Factualist point of view

Choosing sides

2007-07-19T07:23:00.001+02:00

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/469317,CST-CONT-danger15.article

First off, I’d like to recommend the above article. It is quite amazing and is an introduction to Steven Pinker’s latest book: What’s Your Dangerous Idea, in which he questions the top experts in different fields of scientific study about their “dangerous ideas.”

Such as that legalized abortion is good for the economy.

On to a next topic:

The people who support a cause
Many people say that you can’t judge a cause by the people who support the cause. I disagree here. I think the people who support the cause can give a very good indication of what the cause is really about.

Take the evolution vs. creationism/Intelligent Design debate. Over the years, there have been many attacks on evolution. Physical attacks even, and death threats, such as this one:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c.html

I have not taken the time to search for any fundamentalist activities by evolution proponents. Most, if not all, of them just continue with their lives. Some of them make webcomics, blogs or write books telling people why intelligent design is stupid. This is, as far as I know, the most they have done.

Evolutionists also boasts an apparently higher IQ, due to the fact that they do not get facts wrong as frequently, and seem to be able to spell more accurately. Though this may just be my biased opinion...

*ahem*
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=4f1456031fcc05a3afaf&page=1&viewtype=&category=md
*ahem* (read the opinions below the video.)

Then there’s the abortion debate. The pro-choicers say that people should have the freedom to choose to have an abortion. The pro-lifers choose to say that no one may have freedom to choose. This is, as I have highlighted, slightly hypocritical.

Pro-lifers rally in the streets, as they have the freedom to do, to take away a portion of freedom. Some of them go far enough to bomb abortion clinics, kill doctors and nurses and hold people hostage. I have not heard about a single pro-choicer murdering people in the name of dead babies.

And, closely tied in with the abortion-debate, there is the death penalty. People who are against “the murder of babies,” are commonly in favour of the murder of full grown intelligent people. Even more shockingly, many of them are also in favour of the murder of full grown retarded persons.

Pro-choicers (or baby murderers, as the pro-lifers make them out to be), on the other hand, are commonly against the death penalty.

There’s not much more I can say is there?

I like to look at all possible aspects of a situation, and the people who support the cause is one of the integral parts.

Communism vs. Capitalism is another issue. Capitalists give people the freedom to prosper or diminish. Communism gives all people the same treatment and wishes for everyone to be content. Both are good ideas.

Unfortunately, most known communists use violence, exploitation, lies and sometimes even genocide to keep communism going. This is not really necessary in the case of Capitalism. Communism is still a good idea, but once you start to think about it, which communists don’t seem to do, you realise that it is not very practical.

Also:
http://www.johnkyrk.com/evolution.html

The above link is curious. Try it out.

2007-06-29T03:37:00.001+02:00

Ah, lovely. Exams are over. I have time and will hopefully be able to blog again, but just as I contemplate stopping my blog entirely, Mandi Pandi http://www.myspace.com/mandiventer gives me this link:

http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

I am slightly inspired again. I guess everyone needs antagonists or inspiration of some sort.

Now, I am not the kind of person who would look at a comment I don’t like and delete it. I will instead answer the comment and shed light on the various misinterpreted quotes given in the website.

"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms." (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)

Yes. It is hard. And? It is hard to get a 50 ton airplane to fly. It is even harder to leave the earth’s orbit. Are you implying that, because it is hard, phylogenetics is invalid?

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

"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all."

Yes. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all. It is very hard to determine exactly where we came from. Complete fossils are rare. Humans came from chimpanzee-like ancestors, who came from other primate-like ancestors, who come from rodent ancestors who came from lungfish-like creatures, who came from etc. Obviously we don’t know every single detail about every single thing, but remember; one hundred years ago we didn’t know the compositions of many stars, including our own. Are you implying that, because we don’t have documented evidence of every single thing, the things we DO have evidence of, are untrue?

I suggest reading Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins. It tracks the entire progress backwards from humans to the possible origin of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor's_Tale

"There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon."

What irritates me about this is that the creationists have taken a quote by an educated biologist (Niles Eldredge), twisted it around and completely misinterpreted it. I guess what he is saying (because the context is unknown) is that we are still not certain about the diversification of multi-cellular life, and that we are still researching because it is hard. Unlike the creationists who say “we don’t know, we don’t want to know,” he’s saying that we should find out.

"Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)

All major groups of fishes have their origins based in nothing? That is quite a claim. I think what he really means is that no one knows where lungfish came from. That is a slightly less preposterous claim, but still slightly... untrue. If only because the might have discovered more fossils since the book was written, more than fifteen years ago. He also says “Whatever ideas authorities may have...” which means that he does not care for evidence or peer reviewed pubication.

The link below shows what humans have discovered thus far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish#Taxonomic_History

"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." Gould

Yes. As Gould, a very influential and respected biologist, has stated, we can rarely trace the gradual transformation of one, entire species into another through a, finely, graded, sequence, of intermediary, forms.

