Atheozoa

New Videos and Playlists

2012-02-09T19:00:00.000+08:00

TrustingDoubt has uploaded the seventh part of her God's Emotions series which explores Christian concepts of god using affective science.

Youtube Channel update
After updating the layout and phasing out the Favorites section of my Youtube Channel, a couple of new playlists has been added to organize some of the videos retained from the favorites "playlist".

QualiaSoup and TheraminTrees
This playlist contains a majority of QualiaSoup's videos and a handful of TheraminTrees pertaining to topics such as skepticism, science, religion and atheism.

Psychology of Belief
A 10 part series created by AntiCitizenX. It explores how belief is generated and various cognitive biases and how they relate to belief in god(s).

Discovering Religion
This series created by DiscoveringReligion explores creationism, evolution, religious influence on government and morality. As of now, it has 22 episodes.

AronRa Evolution Videos
Aside from his Foundational Falsehood of Creationism series, AronRa has a number of videos pertaining to evolution. Like his series, these videos are content heavy, very interesting and educational.

Evid3nc3 Series: Atheism
A playlist consisting part of Evid3nc3's series that pertains to atheism. Personally, the highlight of the series so far is the video: A History of God.

Animated Arguments
A playlist of videos of standalone animated "arguments" by DarkMatter2525.

"There are no gods"
3 videos, 40 minutes. This is a response series by TheraminTrees addressing concepts of god he once accepted and now rejects.

Old Testament Gods - AETV
3 episodes of the Atheist Experience TV show on the topic of Old Testament gods. Spanning more than 4 hours, Tracie explores the OT pantheon (El, Asherah, etc) with Matt while answering calls intermittently.

Channel Update

2012-01-28T18:00:00.000+08:00

Just a note. The Atheozoa Youtube channel has been updated with the new layout format.

As such, the favorite videos section has been phased out (the Favorites playlist is just plain too messy to feature). Also, the new layout removed the "Subscriptions" section and replaced it with the "Featured Channels" section where I have only put up a couple of channels at the moment.

One nice new feature is the "Featured Playlists" section where I've put up the the higher quality video series by several Youtubers.

Do check out the channel at: Channel Atheozoa

Equating Strong with Weak

2012-01-24T12:00:00.000+08:00

It is almost as if it is a trend to accuse atheists of strong atheism despite repeated clarification that we generally espoused weak atheism. And I'm not talking about religious fundamentalists -- it's moderates and even freaking "agnostics".

An article by a "Christian agnostic", titled "Atheism: Null Hypothesis on God", makes a similar point. He didn't point fingers but makes a rather explicit indication that the atheists currently in the public forum are strong atheists and that they should be weak atheists if they're reasonable.

The article has the typical misunderstanding of what atheism and agnosticism is.

And that's why I struggle to understand atheism.

Etymologically, atheism has similar Greek roots to agnosticism, coming from the words "a-theos" which means "no God" or "without God." This implies the same kind of certitude that a religious fundamentalist might claim is arguing they "know without any doubt that God exists." Based on what? Either of you? There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. Especially when we can't even nail down what exactly it is we're talking about.

Firstly, screw the etymology. That is beside the point. I've seen rather pointless arguments over whether "atheism" means "without belief in gods" or "belief in no gods" when the actual point is whether the atheist is or is not a strong atheist.

Secondly, the common usage of the word "atheism" by atheists who use the label is weak atheism. That is "without belief in god". It is not an assertion that gods do not exist but a rejection of theism.

Third. I am pretty sure that if he have indeed talked to atheists, most would be quite okay, or even happy, to admit that their position is not held with absolute certainty (unlike religious fundamentalists).

Fourth. Disproving god can be done if the said entity explicitly contradicts with observed reality or is logically contradictory.

Fifth. Using vague ass definition of god to argue the case is kinda dishonest. With close to half of the American population subscribing to some form of creationism and a portion of those believing in a god who poofs all of existence into existence with incantations, I don't know what "nailing down" the author is talking about. The nutjobs' gods? We can nail down and dead actually -- they are the most pressing problem we're dealing with.

Now, I'm not a scientist, but it makes perfect sense within this model to have the "null hypothesis" that God doesn't exist.

However, to leap from that to certitude of God's non-existence is to violate the principles of the scientific method, isn't it?

Oh look. Weak atheism is philosophically tenable and strong atheism is too unreasonable.

Gee. Who knew? Fucking old news.

It seems to me, to paraphrase Paul (like Huxley), that we risk becoming that which we hate in staking claims of certainty on either side of this issue. In pushing back primarily against religious fundamentalism, atheism risks embracing the very fundamentalism it resists. And in doing so, it abandons the very principles of science it claims as the basis for non-belief.

......

I don't know if God exists. You don't know if God doesn't exist. But if scientists can not only coexist on both sides of a hypothesis, but even use that difference to promote progress, it seems we can and should apply similar principles to the public forum.

Is he completely in the dark that atheists generally espouse weak atheism? Or is that an implicit accusation that atheists shouldn't be strong atheists (because he thinks we currently are)?

Either way, that sounds like a very uninformed piece trying to sound educated. Ughhh...

Indonesian beaten and faces jail for his atheism

2012-01-21T10:00:00.000+08:00

Once again, bigots in Indonesia and its government are exercising their religious intolerance. An Indonesian civil servant, who created a Facebook page where he discusses his disbelief with other like minded people, was beaten by a mob for posting "God doesn't exist" and now faces jail for "blasphemy".

MSNBC reports:

PADANG, Indonesia -- A 30-year-old Indonesian civil servant who was viciously attacked by a mob after posting on Facebook that "God doesn't exist" is now threatened with jail time for blasphemy.

“He has triggered unrest among local residents," Dharmasraya Police Chief Chairul Aziz told The Jakarta Post on Friday.

The man, identified as Alexander, was arrested Friday on charges of blasphemy for his writings on his Facebook page. He had created a Facebook fan page titled Ateis Minang (Minang Atheist) and gained more than 1,238 Facebook "likes" before it was taken down from the social network site, according to the Post.

On his page, Alexander wrote about his Muslim upbringing, how he didn't believe in angels, demons, heaven or hell and how he stopped practicing his faith in 2008, according to media reports. He posted comments regarding the Islamic faith, including "God doesn't exist" and "If God exists, why do bad things happen? There should only be good things if God is merciful."
advertisement

Aziz said Indonesia's Council of Ulema, the ruling Islamic authority, charged Alexander with defiling Islam by using passages from the Quran to denounce God, The Telegraph reported on Friday.

If convicted of blasphemy, Alexander could face up to five years in prison.

Dozens of residents in his hometown in Pulau Punjung, West Sumatra province, stormed into Alexander's office on Wednesday and carried on their heated debate over religion, police said. Alexander was beaten, including by some of his colleagues.

Dharmasraya Regent Adi Gunawan told the Jakarta Post Alexander he has not taken any action to remove the man from his job on the planning board.

“I will await the legal process and decide later about his employment status,” Adi told the newspaper.

Firstly, this demonstrates one of the reasons for needing a separation of church (in this case, mosque) and state. There should be no laws that discriminate against religious or non-religious persons. The "blasphemy" law is utter nonsense -- an infringement on basic freedom of speech -- wherein blaspheming literally harms no one.

Secondly, this also shows that those bigots worship a little god. Their version of Allah is so helpless that its followers must intervene on his behalf to punish persons who dare use their brain in a skeptical manner. Blasphemy laws do not demonstrate a glorious deity -- they demonstrate a little vain one.

Thirdly, the fact that a mob actually bashed a civil servant for expressing his disbelief on an FB page for atheists is just ludicrous. The intolerance, while expected from a country like Indonesia, is still nonetheless breathtaking. Actually, I'm using the word wrong: It's not intolerance, it's discrimination. Beating someone and legally imprisoning someone for differences in opinion is active discrimination.

This is yet another demonstration why atheists will not ever settle for silence again.

There is NO god. Grow up.

Evid3nc3 and TrustingDoubt

2012-01-08T18:00:00.000+08:00

Two new videos has been added. Evid3nc3 continues his long running series with a video addressing the objections to Evidentialism (addressed in the previous video).

TrustingDoubt has yet another interesting video addressing the anthropomorphic god of Abraham from the psychological perspective.

Seriously MOE? Abstinence?

2011-12-26T22:00:00.000+08:00

At the time of writing, the following two news articles reported the Ministry of Education's drafting of a revised Sexuality Education Programme (SEP):

From Yahoo! News (SG)
A new focus on sexual abstinence

The Ministry of Education (MOE) has drafted a revised Sexuality Education Programme (SEP) to boost emphasis on abstinence over contraception, reported The New Paper (TNP).

The new programme, Breaking Down Bridges (BDB), will be taught to Secondary 3, first-year junior college and centralised institute students, said the paper.

TNP also reported that the old programme faced some criticism from some Catholics due to the emphasis on using contraception, and the lack of awareness given to abstaining from sex. While it understands from MOE that the new programme will be ready in 2012, no details have yet been confirmed.

An MOE spokesperson told TNP that the revamp is part of its "periodic review" of the SEP curriculum to "ensure that it is updated and relevant" to students.

Parents of students in Catholic schools in Singapore welcomed the change to the programme.

Yahoo! Singapore spoke to Marilyn Koh, 47, a Catholic whose son attends a Catholic school, "I'm really looking forward to MOE changing their focus on the SEP. I was not very comfortable with the previous curriculum as it was not catered to Catholic teachings."

Francis Chan, who also has a son in a Catholic school, agreed with the change, "It's a lot more appropriate for Catholic schools to be teaching the children to abstain from sex, instead of promoting contraception. I'm perfectly fine with the current programme running in a secular school, but Catholic schools should be imparting Catholic values, right?"

And,

Online article by The New Paper
Sex-ed revision sparks questions

CONTRACEPTION may have to give some way to abstinence in a revised version of a Sexuality Education Programme (SEP) here.

The New Paper understands that a draft of this revised SEP for all schools here has already been drawn up – and that the 30 or more Catholic Schools here should find fewer issues with it.

Some communities find sections of the current programme overly promote the use of contraception, and lack emphasis on abstinence.

They are especially offended by a video showing how a condom should be used.

Others, however, are concerned about what the refreshed programme will entail.

The articles are not clear about what is meant by "boost emphasis on abstinence over contraception" and "contraception may have to give some way to abstinence". Is MOE adding some emphasis to sexual abstinence, reallocating emphasis to abstinence away from contraception or actually going for the "abstinence only" nonsense?

Secondly, why is Catholicism explicitly brought up in the articles? Again, is MOE placing additional weight on the "moral teachings" of Catholics over the well being of ALL students? No religion should hold sway over the secular (sexual or otherwise) education of students through their own religious teaching. There should be no sectarian bias in any of MOE's education programmes

Another point: Shouldn't sexual education be primarily decided by the Health Promotion Board instead? I'd think that sex ed. should be taught based on the science and data instead of religious "morals".

So, MOE, whatcha doing actually?

Farewell, Hitchens

2011-12-16T19:00:00.000+08:00

Farewell, Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

Here's a video (by TheThinkingAtheist) in memory of Hitchens.

Creationism Attack on Singapore

2011-12-04T12:00:00.000+08:00

It has just come to my attention that Singapore is actually one of the 7 countries targeted by Creation Ministries International's "Question Evolution" campaign.

So if any Singaporeans has visited my blog, please be aware of this piece of religious nonsense attempting to spread itself further within our communities.

For more information and resources on the alleged Evolution-Creationism controversy, do visit the following sites:

National Center for Science Education (USA)

This US non-prophet organization has been defending the scientific theory of evolution for more than 2 decades. Check the site out for information pertaining to anti-Evolution movements by creationists in the US.

TalkOrigins Archive

The TalkOrigins archive is home to the Index of Creationist Claims where practically all creationists claims has been answered/refuted. This is a quick resource for people looking for answers from mainstream science about creationists' "questions".

Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial

Creationism's pseudoscientific disguise, Intelligent Design, has been demolished in a federal court. The event was made into a NOVA documentary. This is worth a watch!

Question Evolution: Answers

15+1 Youtubers, Christians and non-believers, has put together a 4 part video series to answer/rebut the 15 questions from the Question Evolution Campaign.

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

For those who enjoy being immersed in a stream of information, check out AronRa's Foundational Falsehood of Creationism series on Youtube.

Godless Bitches!

2011-12-03T01:00:00.000+08:00

Just realized that I linked the Godless Bitches Podcast without making a post about them. So here it is.

The Godless Bitches Podcast is a podcast by the women of the ACA (Atheist Community of Austin) which also sponsors the Atheist Experience and the Non-prophets radio podcasts. The Godless Bitches podcast tackles feminist issues from a secular perspective and is regularly contributed by Beth Pressword, Jen Peeples, Tracie Harris and Lynnea Glasser.

I find myself enjoying the podcast a lot. The recent Episode 1.11 (embedded below) was hilarious (Tracie Harris rocked the show).

So check it out!

Religious harm (in the news)

2011-12-02T11:00:00.000+08:00

I haven't writing any articles lately. Frankly, it's because there's not that much to write about when all of religion can be defeated with "Where is your fucking evidence?" (PS: "You must have FAITH!" is not a valid response.)

One other thing that is frequently propped up to save their religion is how much good it does. And if they want to play the weighing game, let's look at all the unnecessary harm attributable or contributed by religious idiocy. We don't have to look far at all. Just look at this past week-or-so's news -- we'll start with today.

Dec 2, 2011 -- Afghan rape victim freed from jail, to marry attacker

The Afghan President Hamid Karzai has ordered the release of a woman who was jailed for adultery after being raped -- but she now faces having to marry her attacker, officials said.

The move came after some 5,000 people signed a petition for the release of the woman, named Gulnaz, who has served two years in prison after a relative raped her at her home. She has been raising the child she had by her attacker in a prison cell in Kabul.

......But the officials also said that Gulnaz should marry the man who attacked her, due to fears she could be in danger if released because of the stigma surrounding her attack in Afghanistan.

She consented to the union, Faizi said.

"She agreed to the marriage but only if his (the attacker's) sister marries Gulnaz's brother," the spokesman added, explaining that this was a way to try and ensure Gulnaz was not attacked by the man in future.

Raped. Imprisoned for "adultery". Bore a child from the rape. Released to marry your rapist. Had to have the caveat that your rapist's sister be married to your brother to protect yourself from probable attacks in the future.

That is one very very sad state of affairs ENTIRELY brought about by Shariah law and a society soaked in Islam.

Nov 28, 2011 -- Egypt police: Killing sparks sectarian clash

Police say that a Muslim has been killed by a Christian in southern Egypt, sparking a sectarian clash, and the military has intervened to stop the violence.

......The director of security for the province of Sohag, Gen. Abdel al-Aziz al-Nahas, said the village of al-Ghureizat was under a police and army cordon Monday night following the death of a Muslim earlier in a fight with his neighbor. The conflict was about the building of a wall.

A sectarian clash over a murder over a conflict about building a wall. The divisive nature of religion really shines through this one.

Nov 27, 2011 -- 4 dead, churches burned in north Nigeria attack

Witnesses and authorities say at least four people died in an apparent attack on a northeast Nigeria city that saw churches and businesses burned to the ground.

......Witnesses say attackers blew up a local police station and attacked a bank, as well as set fire to businesses and at least eight churches.

More tribalistic behavior attributable to religious division.

Nov 26, 2011 -- Pope says all society, not just church, must be held to same standards against sex abuse

Pope Benedict XVI said all society must be held to the same standards against sexual child abuse and defended the Catholic church’s response in handling the series of child abuse scandals that have marred their institution starting in the 1980s.

Benedict made the statement on Saturday at the Vatican in remarks to visiting US bishops, insisting the “scourge” of pedophilia is a problem for every institution, the Associated Press reported.

Dear Pope, the rest of society has been held to higher standards compared to your church. We don't hide our pedophiles and send them off to other locations to rape more kids -- you DO. Now fuck off the moral high ground you stole.

Nov 25, 2011 -- Churches told dying patients they were cured

At least six people have died in Britain after being told that they had been healed of HIV, and could stop taking their medication.

There is evidence that evangelical churches in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow are claiming to cure HIV through God.

We sent three undercover reporters into the Synagogue Church of All Nations (SCOAN) , which is based in Southwark, south London.

All of them told the pastors that they were HIV positive. All were told that they could be healed.

Christians performing subtle genocide against HIV patients amongst their own. That's some crazy shit there. What can I say? Faith is glorified ignorance and ignorance can kill.

Nov 24, 2011 -- Christian-Muslim clashes Nigeria kill at least 12

Clashes between Muslim and Christian ethnic groups in central Nigeria have killed at least 12 people and left "enormous" destruction, including houses burned, officials said on Thursday.

......A resident who did not want to be named said churches and an Islamic school were also burned.

......The clashes appeared to result from reprisals carried out over killings that had occurred several days ago.

......The area has been caught in a deadly cycle of attacks and reprisals that have regularly flared up for years.

Beroms and other mainly Christian ethnic groups are viewed as the indigenes in the area, while Hausa-Fulani Muslims are seen as the more recent "settlers" despite the fact that many have been there for decades.

Policies that favour indigenous groups when it comes to such issues as patronage and jobs have created animosity.

In turn, Beroms fear that Hausas -- a much larger ethnic group throughout Nigeria as a whole -- will eventually be allowed to dominate an area they see as their own.

Many say the crisis has been fueled by politicians in a local struggle for political and economic gain, but religious sentiments are increasingly being stirred as well.

Years of violence over arbitrarily defined division along religious lines. Again, tribal behavior facilitated by religious division.

Religion -- Creating unnecessary problems since conception.

The Pale Blue Dot - A Tribute to Carl Sagan

2011-11-26T18:00:00.000+08:00

Here's tribute video by TheThinkingAtheist to Carl Sagan.

Perspective. Awe. And wonder.

Examining the Existence of a Historical Jesus

2011-11-13T20:00:00.000+08:00

Here is a presentation by David Fitzgerald at Skepticon 3 titled "Examining the Existence of a Historical Jesus".

In this presentation, information about the historicity of Jesus is drawn from books on the subject and presented. It touches on the lack of contemporaneous extra-biblical evidence, the contradictions within the gospels themselves, the fact that none of the gospels were eye-witnesses, the difference between Paul's Jesus & the Jesus of the gospels and other interesting tidbits.

Why Science is Better Than Religion and Always Has Been

2011-11-11T15:00:00.000+08:00

Also from Skepticon 1 is this presentation by Richard Carrier entitled: "Why Science is Better Than Religion and Always Has Been"

I like it.

PZ Myers - Science Ed: Science vs Religion

2011-11-10T17:00:00.000+08:00

Yea, this is old stuff. This is PZ Myers at Skepticon 1 back in 2008. It's kinda sad considering that it still applies after more than 2 years.

Enjoy!

PZ Myers at World Atheist Convention

2011-11-09T15:00:00.000+08:00

An entertaining rant/speech by PZ Myers at the World Atheist Convention Ireland 2011.

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiL8Xqf9w1o
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHO3fVRLbA
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cun4VsQpQMU
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-pML7cfV-o

Enjoy!

Quran's factual origins

2011-11-08T00:30:00.000+08:00

Just as I have come to know that the Bible is a translation of several books written by different authors, decades after the events which they purport to describe by non-eyewitnesses whose stories were transmitted by hearsay in the intervening decades, I am interested to know what real history has to say about the formation of the "holy" book known as the Qu'ran.

L'Orientalist now has 2 videos with information pertaining to the topic and here they're.

The Inimitable Qu'ran

Did the Umayyads change the Qu'ran?

The creator of the videos provides citation of the literature he uses on his blog linked in the information below the video itself on Youtube.

Of objectivity and oughtness

2011-11-07T10:56:00.002+08:00

QualiaSoup has uploaded the third video of his series on morality: Of objectivity and oughtness.

What's so Queer About Gay Marriage?

2011-11-06T13:00:00.000+08:00

In this presentation, SisyphusRedeemed, a philosopher on Youtube outlines four arguments against gay marriage, and argue why they don't work.

Those are the secular arguments. Religious arguments can go play with the other childish arguments while actual moral and legal arguments are discussed.

And yes, I think Singapore is being, how do you put this..., backwards for still having 377A.

** On a side note, this happens to be my 200th entry.

Moral Absolutes and Morality

2011-11-02T18:00:00.000+08:00

DiscoveringReligion has two videos up discussing further the religious idea of moral absolutes from their god.

