a journey where one chooses the roads paved with science, logic, and reason; atheism (as well as agnosticism, deism, and even philosophical theism) are just the destinations, none of them final.

    • February 26, 2010 3:38

      Hi Innerminds,

      Click HERE for my reply.

  12. Free Pharte permalink
    February 26, 2010 3:38

    Free farters? Is that an insult? If you’re implying that the opposite is ideal (containing one’s farts), then I’d be a free farter.

    Do you love eating the musical fruit? Do you contain your farts, Vince? And how long?

  13. Em El Ar Ji permalink
    February 26, 2010 3:38

    Well yeah, first of all, I congratulate you for successfully driving traffic into your blog.
    But then there is a BIG difference between ATHEISM and ANTI-THEISM.
    Atheism, is just as what you have been keep on saying, disbelief in any G/god (not really hatred in religion though).
    Anti-theism, just as what the name implies, is active participation against theism (or the belief in G/god or loosely, religion).

    Ngayon, hindi ko mainitindihan kung bakit rinereklamo mo ang mga taong may magkakatulad na interes na nagsasama-sama/nago-organisa.
    Kapag nakakakita ka rin ba ng cheering squad, nagkakaganyan ka?

    Okay, seems na self-centered ka pala.
    Wala kang pakielam sa mga magsasakang nagpapakahirap/pinahihirapan sa pagsasaka para lang makakain ka ng bigas, wala kang pakielam sa mga manggawang pinagsasamantalahan sa paggawa magkaroon ka lang ng maisusuot o mauupan.
    Ang pokus mo ay ang indibidwal.

    Ang problema kasi sa ganyang sistema, kung lahat ay sarili ang iisipin, eh di mawawala na lang ang bigas, mga damit at mga upuan.

    Mas malala ka pa pala sa mga kriminal, yung kriminal kasi nagiging makasarili lang dahil sa hirap ng buhay, pero ikaw?

    Kaya hindi ko maintindihan kung anong problema mo sa Altruism na yan.
    Wala akong makitang morally right sa alternative mo sa Altruism.
    Paano naging tama na para sa sarili mo lang ang lahat ng gagawin mo?
    Wala ka na lang pinagkaiba sa mga hayop.

    At, teka lang ha, nung huling suri ko, kapitalismo ang isa sa pinakamalaking dahilan kung bakit sabog ang Pilipinas.

  14. lordjepf2 permalink
    February 27, 2010 3:38

    vincent,

    you’ve said that religion is a private matter and should be respected. I don’t understand why u kept on using the word “free farter”, I can’t find any sense of respect in you. So you are self-centered/ narcissistic / self-fish? why don’t you live in an island, lets see if you evolve and bear a child through your own. You are maybe right about the RH bill thing but its not right to judge people around here based on that, i urge you to be better than that, i can see you are a perfectionist, but im telling you, we humans have so much to learn, you speak like you know everything. And also, please dont view humans as a supreme species for all we know, wala taung ginawa sa mundo kundi mag hasik ng lagim. Personaly i hate politics, Politicians ba ang gumawa ng computer? car? aircon? train? airplane? medicines? celphone? bahay? satellites? power stations? water stations? HINDI! technology made our lives better, la naman ginawa yang politicians kundi magpa laki ng tyan ( well its just my opinion and i admit its subject to change/improvement). and also, earth has been here for billion of years, eh tayo mga tao? thousands? do we think ang tagal na natin dito?

    kudos to everyone who thinks! deeply.

  15. February 27, 2010 3:38

    ALL REAL LIVING IS MEETING. Martin Buber

    A Meeting
    (Pamela Haines)

    a community of friends
    all their antennae out
    weaving together a fabric of agreement
    how much listening can a room hold?
    in a sea of ambiguity
    each one takes a turn
    catching a thread of clarity
    and offering it to the rest
    caring sensitive fingers
    probing the tangle of ideas
    sorting the threads
    tying loose ends
    thoughtfully
    holding the patter-that-might-be
    in the mind’s eye
    the skill and the patience
    intelligence and creativity
    of a dozen lovers
    feeling
    thinking
    building with fine familiar tools
    in an uncharted land