He did NOT say, “We cannot follow the development of a species” or
“The species does not seem to be developing at all! Are species just staying the same they were after they left Noah’s Ark? The evidence doesn’t add up! It’s a miracle!”

Are you implying that, because some species’ ancestry is unknown, they do not have any ancestors?

The rest of the quotes in that category are similar: “We don’t have exact perfect evidence of every single species’ ancestry. We have absolutely NO evidence AT ALL that God exists. Therefore, evolution is untrue, and God exists."

2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

Yet again, the language is misinterpreted. Gould is saying, in the context of the sentence (please read it entirely, and not just the red highlighted text which PROVES God’s existence) is that there are few fossils which show the gradual change from one species into another. He didn’t say that the do not change, he is saying that, from the few fossils we have, it may look like they don’t change.

Are you implying that, because we don’t have documented evidence of every single thing, the things we DO have evidence of, are untrue?

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." Gould

Yes. Darwin was distressed by the Cambrian explosion.

“Darwin saw it as one of the principal objections that could be lodged against his theory of evolution by natural selection,^[2] as have modern-day Creationists.” – Wikipedia... again.

He must have been a smart man to see so far into the future. People are still using it as ammunition, even though it is irrelevant.

Or rather: “And on the third day, God said, let there be a sudden diversification in organisms such as phytoplankton and the various colonial calcareous microfossils grouped together as calcimicrobes!”

Surely THIS is proof of God’s existence!

The same can be said of “Large Gaps.” In fact I’m not even going to bother reading through the entire category. I grow tired of these repetitions and rephrasing of the same sentence.

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."

“All of us?” Surely that cannot be true. Stephen Jay Gould, Charles Darwin and other biologists have studied the origin of life. They don’t think life is too complex to have evolved. But that’s a moot point anyway.

Life’s complexity IS great and it really IS hard to imagine. Just like it is hard to imagine that the earth is round (but when you know that it is, it makes more sense). We are not sure about the origin of life, but unlike the creationists, scientists are still researching and guessing. In last month’s issue of Scientific-American, an extensive article on the origin of life and the progress we’ve made to understand it was published. Yet, there is still more proof that life evolved from “dead matter” than there is proof that God exists.

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

I like this quote. Very wise that one. IF. IF. IF living matter is not caused by the interplay of atoms, etc. how has it come into being? IF. But as evidence states (Scientific American, as mentioned) living matter is likely caused by known forces.

And, more importantly, let met repeat what the author said, ironically enough, on a Christian website: we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
I agree wholeheartedly. There is, for example, no proof that prayer works or that God exists. We must therefore not reject the theory that “God does not exists” just because we don’t like it.

The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.

I have to agree. Most would break down before an inquisition. The inquisition, as made famous by the Spanish Christians, tortured people until they agreed with the inquisitor. It is obvious that this person would prefer an evolutionist harangued until he agrees that God exists, even though he’s only saying so to lessen the pain of the inquisition.

Ah yes, and here I see a quote made in 1925. I am not saying that the quote is wrong because it is old, but one must see the entire context. The author stated that “if you study palaeontology” but many advances and discoveries were made in that field in the past 80 years.

Followed by two ignorant quotes which state that “there is no evidence of this and this,” even though the evidence does exist.

And then one which criticises evolution because it is a “new religion” which scientists subscribe to. The quoted is Wolfgang Smith, a physicist and aerodynamics specialist. I’m sure he has also studied evolution... at a dinner party with fellow creationists perhaps.

“In his writing, Smith has constantly emphasized the idea of putting science back into the Aristotlean framework of traditional realism.”
I like this... This man says that we should follow “Aristotlean realism” even though Aristotle said, for example, that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object, and he didn’t even bother to test his hypothesis. I think Smith is on the mark. We SHOULD go back to a time when we said things without proving them and believing in things that has been disproved.

Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance." (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

Nice. I would read the book, but the problem is that the title sounds more insightful than the content.

I’m going to skip to the end now. This is becoming... frustrating. More repetitions.

There is only one person in recorded history who claims to be the eternal creator of the universe who had no beginning. He is the Anointed One.

Only one person in “recorded history” has claimed to be the eternal creator of the universe.

If you read carefully, you will see many layers of ignorance.
1. Several people have claimed to be the Creator. Most, if not all, of them were mad.
2. This passage implies that “recorded history” is the only history; that, before the bible was written, there was nothing.
3. The passage also implies that claiming to be a god makes you a god.
4. “Eternal” is unnecessary, although it’s probably not as ignorant.
5. MANY Gods have claimed to be The Creator, including Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Bill Gates and Yahweh.

You will be ever hearing but never understanding. You will be ever seeing but never perceiving. The hearts of these people have become calloused. They hardly hear with their ears and they have closed their eyes. Matthew 13:14-15

I like this quote. It reminds me of people who do not believe in evolution.

God gives life to the dead and calls into existence things that do not exist. Romans 4:17

WOW.

And the final sentence:

Is atheism against the law?