It echoes and expands the same idea I briefly mentioned in the last part of this blog entry: Morality: Subjective, Objective.

L'Orientalist on Islam

2011-11-01T18:30:00.000+08:00

A channel, L'Orientalist, with well referenced, clear content about Islam from a skeptic's perspective has come to my attention. I'd thought I'd post one of his videos here.

What do you think?

For liberal/moderate muslims, if you take issue with this video, may I ask, is it that the facts presented were incorrect or from the standpoint of your personal theological interpretation (in spite of the book's contents)? For the record, I only care about the former; the latter, not so much.

Atheism versus God: How did the universe begin?

2011-10-29T14:30:00.000+08:00

You sir are dead wrong about almost everything in the article.

I am referring to this article: Atheism versus God: How did the universe begin? written by Vasko Kohlmayer in the Washington Times Communities. See the article if you wish to read the parts I truncated to maintain length.

There are those who claim that to believe in God is not only unscientific, but also absurd.

This is certainly not the case. To the contrary, it is the denial of God's existence that contradicts both science and common sense.

I'll grant you that common sense might indicate a god. But mind you, our intuitions about the actual mechanisms of the natural world has failed us many times. In fact, many scientific truths are counter-intuitive.

So, what about science? No. As far as scientific evidence is concerned, there is not a SINGLE verifiable piece of evidence indicating the existence of a deity.

The prevailing scientific consensus today is that the universe began with the Big Bang.

[Truncated -- some background on Big Bang theory]

The Big Bang theory describes the initial event as a great explosion which brought forth all the energy and matter in the universe. On this theory, the Big Bang was the beginning of all things. Prior to it, there was nothing: There were no particles, there was no matter. There was not even space or time.

Just a note: The Big Bang theory does NOT claim that there was nothing in the beginning. Please see this previous post: Something from Nothing?

Unlike some creationist retards who make the retarded claim that atheists believe "something came from nothing", that is not the author's beef. So let's move on.

Most of those who don't believe in God say that the Big Bang was a chance event. In other words, the great explosion that brought the universe into being was a cosmic fluke.

But this is an unsupportable position to take, because things just don't happen like that. Explosions – big or small – do not come about without someone or something causing them.

Here's his main beef: atheists believe that the universe/Big Bang is uncaused.

And he goes on to illustrate it,

To illustrate, consider this.

[Truncated -- the analogy]

And yet many atheists make precisely this kind of claim. They say that the greatest of all explosions just happened. On this view, the universe just popped into existence spontaneously.

But does this make sense?

Firstly, explosions, as described, have known causes and we understand the mechanisms -- unlike the Big Bang.

But more importantly, no atheist claim that the Big Bang is therefore necessarily uncaused. In fact, the atheists that I've heard of thinks that the Big Bang has a cause --- they simply don't think invoking a deity explains anything.

Common sense and experience tell us that the world does not work like this.

[Truncated -- lots of drama about a claim atheists do not make]

The problem is, however, that in all of its history science has never observed or documented a single uncaused event.

The atheistic position concerning the beginning of the universe thus goes not only against common sense and our everyday experience, but also against the axioms and observations of science.

In light of this, it is the atheist's position that has an air of absurdness about it.

Yes, the caricature of our position is very absurd. That, I don't disagree.

The huge irony here is that a majority of theists would claim that their god is an uncaused cause. So the absurdity that the author claims atheists believe sits squarely in his own court. All the drama about the absurdity of believing that something is uncaused applies to their god.

Yet, without a hint of irony, he goes on to say

It is only reasonable and logical to assume that the universe – just like everything else – had to have a cause. Judging by the staggering vastness, complexity and beauty of the universe, the cause that brought it forth must have been immensely powerful, superbly wise and exquisitely imaginative.

Such characteristics are normally associated with an entity we term God.

This reeks of stupid: "It's SO PRETTY! ...therefore, goddidit!"

To believe in God – the transcendent cause of the universe – is thus neither illogical nor absurd. Not to believe in him is both.

Unbelief will remain to be logically and scientifically untenable until it can be demonstrated that it is possible for an uncaused event to occur.

On the contrary, unbelief is the ONLY scientifically tenable position until evidence demonstrates the existence of a deity.

To believe that the existence of a god is justified by science is both illogical and absurd.

Tree of Wonder

2011-10-22T11:00:00.000+08:00

I never quite understood the notion that beauty of nature is diminished when science explains the mechanisms of nature. I understand how people find the scientific method itself boring because they're not inclined to enjoy performing experiments and making observations. But that is a very different thing from saying science makes nature less beautiful by explaining it.

I don't get that. At all.

Just look at a tree. A tall, large tree with a crown of forest green leaves -- a majesty sight especially if contrasted by a lack of trees in the surrounding or smaller trees in the vicinity. The branching patterns in the crown and of the veins in leaves is itself beautiful sometimes very intricate looking. The powerful roots, a part of which spreads visibly above ground -- in urban areas, demonstrate its strength by breaking concrete as its grows larger and thicker. Depending on the time of the year, there may be flowers or fruits -- each adding colour to the crown.

That is beautiful. Visually. A majestic natural object to behold.

Science makes it even more beautiful -- not in your eyes but in your head.

When I look at a tree and contemplate its beauty, its beauty is not skin deep. Visuals is only part of the story. In the back of my head, the science of biology is summoned.

This large majestic tree is a multicellular organism -- a successful coalition of cells. Millions, billions of cells. Each cell as intricate and complex as the other. Each one following instructions laid out in its DNA -- having switched on or off different genes to perform its task in the coalition.

In the leaves, the chloroplasts are photosynthesizing -- the process that gave Earth its oxygenated atmosphere. And these chloroplast, like mitochondria, has its own genome, separate from the plant's own nuclear DNA, having descended from free-living ancestors of cyanobacteria.

This tree is one of the descendants of the primeval cell that started it all. A chain of unbroken parent-child kinship marching back more than 3 billion years. It stands tall on one of the tips of the tree of life where you stand on another. Yes, you're a cousin, a distant cousin of the tree you're looking at. Every single living thing is a cousin of differing degrees.

There is much more to think of but I hope this little description gives those people an inkling of how science beautifies.

There is much beauty, awe and wonder with science than without.

Mr. Deity and the Naughty Bits

2011-10-20T14:00:00.000+08:00

Another hilarious episode of Mr Deity.

More videos on their channel if you're interested.

Catholic Church trafficking babies in Spain

2011-10-19T09:30:00.000+08:00

The headline says it all and it reads: 300,000 babies stolen from their parents - and sold for adoption: Haunting BBC documentary exposes 50-year scandal of baby trafficking by the Catholic church in Spain

I don't have a lot to comment on this. On some level, it's almost expected.

Spreading AIDS in Africa. Child rape and cover-up. And now, there's baby trafficking on the list of shit that the Catholic Church peddle. Granted it's just the Catholic Church in Spain and not the Pope's Vatican, the atrocity is still substantially religiously motivated and facilitated.

This is yet another example of how organized religion can conduct immoral actions with efficiency through its organized structure and be cloaked by inculcating a false veil of moral superiority.

Tracie Harris awesomeness

2011-10-18T09:00:00.000+08:00

One of those informative episodes of the Atheist Experience with co-host Tracie Harris.

"Well, it's not all bad!"

2011-10-17T08:00:00.000+08:00

"Why do you atheists always talk about bad things that come from religion? Why don't you ever talk about the good works like feeding the poor and building hospitals, etc?"

"Well, religion is not all bad! Look at all the good things that come from religion like charity and love and etc..."

This one type of defense of religion that I find not only weak but, frankly misses the point.

Firstly, it is basically arguing for the usefulness of religion not for its truth which seems odd when we're arguing about whether a god really exist. But we'll leave that aside since this post is coming from another angle.

"Religion does good too!" sounds almost reasonable, ie not reasonable.

You mean aside from stifling science and education, obstructing justice, denying LGBT rights and perpetuating a general contempt of humanity among other historical atrocities, religions also does charity and some good works? Wow, who knew? /sarcasm.

Put it this way: Say there's a rich guy who love his wife and kids. He is rich and successful businessman who provides welfare for his workers and donates to large sums of money to charity monthly. Every fortnight, he kills a family and rape the kids. But look at all the good things he does!

No. He's a psychopath and needs to be locked up. Same with religion.

What makes the defense even more worthless is the fact that ALL the good works religion does can be and (hopefully) will be done, if not superseded, by secular means. That means we can have all the good without the bad -- religion can and should go.

Atheism is not the system

2011-10-16T00:00:00.000+08:00

Atheism is frequently thought to be a belief system or a religion by religious people. Sometimes, atheists ourselves use the word in such a way that it would be misunderstood as such.

There is a thought process, but it's not atheism, it's skepticism coupled with the scientific method. Atheism, a singular position on a single claim, cannot be a system -- it is a conclusion.

There is no doctrine of Atheism that call upon all atheists to reject/deny god(s). There is a preponderance of the evidence of available that led to the conclusion that is atheism. There is no pope of Atheism who dictates that science is the truth. There is a recognition that the Scientific Method is the single most reliable method to get humanity as close to the truth as possible.

So perhaps, skepticism might be a more accurate label for the "belief system" than atheism?

Discarding theology

2011-10-15T12:00:00.000+08:00

Why do atheists typically ignore "sophisticated" modern theology? Simple. The answer is embodied by the Courtier's Reply made by PZ Myers in response to critics of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Simply put, theology is not based on reality.

The Scientific Method is applicable to ANY area of knowledge of reality. What we typically call Science is the different branches of physics, chemistry and biology. But the method is also applied to other areas of knowledge including history and linguistics.

In fact, you use a less rigorous form of the method in your life. When your computer power off suddenly, you hypothesize that there is a blackout or that some hardware in the computer fried. You notice that other electrical appliances in your home is still powered thus ruling out the hypothesis of a blackout and you go on checking other things, so on and so forth.

Theology is basically the study of god. But the thing is, theology does not provide evidence of god's existence. It sometimes tries to prove god through pure logic (ie, armchair philosophy) if not ignoring the issue completely and jumps straight into sophistry about god presuming its existence.

I'm sorry. How is that not nonsense?

Theology is like Germ theory where viruses and bacteria don't exist. Theology is like Paleontology where bones never fossilize. Theology is like Chemistry in a universe where only hydrogen exist forever unchanged.

Dismissing claims for which there is no evidence for is not a "science". It's basic skepticism.

The same point is previously discussed in: Justifications and Beliefs

Do realize that atheists (at least those who have been called "New Atheists") are skeptics first, atheist in conclusion. We are not hostile to religion because of some Atheist doctrine. We are atheists because we were first skeptical of religious claims.

The Non-Explanation

2011-10-14T20:50:00.000+08:00

Here's a new video by DarkMatter2525:

Conditioned to believe that basically everything is in accordance to God's plans, religious people rationalize any and every outcome in a strange twisted way. Since God is defined to be always right, no matter the situation, God is "good" irrespective of the situation, be it an accident or a natural disaster.

It's fucking nuts.

Jesus Camp, Singapore

2011-10-09T19:00:00.000+08:00

By the way.

HOLY FUCK! The conservative Christian pastor, Becky Fischer, well-known for running Jesus Camp, was in Singapore.

For those who haven't heard of Jesus Camp, you can see it on Youtube.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHa1D4ioMBM
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkKCeWbmEjw
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjpmVtqtw90
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wssdo_L56pI
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JXoQOX8VE0
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFw14ATOgew

The crazies are coming!

Steve Jobs needn't have died young

2011-10-07T19:30:00.000+08:00

It has come to my attention that the recent death of Steve Jobs was very probably premature and I'm not speaking from an emotional point of view. He may have survived his cancer had he gotten treatment right away but... he did not.

Here is a link to an article written on the subject by the Daily Beast: Job's Unorthodox Treatment. And here is a ScienceBlogs entry about the same topic: Steve Jobs, neuroendocrine tumors and alternative treatment.

Of course, we cannot be absolutely sure that he would have survived had he undertook immediate medical treatment but 9 months is very significant if his cancer was indeed aggressive. Aggressive or not, it seems clear that he would probably live much longer if those 9 months haven't been wasted on "alternative medicine".

I feel dirty for using the word "medicine" in the phrase "alternative medicine". "Alternative medicine" is not medicine -- if it worked, it wouldn't be an "alternative" at all.

I didn't write this entry to dump on Steve Jobs for making that bad decision but to bring to light what an unnecessary tragedy this is. It's a pretty good bet that he could have stuck around longer if he had known better.

The blame is on society and educators. We failed. We failed to equip laypeople with the knowledge and skills to fend off unevidenced beliefs. And in this case, unevidenced beliefs has cut a brilliant man's life short. There are many more people out there who are now on the same path because they too have succumbed to pseudoscience and magical thinking.

But you can help. Educating yourself on such areas of knowledge would be most helpful -- admittedly however, most people either do not have the time or is not bothered by such.

Well, it's time to be bothered. The next time someone talks about astrology as if it was true, give it to them, wake them up. Someone wants to waste money on homeopathy? Give him some education. Whatever the pseudoscience or superstition, be bothered, be very bothered and let them know that it is wrong.

Some tragedies need not happen. Don't let it slide.

Good is Secular Humanist

2011-09-29T15:20:00.004+08:00

This is about a particular type of claim made against Secular Humanism (hereafter referred to as Humanism) and it takes on several forms.

One common claim launched against Secular Humanism (usually as a defense of religion) is that Humanism "is Christianity without God" or "adopted Christian values". This claim accuses Humanism of having values and morals only because it adopted them from Christianity and that it has no grounds for its moral framework.

Another claim attacks Humanism on similar grounds, asking rhetorically, in effect: "Why Humanists say that their way is the rational/moral/correct way?" to accuse Humanists of acting just like dogmatic/fundamentalist religious people.

Going along similar lines, if Humanism is another religion, it extends to the idea that Humanists are breaching the wall between church and state when the government acts in agreement with Humanist values.

Religion or not?
Let's deal with the latter two claims first. Is Humanism a religion?

Yes and No. It depends what you are talking about.

Legally, Humanism should recognized as a religion as a practical category that it fits into. Humanism is a philosophy that are not a religion but play a similar role in a person's life. With regards to the law and rights, there isn't much of a difference between a life philosophy that includes a god (a religion) and one that doesn't have gods. Non-believers should not be denied the same rights religious people have.

Generally speaking however, there's a huge difference between a philosophy, like Humanism, and a religion. Religions have a supernatural or dogmatic aspect -- this makes it fundamentally different from Humanism. In religions, god(s) are supernatural entities and in each religion there are certain beliefs that must be held (dogmatism). Humanism have neither -- in fact, Humanism rejects both on the grounds of skepticism.

So, legally, yes, Humanism is a religion. But aside from that, no, Humanism is not a religion unless you wish to destroy the distinction between philosophies and religion by rendering the word "religion" meaningless.

Getting it backwards
Humanism is not a religion without morals (and thus having to import "Christian values") -- it has morals without religion.

Humanism is a philosophy that stems from rational thought, empirical understanding and driven by human empathy. It values skepticism and the scientific method as tools for improving our understanding of the world. Morals is born of the marriage of reason and empathy.

For some religious people, it may be difficult to understand how morals can be of reason and empathy. Especially those who, unfortunately, believes that morals must be handed down by their god.

But think about it a little more deeply.

Do you do charity,
-- because your contributions can help alleviate another person's suffering,
-- because it feels good to help people,
-- because you need the extra cash/time less than less fortunate people, or
-- because god instructed/liked it?

Do you not commit murder,
-- because you are robbing someone of their right to life
-- because you simply do not have such a desire
-- because you are potentially harming the people who love that person
-- because god said so?

In both cases, only the last option is the truly religious -- the only one that can be regarded as having "Christian" (or whatever religion) value. The first 3 can easily be reached via reason and empathy. They are of human value.

No god required
People operate using reason and evidence to deal with everyday issues. When you get the change from the cashier, you count if you want to know if you were given the right change, you don't pray to find out whether it's really 35 cents. When your television is not working right, you check the manual or the internet to see what could be wrong, you don't go to your holy book for advice.

But somehow, some religious people think that: when they want to know how the world came to be, they read their creation myth instead of gathering evidence from the world to ascertain what they can know about the subject. When they want to know what are morals, they adhere to "wisdom" from an old book written by ignorant men who thought they knew god instead of evaluating the moral issue rationally.

Humanism did not adopt any religious value. On the contrary, religions co-opt human values.

Notice that I said human values as opposed to humanist values. Because it is simply an unfortunate situation that we have to identify ourselves as humanists. Humanists are what humans should be unless they are corrupted by religious dogma and fantastical thinking.

Some religious people like to characterize Humanism as their religion without their god like a beautiful flowering plant without its flower. But the truth is their religion is humanism corrupted by god(s) and other magical thinking -- akin to a beautiful garden which became overrun by the supernatural, dogmatic weeds.

Put another way: "Good religion" is "bad religion" stripped of obvious immoral nonsense. Secular Humanism is just "good religion" stripped of ALL nonsense.

There is no gods

2011-09-17T18:51:00.001+08:00

TheraminTrees has uploaded the third and final video of his video response titled "there is no gods". The series is a brilliant piece of work, explaining many reasons why an atheist would reject theistic claims.

This is the third video:

The first and second videos are here:

Slavery in the Bible

2011-09-11T14:10:00.000+08:00

For ease of referencing, here are the Bible verses relevant to its support of slavery.

The Old Testament
The Old Testament explicitly condones slavery -- providing instructions for acquisition, treatment and punishment of Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves.

Exodus has Yahweh speaking to Moses directly, stating "Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them" in Exodus 21:1 before a string of instructions including those pertaining to slavery.

Exodus 21:2-11
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

That's a divine legal loophole for permanent slavery of your fellow Hebrew -- Marry your slave to another slave, blackmail him into permanent slavery if he wishes to stay with his spouse and children.

Exodus 21:20-21
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

Causing your slave to die after 1-2 days is criminal. But after 2-3 days is just dandy because he's just property anways.

Exodus 21:26-27
If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.

Beat your slave but don't cause permanent harm or you lose him/her.

Leviticus 19:20-22
Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. He shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. The priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed will be forgiven him.

If you fuck your slave, she has to be punished if she is betrothed to another man. You? Just go sacrifice a ram and you're scot-free.

Leviticus 25:44-46
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Hebrews for permanent slavery? No. Everyone else is game.

The New Testament
The New Testament is less explicit about slavery laws than the Old Testament. It recognizes that slavery exists but does not criticize it. Instead, it frequently compares slaves and masters to the relationship between believers and God, implying that it was acceptable.

Ephesians 6:5-9
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Open, tolerant and respectful

2011-09-04T03:00:00.000+08:00

I am guessing that most Singaporeans should have noticed that when it comes to racial or religious harmony, our government always reiterates the same points with the same rhetoric all the time. Don't get me wrong; I do agree that we should maintain racial/religious harmony -- that's not the issue here.

What gets on my nerves is how vague they are every single time that I've seen it. It's always the same vague language, imploring that we should be open, tolerant and respectful of other beliefs. Okay, good. What does that mean?

What is being open?

To be open is to be ready to entertain new ideas. And here in Singapore, I never really thought that this was an issue at all (so far).

What about being tolerant?

To be tolerant something is to permit and endure its existence. Again, I, for one, have no issue with this. I am not, and I hope nobody else is, going to prohibit religion or irreligion in general.

Then what about being respectful?

To show deference to a right. Sure, people have the right to have or not have religious beliefs -- that's fine.

What then is the issue here?

Wait, there's another commonly used meaning for respect I'm forgetting -- to hold in esteem or honor. That? HELL, NO.

Now, think of the common thread that holds this 3 terms together. For non-believers on the internet, I'm pretty sure you might have guessed it -- Criticism of religious doctrines and practices.

In the eyes of (some of) the religious and squishy liberals, simply criticizing religious doctrines and practices is equated to being close-minded, intolerant and disrespectful. Guess what? They're wrong. One can be open, tolerant and respectful of religious beliefs without silencing all opposing ideas (ie, criticism).

I will entertain your beliefs, respect your right to hold them, tolerate your practices AND tell you what I find disagreeable. But the last part is what seems to get their goat. And that appears to me, what they wish to achieve with the usual rhetoric.