  16. Anon permalink
    March 23, 2010 3:38

    the zealots are out of the pen! LOL

  17. April 21, 2010 3:38

    Its funny seeing you guys fighting each other. You had your own reasons and own understanding on things that do exist or do not??? You cant outrun the final frontier of knowledge. If you are lucifer i think you can amass great knowledge because you are the main inducer of all knowledgein this world. You baboons doesnt think objectively. I read a baboon farticle when i bump in this free-farter fuckers faticles of yours sheeple. You think things subjectively but no one is a monopoly of knowledge you know. Even if you can sparr with your borrowed intellegencia from your gods(books and teachers and experience to be exact!)you cant arrive on a exact truth. Because all of you are poor duck hunters. And all of you are seeing everything in grey. There is no grey and grey it not real. If you can magnify the grey, all you can see is black and white all along you fools!! that is why thinking the duckhunter way of hunting black and white will rule this world not you fools who thinks duck are dotted,grey,green,pink which will make you a prisoner of your own mind!! Visit mah blog fools!

  18. Franky permalink
    September 21, 2010 3:38

    I care nothing about “secular mysticism” nor “rational egoism” whatever those fart sounds you have invented mean.

    But it is pretty obvious to me that you are a…

    right wing nut.

  19. Angelo Elevado permalink
    March 22, 2011 3:38

    I believe this just speaks for the the GROUP, not Filipino freethinkers in general. I’m a Filipino Freethinker myself, but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything they say (like the part when they like Carlos Celdran disrupting a Church mass to support the RH bill). And also, most of all, I don’t hate religion as much as they do.

    As for the atheists bonding together part, I don’t think the primary reason for them bonding together is “their hatred towards religion”. I say these atheists just simply want to shout out, speak out, for the fact that we live in a religion-dominant society.

    If it IS the hatred, however, then this is just one of the things why it is a fact that Filipino atheism is still young. Like a kid, it still has a LOT to learn and experience. We’ve been under the influence of religion for so damn long that “freedom” from it feels so…yeah know, different. These atheists consider themselves “inmates” of a prison called “religion”, and the first thought of them after getting out and becoming free is hating to get back there.

    I say you should take it slow for the moment. I myself also admit that I am among these “young atheists”. I also admit that I once a militant atheist with this ignorant hate towards religion, which I am now in the process of extinguishing this hate by opening my mind a bit more — figured seeing the world in black and white is not the right way. So I strongly believe that these atheists can improve. If you wanna prove something right to them as an atheist yourself, it would be best that you make it so that it shows that you want to correct them, improve them. To show hate towards a group would just end up nasty, well based on my experience. I however admire the way you criticize these atheists. Being criticized is one good way of learning and becoming better.

    Time will tell if we Filipino atheists in general, especially the members of the Filipino Freethinkers, will get better (and perhaps finally achieve their intended goal — be advocates of reason). At the moment…Let these criticisms coming.😀

    • March 22, 2011 3:38

      Here’s a concrete example of REASON vs. SECULAR or ATHEISTIC MYSTICISM. Objectivist Yaron Brook vs. secular statist and freethinker Miles Rapoport.

  20. March 22, 2011 3:38

    Angelo Elevado,

    First, let me tell you that rational thinking is far different from what they call “free thinking” (if this term has any meaning at all). Philosophically and philologically speaking, the term “freethinking” is a good example of floating abstraction. A floating abstraction is any concept detached from existents. It is a concept that people merely take for granted and accept as a species of truth and fact without knowing what specific units the concept denotes. In reality, you really don’t know what the term “freethinker” means, its nature, its scope, its validity. You accepted it yet you don’t know it. To know something is to see its connection to reality and its relationship to the rest of your knowledge. A floating abstraction is a concept or idea which is, in your mind, cut off from reality, i.e., which you have not reduced to its referents. It stands in your mind as a string of words disconnected from concretes. So, for example, if you say, “A unit is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members,” and then I ask you for an example, and you shrug, the concept “unit” is – for you – a floating abstraction.