CLICK HERE

It is against the law in Alabama (or other bible-belt states), as well as most countries where women have no rights. It is also against the law to be a Christian in Mecca. I hope these people don’t believe this as “further proof” of God’s existence... Especially since the government has no business what a citizen believes. The Nazi government, for example, killed anyone who believed in a certain set of values and ended up slaughtering more than six million of these so-called “enemies of the Reich.”

And I hope to God that Mandi Pandi won’t try to execute me for heresy, as she might be being brainwashed to do by this website...

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_believe_in_evolution_except

Read the above link please. It is extremely witty. As is the rest of the publication.

Praise for How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker

2007-05-30T10:07:00.000+02:00

After several unsuccessful attempts, I’ve given up. There is nothing new I can say about religion. I can repeat the things I’ve said and I can say it in different ways, but there’s no inspiration. My time is becoming more limited since I am in my final year in school and my future depends largely on how hard I work this year.

Therefore, I’ve decided to turn this blog into a more everyday blog where I’ll just write about anything that catches my intellectual fancy.

I’ve recently read the second half of How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker. It’s a brilliant book which describes where the human mind comes from, how it works and why it thinks how it thinks. I was told to read the sixth chapter, family values, as it’s the most interesting, but now I want to read the entire book.

Pinker sums up human behavior and takes on many myths and assumptions about human behavior. From the top of my head, I can remember one or two paragraphs:

The common assumption, especially among idealists, is that humans are inherently “good.” That they become influenced by the corrupt world around them and that is why they are evil. This assumption is influenced by a famous anthropological study (unfortunately I’ve forgotten the name of the woman who was in charge of the study, so I’ll call her Brown) done in South-America. In this study, it was found that the tribal people are good towards each other and live happily in a perfect society. Recently it has become clear that Brown was fooled by the tribesman. They lied to her and she believed every word. The truth was that the tribesmen were not much different than any other tribes, such as the Zulu.

For example:
In a survey conducted in South-America, it was found that 60% of all tribal deaths were caused by violence. Among these violent deaths, it was found that 60% were murdered by men from other tribes.

Being generous towards strangers also has an evolutionary reason behind it:
In a society of meat-eaters who hunt with a 40% chance of failure (no food at all), it is logically more beneficial for each individual if everyone shared the meat they bought home. Otherwise one person can be unlucky and die of starvation. In another society, where you harvest more food if you work harder, it is logically more beneficial for each individual if everyone simply worked hard enough to care for himself and his family.
Studies were done, and it was found that this is exactly how foraging and tribal societies work.
A scientist visited and studied the Khoi (or another Southern African tribe, I’m not sure which one). He found a generous society in which everyone shares all the meat he catches. He must have thought that the people were an insightful and loving society. But one of the tribesmen bought meat home, shared most of it with the clan and asked the scientist (a new element in the society) to hide the rest. The reason they are generous is not because they care, but because it is almost impossible to get away with not being selfish.

Another example: (this is explained more adequately in the book)
As Dawkins stated in “The Selfish Gene” it’s not quite about the survival of the fittest organism, but survival of the fittest gene.
That is why families love, even if they don’t like, each other. They share more genes than they share with any other living organism. The fewer genes a person shares with another organism, the smaller the chance of loving that organism. Families almost automatically love each other, while couples need to work hard and attend marriage counselling, or things might fall apart.

I am, unfortunately, not as good an author as Steven Pinker, but I would honestly suggest How the Mind Works to any person who is a scientist (or a geek) at heart.

I’ll try to update my blog more regularly from now on.

Premature History of Christianity

2007-04-24T09:58:00.000+02:00

I recently got an email from a Christian friend asking me a few things:

“How do you prove that Jesus wasn’t resurrected without using the “bible has more errors than facts” argument?”
And
“Why do you say that Jesus did not exist?”
And
“According to statistic, ‘n third of Europe became Christians at ‘n certain time. It would obviously be at the same time as Jesus’ resurrection. Something must have caused it.”
(these questions aren’t exact, but I’ve taken the individual questions out of the main idea.)

First:
“Why do you say that Jesus did not exist?”

Just to be clear, I never said Jesus didn’t exist (or at least, if I did, I intended different). I said, or intended to say, that Jesus probably didn’t exist. And if he did, not in the way Christians think.

This is slightly harder to explain because you have to stop assuming that Jesus existed in the first place. The real question is: what proof do you have that Jesus existed in the first place? The pressure shouldn’t be on me to disprove you; it should be on yourself (any Christian) to prove because you make a claim.

To make things clearer:
Hypothetically I think there are rats in my house. I tell everyone. Some people believe me, some don’t. But then I become paranoid and call the exterminator. He comes and checks the house out. He looks around and doesn’t see any sign of vermin. He tells me this. He tells me that there probably aren’t any rats in the house. I tell him that he should disprove that there are rats in the house. He can’t because there is always the possibility. But because he does not find any rats, droppings or walls being chewed, he does not really believe me.