When tensions between religions (and the irreligious) mount around the globe, the rhetoric is used to quell any tension that might be building here in Singapore. In this case, it might have been the tension between the freethought community and the religious in the USA and Europe.

It becomes ironic when you consider what happens when religious conflicts do escalate. It ends with one religious faction making a hell of a fuss by rioting. So essentially, I cannot criticize you because you might lose your sanity and kill people -- and this is supposed to be acceptable?

For example, if a riot broke out because a group of people were unhappy with the government's decision, those people are insurgents. But if a riot broke up because a group of people were unhappy because they were presented facts about their religion, those people are good citizens who should be protected from information? Bite me.

I genuinely hope the that is not the position the government is holding and is possibly using that same old rhetoric about religious harmony for more benign reasons.

To summarize, my position is that, I will defend your right to believe in nonsense so long as you do not deny my right to call it nonsense.

Adaptive Immune System

2011-09-01T22:00:00.001+08:00

I haven't posted anything for quite awhile so I thought I'd recommend a video.

Here's a video from the FreeOK Convention - there are 5 segments on TheThinkingAtheist channel if you're interested. This one is a presentation on vaccination and your adaptive immune system by Abbie Smith.

Happy Birthday Singapore!

2011-08-09T20:11:00.005+08:00

Today marks the 46th year of our island nation's independence.

In keeping with tradition, this year we have "In a Heartbeat" for our National Day Parade theme song.

I realized I did not have a post up for last year's National Day (probably because I'm busy being involved). So here's last year's song as well.

Sometimes I ask myself, why do I like NDP songs (here's an almost complete playlist of them, excluding 2010 and 2011) so much.

I think I know why now: I always picture the whole world singing the song, not for just Singapore, but for the whole world -- a world united...

Not-so-good books

2011-07-29T23:41:00.000+08:00

QualiaSoup has made another beautiful video on the subject of morality. This time addressing the claim of morality from scripture (and in this video, specifically the Bible).

Answers to three questions for humanists

2011-07-27T09:00:00.003+08:00

On the online Straits Times Forum, two letters were posted in response to the news article on (Secular) Humanist Society. The following is a response to one of them, titled: "Three questions for humanists" The online story can be found here.

Three questions for humanists

MR PAUL Tobin rightly observes that one does not need to believe in God in order to be good ("'I've no God - and am proud of it'"; last Saturday).

We know this from our interactions with friends and relatives, and from news of prominent people in public life. And we need only look at history, past and contemporary, to observe how much harm religion can do.

Nevertheless, I do have a few issues with humanists.

And I'll try to address them.

First, Ms Catherine Lim says she prefers to have faith rather than a faith. But the two are not mutually exclusive. "A faith" refers to an organised religion. One can believe in God (or gods) without belonging to an organised religion. Until not so long ago, the secretary of the British Humanist Association was an Anglican priest.......

Yes, it is correct to point out that (blind) faith is not exclusively in the domain of organized religion. One can have faith in the existence of god(s) without subscribing to any particular religion.

But I believe that wasn't her point -- she was merely stating she has a preference for having trust in the potential of humanity to guide the world than any particular religion which would claim to be able to do so. She was probably being inaccurate with her language when making that point -- I will concede that.

......In the West, Christian humanism has been around for many years. So, more precisely, humanism as described in the article refers to secular humanism. Even so, it is difficult not to ascribe the values of humanism to its religious roots.

Many of the values of Western humanism can trace their roots to Christianity.......

Honestly, I don't care if humanism's roots can be traced back to Christianity. I am not clear what relevance that would have.

I doubt that the proposition is meaningful. The most important aspect of Secular Humanism is its rejection of dogmas and propositions without evidence. In this respect, it stands completely at odds with organized religion where the very existence of a god is asserted without evidence.

In view of this, the values that Secular Humanists stand for are not grounded in the existence of any god but in human empathy, reason and evidence. So, in a sense, to say that Humanism has its roots in Christianity is to have it ass-backwards. Christianity has values which roots are in humanity -- Humanism merely holds onto those values and hack away the supernatural weeds that have grown around them (strangling them).

......Secular humanists may say these values would have been dominant anyway, since they have proven to be the most adaptive for human survival and religion has only been the vehicle through which such values have been transmitted. This may be true, but in itself is not an argument against the existence of God.

No one is arguing that Secular humanism itself constitutes evidence against god. That would be ludicrous. Strawman?

Another member says he will let science rather than religion lead his thinking. This is fine so long as we do not go into the science versus religion debate. This is a false dichotomy. As astrophysicist Paul Davies reminds us, science describes the "how" while religion answers the "why".

Well, Paul Davies is wrong . Well, on the face of it, he may appear to be correct.

Religious people have no problem rationalizing scientific data and theories into their respective belief systems. Religious doctrines and scriptures have been interpreted to death by their adherents to conform (or at least, not contradict) other beliefs (scientific or otherwise) that they have.

However, that is also where science definitely clashes with faith and religion. Science requires that conclusions be drawn from observations and biases should be eradicated to avoid distorting data. Faith contravenes that important principle by requiring that a priori religious beliefs be brought to bear on the evidence and, in some cases, reject the evidence if it contradicts those religious beliefs. In this sense, science and faith are fundamentally at odds -- the same reason why fundamentalists versions of religions go after science with such fervor.

The history of science is peopled by God-believing scientists. Indeed, the first person to postulate the Big Bang was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre. Another Catholic priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, took the evolutionary theory on a radical path. Not so many years ago, Pope John Paul II pronounced the theory of evolution to be more than a theory. And we know that the person who headed the genome project, Dr Francis Collins, is a staunch Christian.

These people also did not believe that science contradicted their religion and that their religion offers an interpretation of scientific data that they are comfortable with. The "false dichotomy" still stands.

How do secular humanists respond to the following questions:

- Why is there something rather than nothing?

Don't know. (More honest than religions, eh?)

I actually think it's a trivial question even though it sounds like a deep philosophical question at face value. If there must be something to cause anything to happen, then the very existence of anything indicates that there was never nothing to begin with. That is, the question makes no sense. This is not a formal philosophical argument, just my opinion if you want it.

For the people who ask that question thinking that it somehow justifies belief in god, you're arguing for the god of the gaps. The honest answer is still "I don't know" not "therefore, god must exist!"

- If matter is all there is, how can specks of dust (matter) combine to produce a human being with consciousness (non-matter)? Astronomer Carl Sagan's standard response ("billions of years") is unhelpful.

But Carl Sagan's response is probably accurate. Nature is not required to provide feel-good answers.

Secondly, the mind is an emergent phenomenon. It IS matter.

For example, wetness is an emergent property when water molecules get together in a sufficient quantity. Water molecules themselves are not wet. So, is wetness non-matter?

- If matter is all there is and thoughts are a product of a chemical reaction in the brain in response to stimuli, then there is no free will, including the freedom of thought. Every thought we have is an inevitable response in accordance with set natural laws. In other words, we cannot help thinking what we think. In that case, how can we believe anything, since the thinking is "done" for us? How then can we trust what we believe, including the belief in no God?

I'll just point out that you are assuming we hold to the determinist position on free will.

We believe propositions on the basis of reason and evidence. Are you proposing that reason and evidence is somehow not real if we are following natural laws?

Here's a thought. What are "You" if not your thoughts, feelings and experience?

Noah's Ark: Reality Check

2011-07-24T23:50:00.001+08:00

The following video, by NonStampCollector, is a response to people who believe that the Noah's Ark story actually happened.

I've no god - and am proud of it

2011-07-23T13:49:00.001+08:00

The following is an article by the Straits Times via Jakarta Globe:

Singapore. A growing number of people in Singapore who do not believe in a God have banded together, determined to be unapologetic about being non-religious.

Registered as the Humanist Society (Singapore) last October, their ranks have since expanded from 10 to 100 registered, fee-paying members.

Their backgrounds are as diverse as their reasons for not professing a faith, but they are united by their belief that morality comes from humanity itself.

Calling themselves 'secular humanists', they are also united in their rejection of a theistic or supernatural explanation of reality, and their embracing of scientific inquiry.

Today is a red-letter day: The society presents its inaugural Humanist of the Year award to author Catherine Lim.

Another recent milestone was the society's application to join the International Humanist and Ethical Union, a European body of humanist societies around the world.

The humanists here include artists, government officials, students and entrepreneurs. The youngest member is 19 and the oldest, 65.

Most describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, though some eschew labels. Others are adamantly definitive. Take Nanyang Technological University student Eugene Tay, 24, who declares: 'I'm an atheist-agnostic secular humanist.'

Statistically, the proportion of people here with no religion has climbed steadily in the last 30 years - from 13 per cent in 1980 to 17 per cent last year.

Since non-believers have no church, temple or mosque to go to, they have carved out their space online.

The founding members of the Humanist Society came together in 2008, through www.meetup.com, a social networking website.

The online group they formed has more than 500 members.

Since it was set up, the society has cast itself as the voice for the non-religious here. Its president Paul Tobin, 46, wrote to The Straits Times' Forum page last December, in response to a report that suggested that non-religious young people were prone to violence and cynicism. In his letter, he rejected the claim and concluded: 'One does not need to have a religion to lead a good, happy and meaningful life.'

He told The Straits Times: 'That was a watershed moment. After that letter, our numbers shot up. I feel now that we have a say in what goes on in Singapore.'

Land surveyor Loh Kwek Leong, 58, who learnt of the society through this newspaper last year, said he grew up in a typical Chinese household - one that was 'a bit Taoist, a bit Buddhist, a lot superstitious'.

As an adult, he found putting his faith in science better. He said: 'The questions I had about the world, about life and death - I found my answers in science, not religion.'

The group pulls together because of a shared sense of being alone in a society where four in five people profess to believe in a Supreme Being.

Communications manager Winston Chong, 36, who said he has philosophical debates with his parents, who are religious, said: 'It's about time we had a group for ourselves. I've been waiting for this, to find like-minded people.'

As a recipient of the society's award, Dr Lim joins a list of internationally honoured humanists, including astronomer Carl Sagan and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.

Asked for her take on religion, she replied via e-mail: 'I suppose if I had a religion, it would be the 'religion of humanity', based on confidence in the indomitability of the human spirit. I would rather have faith, than a faith.'

If I want to be pedantic, I'll take issue with capitalizing the word "god". Excuse me, are you trying to be a bigoted monotheist, dismissing all the other gods other people believe in -- hmmm?

I also take issue with the phrase "putting his faith in science" because it reeks of religious language that confuse the issue of faith, trust and confidence.

But all in all, nice -- a positive article about secular humanism and non-belief is always good to have.

Question Evolution: Answers

2011-07-07T12:56:00.000+08:00

Via TheLivingDinosaur, it came to my attention of Creation Ministries International's campaign, Question Evolution. As a response, 15+1 Youtubers came together to produce videos to answer the ludicrous questions in the campaign's pamphlet.

Here are the 4 videos collated:

Links to the creationist's site and pamphlet can be found on the Youtube page of the first part of the video. Links to the individual contributors can be found on the Youtube page of the video part they appear in.

Treatise on Morality

2011-07-06T11:27:00.001+08:00

Here's video by TheoreticalBullshit on the subject of morality.

It addresses why I say, Christianity has obedience not morality -- This applies to any denomination or religion where morality is defined by their deity.

Morality: Subjective, Objective

2011-07-04T17:00:00.003+08:00

Very often, the debate over morality is bogged down by the issue over the subjectivity or objectivity of morality. Usually, the theists are the ones advocating that morality is objective (and has been made known to them by their gods) while some atheists would deny that.

Definitions
So, note the (relevant) definitions for objective and subjective.

objective — adj
1.    existing independently of perception or an individual's
       conceptions: are there objective moral values?
2.    undistorted by emotion or personal bias
3.    of or relating to actual and external phenomena as
       opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc
4.    of, or relating to a goal or aim

subjective — adj
1.    belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of
       the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being
       considered
2.    of, relating to, or emanating from a person's emotions,
       prejudices, etc: subjective views
3.    relating to the inherent nature of a person or thing
4.    existing only as perceived and not as a thing in itself

Note the different ways the words subjective and objective can be used. The two different ways is with respect to in/dependence of mind(s) and distortion or lack of it by prejudices/biases/emotions.

Now this means that referring to morality with those terms, objective and subjective, without adequate clarity will indicate 4 different positions. If you said morality is objective, you might mean that morality exist independent of minds or that morality is not biased by subjects. If you said morality is subjective, you might mean that morality is dependent on minds or that morality is based on subjective biases.

The Usual Confusion
As such, without providing proper context, telling me that you believe morality to be objective or subjective is potentially misleading. You MUST indicate what definition of objective and subjective you are using.

Objective (1) -- independent of minds
Objective (2) -- unbiased by subjects

Subjective (1) -- dependent on minds
Subjective (2) -- based on subjective biases

With that clarified, I want to state that atheists (not all, but there is a significant proportion at least) are proposing that morality is subjective (1) but its morals can be derived objectively (2). This would be what Sam Harris is proposing that science can study morality, concerning the well-being of conscious beings which is subjective (1), objectively (2).

Morality and Morals
The purpose of morality, simply put, is to guide human behavior and (social) interactions. I will state that I reject ALL claims of objective (1) morality. Any moral system that ignores the state of the conscious beings involved -- which is what it must entail in order to be objective (1) -- is not a moral system at all.

The purpose of morality is subjective (1) in the sense that morality only matters if there are subjects. It is not subjective (2) as long as we properly define what morality is and thus be able to objectively (2) investigate what is moral and immoral.

I agree with Sam Harris' view of morality where the purpose of morality is to guide human behavior and social interactions in the direction of well-being. Note the well-being is somewhat vague, like the concept of health, which I think is actually a strong point.

Take a look at the branches of normative ethics, at this Wikipedia page, particularly Consequentialist theories, and notice that they emphasize on one particular value to judge whether an action is or is not moral. The idea of well-being cuts through all that nonsense and represents all the values that we hold.

Theistic, Objective Morality
The main issue with theistic, objective morality is that there is no such thing -- it's almost a contradiction in terms.

If morality is based on their god, then it would be subjective (1) -- dependent on god's mind -- not objective (1) which they claim. The Euthyphro dilemma applies either way. Also, this makes morality arbitrary and quite meaningless -- it's obedience not morals.

If morality is not based on their god but simply because god has access to morality via its omniscient, then morality is not dependent on god. It would be possible for us to investigate morality objectively (2) whether or not it is objective (1) or subjective (1). But it also means that the theistic aspect is irrelevant.

Additionally, even if we ignore the previous two points and simply agree, for the sake of argument, that morality is somehow objective (1), it doesn't solve anything. Theistic morality is practically subjective (2) -- interpreting means that there are so many versions of so many religions, each offering a different (slightly or not) moral code. The theistic case for objective (1) morality and morals is just nonsense to begin with and still nonsense at the end.

What's more egregious in the case of Christianity and Islam (correct me if there are sects who disagree) is that morals DON'T matter because belief in god is the sole (or at least, critical) criteria to enter heaven. All the talk about homosexuals, abortion, rape and murder is irrelevant because if you don't believe, living a moral life will do dick for you, you will still fry in hell anyways.

In this respect, traditional chinese religious beliefs trump Christianity and Islam because its hell punishes people for immoralities as opposed to disbelief.

Justification and Beliefs

2011-06-29T10:15:00.007+08:00

Before I continue with the entry proper, I should mention I only wrote this entry because I felt like responding to this post I read on that blog. However, while I have some interest and ideas about philosophy, I am not a philosopher. This is not an excuse that I be excused from criticism -- I am merely stating that I do not know how to argue formally in philosophy.

So the following is simply my thoughts about the topic, not a proper defense of the evidentialist position -- I leave that to people who actually know their stuff better.

From my viewpoint, the ideas goes something like this:

How do you know?

Knowledge is acquired ultimately through experience. Whenever we say we know something, we mean that we saw, heard, felt, etc (ie, sensed/experienced) that something. Even if the knowledge was acquired from someone else (ie, learnt), that someone experience it first or the chain terminates with someone experiencing it directly.

I say I know the apple is red because I can see that the apple is red. Even if I have never seen apples in my life, but I may still say I know the apple is red because someone who saw the apple told me that it is red.

Note that I am not talking about justified propositions yet. I am merely showing that all knowledge claims is founded through experience. Whenever we answer the question "How do you know that?", we answer with some kind of experience, direct or indirect.

Experience and Evidence

If you experienced something, that something should exist in objective reality in order for you to have experienced it.

This is true regardless of whether your subjective experience was deceptive or not. If you heard a sound, something must have made the sound (vibrations in the air). If the sound was an auditory hallucination, it is still real but not as vibrations in the air but a neurological malfunction.

So, in principle, if a thing exist, and you experienced it in some way, that experience is some kind of evidence.

Forms of Evidence

Evidence comes in many forms and their reliability differ from one form to another. The simplest form of evidence is the entity itself -- and possibly the most powerful evidence for the existence of the apple is to show the apple itself.

We can have a slightly more indirect approach. Let's say we have the apple's peeled skin. We can say we know there was an apple via reasoning that the apple skin must have came from a whole apple originally -- that is unless we know of some method of producing apple skins without apples.

Even more indirectly, we could have no actual physical parts of the apple but, say, photographic evidence of the apple -- providing that there is no forgery. This is indirect observation of the apple.

We could rely on memory and testimony. Someone could have seen the apple sitting in the refrigerator and told you you about it. But just like the other forms of evidence, there are caveats. For the case of memory and perception, we know that human beings are known to misperceive, misremember and miscommunicate. So we adjust the value of such evidence accordingly.

Justified True Beliefs -- Knowledge

If something is real and experienced in some way, then some kind of evidence would be available. If we have sufficient evidence to be certain (high enough, not absolutely), then we can say we know that something is real.

Arguing that evidence is not available for whatever reason is tantamount to saying we don't know that that something is real. Because if we cannot produce evidence, we cannot meaningfully say we know it is real since we can't verify it.

Believing something for which there is insufficient evidence is not prohibited by this position -- it addresses knowledge not mere beliefs. One can believe something to be true without knowing if it is indeed true. With regards to god beliefs, this position is held by agnostic theists -- they believe in god but cannot know for certain it exist.

So jumping straight to the example in the post I was referring to,

While evidentialism certainly does apply to many things, such as deductive beliefs like 10x20=200, which is derived from from more basic beliefs like 1x2=2 and 10x10=100, there are many beliefs which we hold dear to and think are obviously true that we can't show any evidence for.

Take for instance the belief from memory that I had coffee at a nearby Starbucks restaurant this morning. You might go, "Aha! Why can't you just go to the cafe I went to this morning and ask the staff if I indeed had coffee then?"

It's not as simple as you think. Suppose that I did go to the cafe, but none of the staff seems to remember I was there this morning -- which is quite plausible. Suppose also that none of my friends or family members knew -- they were all sound asleep, and I did not check into Foursquare. My iPhone battery had died.

Easy, check your wallet, you may say. But the frustrating thing is, I cannot remember how much was in my wallet before, so there is no other reliable evidence that I did go to Starbucks.

But isn't it absurd for us to question our memories this way? After all, I am frequently right about my memories. But by saying that your particular memory is accurate because, generally, your memories tend to be true, that is a circular argument. Even if we collect a sample size of 1,000 memories (where no external corroborating evidence is available) and claim that 90 percent of them are true, it does nothing for us.

This example demonstrates a major dispute with evidentialism.

Firstly, about memory.

Memory is admissible as evidence. It is just very poor evidence in the hierarchy in light of the other things we know about memory.

It is fine and practical to use just memory to justify beliefs in general but beliefs are only as certain as they can be justified. So beliefs justified purely through memory is weaker than beliefs justified by other forms of evidence. You could claim that it is knowledge but it would be very poorly justified knowledge, ranking so low that it would be close to beliefs, unjustified knowledge.

So if I believe I went to Starbucks purely because I had the memory of that being the case, for practical purposes, good enough. But it still doesn't qualify as knowledge. For that I may need, say a video of me being at Starbucks and perhaps some corroborated eyewitness testimony.

Secondly, isn't it absurd?

Actually, yes, if that it what we're proposing. But it's not. That is why we make a distinction between mundane claims and extraordinary (or simply important) claims.

In a court of law, given the same scenario, you are thought not to have been at Starbucks regardless whether it is true that you went to Starbucks or not, simply because the court only has your word (ie, your memory) and nothing else.

