Homosexuality, abortions and the death sentence

There are, luckily, people out there who listen to me. I don't necessarily want people to fall on their knees and come to the realisation that there is no God. I want people to think about their own religions and think twice when they give the bible as a reason. Or if they make the assumption (as Christians is wont to do) that everyone believes in God.

Science does not disprove God. It simply disproves the bible, and many Christians believe in the metaphorical sense of the bible.

I want people to make the assumption that Science is true, and that Religion could be true.

I want people to stop forcing their beliefs unto others. If it's a personal choice, why do people keep forcing their personal beliefs unto others? Teachers who teach using religion (this is illegal), politicians who make laws based on their own religion (it's called separation of church and state for a reason), presidents who attack countries because their god told them so, and many other disappointing events. And then there are the people who kill others or force them to convert to Islam through violence. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=437871&in_page_id=1770)

Now, on to the real topic. This is a touchy subject, but I feel I must express my opinions:

Homosexuality:
I'll be talking about homosexuality (and most topics) in the male tense. It makes things simpler and avoids confusion. I have not forgotten about the women. In fact: My mother is a woman.

Let's take a look at what homosexuality is.

A man loves another man.

This is surely worth stoning! They are corrupting our society by falling in love and expressing their love for each other in private! They are destroying our laws and they want to give everyone AIDS!

What have homosexual people done wrong?

First off, I think they cannot help it. There probably people out there who can help it, but I think the majority can not. Why would people be gay if they could help it? Think about Pastor Ted Haggard. He is a very famous religious man in America. Recently, though, it came out that he is gay.

Now let me put this in perspective:
Let's pretend for a moment that it is completely against your beliefs to climb on a boat. You tell everyone that it is sinful to get on to a boat because you believe it to be so. Other people think that it is okay to get on the boat, but you disagree.

If you had absolutely no inherent feelings of getting on the boat, would you do it? I wouldn't. But if you cannot help yourself, and your gut (/sexual part of your brain) is telling you that to get on the boat is RIGHT, then you might just get on the boat.

But let's assume homosexuality is a choice.

Why is it wrong? Homosexual people are the same as heterosexual people. They just get aroused by a different gender. Why is this a crime?

But people sometimes say: "Gay people are immoral."

Let's assume that morals means showing respect and adhering to the law.
First: This is called stereotyping. And it is just as stupid as saying "all black people are stupid" or "women can't drive."
Second: There are more hetero people who are immoral than gay people. Think of a prison. The majority of people in prison are hetero (although a few of them turn temporarily gay because of their sexual frustration). The phrase: "Hetero people are immoral," would, in fact, be more accurate (depending on how you view things).
Third: Even if the majority of homosexuals were immoral, that would still not make it wrong. The immoral acts (if it is against the law) are wrong. And those acts should be punished. But you cannot pre-emptively punish an entire group of people because many of them are immoral. That would be like giving children corporal punishment every morning because most children are naughty.

Abortions:
I, personally, have one or two things against abortion. To be honest, I think it's wrong to kill. But I eat meat. And I will continue to eat meat as long as I enjoy the taste. But I will never eat something which is self-aware.

I believe in freedom over the "potential" life of someone. That's why I would give people the right to use contraceptives and to masturbate. These people also waste "potential" lives. Yet many Christians do it.

I can't think of an effective way to convince people that abortions is right, so I'll just point out one or two things:

Let's pretend there is a woman who becomes pregnant. She wants to get an abortion. Do you really think she will love or care for the child? I would probably not abort a child, if I was a pregnant woman, just as I would not have sex with another man, but I still give people the right to choose for themselves. This is called freedom.

Almost all Christian people are completely against abortion. But these same people are often for the death penalty. I don't understand this. Either you consider life to be more important than freedom, or you don't. Make a choice.

I choose freedom. Although, when you kill someone, you are taking away their right to live. I'll explain below:

Death Sentence:

Let's look at this hypothetical situation. It may seem like an exaggeration, but it is very effective:

You are carrying a pistol and you are sitting in a restaurant. You see a man heading into the restaurant with a pistol. He starts executing people with a single shot to the head. You can either shoot him with the pistol, killing him, or you can leave him and let him continue murdering. What would you do?

This really happened, but that is unimportant.

Now consider a murderer who shows no remorse and proves himself to be less than human. He proves that he will always continue killing people if he gets the chance. Will you lock him up for 20 years and let him out on parole and then allow him to kill more people, or would you give him the death sentence?

This is really the extreme cases, and that is my point exactly. The death sentence should be used sparingly, such as in New York. No one in New York has been executed for the past 15 years, because they have not deemed it necessary to do so. But they have the option if someone like Charles Manson comes along.

If the deaths of several people are avoided by the death of a single, guilty, person, then it should be considered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/haggard.allegations/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson

Religious Experiences and Debate

Ah, yes. Life changing experience.

"You cannot understand how I feel. I can FEEL that God exists. How do you disprove that?"

Very easily, but it's not so easy to convince someone, because people who FEEL that God exists, usually deny anything that contradicts that feeling. I used to be the same. And saying, "you cannot understand," is very cowardly. I DO understand. I used to be a Christian. I could FEEL God working. I could FEEL the magic when we closed our eyes to pray. But that does not make it true.

Example 1:
A woman in India somewhere (I can't find it, someone just told me about this) suddenly became a Christian and knew all these things about Christianity she "couldn't have known." And the person says: "How do you explain that?!"