The same can be said of Jesus. The only real indication that Jesus ever existed, is the bible. As you may well know, the Bible is not a very accurate source of history. It might be true, but until further proof is found, I will continue to doubt Jesus’ existence.

For example: No single document, written before 97 AD, and referring to Jesus, has been found. There were MANY documents in Jesus’ times. That is why we know the exact history of Julius Caesar, Gaius Marius, Cornelius Sulla, Augustus Caesar, Nero, and all their family members and friends and enemies. The Romans were a bureaucratic lot. The kept records of criminals. Jesus, a well known criminal, could not be found in the Roman records by any historian to date. There were, however, a few references to “so-called-messiah’s” and cults. These cults were about 60 years after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. Jesus apparently lived from 6BC to 30AD, if you believe the church.

But despite this, I still think a prophet called Jesus likely lived. He probably rallied people and spoke about peace and love, but united the people against the Romans and caused much violence. Why else would the Roman authorities seek him out if he was merely preaching love and peace? Rome was famous for its freedom of expression and religion, as long as it didn’t threaten the laws of Rome and lives of Roman citizens.

But then, as happens so often, the story was exaggerated and mythtified. Just think about Gilgamesh. He was one of the first kings, but the myth tells that he was king of the entire world.

I can make the educated guess that Jesus wasn’t born on 25 December.
Mostly because Solstice – a Roman, and therefore almost worldwide holiday, invented long before Christianity – is celebrated coincidently at the same time. At this time, they celebrate the birth of Sol/Mithras.
I can also guess that Jesus didn’t die during Easter. It’s also at exactly the same time as the widely celebrated Passover.
What I suspect, is that the Christian Empire tried to suppress “pagan” and “heathen” holidays, but didn’t succeed, so they decided to absorb the holidays instead. This is common practice, even if it isn’t intended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Second:
“How do you prove that Jesus wasn’t resurrected without using the “bible has more errors than facts” argument?”

The “bible has more errors than facts” is not an invalid argument, but I’ll try to make do without it anyway:

Like the above argument, I can simply ask this:
“How do you prove that Jesus was resurrected?”

If I claim that there are unicorns, I don’t tell people who disbelieve me that they should disprove unicorns. They don’t have to, because there is not a single reason to believe in unicorns. The responsibility is on my shoulders to prove the unicorns.

Why is it so important that Jesus was resurrected in any case? If you believe the bible, many people have been resurrected. What makes Jesus’ resurrection so special?

Third:
“According to statistic, a third of Europe became Christians at ‘n certain time. It would obviously be at the same time as Jesus’ resurrection. Something must have caused it.”

According to “statistic”? Statistics has nothing to do with this because the data is old enough to be historical, and not statistical. But I understand what you mean. Unfortunately, your ‘statistics’ are completely erroneous. I would like to find out where you got those ‘facts.’

A large part of Europe DID become Christians, you are right there, but they became Christians at about the time Emperor Constantine became a Christian. This was almost 300 years after Jesus’ supposed reincarnation. Constantine killed and tortured many people because they did not want to convert to Christianity. And he killed all Christian sects which was not Roman Catholic.

When threatened with torture, crucifixion or death, people have a tendency to miraculously convert.

Here is a good indication of the spread of Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spread_of_Christianity_in_Europe_to_AD_600.png
Read the part at the bottom for a guide to the map.

As you can see, there were absolutely no exceptions in the Roman Empire by 600AD. People didn’t have a choice. They were forced into the religion and their children didn’t know any better because that is how they were raised. The Jews somehow survived and the Muslims were killed during Crusades. All other religions were absorbed or killed.

You are right; something did cause the spread of Christianity: The threat of death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Replying to Person X

2007-04-22T01:45:00.000+02:00

Replies to Person X

It seems someone finally had the guts to take me on. But not on the blog. Let's call this person, "Person X."

"Why do you attack Christianity?" Person X said.
"I covered this in a previous blog."
"You said they are the biggest, but they aren't. There are more Muslims than Christians. Just think of all the countries which are completely Muslim, compared to the countries, like America, which are only partially Christian."

Like? Iraq, Iran, Egypt? All very small countries compared to the entire Europe and North and South America as well as India and many parts of Africa. USA, for example, boasts a 78% Christian nation. Nonetheless, here is proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Major_religions_2005_pie_small.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldreligion.png
(There are several links to more pages in the article. Try the links if you are skeptical.)

But Person X would now say: "Even if Christianity is the biggest. Why did you have to attack Christianity instead of just explaining your way of thinking without attacking?"

Now how would I go about explaining that?

"Hi. I don't believe anything stupid. I believe in what's right!"
And all the Christians in the room go:
"HEAR HEAR!"
Because they won't understand. If I did not say why I am NOT religious, people (who keep asking me questions which I answer in my blog) will think I'm simply trying to be rebellious. They won't understand at all.

Person X also said:
"Don't you realise that you hurt people by making them doubt their religion?"
This is the most laughable of the lot. Let me use an extreme example which I'll elaborate on: Slavery.
"Don't you realise that, by abolishing slavery, you hurt many people. You take away the jobs of people who used to trade in slaves!"
First:
I did not force anybody to read my blog. I only told them how to get there. Therefore, anyone who reads my blog is doing so at their own risk.

Second:
If someone starts crying (a true story I heard) just because I stated the truth and asked questions no one else had the guts to, is it really my fault? Or is it the fault of the church for making you so vulnerable to simple logic?
If a girl is molested by her father from a young age and thinks it's normal, is it the police's fault for locking him up? Is it offensive to tell the girl that her father is a criminal? No. It's the father's fault for molesting his daughter and telling her there is nothing wrong with it.
That is exactly the same way I see this situation. The church lies to you and to itself. And by exposing these lies, I am not at fault. The church is at fault.

Another example:
In France, the Royal families and rich people oppressed the other 99% of the population. Then, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and many others published articles and books about democracy. At the time, the royal family told him that his works were offensive. After all, he criticized the system. And if you criticize, you are wrong. It's not the system's fault, it's Jean-Jacques Rousseau's fault! Some people even went so far as to storm the Bastille and revolt against the King and Queen, resulting in the first democratic country in the world.

How offensive!!

Like Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that Feudalism was wrong, and many others (like James Somerset, an English slave) believed that Slavery was wrong, so do I believe that Christianity (all theistic religions actually) is wrong.

I know I am going a little overboard, comparing myself to the great Jean-Jacques, but the idea is similar.

Third:
When I say, "I think Chelsea is a bad soccer team." Some people get emotional but they can present facts such as: "Chelsea won the League last year, as well as many tournaments and they are currently second on the league ladder." We can argue quite objectively about it.

The same can be said of politics, the weather or any other subject. We can talk about it, change our mind, let other people influence our thoughts and be honest about it.
But when it comes to religion, I have to tread carefully because I might offend someone. When I insult someone ("Your mother is a whore and your father smells of elderberries"), it offends them. That part I understand.
But when I tell the truth, or even ask a simple question, such as "the bible contradicts itself. Which parts are true and which parts are not?" I might offend someone. That part, I don't understand.

I don't say something false. Most people KNOW that the bible contradicts itself; they just don't want to admit it.

Person X also told me: "If you didn't make that blog, and if you didn't tell everyone that you are an atheist, people wouldn't have reacted that way and thought bad about you."

Thank you for stating the obvious; but let me answer the underlying question in that statement:

I want people to react.
Just like Jean-Jacques Rousseau wanted people to react (they eventually revolted), so do I. I want people to talk about my blog and read it. I don't force them, but I want them to read it.
Currently, Person X is telling me that I should not rock the boat; that it is better for me to let things go on as they are because there is nothing wrong.
Person X has obviously not read my blog. There are major problems, and I am trying to inform people about them.

If you hear about a father molesting his daughter and telling her that there is nothing wrong about it, will you say: "We can't interfere. We mustn't rock the boat because it might offend the father or the child." Or will you try to inform people about this problem and tell the girl that what the father is doing is wrong?

Person X also told me: "If I was being discriminated against, I would try to put a stop to it, but you are not being discriminated against, and you don't have to offend people." (Person X said many things in a single sentence, but something like this popped out.)

I am being discriminated against. People hear about me being an atheist and they are shocked and distant, no matter what I do about it. And I'm not going to hide it and pretend that I am wrong.

Someone even once said: "No. I don't like him because he's an atheist."
That person didn't say: "No, I don't like him because he preaches against sin and sins himself." Or
"No, I don't like him because he talks bad about people behind his back like I am doing right now."

That person said:

"I don't like him, because he's an atheist."

And I'd just like to finish this with a bang:

Person X told me: "You aren't being discriminated against. It's not like I go around talking bad about you behind your back."

If my sources, my ideas about the patterns you follow and my memories about stories you've told me yourself, are correct; I can simply say this:

I find it hard to believe you.

P.S. I've tried my best to keep your identity anonymous. If I've made any mistake in this blog, or if you'd like to comment on anything I've said, please email me.

The Church and Money

2007-04-08T08:07:00.001+02:00

I just came back from a vacation, so sorry for the long delay between blogs.

Religions, especially Christianity and Islam, have too many rights.

Let’s say you open a business.
This business is called The Church of Megatronism. It opens its doors every Wednesday and invites anyone to come inside and listen to you talk to them out of a book you call holy. You also invent a few things along the way and people believe you and think that it is written in the book, because they don’t actually read it. To make sure you can eat and sleep, you end each sermon by asking for small donation from each of the members. You remind them that the holy book tells all people to give 3, 14159% of their salary to Megatron. Because Megatron likes pi. Then, when the Government sends a form for you to fill in regarding your income, you tick the little box which says:
Religious Organisation (Tax Free)
You say whatever you please, you ask money for it, and then you do not pay tax?!

This should change. Immediately.

Just think of the money going to waste. And what is this money used for? Paying the theologists who live in a free, government provided home nearby. Sending missionaries on expensive trips to other parts of the world where they give starving people a bible. For uneducated children, they build a church.

Read this article, it’s not very long and it is extremely humorous: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46226

Jesus himself said: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Render unto God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)
The point of this sentence is that the Lord demands your soul and your time, while the government demands your money. If you want to earn money, a materialistic thing, then you should pay tax. If you want to earn everlasting life, you should believe in Jesus. Then why are religious organisations tax-free? The Church grew power hungry and demanded more. The church became exactly that which Jesus fought against: a corrupt organisation with materialistic goals. Things are changing, but because of the extremely corrupt past, things are as they are.

And they get this money because they make people feel guilty if they don’t give their money to the church for no reason whatsoever. How are donations to the church different from begging? Think about it this way: There is a large organisation of motivational speakers. Normally, a very good speaker gets paid more, and a bad speaker gets less work. It follows capitalism. But with this “holy” organisation of motivational speakers, it doesn’t really matter. If the speakers are uninspiring, people will still go to the church because they would feel guilty if they didn’t go. People won’t easily switch churches (or religions) because that’s the church they’ve been going to since they can remember.

Because of a kind of natural selection, the church is very good at keeping members and getting “donations.” If the church was bad at getting donations, they would not have survived for so long. If there are branches which are unsuccessful, then they would have died out and been replaced by the more powerful churches. And this has obviously happened.

For more information about religion’s rights, read this:
http://www.venganza.org/
it explains everything a bit more clearly.

Faith Healing

2007-03-23T03:30:00.000+02:00

I did cover this before, but someone asked me to write about this because he saw a faith healing happen right in front of his eyes.

I’m sure it would be hard for normal people to deny God’s existence when they see someone being cured from an incurable disease.

In just the same way, it would be hard for someone to deny the existence of magic if he sees a magician floating (see David Blaine) 2 feet in the air in the middle of the street. Most people will say: “That’s impossible. It cannot be done! It must be magic!”

But these magicians do not claim to be using magic. They know full well that what they are doing is mere illusion. And I think the same can be said of other “supernatural” events. The difference is that people claim that other “supernatural” events are the work of God/Allah/Chi/Positive Energy/Prayer/Magic.

What I’d like to know is, why haven’t any publications or studies been done on the effects of faith healing? Faith Healing is always hearsay or something “spontaneous” which happens at a planned gathering of 100% believers. It is never analyzed. And in the rare case that it is analyzed, they find nothing.

Here, I’d like to repeat the story of the Shaman. In Africa, many people believe in Witch Doctors and Voodoo and Magic. This is a true story:
A doctor I know was working in such parts of Africa. Let’s call him Gary. A man came to Gary and told Gary that he (the other man) was cursed by a shaman. Gary obviously does not believe in Voodoo, so he chased the man away. The next day, the man died of unknown causes. Gary learnt his lesson. A few weeks later, another “cursed” man came to him. Gary drew some of the man’s blood and threw colorants into the blood when the man wasn’t looking. The blood turned black and Gary said:
“This is the evil spirit. I have drawn it out of you. Go home and burn this vial.”
The man did not die of the curse.

Believer’s Translation:
A shaman cursed a man and put an evil spirit into the man’s body. The doctor used modern medicine to draw the evil spirit out of the man. The man who got the spirit removed, survived, and the one who didn’t died. THAT IS YOUR PROOF!

Real Translation:
A shaman told a man that he was going to die and the man believed the shaman. This created a placebo effect (see placebo). A placebo effect can be summed up by these words: It is the subject that has the subject-centred response. It is not the administered substance that generates the observed effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo - read this for a slightly more in-depth explanation.

The human brain is very powerful. It is NOT supernatural, however. It is simply an organ which controls the rest of the body. If the brain thinks that the heart will stop beating if a shaman curses him, then the chances are the heart will stop beating. The brain does control the heart, after all. It does not, unfortunately work the other way around. If, for example, you think that you can regrow organs, then the chances are you will never regrow them, no matter how hard you believe. The brain is only so powerful.

This is a very good website:
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

Read it. It explains the whole “faith healing” thing very clearly. As well as everything else about religion that is stupid.

The same person, who asked me about faith healing, also asked me:
“Don’t you think your website is a bit blasphemous?”

And my answer is:
Of course. The whole point of this website is to be blasphemous. Read this comic:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060222/cartoon20060222.gif

It sums up the situation very effectively. Think about it this way. I’ll assume you are a Christian. How would you feel about saying: “Zeus does not exist”? What about Ra? Odin? Allah, Hare Krishna, Shiva, Jupiter, Apollo, Ganesh? All these are Gods. There are people who believe in some of these Gods. But if you say “Ganesh, an elephant with 8 arms, does not exist,” then you are committing blasphemy in the eyes of 500 million Hindi.

I feel the same way about your god as you do about all the other gods.

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

Theologians vs Science

2007-03-11T17:09:00.000+02:00

I'll keep this blog up and edit it whenever I think of something new. It's a list of all the people who the religious people (people who believe in the literal truth of the bible) disagree with.

But first, let's define this antagonist:
This person believes that the earth and the universe is 6000-10 000 years old, that life was instantly created, that Mary was made pregnant through a holy spirit, that evolution does not happen, that the entire world was flooded 4500 years ago, that miracles happen.

I don't really have a problem with people who see the bible as figurative and believe in God, but also in science.

First List:
Let's make this a hypothetical boxing match. Each member will be called out, and a "problem" with that member will be listed.

In the big blue corner we have:
Biologists, divided into several teams:
Microbiologists, (thinks that diseases can adapt and evolve)
Geneticists, (see above)
Zoologists, (thinks we share the same ancestors as other animals)
Biochemists, (thinks all beings with the same ancestors have similar biochemical processes in their bodies)
Cell Biologists, (thinks all beings with common ancestors have similar cells)
Molecular biologists, (see Geneticists)
Morphologists, (thinks similar forms in species shows common ancestors)
Botanists, (thinks plants have 50% similar DNA to humans, therefore common ancestors)
Ornithologists, (thinks birds evolved from dinosaurs)
Naturalists, (thinks the world can be explained through physical laws)
Evolutionists, (thinks evolution is true)
Ecologists, (thinks the earth's atmosphere is the result of billions of years of life and change)
Physiologists, (see Morphologists)
Neurophysiologists, (thinks all creatures with similar brains shows common ancestors)
Palaeontologists, (thinks dinosaurs are millions of years old)
Physicians, (thinks you can test drugs on animals which will work on humans)
Entomologists, (thinks insects are billions of years old)
Ichthyologist, (thinks fish are billions of years old)
Biophysicist, (see microbiologists)
Immunologists, (thinks virus's, such as flu, adapts to modern medicine)

And then we have:
Archaeologists, (thinks humans are older than 10 000 years old)
Anthropologists, (see above)
Astronomers, (thinks the universe and stars are billions of years old)
Astrophysicists, (see above)
Geologists, (thinks the earth is 4,5 billion years old)
Chemists, (see Biochemists)
Mathematicians (thinks pi is NOT 3)
Engineers, (thinks humans cannot walk on water and should build bridges)
Psychologists, (thinks humans share common ancestors with mice and behavorial patterns should be similar)
Etymologists, (thinks all languages have a tendency to change, and was not because humans tried to build a tower to heaven)

And in the small red corner we have:
Theologians (thinks Science cannot explain mysteries of life)
Uneducated People (does not think) as their main source of income
Some Slightly Educated People (thinks they can trust Theologians more than anyone else)

P.S. If anyone has ideas/requests for a change in the list, please tell me. I'll probably update it every now and then

P.P.S. If there is anyone out there who is willing to antagonise me, please come out fighting. Thank you. (By antagonise, I simply mean to disagree, and to debate)

Second List:
I'm also including a list of all the most respectable and learned people of both sides of the argument. This time I won't write the "problem" but the history/strengths.

In the big blue corner we have: (most of these, including Einstein, are atheists or agnostics)
Albert Einstein (Won Nobel Prize for physics 1921, changed the world)
Richard Feynman (Made a huge contribution to nuclear power, played bongo drums)
Richard Dawkins (redefined how we thought about evolution, has leet debating skills)
Stephen Hawkins (

This list is going to be too long... I'm just going to paste a link to all Nobel Prize winners of physics, chemistry and physiology and medicine. And you can go look for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates

And in the small red corner we have:
Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science, 1875, tried to steal money from the state)
Michael Behe (Biochemist, admitted in court, under oath, that there is no peer reviewed proof for Intelligent Design)

... I'm really looking for respectable people here, but it is extremely hard to find anyone. All I can find are people like "Dr." Kent Hovind (a high school teacher in jail for $600 000 worth of tax fraud and 2 charges of assault and battery) and other uneducated people or reverends who studied the bible and philosophy, and knows nothing about science. Can someone help me?

Third List
What the two groups have done for us in the past 2000 years. Or rather: What we should be grateful for.

In the big blue corner we have:
Electronics:
Medical Equipment (pacemaker, X-ray, Ultrasound, Life Support Systems)
Lights
Alarm Clocks
Microphones
Speakers
Mp3 players
Computers
Cellphones and Wireless Telephones
Large scale and cheap long range communication (automatic servers)
The Internets
Wristwatches
Television
Remotes
GPS
Air Conditioning
Accurate Weather Prediction
Automatic Credit and Debit Cards
Coffee Machines
Automatic Doors
Half of A Modern Car's Workings
Gaming Systems (Xbox, Playstation, Gameboy)
etc...

Medicine and Sanitation:
At least half of humans on earth are alive because of modern medicine.

Food:
Thanks to modern science, we have processed food and genetically modified crops which feeds (if properly managed...) the 6 Billion people on earth.
Delicious food

Transportation, Communication, Globalisation:
Because of these, I can eat sushi (Japanese) at a table made in Czech Republic and designed in Denmark. I can drive a German car that was manufactured in South Africa to a school which teaches me about American and European inventions and discoveries at a University, the idea of which came from the Greeks and Romans 2000 years ago.
Airplanes
Cars
Telephones
Internets
Boats

Entertainment:
Mostly electronics for television, computers, cellphones, gaming systems, cameras, microphones, radio.

Education:
Because of Education, we have all of the above.

Democracy:
A system governed by people voted by the people. Not by reverends and kings who were "chosen by God."

And in the small red corner we have:
Um...
We can be grateful to theologians for reading and interpreting the bible for us. We all know how big and hard it is to actually read it ourselves.
~~Inspiring speeches!~~ No wait.... those can be done by anyone...
~~Morals!~~ No... I destroyed that in my previous blog didn't I?

Philosophy perhaps? But didn't Aristotle, Plato and others do that as well?

Can someone tell me what theologians have done for us that science cannot?

Confidence in Ignorance

2007-03-05T09:54:00.000+02:00

In this post, I’m exploring the reasons behind religious people’s confidence, despite their lack of evidence.

Or rather, the oft quoted line:
“Believe as a child.”

Why do religious people (from here on referred to as Christians) think it is a good thing to trust in something you have absolutely no idea about?
Example:
“I believe that when I die, I will go to heaven.”
“What makes you think this is true?”
“I have to believe like a child.”
“Yes... but what made you believe this in the first place?”
“Jesus himself said that (bible quote)”

So... the only way to get into heaven is to believe without proof. What this implies is that there is no proof, no assurance or even any reason to believe in heaven (or God or Jesus). When I was in Sunday school, they used very effective and imaginative stories to tell us that we have to believe in Jesus/God/Heaven, even though we can’t see him. The church indoctrinated us to believe in things even if, no, especially if there is no proof.

I cannot believe I (and many others) did not realise this sooner. If they teach us:
“God is unknowable. We don’t know what he/she/it is like. There is no way to understand God; therefore we won’t. That’s it people. Oh, and we help people and teach manners and life lessons.” I would probably see the benefit of such a church. I wouldn’t mind attending a service or two for inspiration, and maybe donating money. But the problem with this “church” is that it won’t last very long and it won’t be able to control people as well as a Christian or Muslim church.

The reason that the most powerful religion in the world is Christianity is because of a kind of evolution. Survival of the fittest.

Think about it this way:

If there is a church which has good ideas, but does not control its flock (call them sheep, because it complements their mindset) very effectively, this church will fail in a short period of time. A church with bad ideas (think about any cult) which is good at controlling its sheep, will probably last longer then the one with good ideas.

Christianity and Islam are very similar. The reason for this is that the recipe they are following is very effective:

Draw the sheep with stories about being nice to others
Indoctrinate the sheep to think that lack of proof is a good thing
Control the sheep with somewhat obvious laws
Mix in a few stupid laws which increases your control over them
Justify everything by saying that it came from a holy book
Accuse all non-sheep of being wolves out to kill the sheep

It’s slightly more complicated than that, but I think you should get the idea at this point. Christianity and Islam and other major religions did not survive and spread so effectively because any of them is the “one true religion.” They survived because they are good at controlling their sheep.

And this joins with my first question:

Why do Christians think it is a good idea to trust in something they have absolutely no proof of?

And this is the most obvious answer I can think of:

If Christians weren’t sure about themselves, despite their lack of evidence, they would not have survived. The Christians who had questioned their beliefs or was uncertain, probably “died out.” The Spanish Inquisition and the Roman Catholic Church in general helped a lot on this subject. They literally tortured any person who was unsure. They guided the “evolution” and strengthened faith.

This belief in something without proof is what people call faith. Without faith, a Christian is not a Christian.

“Believe as a child,” is a very simple summation of religion.

till, I cannot get my mind around this concept.

People think that you should not only believe that there is a God without question (that idea I can understand) but also the story behind the Ark, Moses, Mary, etc should not be questioned. In fact, anything a reverend or bible says is right. And if someone or something seems to contradict the reverend, then the reverend is right. I’m surprised there aren’t more corrupt reverends who abuse their power for personal gain. I suppose the 7 year course in ethics and philosophy and bibliophily helped them fear divine retribution for such heinous crimes.

Reverends are people too. They might claim that God speaks directly through them, but they still prepare speeches and quotes from the bible and examples and sometimes make mistakes. If God was speaking through a reverend, I doubt he would make a language error.

I’d just like to finish this post with a very appropriate quote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

- Epicurus

Homosexuality, abortions and the death sentence

2007-02-28T05:02:00.000+02:00

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

2007-02-23T04:56:00.000+02:00

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

2007-02-21T04:42:00.000+02:00

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

2007-02-14T04:28:00.000+02:00

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

2007-02-12T04:07:00.000+02:00

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

2007-02-11T03:53:00.000+02:00

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

2007-02-07T03:47:00.000+02:00

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

2007-02-05T03:40:00.000+02:00

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.