Similarly, the event could be true and you believe it is true, but it will not qualify as knowledge unless you can provide higher standards of evidence. It works somewhat like the burden of proof -- you can believe all you want, but once you try to elevate it to a knowledge claim, you must be able to demonstrate it.

So indeed, it would be absurd to require an investigative report for every piece of memory you have. But for practical purposes, we only do that for important and/or extraordinary claims. However, it does not change the fact that we wish to know something, there should be evidence for it. So if my trip to Starbucks is to be an important point to establish, I must be able to demonstrate it.

Which is why it is seemingly absurd for scientists and atheists alike to demand evidence for God when they themselves hold beliefs they have no proof for.

Why should the methodological rigour of scientific experimentation be applied to the question of God? And assuming that it ought to, then shouldn't evidentialism apply to everything else as well -- an absurd notion nonetheless?

It is absurd in the sense that it seems like hypocrisy and not because evidentialism is false. And this is the important point.

As mentioned before, we don't ask for and probably don't require sufficient evidence for mundane beliefs for practical reasons. But it is, in principle, possible to provide evidence for mundane beliefs -- say videoing every aspect of your life if you so wish to verify.

So the question is not "Why should the methodological rigour of scientific experimentation be applied to the question of God?" since "And assuming that it ought to, then shouldn't evidentialism apply to everything else as well". Because evidentialism does apply to everything else.

The real question is: Is the belief in the existence of god a mundane one? The answer is no as long as you attempt to elevate it to a knowledge claim (which is almost always the case).

So if god is real, actually existent, where is the evidence to justify him when we should be able to find them in principle?

Morality: Good without gods

2011-06-24T17:40:00.002+08:00

QualiaSoup has once again made a beautiful video on the topic of morality. I must say that it is quite a wonderful piece of work.

And yes, I am in full agreement with him.

New video by TheraminTrees

2011-06-22T21:00:00.001+08:00

Here's a new video by TheraminTrees, the second part of his 3 part series responding to some questions:

Human God

2011-06-18T15:30:00.002+08:00

Just discovered a noteworthy channel, TrustingDoubt, thanks to a shout out by TheLivingDinosaur.

Here's her first video, God's Emotions, of what is to be a 9 part series exploring the psychological aspect of religion:

Visit her channel to view the second part of the video series.

Truth and evidence

2011-05-28T20:10:00.010+08:00

This is a response to this post by a Christian blogger in Singapore:

The word ‘truth’ in its essence, is already an absolute. But because we live in a post-modern world, we are obliged to asseverate the words ‘absolute truth’; not to prove that we are desperate in being over-emphatic, but to prove that today’s world has murdered truth in its essence.

What is truth? I define truth as follows, “Truth is an objective reality that is transcendent over man’s subjectivity and bias.”

No major disagreement here. Simply defined, truth is the state of objective reality.

So let's get to the meat of the post.

What about the myriads of conflicting ‘truths’ out in the world today? It seems that truth has been reduced to mere subjective perceptions. The problem, however, lies not in truth, but in what our standard of truth is. Our standard of truth forms our perception of reality;

I think I understand what you are trying to say here.

Truth has not been reduced to mere subjective perceptions. Rather, what people believe to be the truth is necessarily informed by their perception. What a person perceive to be true is dependent on their criterion of truth. In religion, different religions effectively indoctrinate their adherents with their criterion of truth -- faith, revelation and scripture are often amongst them.

to an Evolutionist science is the standard of the truth of man’s existence, however to a Christian, the Bible is the standard of truth in which God is the truth of man’s existence. Two perceptions, but there can only be one reality. Therefore to know if our perception of reality is true, we have to examine if our standard is the actual, objective, transcendental and indisputable truth.

Once again, there seems to be a grave misunderstanding. To "an evolutionist" (this label is frankly as stupid as "a newtonian" or "a germist"), science itself is NOT the standard of truth.

The term "evolutionist" here seems to be referring to people who accept the scientific method and its findings. These people, scientists, lay people and everyone in between, accept that evidence is an important, if not the most critical, criterion of truth. Science is a method that fulfills that criterion. As such, it would seem that an "evolutionist" is using science as a standard -- but no, we're just going where the evidence leads.

Now on to the idea of using the Bible as the standard of truth. To me, or any evidence-based truth seekers, that's a huge unjustified leap. To even begin using the Bible as a standard, any sane person must first justify with evidence why that should be the case. Without evidence, any book would be as reasonable as any other to use -- ie, not reasonable at all.

And the historical and archeological evidence indicate that the bible is: a translation of several books written by different authors, who are believed to be divinely inspired, decades after the events which they purport to describe by non-eyewitnesses whose stories were transmitted by hearsay in the intervening decades. Some books were anonymous and had their authors ascribed to them by the Church based on belief/conviction, and there are variants of these books from different time periods displaying textual changes both due to error and deliberate action indicating forgery. These books also contain both internal contradictions and contradictions with known historical and scientific facts.

I'll chuck the whole compilation instead of using it as a standard for anything at all.

It's not science versus the bible. It's just evidence -- the most critical tool of verification. What better way to find truth than with pieces of reality itself, evidence.

Consider this example. On one side, there are people who deny immortality and claim that when we die we just cease to exist. At the other camp, people are declaring that we will spend eternity in hell unless we believe in Christ Jesus.

Again, we, scientifically minded people, are not necessarily asserting a case like religions do. We are merely concluding based on the evidence we have.

Every piece of evidence we have gathered about the mind and the brain indicate that the mind cannot exist without a living brain.

By the way, we don't deny immortality -- we just don't believe in your kind of supernatural immortality. Biological immortality may be a possibility within the decades to come.

Two perceptions, but there can only be one reality. Therefore I urge you, to thoroughly examine your standard of truth because if not, you might one day find yourself in deep trouble for being so obstinate.

I've done that.

And excuse me, is that an allusion to hell?

Atheism is NOT a religion

2011-05-27T18:00:00.004+08:00

The following is a point by point response to the blog article, Has Atheism Become a Religion? by David Lose on The Huffington Post.

Has Atheism Become a Religion?

Before you dismiss the question out of hand, consider these four inter-related bits of evidence:

Actually, I don't have to dismiss this "out of hand". I'll say, right there, you have already gotten it wrong by definition. But let's hear what else you have to say.

1) As recently reported in the New York Times, military personnel who identify themselves as "Atheists" have requested chaplains to tend to their spiritual needs. As the Times article notes, "Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation's 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military." Having their own chaplains, the article explains, would give Atheists a sense of legitimacy and help validate their own system of values and beliefs.

This bullshit is easy to spot since he actually provides the link to the report he cites. Here's a telling paragraph from the report:

“Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews,” Mr. Torpy said in an interview. “It answers questions of ultimate concern; it directs our values.”

If you can't tell the distinction between atheism, Secular Humanism and religion, perhaps you could, I don't know, try looking up Wikipedia at least?

Atheism is simply the lack of the belief in god(s).

Secular Humanism is,

According to Wikipedia,
Secular Humanism, alternatively known as Humanism (often with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism), is a secular philosophy that espouses human reason, ethics, and justice, and the search for human fulfillment. It specifically rejects religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.

Secular Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives. Though it posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or God, it neither assumes humans to be inherently or innately good, nor presents humans as "above nature" or superior to it. Rather, the Humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of Secular Humanism is the strongly held belief that ideology — be it religious or political — must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this belief, an essential part of Secular Humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.

While Secular Humanism is recognized functionally as a religion in the eyes of the law, I'd argue that it is not a religion in general. It specifically rejects faith and dogma. There is no claim about afterlife, deities or any supernatural entities. It's not religion, just a philosophy -- unless of course you wish to muddy the discussion by castrating the word "religion".

Even if most atheists are Secular Humanists, it doesn't make atheism a religion. Ever.

2) The U.S. Government reports that in 2008 those identifying themselves specifically as "Atheist" composed the 18th largest group of 43 possible categories of "self-described religious identification." The number of persons so identifying themselves almost doubled from seven years earlier. Admittedly, "Atheist" is one of the options listed under "no religion specified," but given that other options for respondents included checking "Agnostic" or "No Religion" or not answering the question at all, it appears that identifying oneself specifically as an Atheist, as opposed to simply "not religious," is growing in appeal....

It's called accuracy. And accuracy counts.

Non-religious is a vague group because it encompasses both theists who are not in an organized religion and nontheists. The label, atheist, solves this problem and accurately represents our position on the question of god and religion.

... This points to the utility of a distinction made by Jonathan Lanman between "non-theists," those with no particular religious belief, and "strong atheists," those who view religion not only as irrelevant but as misguided and dangerous.

Well then, he's fucked too, feeding you misleading information.

Firstly, the term "strong atheist" refers to a subset of atheists who positively claim that there are no gods. In general, this is a minority and does not represent all atheists.

Secondly, the term "non-theists" includes ALL atheists.

Lastly, people who think that religion is misguided and dangerous are called "anti-religionists". And this category is entirely separate from the theism-atheism distinction. One can be either a theist or atheist and be against religions.

And yes, some atheists are anti-religious but please get your facts straight. This second "bit of evidence" does nothing for his case.

3) Similarly, it's worth noting the degree to which Atheists routinely, strategically, and often vociferously position what is often described as their "secular-humanist" views against religious traditions. Read or listen to any of the celebrity Atheists of the past decade like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris and you realize that they fashion many of their arguments not against some alternative economic, political, or philosophical position but against organized religion. Religious faith is clearly their primary opponent in the contest for the intellectual allegiance of the population, which makes it hard not to conclude that they offer their views and beliefs as a viable alternative to traditional religious systems.

Well, you got part of it right but the conclusion you seem to be drawing is all fucking wrong.

We are offering an alternative to religion: it's having NO religion. We are not selling you another religion; we're asking you to give it up. We're asking you to give up religious dogma for freethinking. We're asking you to give up religious supernatural nonsense for demonstrable reality. Again, unless you're trying to castrate the word "religion", you make no sense offering this "bit of evidence" for your case.

4) Finally -- and you probably knew this was coming -- consider all the comments made by self-identified Atheists on articles published in the Religion section of the Huffington Post. Seriously. Either Atheists have way more time on their hands than the rest of the population or they've got something to prove. This assertive, us-against-them tone (in this case, against established religion) is characteristic of new religions. (Think of the Christian gospels', especially Matthew and John, stance toward first-century Judaism, for example.) As Rabbi David Wolpe observed a few months ago, there is an astonishing garrulousness to the comments made by Atheists to posts about religion that suggest not simply a lack of interest in, or even disdain for, religion but a competitive anger directed against persons of traditional religious faith. (Obviously plenty of religious folk radiate the same garrulousness, but this post is about Atheists.)

What the fuck? Because we're aggressive against religion, we're a new religion? Bite me.

So the abolitionist were advocating a new form of slavery? And animal-rights activists are advocating a new form of animal abuse? People are against pedophiles because they want to engage in pedophilia too? Wow, the logic is impeccable! [/sarcasm]

Taken together, these four elements suggest that Atheists regularly demonstrate attributes -- desire for spiritual sustenance, the importance of self-identification, offering their worldview as an alternative to other religious systems, and an assertive if not competitive style of engagement with other religious points of view -- usually exhibited by religious folk of all persuasions.

While Atheism as a movement doesn't have the formal structure, celebrations, or creedal dogmas of organized religions, we might at least identify Atheism as it exists today as an increasingly vibrant faith tradition. Still, when speaking of Atheists, why use the f-word (for "faith," silly) rather than speak of a worldview or personal philosophy? Three reasons suggest themselves.

I've already pointed out why the four "bits of evidence" are bullcrap so let's not reiterate here.

But screw me, he's actually going to throw the old "you have faith like us" argument again.

1) It conveys that both a conventional religious worldview and atheistic worldview require a measure of faith. I don't mean this simply about the rather limited question of whether God exists, but rather about whether the material, physical dimension of life immediately apparent to our senses is all there is. The question can't be reduced, as Atheists regularly have, to observing that there are many beliefs -- in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well as God -- that can't be proved and must be taken on faith, but rather to ask whether there is a dimension of existence that supersedes or eludes our physical senses. Ultimately, any speech about God implies such a dimension that conversation about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus do not.

We don't have faith the same way religious people do. In fact, we reject faith because we think that it is an invalid path to truth.

Let's take a look at the dictionary:

faith (feɪθ) — n
1.     strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2.     a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith
3.     Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4.     a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
5.     complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc
6.     any set of firmly held principles or beliefs
7.     allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause

Atheists, those who reach their atheism via skepticism, reject faith according to definitions 1 and 4. Definitions 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 don't apply to atheism (a single belief or position).

So what faith do we have again? We do not have faith -- we deliberately excised it because it is the surest way to keep you away from the truth.

2) Religious faith -- and I'd argue atheistic faith -- doesn't begin and end with the question of God or a spiritual dimension to life. One needs also to construct an interpretation of life (describing its purpose, goal, worth) and set of values by which to live that life. Ethics and values are not self-evident from religious creeds -- witness, for instance, the distinct values of the varieties of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that run the gamut from liberal to fundamentalist. Similarly, there is no self-evident value system shared by Atheists and projecting such a system requires imagination, critical reflection and, yes, faith.

Again, see previous. Critical reflection and imagination should be quite sufficient.

Third, characterizing both organized religion and emergent Atheism as distinct faith traditions invites a measure of mutual regard and even respect that is sorely lacking in present discourse. Professing belief in God, as well as rejecting such belief, each requires equal measures of imagination and nerve. As it turns out, doubt is not the opposite of faith; certainty is. For this reason, we can hold out the hope that religious and non-religious believers alike may recognize in each other similar acts of courage and together reject the cowardice of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. Being able to disagree respectfully is a small but significant step that believers and non-believers could take as they, together, contemplate admiring, understanding, and preserving this wondrous world we share.

No, neither certainty nor doubt is the opposite of faith -- Reason is; something that we embrace and the religious ignore or even despise.

All in all, this article is just full of misunderstandings of what atheists are.

Clash of Church and State in the Philippines

2011-05-25T10:00:00.008+08:00

Once again, the sex obsessed Catholic Church is rearing its ugly head, this time in the Philippines over the Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

The Independent reports in its news article, Church and State clash over sex and condoms in the Philippines:

A 13-year battle between church and state in the Philippines, one of the world's most devoutly Catholic nations, has come to a head over government plans to provide free condoms and sex education. Catholic bishops have threatened to excommunicate President Benigno Aquino over a reproductive health bill introduced into the Congress yesterday.

......

The aim of the bill is to control population growth, reduce HIV infection rates and eradicate the need for women to seek backstreet abortions. Mr Aquino, who is determined to see it become law, is prepared to be banished from the church, if necessary. "I have been taught in school, which was a Catholic institution, that the final arbiter really is our conscience," he said yesterday.

But the church, which has enormous clout in the Philippines, is not about to give way. Since 1998, it has quashed several previous versions of the bill. "Sex is not a game that should be taught to children, along with the use of condoms, supposedly to avoid disease," the Archbishop of Manila, Gaudencio Rosales, told an anti-contraception rally in the capital two months ago.

I appreciate the president of the Philippines for, effectively, holding the wall between Church and State. While I am not a Filipino, it is nice to see politicians do the right thing despite opposition from religious lobbies instead of succumbing to them.

But as usual, there are always some politicians happy to smear their religious beliefs all over their politics.

As well as the powerful church, Mr Aquino is opposed by one of the most popular figures in the Philippines, the world champion boxer turned congressman Manny Pacquiao.

Mr Pacquiao said this week that he would never have been born, or become a champion, if his parents had used contraception. "God said go forth and multiply," he declared. "He did not say just go and have one or two children."

What a vacuous statement. If your parents were doing ANYTHING other than fucking at that moment when they did have sex to produce you, you wouldn't exist. So? What's your point?

And may I ask why anyone is obliged to care what you believe your god said in an ancient book of inconclusive authorship? Thankfully, there is still sane people in their government to put this nutter in place. According to ABS-CBN news,

She (Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago) also criticized his use of the biblical quote, "Go forth and multiply."

"The Bible does not say, 'Go out to the world.' It sounds very much like God is encouraging us to go out and copulate in public. God said in the Bible, "Go forth and multiply." That meant that God wanted man, not necessarily to literally multiply, but to go out to work with the rest of the human beings of this planet and to apply the stewardship theory. Meaning to say, taking care of each other, who are all in the planet living together.

"I would like to say if this is going to be a debate of biblical quotes, then I will counter with a quote: 'The devil can cite scripture for its purposes,'" she said.

She also called on Pacquiao not to read and interpret the Bible to literally, pointing out that the Bible was not even written by God himself.

"It is very dangerous to be a fundamentalist. Apparently that's what Pacquiao is. He reads the Bible literally. The Bible was not written by God ... Nobody has a monopoly of the thoughts of God," she told Senate reporters.

Nice. More public figures should state that publicly, thank you -- 'cause it seems like nobody bloody knows that. She also said,

She also said the separation of church and state should be maintained.

"Because the principle of church and state, while we respect the freedom of speech of people of every persuasion across religious boundaries, still we have to stand up for the principle in democratic governance that the church cannot dictate to the state. So the State must always argue in favor of free speech and free conscience, that is why I call this a freedom of conscience issue," she added.

Here's another politician with his head screwed on right -- voicing the core reason for defending the separation of Church and State here as reported by Sun.Star Davao newspaper:

Duterte said the Catholics who believe in the stand of the Church and the warnings of the priests can do so, however, he said the Philippines cannot be ruled by the Roman Catholic Church.

"Iba-iba naman ang relihiyon. As I said, within this country, there are people who believe in God, and there are those who do not believe in God," Duterte explained.

The Church cannot speak on behalf of everyone, he added.

I'm not going to comment much about the Church's stance here -- it suffice to say that the Church's morals are "biblical", as in centuries behind on moral progress.

After the Rapture

2011-05-23T09:00:00.002+08:00

Gotta love TheThinkingAtheist for his latest video.

Confusing Abiogenesis and Evolution

2011-05-20T08:30:00.006+08:00

Coming from a creationist's perspective, religious folk advocating some form of creationism always seems to fail to the grasp the distinction between the field of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. Deliberately or not, they frequently conflate the two, claiming a "flaw" in abiogenesis therefore constitutes a flaw in the theory of evolution.

Even Wikipedia states different definitions for abiogenesis and evolution:

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor, which are described by Charles Darwin as "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful".

Notice the distinction, please. Abiogenesis is the field of study of how life arose. Evolution is the theory which explains how life diversified. Even if I grant that we have no clue whatsoever as to how life arose, we know that once it did, it most surely diversified by the mechanisms proposed by the theory of evolution.

I'll be referring to this post made by a Christian in Singapore.

Right of the bat, the post would be more accurately describing its content if it were titled "The irrationality of Abiogenesis".

Probably the greatest difficulty of all for evolutionary theory is explaining how any life could have begun in the first place.

The theory of evolution is not supposed to explain how life begun. It describes how life diversified. Even if you want to shoehorn god into the picture as the creator of the first cell, that cell would be the ancestor of all life on Earth and evolved by mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. We know life evolved as surely as we know that the Earth orbits the Sun.

The spontaneous generation of even the simplest living organism capable of independent life (the prokaryote bacterial cell) from inorganic materials on the earth could not happen by random mixing of chemicals: it requires intelligent design and craftsmanship so complex that no advanced scientific laboratory in the world has been able to do it

The simplest living organism today is certainly more complex than the simplest living organism when life first started. This argument from complexity fails right there. Scientists studying abiogenesis are not proposing that the first cell is as complex as the simplest modern cell.

Also, this strange ultimatum between spontaneous generation of complex cells and intelligent design is a false dichotomy. Scientists are not proposing that the complexity of life as we know it today arose purely by chance. You get this monstrous error by conflating abiogenesis and evolution.

A living organism emerged by chance from a pre-biotic soup is about as likely as that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’ Chance assembly is just a naturalistic way of saying ‘miracle’.

Again, this results from a confusion of abiogenesis and evolution. No scientists is proposing that a cell displaying the modern complexities appeared by chance. That would be just as nonsensical to you as to the scientists.

For example, check out the RNA World Hypothesis for what scientist mean by the first "cell".

In fact, some attempts have been made to calculate the probability of life arising spontaneously in his way. Kofahl and Segraves, authors of “The Creation Explanation”, give a statistical model in which they begin with a very generous assumption: that every square foot of the earth’s surface was somehow covered with 95 pounds of protein every year for one billion years. They then estimate the probability that even one enzyme molecule could develop in each one billion years of the earth’s history. The probability is 1.2 times 10^-11 or one chance in 80 billion. They note, however, that even with the generous assumptions and starting with fresh protein every year for a billion years, finding one enzyme molecule—for all practical purposes an impossible task—would not solve the problem at all.

The probability of finding two of the active molecules would be about 10²², and the probability that they would be identical would be 10⁷⁰. And could life start with just a single enzyme molecule? Furthermore, what is the possibility that an active enzyme molecule, once formed, could find its way through thousands of miles and millions of years to that randomly formed RNA or DNA molecule which contains the code for that particular enzyme molecule’s amino acid sequence, so that new copies of itself could be produced? Zero for all practical purposes.

Kofahl and Segraves report a study by an evolutionary scientist who formulates a model to calculate the probability for the formation, not just of one enzyme molecule but the smallest likely living organism by random processes. He comes up with a probability of one chance in 10^340,000,000—that is, one chance in 10 with 340 million zeros after it! Yet these evolutionary scientists still believed it happened!

The rest of the article is basically an attempt to awe audiences with numbers. And it's redundant - I'll explain.

But first, get this straight first. We're going to be talking about Abiogenesis - nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Unlike Abiogenesis where scientists are only proposing hypotheses, the Theory of Evolution is firmly established with mountains of evidence and has the consensus of the scientific community.

Here's the thing: Abiogenesis may have been a rare chance event. So throwing really low probabilities (even if the numbers are accurate) at abiogenesis is really redundant - we already know that.

What is important here is the claim that creationists are making: Too rare therefore God did it. But "God did it" is not an explanation at all - it has no explanatory function.

The field of abiogenesis at the very least demonstrates that it is possible for life to have occurred by natural means. The various hypotheses represent the ways by which life might have arose though we do not know definitively which path it took yet.

Postulating a god is not only unscientific, it is redundant. It is also a huge argument from ignorance. What, you scientists don't know how life arose? Ahha! Obviously God did it!

If your creationist argument take the form of "Too rare/complex, therefore God", it's a fallacious argument to begin with - still just an argument from ignorance.

Not knowing how life arose is not argument for god.

I recommend checking out TalkOrigins: Index to Creationist Claims for creationists (or any lay person) who don't understand what evolution is and is not.

Secularism, what is that really?

2011-05-19T18:00:00.003+08:00

Okay, let me put it upfront that the article I'll be referring to is old news, really old news, like 2009 old news. Unfortunately, the nonsense in the article is not unnecessarily old. It does seem that Christians in Singapore are importing American Evangelical nonsense. I will use this opportunity to clarify what secularism is and is not.

There seems to be few sources that have the interview of Thio Li-Ann archived. So I'll be using this one archived by AWARE. It should be sufficient for my purposes since I'm not going to be deconstructing the whole interview. If you want that, then I would recommend this other blog's post - it's quite well done I think.

Historically, ‘secularism’ originates from the Latin ‘saeculum’, meaning ‘temporal’, worldly affairs, rather than ‘spiritual’, other-worldly matters. The word ‘secular’ is an emblem of intense historical conflict.

Today, in some circles, ‘secularism’ connotes systematic hostility towards religion, as a synonym for a politicised form of ideological atheism whose creed is that humanity is destined to wholly shed religious conviction. The atheistic word was made flesh in the atheistic state produced by the Russian Revolution of 1917, devoted to Marx’s assumption that religion stupefies the masses and must be eradicated to bring forth the new Communist Man.

......

In 1989, Foreign Minister George Yeo observed the Government was ‘secular but it is certainly not atheistic’. This evinces a rejection of a thick, atheistic version of secularism.

Here is a truncated quote from the interview. Notice the attempt to confuse and conflate atheism and secularism?

Guess what? Secularism and atheism are two completely different things. This attempt to confuse the issue is a dishonest ploy to evoke feelings of opposition to secularism from religious folks.

For the record, if the state/government endorses atheism or antitheism, it is by definition, NOT secular. As such, there is NO such thing as an "atheistic version of secularism". Secularity of the government only means that the government just remain neutral in matters pertaining to the religious beliefs of its citizens.

Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of God, is a comprehensive anti-theistic world view. Some courts recognise it as a religion. It dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence. We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic.

It takes faith to believe or not to believe in God or gods. A lot of faith is needed to believe there is no divine. As Turkish journalist Mustafa Akyol wrote: ‘It is the atheist’s opium to regard that unsubstantiated faith as established fact.’ Thick secularism is thus an anti-religion religion.

Again, an attempt to conflate secularism with atheism, this time, as well as Secular Humanism.

It's important to go through this point by point to clarify the confusion about Secular Humanism.

Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of God, is a comprehensive anti-theistic world view.

Secular Humanism is atheistic in nature though not necessarily antitheistic.

Here is the Minimum Statement on Humanism:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

Secular Humanists themselves may be antitheistic but it is not a dogmatic requirement of the stance. In fact, Secular Humanism rejects dogmas.

Some courts recognise it as a religion.

The recognition of Secular Humanism as a "religion" is for functional reasons in the eyes of the law.

It dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence.

No, it doesn't. That has it ass backwards.

Precisely because there is no empirical evidence FOR the existence of god(s), Secular Humanists do not believe there is/are god(s). The distinction between "do not believe in the existence of god" and "believe there are no gods" is subtle but still important! We simply do not pretend there is one (or more gods) - instead we believe only we, humans, can help ourselves (hence the humanist aspect).

We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic.

Gee, except that's not what we're claiming - we haven't disproved god nor can we.

While we can't prove (in correct usage of the word) the existence of god(s), we should be able to demonstrate IF he/she/it exist. But we haven't; Still waiting for those people with the burden of proof to bring in the evidence.

And now we'll move onto the rest of the nonsense.

Secular democracies should be neutral not only between traditional religions but also regarding modern religions with atheistic foundations.

What in the world is "modern religions with atheistic foundations"? Some forms of Buddhism is atheistic but that sure isn't modern.

Again, it seems that this is yet another attempt to claim that atheism somehow constitutes a religion. Well, it isn't. Being an atheist effectively means having no religion. Lacking belief in god makes you an atheist; No rational atheist asserts that god(s) do not exist and even those who do make that assertion are not organising a religion!

But let's move straight to most important part, the biggest "misunderstanding",

Thus, Singapore secularism is 'agnostic' and 'thin'. The Government does not favour or disfavour any particular religion. We practise 'accommodative secularism' described by the Court of Appeal as removing restrictions to one's choice of religious belief. Religious values do have a role in public debate.

Agnostic secularism of this sort is a virtue; it is a 'framework' which facilitates the peaceful co-existence of religions.

Conversely, militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in communist states.

Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious.

The distinction between "accommodative" and "millitant" secularism is fucking nonsense.

Okay, I won't be quoting anymore. Here on is my explanation for secularism.

Secularism is one of the constitutional devices that sought to protect the people from the state (government) and vice versa, in this case, from religious discrimination. It means that the state must remain neutral towards religion, that is, the state cannot endorse any religions (no preferential treatment, no favorite or state religion) and cannot discriminate against any religion. This guarantees freedom of religion (as well as from religion).

Maybe it would be clearer if I used hypothetical examples.

It means the government cannot come out tomorrow and announce that Buddhism is the state religion of Singapore and its temples will now enjoy tax free status that other religions are not entitled.

It means the state cannot proclaim that we have amended the Singapore Pledge and it will now read:

We, the citizens of Singapore,
accept our Lord Jesus Christ as our one and only savior,
regardless of race, language or gender,

It means we cannot write into our law that all pork and pig related products shall be banned and no non-halal stalls will ever be permitted.

It means the Prime Minister cannot proclaim that we will now endorse state atheism and will now print "One Nation under No Gods" on our dollar bills.

Clearer now?

Secularism also means that members of the government cannot inject their religion into our constitution, our laws or anything endorsed by the government.

We may not inject Creationism into our national Science curriculum at our public schools.

We may not criminalized abortion on the basis of any religious doctrine.

We may not discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of any holy text.

We may not allow state-led prayer in our Parliament or public schools.

And yes, those examples come from America where religious nuts are trying to destroy the secularity of the USA.

To put it simply, secularism means you cannot impose your religious views on others via the government but neither can the government tell you what you can or cannot believe/do because of someone else's religion.

I hope you can see that that's a good thing, otherwise, you might be a bigot or possibly a theocrat... just guessing...

Violating Secularity, not actually

2011-05-18T20:30:00.005+08:00

Sorry, this is old news. Not even news actually. But I thought I should voice my opinion because it's an atheist in Singapore who seem to think that the secularity of his school was violated.

Here's the relevant excerpts from the letter:

I feel uncomfortable in TJC because I witnessed a violation of secularism in TJC.

A few months ago, around May, the 32nd Student Council of TJC stood down and hand over to the 33rd SC. On the day, the President of the 32nd Student Council addressed the cohort. At the end of her address, she close with the phrase of “God Bless”

The ministry might think that the fault lies in the individual. But I am very surprise that the college did not make any clarification to the address. which I take it as they agree with the phrase. When the speech included the phrase “God Bless”, I believed that a Secular school like TJC would have clarified without any one complaing or enquring in the first place. But the lack of action of TJC with regards to this violation of secularism in school is rather shocking.

I really don't think this qualifies as a violation of secularism.

Firstly, does the president of the student council represent the (government) school and its official position? I doubt it.

Secondly, "God bless" has become a generic phrase similar to "Oh my god!" where the speaker may not actually be invoking their deity but simply wishing the audience well.

She is, in fact, allowed to voice her religious opinions although she may have come across as being distasteful to some atheists and possibly polytheists. But then again, she's allowed, to some degree, be distasteful if she wants to.

But in this case, she merely made a possibly religiously charged well wishing. She wasn't declaring that her religion is the one and only true religion. She wasn't telling her audience that deserved to burn in hell. She was neither promoting her religion over any others nor denigrating any.

So this letter sounds a lot like making a mountain out of, not a molehill, nothing to me.

Atheists and religious families

2011-05-17T21:00:00.000+08:00

TheThinkingAtheist has recently uploaded two videos pertaining to atheists and their religious family and upbringing. It's worth a watch.

Phylogeny (Tree of Life)

2011-05-15T14:09:00.000+08:00

A new video by AronRa.

Evidentialism

2011-05-13T19:00:00.002+08:00

A new video by Evid3nc3.

Why are you praying?

2011-05-08T22:00:00.005+08:00

Believers of all kinds pray at one point or another. The more religious of the bunch pray as and when they feel that a personal communication is required to ask their respective deity for assistance or enlightenment. Others pray as a matter of ritual routinely at their places of worship. Less devout ones pray only when they are troubled and desperate for any kind of help that may seem to alleviate their anxiety.

I can almost say that I feel disappointed with this huge segment of the population. And I want to ask: why do you pray?

In this post, I am not addressing ritualistic prayer - that I really couldn't care for anyways. But I am looking at those who believe that prayer is some kind of communication to their god where the god would offer assistance and/or enlightenment in response.

For believers who subscribe to a god who is simultaneously omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing) and benevolent (all-good), the question is: why bother? An all-knowing god already knows that you are praying and what you are praying about - in this case, the prayer is a superfluous act. To an all-powerful, all-knowing god, your prayer is futile since he would have acted according to your wishes if he had wanted to. And for an all-good god, you shouldn't need to pray in the first place if you understand the implications.

That mostly deals with the Abrahamic versions of the monotheistic God. Presumably it should also deal with most other deities worthy of the prayer in the first place (after all, why bother praying for assistance from a god incapable of rendering them).

Here's another thought: why do you think that a god would even give a damn about your prayer? A divine being caring about your pathetic cries for help over some earthly human issues? Why do you suppose that human beings would be noticed by the god(s)? Just 'cause we're their creations? Aren't the rest of the living world supposedly their creation too? So the zebra being mauled by lions is not worth a damn but your sick uncle is? I know this might sound cruel but think about it, aren't you presupposing that you're so special that even the freaking supreme being of the universe is actually paying full attention to your whines and complaints about your life?

Here's yet another angle to this issue. You do realize that thousands of (approximately 150,000) people die per day, right? Most of them are not death due to age - rather death by accident, disease or murder. Put it this way, why do you suppose that god would give about a damn about your issues when he evidently doesn't care about those some 150,000 people each day? Presumably, some of those people probably hold the same/similar beliefs about their god as do you. Can you see the arrogance yet?

I could just tell you that there is ZERO scientific evidence pointing to the efficacy of prayer and neither is there any for the god being prayed to. But I think that will fall on deaf ears, sadly.

I know that at the emotional level, it seems almost cruel to ask someone to not bother praying. In desperate situations, it does seem like the only thing left to do is to pray.

But let me ask you again, why are you praying? Would it actually work? If your friend survives, was it your prayer being answered? Or the effort of the medical personnel? Or sheer luck? Who would you thank? Your god or the doctors? How do you know it was god's doing? What if your kin dies instead? Did your prayer fail? Or was it god's will all the long? Who are you going to blame? The doctor for failing? Or your god?

And if you do recognize that prayer does not work. Why do you do it? Why are you deliberately engaging in a futile act? Just because you're desperate? Is that a reason or an excuse? Do you still think it's a good thing despite its futility? Are you doing it just to make yourself feel good? Just to think that you're actually doing something despite doing absolutely nothing other than wishful thinking?

I don't suppose this would change anyone's mind instantly. But I do hope you think about it. What are you trying to do when you pray? Really.

I've got mail!

2011-05-03T14:00:00.003+08:00

Somebody actually emailed me in defense of Sai Baba.

Sai Baba was and is a good man. He was not a god since there is no such thing. He was not avaricious, pedophiliac and his miracles are true. They are just exhibitions here on this relatively primitive planet from a higher evolved one (in this case Mercury.)

They were meant to aid our humanity in the transition period between two sidereal cycles.

He doesn't really understand this and used the old yoga (bhakti) instead of the new one (Agni). This caused problems with false godworship by his devotees. But then agni yoga is hardly known while millions follow the yoga of devotion.

You orthodox atheists should keep your heads the same size as your falsely accused Holymen--if you don't you might have to buy larger, more expensive hats and may open yourselves also to the charge of avariciousness.

Best wishes

Is it supposed to make sense?

It's a miracle, not

2011-04-24T13:53:00.000+08:00

Sai Baba died. Finally. Pity people will be all "Oh, that's so sad" over a death and forget about all bullshit miracle healing he did (or rather, didn't do).

Here's TODAYonline's little news report:

Hindu holy man Sathya Sai Baba dies In India at 86

PUTTAPARTI, India (AP) - A doctor says Hindu holy man Sathya Sai Baba, considered a living god by followers, has died. He was 86.

Dr. A.N. Safaya says Sathya Sai Baba died Sunday morning after more than a week on breathing support and dialysis at the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences.

Women selling marigold garlands broke down into tears outside his ashram in Puttaparti village in southern Andhra Pradesh state. Followers began trickling into the temple complex, where the holy man's body will be lay in state until Tuesday.

The saffron-robed Sathya Sai Baba had a huge following, with ashrams in more than 126 countries across the world.

By the way, it's not miracle either if he didn't die. Just so you know.

A Sick Healer

2011-04-22T23:00:00.002+08:00

It's funny how faith and miracle healers never seem to be able to invoke the same powers they claim to have used to heal thousands to heal themselves.

India's "spiritual leader" Sai Baba is still in hospital (yes, apparently, actual medicine is preferred) according to BBC news:

India spiritual leader Sai Baba 'on life support'
BBC News - 22 April

One of India's most revered spiritual leaders, Satya Sai Baba, is critically ill and on a life-support system, his doctors say.

Thousands of his followers have begun converging at his home town in southern India, prompting the authorities to step up security.

The 84-year-old guru is thought to have millions of followers around the world.

His distinctive orange robes and hairstyle have made him one of India's most recognisable gurus.

Sai Baba was admitted to a hospital in his hometown of Puttaparthi last month, with what doctors described as lung and chest congestion.

After initially showing signs of improvement, his condition become critical once again, they say.

A health bulletin issued by the hospital said his vital organs were not responding well to treatment.
Controversial career

The news of Sai Baba's ill-health has prompted many of his followers to rush to Puttaparthi.

Police have erected barricades around the hospital as a safety measure and also announced a ban on large public gatherings to prevent large crowds forming.

Sai Baba counts former Indian prime ministers, prominent businessmen and cricketers among his followers.

But his career has also been dogged by controversy. He has been accused of faking some of the so-called miracles attributed to him.

And some former followers have levelled accusations of sexual abuse against him and other members of his ashram - charges that he has denied.

He has never been charged by police in connection with these allegations.

I'm sorry, I don't believe anyone ever had any kind of healing powers. No, wait, I'm not the least apologetic about it - Sai Baba included. I'm not the least bit sympathetic either - in fact, I'd be quite happy to see charlatans die due to ironic causes.

Why do I care?

2011-04-10T14:00:00.009+08:00

Why do I care about god(s) and religion?

Simple. Because I still give a damn about the world.

We still give a damn about humanity.

This is not a crusade against faith and hope.

This is not about making religions illegal.

This is not building another religion.

To be clear, we don't want another religion and we're not about to make atheism a "religion" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). We don't think making religions illegal would actually address the core issue. And we certainly are not trying to take away hope and meaning in your life.

We care passionately about skepticism, science and truth. More importantly, we believe humanity as a whole would be much better off embracing an ever more accurate picture of reality and abandoning the rusty shackles of religion, myths and superstition.

This is not a superficial attack on religion because we find its adherents' behaviour abhorrent. This is more than that. I find religions themselves abhorrent in every aspect. Religions are not only factually incorrect (or unsupported) but also morally inferior and socially divisive.

The Failing of Basics

If for no other reason that religions deserve (intellectual) hostility, it is because it has NEVER been demonstrated to be true. Calling it a lie is only a matter of perspective.

The fact is, the existence of any god(s) has never been demonstrated. There are theologians who presume god(s)' existence, apologists who attempt to essentially argue god(s) into existence but no "theologist" ever demonstrated god(s)' existence.

All the various arguments for god(s) succumb to the some kind of logical fallacy rendering them void. But even if we were to grant that the logical arguments were somehow logically valid and/or sound, they still cannot demonstrate existence. For that we need evidence - evidence that has never been produced for the thousands of years humanity has been inventing gods.

Other claims associated with religion has never been demonstrated either. Genuine studies of the efficacy of prayer always turned up negative. Even the idea that increased religiosity would improve societal health is false - the data seems to show that the opposite is the case.

And yet some religious fractions attack the scientific enterprise, built on evidence, and education in general in the name of their god(s). Can we not be furious?

The Virus of Faith

When reason and evidence fail to support the case of god(s), the faithful often turn to faith as the answer. Faith, according to them, is not only a sufficient justification to believe in God or god(s) and their religion but that it is also virtuous and even demanded by God himself.

Faith is no such thing. In this context (the way faith is used), faith is the permission slip the faithful give themselves and others to believe in things not demonstrated (colloquially, proved) or demonstrable (colloquially, provable). It is a cop out.

In the absence of evidence, the only rational thing anybody should do is to disbelieve the claim. Actually, everybody usually does that. Yet in this one aspect of life, supposedly the most important aspect - God and Religion, the faithful suspend their skepticism and believe uncritically in extravagant claims without the slightest shred of evidence that meet decent evidential standards. Faith is gullibility.

And yet countless tragedies and atrocities were perpetuated with such strong religious conviction based on the flimsiest of reasons. Can we afford to stay silent?

The Scourge of Ignorance

Religions are at their very core is a product of ignorance - it is born of ignorance and it breeds ignorance to sustain itself. This is most evident in the fundamentalist variants of the faith. In America, certain Christian fractions push for the pseudoscientific trojan horse of creationism, Intelligent Design, in opposition to the scientific theory of evolution which they apparently do not understand. Even more obscene denials of scientific progress is displayed by Flat Earth societies/proponents from both Christian and Muslim perspectives.

We could probably laugh off Flat-Earthers as silly harmless nonsense. But America has to deal with religious siege on the education of their future pillars of society. Mind you, this shit is spreading across the world.

Ignorance also kills. Children die, in this modern age in developed countries, due to the lack of medical treatment - medical treatment that was denied on religious grounds by faithful parents. Arguing that this is a fringe movement/sect does not absolve religious thinking of responsibility.

The dangerous nonsense of faith healing is feeding the bank accounts of fraudulent preachers (whether they believe their own nonsense or they are knowingly conning people) while never delivering any actual demonstration of healing powers. People, both the desperate and the gullible put off seeking actual medical treatment only risk further complications, wasting time and money for false hopes.

The mental, intellectual and physical well-being of people and especially children, humanity's future, is under threat. Can we not speak out and take action against this ludicrous harm?

The Muddying of Morals

Religious morals are often, well, not morals at all. The usual arguments for religious morality essentially renders morals to be god(s)' fiats. I shan't go into a morality debate here so to summarize the problem with linking god with morality is distilled down to the Euthyphro dilemma - either morals are arbitrarily defined by god(s) or god is merely a messenger of morality.

When it comes to the holy scripture, they are obviously no guide for morality. The only morality it presents is the barbaric outdated morality of Bronze Age nomads. Anyone who wishes to argue that this is not the case may actually have to read the books first.

As usual, there are religious folks, throngs of them, who are vehemently against homosexuality and rights of homosexuals. This justified by the Bible (Leviticus 20:13). There are masses that are against women's reproductive rights, claiming that abortion is murder. This justified by the Bible in some obscure interpretation. Some Islamic countries are even more backwards, having issues even with gender equality.

Religions seem to have no clue what morality is but the religious sure are quick to enshrine their morality in law with the implication that anyone who disagree with their brand of morality still has to live by them. Can we just sit back and watch?

We're not staying silent.

We're not going to sit by and watch.

We're speaking out against religious ignorance, intolerance and violence.

We're taking action to safeguard the future.

The time is now.
Start CARING

It is not Islam - It's Religion

2011-04-06T09:00:00.003+08:00

This is a response to "'Flaming' of Islam has to be stopped" published in the Review and Forum section of The Straits Times, 6 April 2011.

An American pastor branded a cultist by estranged followers eventually made good on his threat to burn the Quran. He can now rouse his dwindling flock by saying President Barack Obama, the Defence Secretary and the general conducting the Afghanistan campaign could not stop him from dramatising his beliefs.

Okay... So he "won" some boasting rights in some people's perspective. Uh huh.

Which were, what? Of the wanton killings by Muslim rioters that his act caused in Afghanistan the past week, pastor Terry Jones disputes that he has blood on his hands. His next act, he suggests, is to place Prophet Muhammad 'on trial', just as he had the Quran. Its burning had been the 'sentence'.

Bloody fucking nonsense.

"Wanton killings by Muslim rioters that his act caused"? It might as well have read "Failures in School Examinations caused by Science."

This statement brazenly ignores the autonomy of the Muslims involved in the riotings and killings. If I killed a murderer's mother as revenge for the murderer's killing of my mother, would I somehow be relieved of my responsibilities because my actions were a reaction to offences against me? I say not.

There is nothing theatrical about random acts of provocation. They are downright dangerous, abetted in some cases by permissive laws. A case could be made out that there are degrees of madness or delusion which afflict leaders of cults. But how to define depravity within an American constitutional context of free speech guarantees? Bringing decorum to the religious sphere has to start in America because intolerance tends to find fertile soil in its interior communities.

I honestly don't believe that Free Speech itself is the issue here. It is not the root of the problem at hand. Again, blaming Free Speech for permitting religiously motivated hateful speech is like blaming cars for people speeding in them.

That the Quran burning was a triumph of ignorance and bigotry, there is no doubt. Fair-minded people are rightly alarmed at the poisonous overtone of religious contestation that arose after the Sept 11 attacks spawned a misleading view of Islam. What is being done to roll back the prejudice? The pastor's act and that of a Danish newspaper cartoonist who drew offensive caricatures of the Prophet are signs of an anti-Islam baiting campaign gathering force. It could get more widespread, in Europe as well as in America. It will spark retaliatory mob violence which in turn will harden attitudes against Islam. What then?

Again, it seems unusual to me that the author of this article passes over the autonomy of the people involved in the "retaliatory mob violence".

So it's not okay to speak ill of others' religion but it's okay to kill people, destroy property because you were pissed over someone speaking ill of your religion.

What's the bigger issue here? Somebody needs to get their priorities straight and I don't think it's me...

The American public, politicians and the media have acted sensibly in condemning the pastor for his stunt. The Quran-burning ritual which took place on March 20 had been deliberately blacked out by media. It became public knowledge only after the pastor posted a video of it on his website. But America may have to go beyond a climate of censure as a check against intemperance, to consider criminalising incitement in an expansion of hate-crimes legislation. Arguing free speech as a First Amendment bedrock protection may become less convincing over time when religious extremists begin to cause schisms and serious disruptions in society. The European Union has just as robust protections. Yet Germany and many other European nations still outlaw denials of the Holocaust and the Jewish extermination. What could be more injurious to social order in a post-Sept 11 world than the 'flaming' of Islam as sport?

The article seeks to pin blame on Free Speech for permitting insults that causes Muslim robots to go insane and kill people. No?

"Bullshit" is an appropriate response I think.

The problem as I see it is two pronged (and Free Speech ain't either one of them) - it is education in general and religion itself.

It is a failure of education of the public in general. Fundamentalist Christians are thought to be poor in their general knowledge of religions around the world (their religion included). It doesn't help that the religious, conservative segments of the population perpetuate the "Islamist" stereotype of Muslims in general in their communities and some media sources.

One might argue that the failure of education is due to certain religious attitudes which brings us to the other prong.

Throughout history, religions has demonstrated their ability to cause and catalyse conflicts. This is no exception.

Create insular societies based on unevidenced claims to ultimate truths and a connection to the divine creator of the universe. Follow that up by creating an Us versus Them scenario where "us" is good and godly and "them" is evil and of the devil. Wait for one party to do something perceived as inflammatory by the opposing side and watch the shit hit the fans.

Yes, the pastor did something distasteful - he burnt a Quran. And yes, just distasteful. It's not the most pleasant or eloquent way of making a point but still, it is a valid point and can/should be discussed.

But we don't fucking kill people for it. You can be all pissy and disagree with that pastor but if you go ape-shit and kill somebody over it, you are wrong. Period.

The author seems to skip over this aspect as he attempts to blame Free Speech for the problem as if it was acceptable to murder because someone insulted your religious beliefs. To this, my first response was "WTF?"

Such obscene irrationality on the part of the religious should be condemned whenever and wherever it happens. Instead, here it's seems to be regarded as somehow acceptable because it's religious.

If you don't like people criticizing your religion, perhaps it's your religion that needs fixing - you don't "fix" the people.

Evidence Concurs

2011-03-20T11:00:00.004+08:00

Evid3nc3 has produced Part 2 to his video, Atheism: A History of God.

From the video, it appears that he agrees with my view of the History of God by Karen Armstrong. Essentially, we have been inventing gods throughout history without grounding in evidence. And that is the ultimate problem with claims of the existence of gods.

His videos are excellent and I highly recommend them. Here is Part 1 of the video.

Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman

2011-03-05T08:00:00.066+08:00

The 4 Gospels are anonymous - the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were attached to the books by the early Church.

Of the 13 Pauline Epistles, 6 of them are thought to be forged.

We do not have any of the original manuscripts of the New Testaments - what we have are copies of copies of copies made much later (decades after Jesus' death).

Mark, Luke and John's portrayal of Jesus are very different from one another, each making different theological points, and cannot be reconciled.

These are just 4 summary points explained in detail in Bart D Ehrman's book Jesus, Interrupted. The book goes into what scholars know about textual variants and authors of the New Testament, how the Bible was put together, the radically different forms of early Christianity, the birth of antisemitism and Christian doctrines.

I think that any Christians who still give a damn about the Bible should read this book for starters.

There are 8 chapters:

A Historical Assault of Faith
A World of Contradictions
A Mass of Variant Views
Who Wrote the Bible?
Liar, Lunatic or Lord? Finding the Historical Jesus
How We Got the Bible
Who Invented Christianity?
Is Faith Possible?

The book is an excellent read - very interesting and informative. I would also highly recommend the audio book version for people who don't want to read books.

It's not really real (A History of God)

2011-03-04T19:00:00.019+08:00

I have recently acquired A History of God by Karen Armstrong. It was an educational but nonetheless painful read.

A History of God is about the singular God of the three Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is mainly about the how the theologies of the 3 religions changed through history. The book then ends on the note that the 3 religions must evolve new theologies to survive the current "empirical age".

I said that reading the book was painful because it really is quite heart wrenching to see human beings literally making shit up as they go (and that is pretty much what evolving new theologies mean). Yes, I am speaking as a person living in the "empirical age" but I think my "bias" is well justified. The ramifications of empiricism is much further than what Karen Armstrong seems to imply.

Karen Armstrong stressed repeatedly throughout the book that the stories about God (in the holy books or theologies conjured by religious thinkers through the ages) are never meant to be taken literally. Apparently, previous religious thinkers understood that. Karen goes so far as to say that God is not be understood as part of objective reality - God is "known" through subjective experience. Be it rationalistic, philosophically inclined school of thought or full on mysticism, God has always been thought to be incomprehensible or indescribable at least to some extent.

Right of the bat, she says the following.

A History of God, Page 5
Despite its other-worldliness, religion is highly pragmatic. We hall see that it is far more important for a particular idea of God to work than for it to be logically or scientifically sound. As soon as it ceases to be effective it will be changed - sometimes for something radically different. This did not disturb most monotheists before our own day because they were quite clear that their ideas about God were not sacrosanct but could only be provisional. They were man-made -- they could be nothing else - and quite separate from the indescribable Reality they symbolised

And indeed, through the book, the religious figures through history is said to create their own interpretations that were emphasized to be not rational, logical or scientifically accurate. For example, we have a statement like this:

A History of God, Page 76
For the first time, the Israelites became seriously interested in Yahweh's role in creation, perhaps because of renewed contact with the cosmological myths of Babylon. They were not, of course, attempting a scientific account of the physical origins of the universe but were trying to find comfort in the harsh world of the present.

That theme will ring throughout the book. So, literalists out there, you guys are just freaking wrong according to history.

Karen seems to think that a God that is not objective reality but known through subjective, religious experiences somehow solves the problem. And if I understood the underlying theme of the book, it seems to be saying that we just need to imagine a new theology like we've always done in the past. Is that what she really meant?

God is not real, he's just in your head - and that's a good thing? For the religious populace, that would turn everything they claim about their God on its head. As far as I'm concerned, if you enjoy such acts of mental masturbation, go ahead - just don't impose it on people.

Charges initiated against the Pope

2011-02-25T22:00:00.003+08:00

Finally, somebody is bringing the Pope to the International Criminal Court. That lousy excuse for a human being should have been hauled off to jail a long time ago.

According to the Irish Times, 23 Feb 2011, Charges initiated against Pope for crimes against humanity,

Their charges concern “three worldwide crimes which until now have not been denounced . . . (as) the traditional reverence toward ‘ecclesiastical authority’ has clouded the sense of right and wrong”.

They claim the Pope “is responsible for the preservation and leadership of a worldwide totalitarian regime of coercion which subjugates its members with terrifying and health-endangering threats”.

They allege he is also responsible for “the adherence to a fatal forbiddance of the use of condoms, even when the danger of HIV-Aids infection exists” and for “the establishment and maintenance of a worldwide system of cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests and their preferential treatment, which aids and abets ever new crimes”.

They claim the Catholic Church “acquires its members through a compulsory act, namely, through the baptism of infants that do not yet have a will of their own”. This act was “irrevocable” and is buttressed by threats of excommunication and the fires of hell.

It was “a grave impairment of the personal freedom of development and of a person’s emotional and mental integrity”. The Pope was “responsible for its preservation and enforcement and, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of his Church, he was jointly responsible” with Pope John Paul II.

Catholics “threatened by HIV-AIDS . . . are faced with a terrible alternative: If they protect themselves with condoms during sexual intercourse, they become grave sinners; if they do not protect themselves out of fear of the punishment of sin threatened by the church, they become candidates for death.”

There was also “strong suspicion that Dr Joseph Ratzinger, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of his church and as Pope, has up to the present day systematically covered up the sexual abuse of children and youths and protected the perpetrators, thereby aiding and abetting further sexual violence toward young people”.

I love the charges leveled against "His Holiness".

The focus should be on the charge of aggravating the spread of HIV amongst people who heed his word with religious conviction and, even more importantly, aiding and abetting child rape in his churches. The third charge is almost impossible to indict the Church for since almost all religions do it to different extents.

I wonder what punishment would prescribed for committing "crimes against humanity"? Personally, I think death is almost too easy for that sanctimonious piece of shit.

I really hope that human justice be upheld in this case. But it seems somewhat unlikely... am I being too pessimistic?

Godless, Dan Barker

2011-02-19T13:00:00.006+08:00

When I wrote the entry titled your Inner Fish way back in 2009 about the book by Neil Shubin by the same title, I intended to do the same with every book I would have acquired since then. That plan obviously fell though - it didn't happen at all. So let's see I can revive that a bit.

One of the books I acquired in 2010 is Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists, by Dan Barker.

As I am already an atheist when I read the book, some portions were pretty much preaching to the choir from my view. For a religious reader though, in particular Christians, will get loads of information about this preachers deconversion from Christianity.

The book is divided in to 4 parts. The first part, Rejecting God, provides the story, Dan Barker's life story from being a Christian to becoming an atheist. The second is called "Why I Am an Atheist" and it deals mainly with the arguments against god. The third chunk is about "What's Wrong With Christianity". And lastly, "Life is Good!" ends the book with his adventures as an activist and his thoughts about atheism.

Amongst the chapters, I enjoyed the ninth one titled "Dear Theologian" the most I think.

Here's an excerpt from "Dear Theologian" where Dan has God writing to a theologian about the problems He faces. This one is regarding the idea of atonement by the death of Jesus Christ.

Beyond that, it is entirely incomprehensible to me why you think I would accept the blood of one individual for the crime of another. Is that fair? Is that justice?" If you commit a felony, does the law allow your brother to serve the jail sentence for you? If someone burglarized your home, would you think that justice was served if a friend of the burglar bought you new furniture? Do you really think that I am such a bloodthirsty dictator that I will be content with the death of anyone for the crime of another? And are you so disrespectful of justice that you would happily accept a stand-in for your crimes? What about personal responsibility? Should I welcome believers into heaven who avoided the rap for their own actions? Something is way of kilter here.
Chapter 9, Page 153

I also like this bit about hell and omniscience. This should matter but it doesn't seem to faze any believer...

How would you feel if you had brought some children into the world knowing that they were going to be tormented eternally in a place you built for them? Could you live with yourself? Wouldn't it have been better not to have brought them into the world in the first place?
Chapter 9, Page 151

The final chapter of the whole book, "Life and Death Matters" is one that I found most meaningful. Here's one nugget:

"If there is no hope of eternal life, then what is the purpose of life?" is a question we atheists often hear. My response is that there is indeed no purpose of life. There is purpose in life. If there were a purpose of life, then that would cheapen life. It would make us tools or slaves of someone else's purpose. Like a hammer that hangs on the garage wall waiting for someone to build something, if we humans were designed for a purpose then we would be subservient in the universe. Our value would not be in ourselves. It would exist in our submission to the will of the toolmaker. That is slavery to a master, or infant dependency on a father figure. Besides, if there is a god, what is the purpose of his life? If he doesn't need a purpose, why do we? Doesn't a father need to have had a father? A true father does not want the child to remain forever subservient, finding purpose in pleasing the will of the parent. A true father expects the child to become a peer, with its own purpose, even if it disagrees with the parent. If I raise a child who is eternally dependent on me for meaning, then I am an inept parent.
Chapter 19, Page 344

This one is about meaning of life as well.

In the booklet, Craig writes that belief in God makes a difference because " If God does not exist, then life is ultimately meaningless." Well, yes, Bill, life is ultimately meaningless, and we should not want it any other way if we value life. If you have to resort of the rhetorical device of appealing to the reader's dissatisfaction with reality, fear of mortality and a desire for something "ultimate", simply assuming that such wishful thinking confers automatic credibility or dignity to the larger question, then you're admitting that your basic evidences for a God are no strong enough to stand on its own. You don't need any reasons at all, with that logic. You can simply say, "Being a mere mortal mammal makes me feel unimportant, so I'm going to believe in God."

Truth is truth. It shouldn't matter what any one of us wants to believe. The fact that life is ultimately meaningless does not mean it is not immediately meaningful.
Chapter 19, Page 347

Okay, one final bit about "salvation".

We atheist possess "salvation" not because we are released from a sentence, but because we don't deserve the punishment in the first place. We have committed no "sin". Sin is a religious concept, and in some religions salvation is the deliverance from the "wages of sin" -- which is death or eternal punishment. Sin has been defined as "missing the mark" of God's expectations or holiness, or "offending God," so it follows that since there is no god, there is no sin, therefore no need of salvation. How much respect should you have for a doctor who cuts you wit a knife in order to sell you a bandage? Only those who consider themselves sinners need this kind of deliverance -- it is a religious solution to a religious problem.

If salvation is the cure, then atheism is the prevention.
Chapter 19, Page 355

For atheists who are well read on arguments against god and Christianity, this book won't provide you much new information but it will be an entertaining read. For life-long atheists, the first part might be valuable too.

Letting Go of God -- Julia Sweeney

2011-02-18T20:00:00.008+08:00

A beautiful and entertaining monologue by Julia Sweeney, Letting Go of God.

That's just the first of 13 videos of the entire monologue. Click here for the whole playlist.

Reviewing the Integration Controversy

2011-02-10T22:00:00.092+08:00

It seems that the controversy has died down. The Straits Times did a review titled "Reflections on being Muslim and S'porean" today (10 Feb 2011) wherein it published several commentaries, that ran in Berita Harian and Berita Minggu (both sister newspapers for Malay audience), which were written in response to MM Lee's comments regarding Muslims and social integration.

While I didn't agree with every point made in those commentaries, it was heartening to see that these responses were more measured and rational - engaging in discussion instead of dismissing it - and not of the "OMG, you're offensive - I don't want you around" variety.

One particular commentary by Maarof Salleh (BH, Feb 3) gladdened me. It was the one titled "Understanding the integration controversy".

Numerous criticisms poured in, many claiming that MM Lee was insensitive. Unfortunately, the criticisms were mostly emotional and defensive.

When the dust has settled, hopefully there will be more detailed, sensible, wise and intellectual debates.

I love this part of the commentary. Finally somebody echoing my views expressly from (presumably) within the Muslim community.

The same author goes on to point out the core message of MM Lee's comments which were completely overlooked by some earlier responses. He also notes that MM's suggestion of relaxing religious observance was essentially idealistic - this I do agree with.

For instance, MM Lee is concerned about religious overzealousness. This warrants careful consideration.

......

I see MM Lee's views as touching more on the issue of social cohesion, which is necessary for a young and pluralistic nation such as Singapore. Enforcing social unity by asking people to be less strict in their religious observances, although a rational argument, does not guarantee success.

The other commentaries all address the issue of Muslim social integration from their angles. But it is obvious that the general theme for most of the commentaries is that people need to be more mature or rational and deal with the criticism as such.

I like this little bit from an excerpt too.

Issues of language, race and religion are usually sensitive. Even followers of the same religion have misunderstandings and conflicts due to different views.

What is disconcerting is that some external parties try to wade into the controversy to take advantage of the situation.

I think this might be a quick swipe at some Malaysian leaders. Nice.

This is probably the end of the "controversy". And this will possibly be the last entry about this issue as well.

The Status of Knowledge

2011-02-04T22:00:00.000+08:00

This is probably one of the better videos I've seen addressing the status of knowledge with relation to the method of science. Created by AntiCitizenX, this video addresses the issue of why beliefs should be grounded on empiricism.

The most important message is this: Without empirical evidence, any claim may be rejected on that basis however "logical" it may sound.

Logic alone is insufficient - Evidence is the ultimate arbiter of truth.

QualiaSoup has previously created a video addressing this same topic from another angle.

The ideas presented in these videos are important and far-reaching when properly understood. Too little people care about this - so, please do care.

False prophets

2011-02-02T16:00:00.002+08:00

A new video by TheThinkingAtheist on End Times predictions.

Like the video says, would any of these "prophets" admit they are wrong when their predictions are falsified by the day passing by like any other day?

Throughout history, plenty of doomsday predictions have been made and EVERY one of them never came to pass. When will these loonies learn? And when will the morons who believe them ever learn?

Yet there is still such morons walking the Earth today. What a tragedy.

Seditious how?

2011-02-01T22:30:00.004+08:00

As a digression from my earlier post, "More Muslims respond to MM Lee", I have some questions about the Sedition Act. I won't presume that a lawyer actually reads my blog but should one stumble upon my humble blog, I would greatly appreciate any input from the legal standpoint.

Singapore's statutes are available online. This is a link to the Sedition Act and here is some relevant bits (with parts truncated for easier reading).

(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
......
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —
......
(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or
(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,
if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

My first question is:

What does sedition actually encompass?

So far, the few people charged under the Sedition Act were due to "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Christian" comments. But what actually constitutes "anti-some religion"? From the words of the Act itself, it seems extremely broad as to what is considered "discontent or disaffection" and " feelings of ill-will and hostility".

Who and with what criteria is it decided that something is seditious versus not seditious?

The next question is:

Does the Act differentiate between insults and criticism?

Under the law, is there a difference between,

[Religious group A] comprises of mainly sub-human morons.

[Religious group B] seems to be integrating with the rest of society at a slower pace - and I think it has to do with their religious teachings.

[Religious group C]'s religious doctrine is unjust and therefore immoral because it advocates inheritance of moral debt by the debtor's descendants .

And if it does acknowledge differences, which statement(s) is considered seditious?

Moving on,

Are atheists, freethinkers, secular humanists/etc considered to be a religious category or categories in the eyes of the law?

Philosophically, the said groups are not thought to be religion(s). But legally I think they ought to be since those labels function as a "religion" for practical reasons - we still fill the 'Religion' section in forms with 'No religion' or perhaps even 'Atheist'.

So,

Are the above mentioned groups protected by the Sedition Act?

If, for example, freethinkers / atheists / secular humanists were disparaged for their lack of belief in god(s) by some religious group, can the religious group be prosecuted under the Sedition Act?

In addition,

Religious groups occasionally place other religions and non-believers in negative light. Does that contravene with the law?

I mean some of this stuff is inside their holy books.

Qur'an, 005.051
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.

Bible (NIV), 2 Corinthians 6: 14-17
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will live with them
and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they will be my people.”

Therefore,
“Come out from them
and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.”

Are those considered to be, presumably, non-seditious?

What about discussions of religious doctrines, concepts and practices where there are major disagreements?

I ask this because I do not understand when does discussion become sedition. On this blog, I merely want to discuss religious matters from an atheist point of view and have not, at any point, deliberately insult any religious group. Although what I consider to be mere discussion may be thought to be insulting to someone who is intolerant of discussion.

Finally, just out of curiosity,

Is the Sedition Act unusual as a piece of legislation?

The way I see it, the Sedition Act is kinda odd.

The idea seems to be this:

Religious groups take huge issue with anyone "disrespecting their religion", be it insult or sometimes even criticism. And as history tells us, that usually means large scale violence as "retaliation" for "offending their sensitivities". So, in order to prevent this, we wish to, in effect, censor speech that may have the effect of "disrespecting" a religion.

This seems unusual to me because that is, in effect, treating religious groups as big babies - Big babies who are incapable of rational responses and would become violent lunatics if someone says something unkind. Something like "you cannot criticize me because I would kill you if you do."

Perhaps it seems practical to some. Kinda pathetic though.

More Muslims respond to MM Lee

2011-01-30T15:00:00.009+08:00

After the initial responses to MM Lee Kuan Yew by the Malaysian leaders, reported on 26 Jan 2011, more responses continued to appear in newspapers. Not surprisingly, a majority of those responses are from Muslims. In my observations, these responses can be grouped into 3 categories.

The first, and possibly the most common response, is to take offence at the MM's comments. Such was typical of the responses offered by the Malaysian leaders in the first article in response to the MM. Responses along these lines is typified by claims that Muslims sensitivities were ignored and that the comments have caused the community hurt. Occasionally, a good old personal attack is thrown in as well.

Here's a nice example

Right-wing Malay rights group Perkasa slammed Mr Lee, saying he seemed to be adapting the same tactic as non-Muslim opposition leaders in Malaysia who raised sensitive issues without bothering about Muslim sensitivities.

Perkasa secretary-general Syed Hassan Syed Ali: “Perkasa does not consider [MM Lee] Kuan Yew as being less able to respect other religions, but instead, consider him as a very senile old man.”

MM's remarks on integration draw flak
(The Straits Times, 26 Jan 2011)

Such responses do not warrant any response other than "Sorry, deal with it." Unless they're going to actually address what the MM is saying, there's really nothing to respond to.

The second kind of response are those of the "defence of the faith" variety. These responses usually say that the MM is simply wrong because Islam teaches religious harmony as well and is therefore do not hinder integration. Here's one such response from Singapore Muslims organisations reported by TODAY:

On Thursday, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) had said that Islamic teachings do not hinder Muslims from integration in Singapore society. AMP echoed these views and said that "a good Muslim is duty bound, in Islam, to be a good Singaporean".

Muslim bodies irked by MM's remarks
(TODAY, 29 Jan 2011)

Well, good for you. I am glad that that is what your version of Islam teaches although I do hope that you embrace reality soon. Arguments about "true Islam" holds no water with me and are not of my concern.

The third response tend to be more rational/measured. The counter claim that they offer is that Singapore Muslims are integrating with the rest of Singapore and therefore the MM is either simply wrong or overstating the case. Here's an example:

But Perdaus feels that the level of integration "has significantly progressed" and "a better understanding and appreciation" of Singapore's cultures now exist between Muslims and non-Muslims here. It cited the community's participation in Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles and contributions by humanitarian relief organisation Mercy Relief as examples.

Muslim bodies irked by MM's remarks
(TODAY, 29 Jan 2011)

I think that such responses kinda missed MM Lee's point. He is not claiming that Singapore Muslims are not integrating - he is claiming that the integrations was poorer when compared to other races/religions. Here is the relevant comment by the MM.

"I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration - friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese with Indians - than Muslims. That's the result of the surge from the Arab states."

MM's remarks on integration draw flak
(The Straits Times, 26 Jan 2011)

Religions, in general, are divisive so it might seem unfair to pick on Islam. But it does seem obvious that Islam has less buffers to tribal behaviours. Christianity has a huge emphasis on proselytizing and thus appears friendlier to people. Buddhism and Taoism behave more like life philosophies in general and thus create less/no threat to religious harmony. Smaller religious groups exert less influences by virtue of being small. Islam, well, other than claiming it teaches religious harmony, has no such "buffers". This might be the reason why MM made his claim.

So that's my take on the responses so far.

As I was doing research for this entry, I found something disturbing. PKMS, the Singapore Malay National Organization, has called for MM Lee to be investigated for sedition. According to their press statement, it said,

Is it not that Mr Lee Kuan Yew's statements are distorting and inciting racial and religious disharmony? Does it not fall under the Internal Security Act? Mr Lee championed the Internal Security Act (ISA), is it not Mr Lee himself breached the act openly and disrespectfully? Can the book 'HARD TRUTH' be a subversive document and should be classified under the Sedition Act (Cap 290) and shall fall under The Internal Security Act Chapter 3 (Special Powers Relating to Subversive Publication etc.)?

In addition to that, the statement also said,

We urged MUIS, as the highest Islamic authority in Singapore, advise Mr Lee Kuan Yew of the true teaching of Islam. Does Mr Lee's statements incite sentiments of protest among our Muslim brothers and may cause religious disharmony? We have also heard echoes of agreement from followers of other religion, who agree to Mr Lee's statements and they had even suggested for eradication of the Muslim in Singapore. Is Mr Lee's book subversive and cause of hatred and excite disaffection against Islam?

We demand Mr Lee Kuan Yew to apologize to the Singapore Muslim community and the Muslim world in general. We demand the book 'HARD TRUTH' be strictly banned and condemned.

This is religious lunacy. MM Lee's statements cannot be regarded as seditious under the law if the law is to be meaningful at all. Granted, I am no lawyer, they might be right to the letter of the law but this is clearly not the spirit of the law. The Sedition Act is intended to prevent religions from turning onto each other. But in this case, it is being used to essentially censor any form of speech critical of religions.

If Singapore, and the world, is to make any progress, then such speech must be permitted. If people take offence at such discussions then clearly that is their issue - people do not have the right not to be offended.

Nobody is disparaging anybody's religion with thoughtless remarks. It should be clear that there is a difference between

Muslims are [Insert vulgarity or insult here].

and

Muslims are integrating less smoothly than the other religions/races.

The MM's statements were essentially arguments for his point - a rational person should engage his arguments in a reasoned discussion. We should not be shutting down people simply for holding a difference in opinion - that should not be what we want or should do.

PKMS' suggestion is obscene to anybody who still respects the freedom of speech.

I urge all Singaporeans to be rational here. Please think.

Of Catholics and Condoms

2011-01-27T16:00:00.002+08:00

The Church is rearing its ugly head here in Singapore - this one is about sex, morals and condoms.

According to The Straits Times, 26 Jan 2011, in the article, "Call to tweak sexuality education",

Some Catholic school principals have met Ministry of Education (MOE) officials to discuss how the ministry's sexuality education programme can be tweaked.

Among other things, they had asked for a segment on the use of condoms to be modified so that it better matches Catholic beliefs. The segment includes a video on the use of condoms.

And apparently,

A spokesman said the ministry conducts periodic reviews of its sexuality education programme, and consults parties such as parents, teachers, students, health professionals and religious leaders. [My emphasis added, in italics]

Although, it also said,

'While the presentation of information could be refined, the core messages of the HPB remain relevant and will be retained,' the spokesman said.

Needless to say, I disagree with the pseudo moral ideas of the Church. But more importantly, I think that the MOE should not compromise with religious opinion. Singapore schools, Catholic or not, should not be doling out fantastical conceptions of morality.

Let's take a look at what the religious representatives have said. In a letter to Catholic school leaders, Archbishop Nicholas Chia wrote

He acknowledged that Singapore was "a secular society where no specific religious group has the right to impose its beliefs on others".

He went on to say that "within the context of our Catholic schools, however, I would find it unacceptable if students were given a compromised message on premarital sex. This applies to all students in the school".

It is unfortunate that he thinks that it was "unacceptable" but being a "Catholic school" is not excuse. It is a school - it must teach anything and everything deemed necessary by the ministry. Should there be a conflict of interest, students' welfare and education comes first, religious beliefs second. The secular interests of all students cannot be compromised by religious opinions of one segment.

On the use of condoms, he cited Church literature and teachings

He said that the Church's teaching 'concerns marital acts, since marital acts are the only ethical sexual acts in the eyes of the Church'.

He added: 'If we present to our young people how to use the condom outside marriage, just in case you need it, it would be as though the Church is teaching us how to sin less grievously which makes no sense.'

Indeed, it makes no sense, because the very concept of premarital sex as a sin makes no sense. Granted, they do have the freedom to stick to their pseudo moral views under the pretext that it's their religious dogma.

But we're talking about teenagers here - we know that some of them, like it or not, are definitely going to fuck each others' brains out. If all we're going to give them is essentially "Say No To Sex" and stay a virgin for your future spouse or Jesus, you are going to be a grandparent.

To add insult to injury, the Catholic Church in general is also known for its stance against abortion as well. No to contraception, no to abortion? - it's almost as if the Church wants more teen pregnancies. In this respect, the Church seems uninformed about practical realities or it is grotesquely insensitive about human suffering

This is not surprising given that the Catholic Church's (I am no longer referring to just those in Singapore) involvement in the global child rape scandals and the AIDS pandemic in Africa. This corrupt organization seems more concerned with itself and its doctrines than the people that they care for - we would be better off treating its "moral" claims with skepticism if not ignoring them completely.

Flak Crap

2011-01-26T15:00:00.100+08:00

In response to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's remarks about Muslims in his recently published book "Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going", several Malaysian leaders said that MM Lee was wrong.

According to The Straits Times, 26 Jan 2011, in the the article, "MM's remarks on integration draw flak", MM Lee assessing the progress of multiculturalism in Singapore, said in his book:

"I have to speak candidly to be of value, but I do not want to offend the Muslim community."

"I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration - friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese with Indians - than Muslims. That's the result of the surge from the Arab states."

"I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam."

"I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate."

"But now, you go to schools with Malays and Chinese, there's a halal and non-halal segment and so too, the universities. And they tend to sit separately so as not to be contaminated. All that becomes a social divide.

When asked what Muslims in Singapore needed to do to integrate, he said:

Be less strict with your Islamic observances and say 'Okay, I'll eat with you.'

I agree with what MM Lee has said on this issue. Content-wise, no disagreements. He certainly was candid with his sentiments - and I am sure some may take issue with how bluntly he has voiced them. But I will defend that point. There is no way one could criticize religion, Islam no less, without "offending sensitivities". But it must happen if we are to make any headway.

Let's move on to the responses the Malaysian leaders had to offer.

De facto Religious Affairs Minister Jamil Khir Baharom, asked to comment on MM Lee's remarks, said he hoped Malaysians would not support views that linked Islam to blocking racial integration and national development. “I am worried such views will spread into Malaysian society, which has many types of ideas,” he said,

Typical politically-correct response. Meaningless trite. But he follows up with something more telling of his views.

...adding that followers of Islam were taught to be moderate.

Is this more politically-correct nonsense? Or is this his personal, religiously driven response?

If the latter, then the thing to point out is the implicit "my" in front of the word "Islam" - that is, "my Islam taught its followers to be moderate." We have to ask, which Islam? And is it really "moderate" as some would like to claim. As much as some would like to say that the "true Islam" is a "religion of peace", the Qur'an is much like the Bible, the big book of multiple choice - peace is but only one of the available options.

Next we have the Malaysian Islamic Development director-general Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz who said,

MM Lee had failed to take Singaporeans away from the mindset of the 1960s, which was a period of prejudices and suspicions against Muslims.

"1960s" is a reference to the racial riots in Singapore (in 1964 and 1969) - those riots were fuelled in part by racism in general between the Chinese and Malays. Today's Singapore paints a different picture between the said races.

In any case, the issue MM Lee is addressing now is a whole different animal compared to that of the 1960s. So it seems unusual to bring it up - if anything, the director-general is the one still stuck in the 60s.

Right-wing Malay rights group Perkasa slammed Mr Lee, saying he seemed to be adapting the same tactic as non-Muslim opposition leaders in Malaysia who raised sensitive issues without bothering about Muslim sensitivities.

I addressed this previously - criticizing religion however tactfully will come off as being offensive to somebody. But this shouldn't be the issue. These "leaders" should be responding constructively instead of rushing to take offence like lay people.

Perkasa secretary-general Syed Hassan Syed Ali: “Perkasa does not consider [MM Lee] Kuan Yew as being less able to respect other religions, but instead, consider him as a very senile old man.”

A personal attack, how mature. To me, a sign of intellectual defeat.

Parti Islam SeMalaysia Youth chief Nasrudin Hassan said Mr Lee’s comments made him sound like a “racist militant fighter”.

A first glance, it looks like yet another personal attack. But a second look suggests this is more of the "OMG, you're so offensive" bullshit.

On the whole, it seems that the Malaysian leaders mentioned seems to have nothing more to offer than some politically-correct drivel with taking offence as a side. Pitiful.

More on Census 2010

2011-01-14T10:00:00.003+08:00

Here's some excerpts from The Straits Times, 14 Jan 2011, as well as some of my comments.

The decline in Buddhism over the past decade may be traced to the rise of churches, more people wanting to their own faith or the lack of one, and greater clarity between Buddhism and Taoism, said scholars and faith leaders yesterday. That may explain the increase in the proportion of Christians and people with no religion here.

With 97% of the non-religious being Chinese, an ethnicity traditionally associated with Buddhism/Taoism, this comes as no surprise.

Dr Lai Ah Eng, a researcher who has studied religious trends here, said a reason may be the growing prominence of Pentecostal and Evangelical Christian groups here, which was a "reflection of a larger trend around the world".

Not to mention, worrying trend. Religiosity is one thing we don't want to import from America.

The other group to gain new followers was those with no religion - from 14.8 per cent in 2000 to 17 per cent last year.

What an unusual way to describe the non-religious... followers? of what? no religion?

Sociologist Daniel Goh, an assistant professor at the National University of Singapore, said the increase could have be due to overall higher education levels and the loosening of kinship ties in society. "Higher-educated people are more likely to look to a de-ritualized way of life. They want to be able to choose freely a belief system that works for them."

Yet another unusual phrasing - "choose freely a belief system".

We don't choose beliefs - We believe when we're convinced by the evidence (though evidential standards vary between individuals).

Morals not to be found in a book
Mr Eugene Tay, 23, is used to asking questions. It is something his parents have encouraged him to do since he was little.

"I was encouraged to use basic tools - logic, science - to analyze our world. If something isn't right, we ask why," said the third-year engineering student at Nanyang Technological University.

His spirit of inquiry and his leaning towards logic and science have built in him a non-faith. He calls himself an "atheist-agnostic, secular humanist".

Simply put, he does not believe in God.

About organized religion, he said: "Having a religion to me would seem like I'm forcing myself to a certain dogma that tells me what to do, what is morally correct or incorrect.

"There are ways to think about morals - and they don't all come in a book."

This seems like the first time I've seen, in the news, someone who explicitly identifies as an atheist-agnostic and secular humanist. Looks promising for one who hopes that more people become rational/skeptical atheists.

I take issue with the capitalization of "god" in the article. "God" when capitalized usually refer to God of Abraham - which is not the case here, here it should be "any gods" not "God".

I do love the swipe made against the authority of scripture - and the bookish religions.

2010 Census - Religion in Singapore

2011-01-13T08:00:00.000+08:00

The 2010 Population Census of Singapore has just been released. The following is a graph representing the change in religious affiliation over the past decade. Blue represents the percentage of the population in 2000 and orange for 2010.

From the data, it is clear that all religious categories increased in proportion over the decade with the sole exception of Buddhism. Amongst those experiencing an increase, Christianity, Taoism, Hinduism and people who identify with "no religion" show significant growth. Islam and "other religions" remained relatively stable.

Figures tell that the younger generations are more likely to profess "no religion". The non-religious has seen an increase in proportion across alll age groups. Almost one in four university graduates had no religion - although this figure has fallen from 28.9% (2000) to 24.2% (2010).

The ethnicity of the non-religious seems to be almost completely Chinese, accounting for about 97% of those who profess "no religion". This number account for slightly more than one-fifth of the Chinese population.

Although 17% of Singaporeans identify with "no religion", it is not clear what fraction have reached the position because of skepticism. But in general, it is somewhat promising to see some increase in irreligiosity.

Singapore Census of Population 2010
There are no direct links to/quotes of the document in question due to copyright. The data represented here have been drawn from newspaper publications (The Straits Times, 13 Jan 2011) which presumably have been granted permission to publish these results.

While no direct links are allowed, you may visit SingStats by searching "statistics singapore" on Google. At the site, go to Publications", look for the document in question under "Singapore Census of Population 2010".

How Man created God

2011-01-08T17:00:00.001+08:00

A lovely addition to Evid3nc3's video uploads - A History of God. This video more or less summarises the development of Judaism from earlier polytheistic religions to its modern monotheistic form.

Now I'm tempted to purchase Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" to learn more.

You're mistaken

2010-12-29T17:00:00.002+08:00

The following are excerpts from a post made on a forum in response to an atheist. Most of the ideas espoused in the reply contains common misunderstandings and logical fallacies. I will be explaining them here - not on the forum itself, for I've long given up of spending hours explaining these ideas over and over again.

The forum and author is not named and unnecessary. The post in question was not made directly to me either.

Here we go,

Moving on, I see that you're a materialist in that you believe that only things proven by science should be held as unequivocally true, and none else.

Granted, the person in question may hold that position but in general, most atheists don't think that. Things that are "proven" by science are not held as unequivocally true - not even scientists hold that position. Anyone who understands the Scientific Method would know that science do not prove anything with absolute certainty - all theories are thought to be tentatively true when sufficiently demonstrated by the evidence.

For me at least, "materialism" itself is also a tentative position.

However, that worldview only has one problem: there is absolutely no reason to think that to be true. Furthermore, that belief itself cannot be proven by the scientific method; i.e. it's self-defeating.

Absolutely no reason?

Again, "materialism" and "naturalism" are tentative positions. They are conclusions. And as far as evidence goes, they are "proven"

Okay, and before I continue, I think I should explain why I put materialism and naturalism is " " quotes. Those are allegations - they are positions I do not hold, at least not in the form I'm being accused of. For example, I am a materialist insofar that nothing non-matter/non-energy has been demonstrated to exist - and not because I think that non-material stuff cannot exist.

The word "proven" is useless unless it has been agreed beforehand whether or not it is being used colloquially. Because in conversations with theists/laymen, it is always used with regards to science and in science, we don't prove theories - that only happens in mathematics.

So, back to the charge of materialism. I think the belief is "proven" by scientific method in the sense that it works. Without the addition of supernatural/immaterial entities, science explains accurately the workings of the universe. Technology demonstrates that science knows what it is talking about. I'm not sure if I have to say more than that.

As for the notion that the Big Bang created everything and that there's no need to invoke the supernatural, you've quite frankly just put your foot in your mouth. Going by your line of reasoning, before the Big Bang there was just pure, utter nothingness (I'm aware that time did not exist before the bang, but let's just focus on the logic here). And if we're to be rational, I guess it's unanimously held to be true that from nothing, nothing comes, without exception.

Wrong on the Big Bang Theory. Utterly wrong.

I've explained this line of reasoning in a previous post (the video is critical, so watch that as well): Something from Nothing?

The short answer is, we don't believe that the universe came from nothing - that's a false accusation.

If the Big Bang was the absolute beginning, it literally is supernatural! The universe, being material, has to have an immaterial, intangible cause, I'm by no means intending to make a case here that that cause therefore is God. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the said position, namely scientific naturalism. Consider this:

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. (God being the creator of time if he exists, did not begin to exist and therefore needs no cause i.e. you can't begin to exist when there's no time)
2. The universe has clearly been proven to begin to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.
4. If we postulate a material cause, you have just set into motion infinite regression as the material cause itself has to have a cause.
5. The universe's cause is immaterial.

If you disagree with the above, you inevitably have to believe that nothing created something. If that be so, all logic and argumentation breaks down and we have no need to continue any discourse. If you agree, scientific naturalism no longer is viable.

Premise 1 is just wrong in so many ways.
I'd suggest reading this essay by Dan Barker: Cosmological Kalamity instead of rewriting all the points myself on my poor blog.

However, I'm more fascinated by the fourth and fifth point. How does concluding with an immaterial cause solve anything? How does immaterial entities escape causality? Consider souls - are they uncreated as well? If they are not eternal, they demonstrate that having an immaterial nature does not grant escape from causality within that worldview. If that's the case, what is the logical link between the fourth and fifth point?

In any case, the argument is unsound.

But how does the argument relate to "scientific naturalism" being not viable? Science relies on Methodological Naturalism - it presumes naturalism but it does not preclude it. If there is a supernatural entity, science does not assert that it must not exist - it merely ignores it so as long it does not interfere with the natural world.

On other hand, skepticism demands that we reject the existence of such an entity until we have evidence to demonstrate its existence. Everything else is moot.

I don't think that it's sensible to write off God without examining thoroughly the case for it for it's far too important a matter to just dismiss out of probably either a fear of being accountable to your maker, or some vague notion of wanting to be your own 'god' and live life your way, or perhaps cursory cognizance of some trifling objections to his existence from existence of evil, even gratuitous forms of it, in the world, of which satisfactory explanations in the context of God exist in abundance.

This one is just condescending.

How about this for a reason: NO EVIDENCE.

That's all.

God cannot be proven scientifically simply because he's immaterial and science only deals with the physical world, though it can be shown that a theistic position is more rational than an atheistic one.

Wrong. It depends on the god in question.

The deistic god cannot be demonstrated to exist by science since he does not interfere with the universe.

BUT the theistic god does. And as long the god interferes with the world in some testable manner, science can in fact demonstrate his existence. Prayer is one way. If god answers the prayers in a statistically significant way, that would be some evidence in his favor. So far, this is not shown to be the case.

You can't see the wind, but you can tell it's there when the leaves rustle. God is not perceivable by the senses being a spirit being, but his fingerprints are all over creation, not the least of which resides in the cell in the form of DNA.

The analogy fails.

Wind is moving air. We have demonstrated with evidence that air freaking exist. God, we have not.

"Creation" here is merely an assertion - an argument from incredulity/ignorance. I'm not sure how is DNA supposed to fit into this but if it's something like "OMG, it's so complex. Therefore, god" (which seems to be what it usually boils down to), I'm not impressed.

And that's to the end of that post.

Religious harmony, really?

2010-12-23T14:00:00.005+08:00

Recently, in the newspapers, there have been a couple of praise or mention of religious harmony in Singapore. One letter in the forum section of the Straits Times even commented that "The Prime News photograph yesterday (above) of Rabbi Mordechai Abergel, Buddhist monk the Venerable Fa Rong and Mufti Syed Isa Mohamed Semait nearly moved me to tears." (The Straits Times - ST Forum - Picture perfect harmony)

It's good so far
Before I continue, I need to say that I do like the fact that Singapore enjoys religious harmony. Religions do not make much issue here unlike some of our neighbours (such as Christianity vs Islam in Indonesia).

To be clear, I am all for religious harmony.

Now here comes the big "but",
But, I don't think that that is a solution in the long run.

Exclusivity of religious truth
Religions make truth claims. Unless the religion advocates the kind of universalism where it teaches that all religions are different paths to god(s), religions are mutually exclusive. No two religion can be simultaneously correct.

Look at Old Testament (Christianity) or Tanakh (Judaism) on the issue of other gods

From the Book of Deuteronomy (Tanakh/Bible)

Deuteronomy 17:2-7 (New International Version, NIV)
If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.

What about the Koran's (Islam's) view of Christianity,

From the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam

Qur'an 5:72-78 (Yusufali translation)
They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

Why turn they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

Say: "Will ye worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you? But Allah,- He it is that heareth and knoweth all things." Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.
Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.

I think I need not say more about the exclusivity of the truth claims of the fore mentioned religions.

Even without these intolerant ideas in their holy books, religions feeds off human tribalism. It fosters divisiveness explicitly or implicitly, creating a Us versus Them situation whenever it is deemed fit.

The inherent danger of reversion
Yes, I understand believers have various reasons to ignore or not act on behalf of their holy books. But the fact remains that those verses are in their holy books. A simple reversion to fundamentalism or literalism will unleash yet more evils of religion upon the society.

Religious fervor transcend educational and economic boundaries (and indeed, national ones). This is notably true in present day events. The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were educated Muslims from middle income families from different countries. There was the assassinations of abortion-providing doctors in the United States of America. Religion is clearly capable of inspiring insane atrocities.

Really harmony?
Is this harmony (in Singapore) we see truly what it seems?
Can it survive the religious fanaticism emanating from the rest of the globe?

Are the religions in Singapore really holding hands and skipping across the beautiful meadows of peace?

Or is it just begrudging tolerance - with religions sitting around a table with weapons behind them waiting for someone to say or do the wrong thing?

I am simply saying that we need to recognize this issue and actually address it. This fluffed up image of harmony fails to address this inherent danger of religions.

Peace does not come about by ignoring clear and present danger.

Being late has its advantages - The Qur'an

2010-12-22T17:00:00.004+08:00

One of the perks for being a young religion is that you get to demonize/denounce other religions and put it right in your holy book. Ain't that nice?

Christianity had its turn with the ancient gods of the region which it pejoratively generalized as the "pagan" gods. So being sister religion, Islam had a go too against her big sister.

This post is mainly for referencing purposes. So here are the relevant excerpts from the holy book of Islam, the Qur'an (Koran).

Qur'an 4:88-93 (Yusufali translation)
They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.

Qur'an 4:171 (Yusufali translation)
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

Qur'an 5:72-78 (Yusufali translation)
They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

Why turn they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

Say: "Will ye worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you? But Allah,- He it is that heareth and knoweth all things." Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.
Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.

Science as a disbelief system

2010-12-17T12:30:00.002+08:00

The following is an interesting take from a discussion page at RichardDawkins.net.

It's titled "Science as a disbelief system" and written by the user, "Schrodinger's cat".

I recently had a friend make a comment along the lines of "You believe in science....I believe in religion...they are both belief systems," as if to imply some sort of equitable relationship between the two. I'm sure many of us have had similar experiences.

The friend seemed quite startled when I responded, "Actually no, science is a disbelief system." I pointed out that what makes science different from any other thought system is that while the congregation in religion is shouting 'Hallelujah!', in science they are shouting 'Prove it!' And to cap it all, the scientific high priests are required to provide a means of disproving that anything they say is true! Can you imagine the Pope doing that?

Not only is science not on equitable terms with religion, it is effectively the complete opposite. If science were a religion, then it's the only one where the holy scriptures demand not unquestioning belief but questioning disbelief.

It's high time we got rid of this 'just another belief system' mentality in society. We could start by banning 'faith' schools and their ridiculous notion that teaching science and religion is somehow 'complementary'.

I have never done a repost but this one was interesting enough for me to have done it.

One of core principle in science is the requirement that its theories be falsifiable - and indeed be falsified if evidence ever turns up to falsify the theory however old, popular or elegant. Science is self-correcting and demands that correction be made if one is to remain honest about the state of our knowledge.

That is the beauty of science.

A Sadomasochistic God

2010-12-11T21:00:00.005+08:00

In recent months, I have subscribed to a number of channels on Youtube and one of them is DiscoveringReligion. This channel is host to an original series by the same name and it is of excellent quality.

Just hours ago, this video titled "A Sadomasochistic God" was uploaded. This video expounds on the concept of a omniscient god behind the purported sacrifice of his son/self supposedly for his love for his creation, humanity.

I love it. It's almost like the video version of my previous posts (Denouncing Christianity, A morally inferior god, Immoral Acceptance) on the topic.

His series, Discovering Religion, is extremely well made. Here I shall post the latest episode (3 parts) which managed to unsettle me.

Thank goodness

2010-12-04T16:30:00.002+08:00

Well, this is old news. But I'm posting this anyways for posterity's sake.

This is Daniel Danett's open letter that he wrote during recuperation after his heart surgery. It's a meaningful piece with bits worth repeating here.

Yes, I did have an epiphany. I saw with greater clarity than ever before in my life that when I say "Thank goodness!" this is not merely a euphemism for "Thank God!" (We atheists don't believe that there is any God to thank.) I really do mean thank goodness! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today.

Do I worship modern medicine? Is science my religion? Not at all; there is no aspect of modern medicine or science that I would exempt from the most rigorous scrutiny, and I can readily identify a host of serious problems that still need to be fixed. That's easy to do, of course, because the worlds of medicine and science are already engaged in the most obsessive, intensive, and humble self-assessments yet known to human institutions, and they regularly make public the results of their self-examinations.

One of the gentler, more supportive themes to be found in every religion (so far as I know) is the idea that what really matters is what is in your heart: if you have good intentions, and are trying to do what (God says) is right, that is all anyone can ask. Not so in medicine! If you are wrong—especially if you should have known better—your good intentions count for almost nothing. And whereas taking a leap of faith and acting without further scrutiny of one's options is often celebrated by religions, it is considered a grave sin in medicine...... Good intentions and inspiration are simply not enough.

What, though, do I say to those of my religious friends (and yes, I have quite a few religious friends) who have had the courage and honesty to tell me that they have been praying for me? I have gladly forgiven them, for there are few circumstances more frustrating than not being able to help a loved one in any more direct way...... But I am not joking when I say that I have had to forgive my friends who said that they were praying for me. I have resisted the temptation to respond "Thanks, I appreciate it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?" I feel about this the same way I would feel if one of them said "I just paid a voodoo doctor to cast a spell for your health."...... Don't expect me to be grateful, or even indifferent. I do appreciate the affection and generosity of spirit that motivated you, but wish you had found a more reasonable way of expressing it.

Nicely put.

He can't just forgive

2010-12-03T13:30:00.002+08:00

Yet another excellent video by darkmatter2525.

Yahweh cannot forgive without making an ultimatum. Not very godly, methinks.

If god was a car

2010-11-20T09:00:00.003+08:00

Another excellent video by Darkmatter2525.

Logical arguments without evidence proves nothing. Existence claims cannot be demonstrated by logic alone, we need evidence. Otherwise, we're just arguing entities into existence.

Something from Nothing?

2010-11-19T08:00:00.006+08:00

This tired old canard of "Something from Nothing" is leveled at atheists by theists who don't know any better. This lie gives away the theist's ignorance of the science behind Big Bang theory (which rationalists in general accepts as true).

I think that the problem is worst than that. But first, I'll have to explain the phrase first.

"Something from nothing" is sometimes used by physicists while explaining the Big Bang theory. However, "nothing" is not the "nothing" that most people would imagine. Well, if there was just empty space and something just 'poofed' into existence - that would seem pretty absurd. But that is NOT what physicists mean. By nothing, they mean nothing that we know of exist. That is, matter, energy, space and time, as we know it, has not come into existence. Here, I'll let the physicists themselves do the talking:

But here's the crucial part - why I think the argument is just stupid right from the get go: NOBODY believes that. Even physicists would postulate something - say, a quantum fluctuation - that led up to the Big Bang.

Ultimately, there is still a fabric of reality. "Something" is still there. For the theists, it's their god(s) (which explains nothing). For us, non-believers, we generally accept what the scientific method has discovered about reality.

So the canard "something from nothing" is just bloody useless to begin with.

Nothingness
There's something deeper though. Why do people suppose that there would ever be "absolute nothingness"?

I'm not sure where I'm going with this train of thought. Perhaps you thought about it and might share some insights in the comments.

I think that existence is an intrinsic part of reality. If there is absolute nothingness, then there is no reality to speak of.

If there was nothing at all, no action, no entities, no na-da, nothing would ever happen. So something could never come from nothing.

Since we do in fact exist, that would also imply that there was always something around - not a moment in reality was there ever absolute nothingness.

Is that right?

El, Elohim and Yahweh

2010-11-12T14:30:00.003+08:00

There is a clear overlap between the ancient Ugaritic religion and Judaism (and by implication, Christianity and Islam as well). However it seems that such information is hardly known to the average adherents of those religions implicated.

It should be made clear that the information presented is not some minority view or "heretical"/"atheist" propaganda. The data here can be found in archeology books pertaining to ancient middle east religions or, more specifically, the canaanite religion. In fact, some of the sources I'll be citing or quoting from are religious sources.

I first stumbled across this topic when watching the Atheist Experience TV show podcast. Tracie Harris co-hosted 3 episodes (Episodes #464, #466, #483) where the topic was discussed. And here is the relevant blog post on the Atheist Experience blog: Ugarit and the Bible.

If you do a Google search on "Ugarit and the Bible", this webpage by the Quartz Hill School of Theology comes up on top: Ugarit and the Bible. This also one of the sources cited by Tracie Harris at the AETV blog. As far as I can tell, the information on the page is accurate and is comparable to those found in the books at libraries. So this shouldn't strike anyone as being non-mainstream.

I'll let them speak for themselves why Ugaritic text pertains to the bible:

Why should people interested in the Old Testament want to know about this city [Ugarit] and its inhabitants? Simply because when we listen to their voices we hear echoes of the Old Testament itself. Several of the Psalms were simply adapted from Ugaritic sources; the story of the flood has a near mirror image in Ugaritic literature; and the language of the Bible is greatly illuminated by the language of Ugarit.

Let's begin with the word "El". Correction, the name "El". While "El" is translated as a generic word for "god" in the hebrew bible, this was not the case before. According to the ugarit religion, El is a proper name for the supreme deity of the ugaritic pantheon. He is identified as the creator of "the heavens and the earth", the father of 70 gods as well as the father of man.

Elohim is plural. Not singular as advocated by translators of the bible. Elohim refers to El's pantheon of gods, his council.

And Yahweh? He was one of the 70 sons of El. Here's the relevant quote from Wikipedia regarding the development in ancient Israel:

In the earliest stage Yahweh was one of the seventy children of El, each of whom was the patron deity of one of the seventy nations. This is illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint texts of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, in which El, as the head of the divine assembly, gives each member of the divine family a nation of his own, "according to the number of the divine sons": Israel is the portion of Yahweh. The later Masoretic text, evidently uncomfortable with the polytheism expressed by the phrase, altered it to "according to the number of the children of Israel"

I know I am quoting Wikipedia, which is not exactly scholarly material, but I'm only doing so because the content agrees with the books I read in the libraries as well as other online sources.

Notice the parallels between El and Yahweh and it becomes obvious the worshipers of Yahweh assimilated the characteristics of El into Yahweh at some point in history. And it seems that theologians know this:

Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation.

This assimilation seems to be demonstrated by the association of El's consort (ie, a goddess), Asherah, with Yahweh.

From Bible.org
Athirat, or as she is referred to sometimes, Ilat (i.e., goddess of the god El), is the most prominent goddess in the Ugaritic pantheon, though her origin appears to go back well before Ugarit (1200-1400 B.C.E.) to the time of the Ebla tablets. In the Ugaritic pantheon she is the consort of El. She is referred to as the "mother of the gods" or "procreatress of the gods." She thus shares in El's creative work. She is also referred to as "Lady Athirat of the sea" and by the Semitic word qd (i.e., holy). She figures prominently in the Ugaritic texts in which Baal and Anat are requesting from El a palace for Baal to live in (CTA 4), texts concerning Shahar and Shalim (CTA 23) and in another wherein she is said to receive a sheep offered in sacrifice. The name Asherah is the designation often given this goddess in the Old Testament.

From Wikipedia
Between the eighth to the sixth centuries El became identified with Yahweh, Yahweh-El became the husband of the goddess Asherah, and the other gods and the divine messengers gradually became mere expressions of Yahweh's power.

From the Quartz Hill School of Theology
One of the most interesting of these lesser deities, Asherah, plays a very important role in the Old Testament. There she is called the wife of Baal; but she is also known as the consort of Yahweh! That is, among some Yahwists, Ahserah is Yahweh’s female counterpart!

Apparently it seems that there is also evidence for the assimilation of Baal Hadad into Yahweh. Baal Hadad is a storm god and the only one in the Ugaritic pantheon that is identified by the title "rider of the clouds". This title is later attributed to Yahweh in the bible. For those who wouldn't mind reading longer articles, check out this article on Bible.org: Baalism in Canaanite Religion and Its Relation to Selected Old Testament Texts [Google Cache version].

For those want to read more, check out Wikipedia on these topic as well. See "Canaanite religion" and "Early history of Yahweh worship".

The relationship between Yahweh of the Abrahamic religions and the gods of the Ugaritic pantheon (in particular, El) is obvious.

Why isn't this information more widely known?

More unusually, why don't such knowledge pose a problem to adherents of those faiths? I would think this would make it more than obvious that religions are made up (ie, fiction).

What's your excuse?

Update (2 Dec 2011): Evid3nc3 has an excellent video about evolution of monotheism from polytheism based on Karen Armstrong book, A History of God. It includes how Yahweh became the "One God".

The Non Prophets are back

2010-10-24T11:20:00.003+08:00

Here's a little "shout out" for the Non Prophets Radio podcast. The Non Prophets are back after a REALLY long hiatus.

Matt Dillahunty has uploaded 3 new podcast. One with the last of the guerrilla podcast (9.8), one being a compilation of interviews Matt did during the Texas Freethought Convention (9.TFC) and the latest one being a usual NPR podcast (9.10).

So here is the link to the Non Prophets Radio archive page.

Back with Videos

2010-10-22T11:00:00.003+08:00

It's been 3 weeks and during that time, lots of videos has been churned out on Youtube. Here's three that I particularly liked.

Most recently, richarddawkinsdotnet has (finally) posted new videos. Here's a conversation between Richard Dawkins and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Interesting stuff.

QualiaSoup also uploaded another video. This time he addresses atheism directly. Beautifully made video as usual.

I thoroughly enjoyed this video by AronRa. Continuing his "Falsifying Phylogeny" series, this video is about the dog family.

Hiatus

2010-09-27T06:50:00.003+08:00

This blog is going on an official three week hiatus (as if I had been consistent in my blog postings... er, nevermind that). I'll be off to Australia for slightly more than 3 weeks due to conscript obligations. So, byes!