Example 2:
A boy (can't find link right now, but there are several stories) in China found out that he was reincarnated. He knew several things he "couldn't have known." How do you explain that?

Both of these cases are known as supernatural events. There is a $1 000 000 prize(see bottom of page for link) for any person who can demonstrate a supernatural event (above cases included) in a way that can be tested or verified. This will never happen, because there are no supernatural events. That "reincarnated" boy never went for rigorous testing. And that Indian woman neither. They could have easily made $1 000 000 if they were telling the truth. They both just made claims and the newspapers went crazy and probably exaggerated as well.

No one tested their claims.

How do you explain that?
Well. I explain it by telling people that it's probably a lie, or a delusion. I've always wanted to go to an insane asylum and talk to someone who honestly believes that he is Napoleon. But then I realised that I can simply talk to religious people and ask them what happens to them when they die, or if they believe in angels.

Let me tell you story I read in The God Delusion. A man and a woman were touring Sri Lanka when they were young. They were slightly religious. When they were camping in a tent, they heard a voice which "could only have been Satan himself!"
The man renounced his "evil ways" and became a reverend. He is still a reverend today, just because of that experience. When a biologist recently asked him why he became he reverend, he related the story. The man laughed excessively and told the reverend about the "Devil Bird," which has a cry which sounds like the voice of a demon. It's a common bird in Sri Lanka. So, basically, the man became religious and scared to death because a bird was crowing near his tent. I find this extremely sad and amusing.

There are also stories of Shamans who curse people, and then the people die. We actually DO have an explanation for this (read the link: Placebos), but even if we didn't, that would not make what the Shaman says, true. The effects may be similar to what the Shaman predicts, but not the cause.

The same can be said of any religious experiences.

If, for example, you are happier after you have "accepted Christ in to your life", then that does not make it true that "The Holy Spirit" is inside you. It just means that whatever you believe makes you happy. I, for example, believe that mushrooms are delicious. When I taste mushrooms, it makes me happy. Someone else may eat the same mushrooms and feel disgusted. I may say/think it's because I am CHOSEN to enjoy mushrooms, which are the HOLY VEGETABLES. And that the other person isn't CHOSEN. The truth is, of course, that my taste is different from his. In this case, also, the effect is the same, but the causes are different.

You cannot make decisions based on emotion
Even if it is love. Especially if it is love. I know of a few people (me included) who fell in love with other people who were completely and utterly insane. I LOVED that person and would do anything for that person. I changed my personality, my habits, everything, to suit her. I was in love; therefore I did not care about what SHE was like. I just wanted to make her happy. That is what love can be. But I made a mistake. Luckily, I realised it. We are not alike. We do not even complement each other.

At that time, I would have said: "No one can understand how I feel."

But that is exactly what emo is: You get completely emotional and you wallow in your emotions. You pretend that you are the only one who can feel the way you feel. There are at least 6 Billion people on the planet. Most of them know how you feel. People feel similar emotions through the course of their lives. And, most importantly: Emotions are chemicals in the brain. It can be controlled through medication. If "know one knows how you feel," then why would there be such effective medication to control these "unknown" emotions?

Emotions never explain anything.

Think of, for example, a mental patient. He could be extremely happy because the aliens are coming to fetch him tomorrow. But they aren't. And he is stuck in a mental institution. Obviously things aren't going well. But he is happy. This means absolutely nothing.

Try reading the links for more info. Especially Intersubjective Verifiability and Psychology of Religion.

Debating about religion:
I would like to take this opportunity to invite any religious person to debate with me. Religion is a topic just like politics and morals. People can easily talk about something like, for example, the death sentence, but they are afraid to talk about religion. Why is this? I would like to openly talk about religion with someone. Just because I ask you, "Why did Jesus have to die and suffer for three days, if God could only have forgiven us without the suffering?" then it doesn't mean I want to make fun of you. I simply want to know WHY. I want to know... everything. And I use various means to get the information. People often refuse to openly talk about religion, so I have to confront them. But then they talk emotionally, and that is not very productive.

I would just like to have a normal, civilized discussion. Though I sometimes intimidate people subconsciously...

This blog has not been as extensive as the previous blogs, but I think I have proven my point. Please tell me if you have any other questions, suggestions or points to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_Bird

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_awakening

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_(origins_of_technical_term)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective_verifiability

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Evolution, Part 2: Anti-evolutionists

Notable human evolution researchers:
James Burnet, Henry McHenry, Svante Paabo, Jeffrey H Schwartz, Erik Trinkaus, Milford H. Wolpoff, Charles Darwin, JBS Haldane, Leonard Shlain, Richard Dawkins, Alister Hardy

These are all the researches on HUMAN evolution. There are hundreds of other respected and learned biologists specialising in evolution. Wouldn't you think that it's likely that, if evolution was wrong, it would be proven to be wrong, at least within a hundred years of its lifespan? No, because evolution isn't something like the theory of gravity or quantum theory which explains things we cannot perceive. Evolution is very simple (see previous blog).

"But," says non-believers, "there is an alternative. Intelligent Design! (from here on referred to as ID)"

So let's take a look at ID:

Notable Intelligent Design Researchers:
NONE

mmm... that's very strange indeed.

Okay. Maybe I just can't find a name. Why don't you try it? Really, go ahead.