    I hope you know and understand that only concretes exist. Abstractions do NOT exist. However, abstractions are merely a method of classifying concretes. Concretes are perceivable by our five senses. Examples of abstract terms are socialism, capitalism, altruism, globalism, poverty, etc. Karl Marx did not invent socialism; he merely came up with a term to identify or classify some concepts he later on called “socialism” and “communism”. Socialism existed thousands of years before Marx.

    Also, Adam Smith did not invent capitalism. However, Smith and some other free-market philosophers like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises believed that a practical and moral social system that has a potential to uplift man’s life condition, civilization, freedom and rights, and state of affairs exists. Thus, concepts like socialism and capitalism are NOT floating abstractions because these are concepts NOT detached from existents.

    However, the concept “freethought” or freethinking” is a concept utterly detached from existents. It’s a term without existential meaning. Remember that we use definition to separate and distinguish between concepts and ideas. Definition is what we use to keep order in our mind. It’s part of philosophy.

    Now I begin to see and understand that some these self-claimed “freethinkers” are victims of “terminological irresponsibility”. Before calling yourself “something”, you have to understand the nature of the term (e.g., freethinker, socialist, capitalist) that you’re trying to attach to your person and identity. What is “freethought”? Why should I call myself a “freethinker”? Is there really such a term?

    Someone in the wiki-world, or perhaps someone from Kansas State U, came up with a sophomoric definition of the term. This wiki-person defines it as “a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or dogma.”

    Through the process of deduction, the wiki-person is trying to say that “freethought” is:

    1. a philosophical viewpoint

    2. this philosophical viewpoint posits that opinions should be formed by a specific process

    3. the basis of this process are logic, science and reason

    4. and the latter should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or dogma.

    This means, if such a definition holds water, that the freethinker collective is NOT simply a group of people trying to speak their minds as you said.

    The problem with this definition is that it has no solid philosophical foundation to stand on. Most rational and thinking men, especially scientists, understand that a philosophy has the following branches:

    1. Metaphysics- the nature of reality. What is reality?
    2. Epistemology- the nature and scope of knowledge. How do we know we know.
    3. Ethics- morality. What’s the morality of man?
    4. Politics- social system. What’s the best political system for man.

    Judging from the sophomoric, poorly written blog articles on the FF website, it appears that they adhere to Marxist, post-modernistic, Foucauldian, Machiavellian system. Theirs is a system, which is poorly based on a number of systems of thought.

    For instance, their immature, hilarious defense of the RH bill is solidly founded on Marxist dialectical materialism and Machiavellian system. The end justifies the means, they argue. We have to contribute to the greater good, they say, without knowing that such a mentality is fundamentally ANTI-REASON, ANTI-LOGIC and ANTI-SCIENCE.

    In regard to the nature of the Freethinkers, consider what I stated here in reply to one who ONCE claimed he’s a freethinker. https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/a-brief-comment-on-the-filipino-free-farters/

    Here’s a related blog: https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/filipino-freethinkers-versus-reason/

    • Angelo Elevado permalink
      March 23, 2011 3:38

      Oh wow. O_O

      You sir deserves 10 million internets. lol

      I admit though that I thought free-thinking simply means being able to think free from dogmatic influences like religion. I have been misinformed. I should then be calling myself just simply a “secularist” from now on.

      Thx for the info.🙂

  21. October 22, 2012 3:38

    Throughout the great scheme of things you get a B+ for hard work. Where you actually misplaced me was first on the details. You know, they say, details make or break the argument.. And that couldn’t be much more correct at this point. Having said that, allow me tell you just what did do the job. The writing is definitely rather powerful and this is probably why I am taking the effort in order to comment. I do not make it a regular habit of doing that. Secondly, while I can notice a leaps in reasoning you come up with, I am definitely not certain of how you appear to unite your points that make your conclusion. For now I will yield to your point however wish in the near future you actually link your facts much better.

Trackbacks

  1. Filipino Freethinkers Versus Reason « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. The pseudoscience and pseudo-intellectual Fililipino Freethinkers, their trolls and sockpuppets « aristogeek
  3. Freethinkers are Post-Modern Progressives, Social Reproductivists, Statists « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. Name-calling Versus Identification « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: