Freethought, Freeblog

.

THE preceding blog purports to be about freethought and freethinkers. Notice the blogspace is empty. Except for the Luxemborg quote, nothing is written, no ink splattered, no binary character jutting out. Zero. Zilch. Zip.

It is empty and you know it. Bokya.

Inquisitive visitors may unmask some layout defects and conclude that there indeed are some hidden points in said blog. But those 'defective points' betray more of this blogger’s html programming ignorance than anything.

.

Some readers would put meaning to the empty blog. They would claim they would not be deceived by its emptiness, that it really expresses something, that it’s actually pregnant with ideas and stories, and overflowing with expletives, and some ellipsis, too. They would read patterns where there is none. They would 'see' the piece-by-piece of this blogger’s intents that is supposedly reflected by each square centimeter and every column-mile in the empty blog. Invisible but visible, eh?

Itta bird! er… itta blog! … and it’s really empty. But it's free.

Free-flowing or free-falling, the empty blog is closed yet open-ended. It seems to extend an invite: Feel free to enter; feel free to wallow in its supposed abstraction; yes, interpret a freeblog, a freethought! Be my guest. Freeblog is freethought.

Freethought, so freethinkers insist, is simply a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma -- specially, religious dogma. Maybe that’s why freethought is almost always equated with atheism and agnosticism, and other "isms" you could fairly think of.

So there. Freethought explained. Free, as in walang bayad. Thank God for freethinkers. Huh?

Now think. Thinking is free. You don’t need to pay any fee doing that. But when you’re paid to do some thinking… then you’re what? A paidthinker. Duh!

Now hear. This is freethinking, walang bayad -- myfreethoughts on atheism and atheists:

Atheism, says neuroscientist Sam Harris, is the refusal to deny the obvious. What then is the obvious? For one, that there’s no God, that there’s no scientific proof nor physical evidence whatsoever that God exists or if he/she/it/@#$ ever existed at all. Hence, if that is the obvious fact, what’s the use denying it? Why deny it at all? To lie? To dupe? To control/ scare/ subjugate/ enslave others?

In “There is no God (and You Know It)” Harris made it all the more comprehensible to the literate: “Atheism” is a term that should not even exist, (it) is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.”

If religious faith is the blatant denial of the obvious fact, then religious dogma, by extension, is the shameless exhibit of ignorance and/or twisting of that fact. Talk “intelligent design.” Talk creationism. Talk religion. Aren’t these a shameless twisting of facts?

“Faith means not wanting to know what is true," says Nietzsche. So true. Even as we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor, uhm... where's the goddamn faith? Go ask evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.
.

Zeus did not exist, and today, we’re all certain he’s no more than fiction. Same with all other so-called pagan gods, greek/roman/timbuktuan or otherwise. The God of the Abrahamic religions, the biblical God, did not and does not exist and you know he/she/it/@#$ is no more than fiction. Add Bathala to the list.

And Jesus? Geez. The historic Jesus C. (like the historic Julius C.) is another story. Another story is another story. In the future (maybe tomorrow), I'll try to freeblog about atheists for Jesus.

In a talk given at the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington D.C. on 28 September 2007, Harris further challenges the atheist, and those who'd care to listen: "We should not call ourselves atheists or agnostics. We should not call ourselves secularists. We should not call ourselves secular humanists, or naturalists, or skeptics, or anti-theists, or rationalists, or freethinkers, or brights. We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them."

So there. The preceding blog, the empty blog, speaks for itself. Nuthin’ in thar blog. Nothing!

And you know it.

Or, maybe, the nothing therein is just swirling under the overly excited reader’s radar. It hasn't been detected yet, (I mean, the reader's excitement), despite its lucidity.

Up to this point.