So maybe the people who invented discovered ID just didn't want to give up their names because they were so honourable and modest. (ha!) Let's look at how normal scientific (remember, ID is claiming NOT to be religious) theories are recorded and made available:

The discovery is made, such as with evolution, and then it is given up for PEER REVIEW.
Google defines peer review as: the process by which articles are chosen to be included in a refereed journal. An editorial board consisting of experts in the same field as the author review the article and decide if it is authoritative enough for publication.

Therefore, if anyone "creates", for example, the theory of relativity, he then gives it to other experts in the field (in this case physics experts, or in evolution's case, biologists) who evaluates the entire theory and tests it for himself. This process can be done by anybody who wants to do it. That is the beauty of science. If someone publishes a theory (after peer review) then any person off the street can test the theory for himself and try to disprove it. Or improve upon it. There are no patents which makes mathematic formulae illegal to use because someone else invented it. Science is truly free.

So through what processes did ID go?

Guess.

"To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal."

Surprise, surprise.

Okay... maybe no one has had the chance to research ID properly? Or the money?

"The Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted."

Whoops...

Okay... maybe this is just an evil plot by scientists who are against ID? The true Christian scientists are probably oppressed by the evil ones. Let's get a REAL Christian scientist to defend ID for us! And that is, of course, what ID proponents did. They got Michael Behe (see link below for more). Behe is an educated, respected (by some) Christian Scientist. He made a court case for ID. Let's see what he said:

"But in sworn testimony, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.""

WHAT? Did Michael Behe, the biggest ID supporter in America, and a very smart man (*cough*) just admit that Intelligent Design is a completely fictitious invention?

People are completely against evolution, but only because it is slightly too complicated too demonstrate with a simple diagram (such as showing the planets' orbits). It makes them uncomfortable because they want to believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that God created everything in 6 days.

Saying ID (which tries to tell us how and when and why the earth was created) is the alternative to evolution, is like saying (unproved) biology is the alternative to dentistry. Evolution does not prove the age of the earth. Evolution simply explains how the animals that live today, came to be what they are.

Other methods predict the age of the earth. No, carbon dating is not the only way to tell the age of things. To quote:
"Forty or so different dating techniques are utilized to date a wide variety of materials, and dates for the same sample using these techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material." (See bottom of page for more info)

And even if radiocarbon dating was "inaccurate", it's accurate enough. It's inaccurate to about 60 000 years. But if it predicts that the earth is 4, 5 billion years old, then the earth is most likely more or less 4, 5 billion years old. Radiocarbon dating predicts that the earth is "at least 4.404 billion years old." Other dating methods (using the sun's rate of growth, meteorites, planetary orbits, I don't know how exactly, read the link at bottom of page) place the solar system, including the earth, no more than 4, 567 Billion years old. They have decided upon 4, 567 Billion years and it's the closest they are going to get any time soon. Mostly because they are probably right.

And another thing:
Many, many scientific theories make sense if the earth was 4, 5 billion years old. Scientists still debate or even argue about the exact age of the earth, and the stubborn ones about the age of the universe (see Nobel Prize for Physics 2006). But they usually differ by no more than a few hundred million years. All of them (with one or two religious exceptions) think of the earth as older than 4 Billion years. But religious people (usually uneducated) believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. That's a difference of about 4,567 Billion years.

That's a big difference. It's like on person saying:
"I believe an Olympic swimming pool is about 50 meters in length. At least 49,9999999m. I used measuring tape, a ruler, an engineer's scale, gauge blocks, ultrasound distance measuring devices and a laser rangefinder. But I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong if you submit evidence which contradicts me."
And the other person says:
"No. My sacred text tells me this pool is 0,00005m long. And ultrasound distance measuring devices are completely inaccurate! You can't rely on them!"

And then this person invents a "scientific theory" to PROVE that the swimming pool is 0,000005m long. And when he cannot prove this, he says that people should accept that there are "alternatives" to ultrasound distance measuring devices.

But I'll stop here, and tell you that if you actually took the time to research ID (mostly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) you'll see that is complete and utter bogus.

Problems with evolution:

Peter suggested to me that I talk about evolution's emotional impact and people's problem to cope with it. Thanks, Peter, for the suggestion.

Why are people against evolution? Evolution does not disprove God. 200 years ago, Galileo discovered that the earth revolved around the sun. This made the church uncomfortable, because the Bible clearly states that this is not so. But the church had to give in, because Galileo was right.

There are other examples. Airplanes is one. Evolution is another.

Why would someone think that science is more knowledgeable than the Bible when it comes to planetary orbits, but not when it comes to biology?

Evolution does not disprove God any more than the fact that the earth revolves around the sun does. Sure it contradicts the bible. But the bible contradicts itself. It even has the stupidity to say that Pi is 3 and that light and dark was created in one day, and water(I think...) the next. This does not disprove God or the good aspects of Christianity.

Logic disproves God.

Evolution is JUST ANOTHER THEORY. Just like the theory of gravity or the magnificently complicated theories of Stephen Hawkins. The theory of gravity was discovered by Newton, who was a Christian. And Evolution was discovered by Darwin, who was also a Christian. Just because they have different beliefs about God than I do, does not make them wrong. They were both brilliant, incredible men who changed the world. And they did not think that their own theories disproved God. So why does anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Evolution, Part 1

First off, I'd like to say this: I am NOT an expert on the subject of evolution. I am simply someone who is interested enough in life itself to RESEARCH things. I don't like to say things which are false. Therefore, I make sure about my facts.

How most religious people see evolution:
"Evolution in the fictional world of the Pokémon video game franchise refers to a sudden change of form in a Pokémon, usually accompanied by a dramatic increase in statistics. It should be noted that this is not an evolution in a biological sense, but rather the metamorphosis of an individual creature."

How most scientists and intellectuals see evolution:
"In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next."

So, for those of you who do not take the time to research things, I'll explain evolution as if to a child. It's actually quite brilliant:

This is overly simplified to get a point across.
Take, for example, a squirrel. There are several squirrels. These squirrels run around in trees. Sometimes, a predator may attack them in the tree, and the will try to escape. They will probably do this by jumping out of the tree. The ones, who are better at jumping out of the tree and surviving, will survive. The squirrels who fall to hard and break their backs or get captured by the predator, die. So, obviously, the ones who are best at jumping out of trees survive. These survivors will pass on their genes.

The children of these surviving squirrels will differ slightly from their parents. Some might be better at jumping from large trees, others might not. Recreation is slightly random. Then, these children will go through the process again. At a later stage, the squirrels will have evolved flaps at the side.

Natural Selection does NOT have a goal or a direction in which it moves. It does not require someone (god) to "select" the right species. It can be simply and very easily described by these words:

Survival of the fittest.

Some of you will, at this point, think that I am describing a random event. It is not random. For example, rolling dice is random, but always picking the higher number on two rolled dice is not random.

Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.
- Richard Dawkins -

This is evolution in a nutshell. But it is more complicated than that.

Some of you will say that you believe that creatures can adapt and change, but you don't think that a single cell can become a fish, a fish can become a mammal or a dinosaur can become a bird. This is usually called Micro-Evolution (adapting to small changes in the environment) and Macro-Evolution (changing a species completely). This is slightly erronous, because most biologists believe that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing, with only a difference in scope (time).

Remember, evolution is a process which takes hundreds, thousands, millions of years. And it never stops. Evolution is not the process life has gone through in order to achieve us. It is the process life goes through, because it is the only option. How can the fittest NOT outlast the unfit? And fit, is of course a relative term, because "defects" can have an unexpected advantage in life.

Another Example:

Say, for example, a bird extremely good at catching fish and evading predators, finds itself upon a somewhat deserted island. This island has more than enough fruits to feed the bird. And there is no competition. The bird will survive well, no matter how it lives. Therefore, the descendants who are most economic will survive the best. The descendants, who waste energy and time on unnecessary muscles used for catching fish, will not survive as well as the lazy descendants. Then the bird will evolve into something like the dodo.

Another example: Sharks. Sharks are extremely good at catching fish, birds and seals. They have not really "evolved" (in the common understanding of the word) for the past millions of years. The reason for this is that they have no need to change. They have achieved a perfect adaptability and balance. They can swim extremely fast, detect blood more than a mile away, go for long periods of time without food, catch more than one kind of prey and they heal their teeth by simply replacing them. What more does it require? Intelligence? The smarter the shark is, the more time it will spend deliberating about things, and less time eating and recreating. The shark has achieved optimality. It will not change until it is necessary to do so.

A fish does not simply "turn" into a mammal. A fish that lives close to the shore (because it has evolved to adapt to catching insects living close to the shore, for example) may have trouble living because the waves washes the fish unto the shore. But many of the fish will live. One day, one of the fish might have a slight mutation in genes which allows him to take in more air and less water. (No one is exactly like his parents/ancestors. Everyone changes slightly from their parents.) This fish will have a higher chance of survival than the other fish. The process repeats itself until you get something like the lungfish, which can breathe both water and air. And so forth.

If you think "mutation" is too unlikely a cause for this, read this:
"Genetic variation arises due to random mutations that occur at a certain rate in the genomes of all organisms. Mutations are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell, and can be caused by: "copying errors" in the genetic material during cell division; by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses."

I'll stop explaining evolution now. If you don't get it by now, you probably never will. Or I am a bad writer. Either way, I'm moving on. The point is that you should continue reading about evolution and anything else you don't understand. If you are confident that you understand evolution, then you are allowed to talk about it and tell others whether you believe it. If you still don't know anything about it, then please stay quiet until you do.

Proof of evolution?
First off, logical reasoning, but I'll assume you don't have that. (No offence meant)

Fossil Evidence has given us an extensive family tree and history of modern species. Take a look at this photo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Primate_skull_series_with_legend.png

It compares the modern apes with each other. Note the similar eye-sockets, teeth, sinus cavities, shape of skull, and (even though you can't see it in the photo) the way the backbone connects to the skull. These are all remarkably alike. All mammals, as you should know, have just about the same backbone. It is a very effective system for creating blood cells and safely protecting nerves; therefore, it has not changed much. This is because all mammals are descended from the same ancestor (yes, a single one), and because the backbone is very hard to improve upon, as it is now. The backbone, as an entity in itself, has achieved optimal efficiency.

I'm not going to expand on the proof much more. Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evidence_of_evolution

I can talk about evolution all day, because it is a very extensive and subtle theory which all rests on a single concept. It is both very simple and extremely complicated. I love it. I have read several books on the subject (busy with Ancestor's Tale, by Richard Dawkins, as well as Adam's Naval, by Michael Simms) and I will continue to do so. I have also read books in support of Intelligent Design. I really want to read The Naked Ape which ID proponents frequently quote.

I have considered both sides of the argument and I am still open to change. If someone can prove me wrong, I will admit that I am wrong.

Just to clarify: Humans did not evolve from monkeys, apes or gorillas. Humans, monkeys and other primates all evolved from the same distant ancestor. This is what makes the next statement even stupider than it already is.

"Evolution can't be true! I didn't come from monkeys!"
To which I once had the pleasure to respond:
"Even if evolution isn't true, you are still a primate, and, in your case, an ape."

These people do not think about evolution. They do not even know how it works. They simply hear that we come from monkeys, and therefore it must be wrong. They simply attack evolution because it makes them uncomfortable. They barely even try to understand the brilliance of the concept itself. Every time someone tells me that he does not believe in evolution, I ask him if he can explain evolution to me. No one has ever been able to tell me. They ALWAYS misunderstand it. And the people, who take the time and the effort to understand it, are the people who "believe" it.

People accept the theory of gravity, even though the church was against it. (For some reason, gravity was considered an attack on religion) The same can be said about the elliptical orbits and positions of the planetary bodies in the solar system. Why do people accept some facts about science, but "disbelieve" other facts?

And the clencher, of course, is the fact I have already mentioned:
Many churches are completely FOR evolution.

Many (smarter) Christians believe that God "guided" the world and primates to evolve into humans. They believe that God caused the Big Bang and created the perfect, ordered world as we know it. I have no problem with these people, because they don't (directly) cause ignorance. Believing in evolution does NOT make you a bad Christian. But not believing it, does make you ignorant.

I will be taking on the people who "disbelieve" evolution in my next blog.

The reason I use Wikipedia so often, is because it is usually right. It is a very effective and easy to read summation of the facts. Another, very good aspect of Wikipedia is its tendency to list all it's sources, which I sometimes browse through for more extensive writing on a single topic. And, most of the time, I read things in books (written by respected and learned authors) and then search for it on the internet, and find it on Wikipedia. Therefore, I have a bad habit of going straight to Wikipedia when I want a source. I'm too lazy too look things up in a book, and I assume you are too lazy and forgetful to actually find the book, read it and look for the things I quoted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution - an example of evolution in modern times.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Ancestors_Tale.html - a page about Ancestor's Tale, a book which traces our ancestors all the way back to the origin of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - my main source .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_anatomy - the study of comparing the anatomy of various species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution - another important source. Read it if you doubt that we share a common ancestor with primates.

"Hot on the heels of its magnanimous pardoning of Galileo, the Vatican has now moved with even more lightning speed to recognise the truth of Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins

The Ten Commandments and Premarital Sex

Today, I am taking on morals in religion.

More Specifically: The Ten Commandments and sex before marriage.
I'll also refer to two hypocritical Christian role models who are not the exceptions.

First off, the Ten Commandments: (there are differences here, but it's basically the same)
1. I am God and you shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
5. Honour your parents
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife

Let's begin.
1. I have explained why there is no God. Let's assume I am wrong and there is a god. Why would he have to make laws forbidding worship of other gods if he really is the only god?

2. See 1.

3. Wrongful use of the name of your God? What would constitute "wrongful?"
Using his name as a swearword? Who would do that? And why? People swear. They swear very colourfully and imaginatively. People who use the thing they worship and deem to be above all else as a swearword are just stupid. That's like me using my father's name as a swearword. The ONLY reason I can think of that people use the expletive "Jesus Christ!" is because the 3^rd commandment forbids it.

4. Jesus himself reminded us of the stupidity of this law by working on a Saturday. For those of you who don't know, The Sabbath is on a Saturday. SUNday is the day God created the SUN. The FIRST day. Someone has just decided to change it. Because they had God's holy permission. Don't ask.

So... how many shops are open on a Sunday? There are millions of people who work every Sunday. Are they going to hell? Or will their mortal sin be forgiven? Why aren't people allowed to work on Sundays? Because it is decided by the bible. And the bible is never wrong (see "the bible is a work of fiction," a previous blog).

5. Why should I honour my parents? I only honour people who deserve it. My parents are intelligent and caring people who have cared for me my entire life. They deserve my respect.

But if I was raised by a father who abused me, I would not honour him. Even if he was my only source of income. (http://www.azcentral.com/ent/arts/articles/0225Mormon-Memoir-ON-CP.html)
The fifth commandment has been created by lazy parents who do not want to teach their children themselves. They want to refer to the bible and tell them "honour me cause the bible says so."

6. This is the most obvious of rules. The Jews escaped from Egypt and then created the Ten Commandments. What a coincidence (wouldn't you say?) that Egypt also had laws against murder and theft? The bible is not the basis of all morals. Some people tell me: "If it weren't for the bible, I wouldn't be as good as I am."

Let me ask you this:
If you see a man hitting a little baby, will you think "God tells us not to harm others; therefore I must feel bad right now." Or will you simply feel instant grief at such a sight? Empathy and/or sympathy are emotions built into the human brain. Primates and other intelligent mammals have it as well.

7. This is very subjective, and I won't go too far into this topic.
All I'm going to say is this:
If what you do does not (directly or indirectly) hurt any person, is it really wrong? I can agree that it is wrong to deceive someone and that person would be hurt if he/she finds out. But what if both parties agree to go their separate ways and experiment for a while? I know of a few couples who have done this. They say it has deepened their love for each other. They are exceptions, of course, but you cannot make rules which does not fit everyone and assume that it will.

And besides, no primates, and almost no mammals, are monogamous. Why are we the exception? I can love more than one person. In more than one way. I'm not going to deny people my love and attention just because someone else has "reserved" it. Do not try to twist my words around. I will never willingly deceive someone I love.

8. Refer to 6.

9. You shall not lie? Okay... So you can swear, hurt people by telling them exactly how ugly, stupid, etc. they are. But you can't lie? You can vandalize public property, torture small animals, hit children and women and force others to believe what you think is right. But you can't lie? What if you get into a situation where you will hurt someone's feelings by telling the truth?

Lying is normal. The effect and the reason for the lie is more complicated, but not all lies are evil.

10. WOW! So women are property now?
Let's disregard that sexist comment and assume that it refers to coveting things in general.

Google defines covet as:
"Wish, long or crave for."

If I did not covet living in a better home, eating good food and making a difference in this world, I would not have worked hard in my life. In fact, I would just have to sit there and be happy with what I have until I die of starvation. The bible tells us we may not covet. If human beings did not covet, the capitalist system would have fallen apart. Because no one would want anything MORE out of life. They would just resign themselves to whatever fate they are given.

The human race itself is dependant on greed.

And, to finish off the 10 commandments:
The list is incorrect.
The original Hebrew text says:
"You may not kill a Jew."
"You may not steal from a Jew."
Etc.

So the 10 commandments are in actual fact extremely bigoted and racist.

Next: Sex Before Marriage.

Why? Why do you want to wait until marriage to have sex? I can understand if someone waits until marriage for a good reason, but no one has given me one.

"Don't you want your wife to be a virgin?" is the best answer I've been able to get from a person.

My answer is: I don't care. If I marry someone, it will be because of her (or his, if I was gay) personality, intelligence and, to a degree, (I have to be honest) looks. It will be a combination of factors. "Pure" sex is not one of them.

To me, sex is an expression of love and devotion. I will not have sex with someone I don't feel strongly about, but I won't tell people that they can't have sex with anyone they want. If you say sex with any person you want is wrong, why would it be okay to make out with anyone you want? Both are expressions of love and lust. The one carries a higher risk of infectious diseases and children.

According to http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-marriage.html there are only two reasons why we should not have sex before marriage.
1. The bible says so (and the bible is always right)
2. There is a risk of STD's

If I breathe close to someone, I also risk infecting that person. Does that make it wrong to breathe when people are nearby? No it doesn't.

Another problem is that people say that relationships built on only sex, have a higher chance to end in divorce. OF COURSE it will end in divorce. It's built on only sex. Sex is just one part of a relationship. People who depend on only one aspect of a relationship are doomed to failure. But that does not make sex wrong. People who love their partner (or partners) in more than one aspect, are the ones who are more likely to have a lasting, meaningful relationship.

And the web sites keep saying that sex is NOT wrong, even though they keep telling everyone about the "evils of sex." It should only be practiced between husband and wife. Did you know that marriages used to be secular (not religious at all). The Romans (as far as I can tell) invented weddings. And then the Jews changed the custom to fit their own needs.

And then I'd like to end this blog with a short comment on a photo I saw recently.

It was a photo of two girls kissing intimately. I focused on the low quality cellphone photo and recognised the pair of girls. They are two very committed and well known Christian leaders. They believe in the Ten Commandments. They believe that "homosexuals are sinners who will burn in hell."

And they kissed each other.

At first I found this extremely funny. Then the implications of that photo dawned of me. And it became very sad.

These are hypocrites. Not exactly the worst kind of hypocrite, but definitely very high up on the Hypocritic scale. They not only believe that homosexuality is wrong. They also preach it. And then they kiss each other.

Usually I try to stay objective, but right now I'm making a slight exception:
What pisses me off most of all is that they are not the exceptions. Most Christians I know believe that homosexuality/premarital sex/lying/cursing/hurting people/etc. is wrong. But they still persist in doing exactly what they tell others is wrong. And I, who actually obey my own laws, am looked down upon by these hypocrites.

Next blog, I'll be taking the side of evolution.

My sources for this blog:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

A Reasonable Attack on God

Let's define God.

God is a being which transcends (exceeds) all laws and limits. He is all knowing, all powerful and all loving. God created everything. This is the common summation of God.

Some believe that God created everything in 6 days and others believe he created everything in 6000 years and the more intelligent and realistic people believe that he caused the big bang and "guided" the universe to create the sun, the earth and life and then "guided" life itself to evolve into humans.

I'm going to assume the latter, (the last one) because I'm trying to convert the intelligent people of the world. Those who still believe that the earth is 6000 years old, still have to come to terms with the fact that science is right. Or, at least, more so than the bible. Who here believes that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth? Science, when trying to describe the real world, is more successful than religion. Religion (if you believe in it) is more successful at describing the afterlife, but shouldn't be applied to the real world. but I digress...

Okay, so God is above everything. He created the universe. But who created God? Did he just... exist? Some of you will say "yes" at this point, so let's move along.

Okay... so the big bang is the start of the universe. But what caused the big bang?
Does the universe just... exist? Some of you will say "no, God did it," at this point, so let's move along.

So God "just exists" and the universe does NOT "just exist." Why? What makes God so special that you can apply logic to EVERYTHING except him?

"God is beyond reason and we cannot begin to conceive his way of thinking."

Then why does religion pretend to do it? The bible describes God to us. The bible even goes so far as to tell us what God thinks, what he wants, what makes him happy or sad and what his home (heaven) looks like. It even tells us what he wants us to do:
Worship him.

If I was all knowing, all powerful and all loving, I wouldn't send people to hell just because they don't worship (try to talk by praying, offer their entire lives, force their beliefs unto others, etc.) me. I'd make the world... well... habitable.

Which brings me to my second point: Why is the earth such a bad place? Christians can usually ignore this by not reading newspapers or thinking too hard... or at all. Have you ever seen real poverty, experienced death or suffering?

Every year, more or less a million people in Africa die of Malaria. They just die. (I'm going to focus on this point, but the same could be said of AIDS, Influenza, Floods, Poverty, Droughts, etc.)

Imagine all the people in a high school. That's between 1000 and 2000 children. If an entire school were to be killed in a day, it would be a tragedy. Now imagine a sports stadium. The world over, EVERYONE would hear of it. Now imagine 20 of those sports stadiums. That's how many people a year die of ONLY malaria.

And most of them (according to the Christian religion) go to hell. Because they don't know who this Jesus guy was. More than 60% of the world (that would be more or less 4 Billion people (alive today, not counting the future and the past) will burn for all eternity in a lake of fire because they don't know about or believe in Jesus. About 90% (wild guess) of them never even had the chance to get to know Jesus.

So, if God exists, why does he punish people for something they don't do?

"Because he gave us free will," some of you rationalise.

So let's get this straight. God created the universe and everything in it just because he wanted to create humans. (Isn't that a very conceited way of reasoning?) And then he gave us a badly designed body and free will. Then he created various ways for the world to kill and torture us (Virii, Diseases, Natural Disasters...). And then he told a SINGLE MAN(Abraham) about Himself so he could go out and spread the word to people in his area. Because He loves us?

Ha!

And if he WANTED us to worship him, not have sex before marriage (did God invent Marriages?), not covet, etc.
Why did he make us WANT to have sex so much, covet everything we don't have, etc.

All I can conclude is one of two things:
God does not exist.
Or
God hates humans. (NOT all-loving)

And why would he create a universe 94 Billion light years across just to create a semi-habitable space about 0, 00000000000000000001(I can't find the real number, so I'll use this) light year across? If he really was all powerful and really wanted to create the universe just for humans, wouldn't it be more logical to create a completely habitable place? Or at least 1% habitable? Compared with the 0, 0000000000000000001% habitable.

Yet again, I can conclude one of two things:
God does not exist
Or
God is stupid. (NOT all knowing)

And all powerful?

How do you know this, if God is unfathomable and cannot be described? How does anyone make the claim that God is all knowing/all loving/all powerful. The ONLY reason to believe this, is that other people make this claim, and you believe them.

God never demonstrates that he is all powerful. People only say
"God is all powerful!"
"Why?"
"Because He said so."

They, of course, use the same argument to prove his existence.

Here are four interesting links to pages you should watch/read.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#Economic_impact

www.stupiddesign.net

The Bible is a work of fiction

I'd like to say that I'm against all religion that worships non-existent beings, but I take on Christianity because it's the biggest religion.

Have you read the bible? I've read it from start to finish. It's the worst thing I've ever read. Please try it some time.

For those of you who believe in the literal truth of the bible:

This is the story of Jesus's resurrection:
At the rising of the sun(Mark16:2), I mean when it was dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1), I mean with the other Mary (Matt 28:1), I mean as well as with Salome (Mark 16:1), I mean with Joanna and other women also (Luke 24:10) went to the tomb. When they arrived the tomb was open (Luke 24:2), I mean closed (Matt 28:1-2). At the open/closed tomb, they see an angel (Matt 28:2), I mean a young man (Mark 16:5), I mean two men (Luke 24:4), I mean two angels (John 20:11-12). These man/men/angel/angels were standing (Luke 24:4), I mean sitting (Matt 28:2) inside (Mark 16:5), I mean outside (Matt 28:2) the tomb. Then Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene. She immediately recognised Him (Matt 28:9), I mean she did not know who he was (John 20:14).

If the bible is literally and completely true... which part? There are major contradictions. Such as:

Mary was a virgin and became pregnant with Jesus through a holy spirit.
Or
Jesus is descended from David. But only Joseph (his father) is descended from David. Mary is not.

And I'm not even going to mention the examples of bigotry, sexism, racism, murder, pornography (did you know that The Wise Solomon had a fetish for large breasts?) and other forms of "non-christian" morals.

There are thousands more examples available here:
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

But on to the next argument:
"The bible is not a literal book. It is metaphorical. Parts are absolute, other parts are relativistic," someone once said to me.

Let's see what that means:
rel·a·tiv·ism (rel'?-ti-viz'?m) n. www.dictionary.com
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

This would mean that you can interpret the bible any way you like. That some parts of the bible are absolute and some parts are not absolute. The church never gives out a declaration explaining what parts are absolute and what parts are not. They tell people that "this part is metaphorical." But they don't bother about the rest. The obvious example is Genesis. They say it's metaphorical. "God didn't really create Adam and Eve. It's simply a symbolic story for human free will. He gave us free will, and that is why bad things happen in the world."

For those of you who don't know: The NGchurch (biggest one in South Africa) believes in evolution. They just want to keep it quiet until the older, more influential but more literal churchgoers dies. Obviously they don't say or even think this consciously, but that is the situation they are in. An influential and respected (by me as well) Reverend told me that the NGchurch believes in evolution. I concluded the rest. On this, I admit, I could very easily be wrong.

Think about the symbolism this way:

20 years ago (in South-Africa), the parts of the bible that said that black people are inferior to white people, was absolute. Now it's "relativistic." 400 years ago, slavery (in the bible) was okay. Now it's "relativistic." How do you choose which parts are absolute and which parts are not? By just going with the current zeitgeist? But remember... slavery and racism can be relativistic, because they are "moral values." But what about the "history?" The bible tells many stories which are completely false. This has nothing to do with relativism.

So, you say it's a metaphor? That it's symbolic?

It wasn't a metaphor when it was written down. It was MEANT to be taken literally.

The bible says: God flooded the entire world and killed all living creatures, except for Noah and the creatures on his ark. When this story was written, it was meant to be taken literally. But, everyone with an education should know that this is impossible.

What you should also know, is that the Zoroaster religion, as well as other Assyrian and Middle-Eastern religions of that time, all told stories of floods. It was based on a real flood. The bible simply copied their stories, and made it bigger, grander, and more biblical.

Which parts of the bible are metaphorical? Everything that doesn't make sense any more, now that we have been educated.

Please, I urge you again: Read the bible. Just once. The plot-twists are amazing.

And then there are some of you who have come so far as to admit that the bible isn't really true. That it's a doctrine that was written more than a thousand years ago, and should be dismissed by modern society.

All I can ask you right now is this:

If you don't believe in the bible, why do you believe in God?

Except for the bible, there is absolutely NO reason to believe in God. There are only other people who believe in God and the bible. Because other people believe in God and the Bible. Because other people believe in God and the bible...

If you believe in the bible and God, you have to rationalise everything. If you don't, everything makes sense. You don't have to make excuses for fossil records pointing towards evolution. You never have to lie to yourself again.

And have you ever thought it strange that Christianity/Islam/Judaism has never spontaneously started in more than one place? If Christianity is the One True religion, why do churches have to send missionaries to other countries? I'll continue on that note, with my next blog.

Why I am against Religion

This entire blog will be an attack on any dangerous religion. Buddhism, for example, has nothing wrong with it.

Here we go.

These are two very good videos. They are short and to the point. The only problem is that they assume that you are intelligent.
http://godisimaginary.com/video1.htm
http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm

The bible is extremely false. Try reading this website:
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

If you don't understand what atheists are all about, read this website:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ - I don't know if this is true or not, but I suggest all visitors to read it.

All the famous celebrities who are atheists:
http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Now, some of you may wonder why I'm making this blog, so I'll make it clear:
Religion is a pox. It is a plague. It is wrong (which I'll try to prove in subsequent posts) and it causes massive problems. In 313 A.D. Constantine became a Christian and killed off all other religions. He practically made it illegal to be a non-christian. Then the roman empire collapsed. But the Roman Catholic church remained. For more than a thousand years, we lived in the DARK AGES. The time when the church was the ultimate ruler. Since 1800, we have achieved flight, incredible mathematics, economics, technological breakthroughs that would have seemed like magic to people 50 years prior and much more, in less than 200 years, we went from dreams of flight, to the moon. All thanks to people who were brave enough to go against the church.

Like, for example, Galileo. He suggested the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun. The church almost killed him. Nowadays, things are not much different, except that the church's power is fading.
example:
"The entire process of life can be explained through natural selection. I will call it... evolution!"
"Humans didn't come from apes!"
"Fossil evidence, as well as evolution, suggests that it did."
"No it doesn't!"

and so forth.

I think religion should be allowed. I believe in freedom of religion. What I DON'T believe in, is people forcing their beliefs unto others. It's one thing to correct someone. It's quite another to tell him that he will burn for all eternity in a lake of fire because he loves men more than women. Or (even more ridiculous) because a girl had sex. Sex is, in all respects, an act of love and passion. But let's not go into that right now.

Children, especially, should be protected. Children trust adults. They trust them completely. It is an evolutionary advantage, with dangerous side-effects. The side effect is, if you tell a child a lie, he will believe it. Try it one day. But make sure you don't lie about something important. Like, for example, what happens after you die.

I'll demonstrate how dangerous the bible can be:
"I think same-sex marriages should be allowed."
"I don't." - this person is completely at liberty to disagree, but...
"Why not?"
"Because.... I... er... the bible says."
"Well... apart from the bible, do you have any reason?"
"I... just FEEL it."
"But feelings are dangerous. And you base your feelings on childhood experience which is, to be frank, stupid."
"but... the bible..."

Obviously this is an exaggerated demonstration, but the situation is similar, most of the time.

At this point, you might think: "but this person does not harm anybody."
Au contraire!
This person harms gays. How would you feel if you live in a society where a holy book (which may not be questioned) tells you that you are wrong and that you must be killed? I imagine it would be much the same as being black during apartheid. The "white god" protected the white people and allowed them to say that blacks are inferior.
Extremists are not the only problem. They blow themselves up and harm other people, but they do this because they believe the opinions of (often) more peaceful men.

People don't always realise that they force their beliefs unto others, but it happens. Often. What scares me most of all is this:
If I put a large poster on a public wall, proclaiming that all people who don't agree with my religion (if it is Christianity) will experience eternal pain, then I will be applauded. If I put up a poster which says:
"Jesus was wrong." (note, Jesus said that he will be back to kill all sinners within the next generation.) then people will tell me I will experience eternal pain.


So... what are the advantages of religion in THIS world?

Next blog, I'll be taking on the bible itself.