Vicarious redemption

The latest video by DarkMatter2525 looks at the notion of vicarious redemption.

Here's an interesting question to ponder: if you could save Jesus from being crucified, would you? And if you would, would this god be considered worthy of worship if he still sends everyone to hell?

A god that endorses scapegoating, methinks, is not moral.

A secular Christmas

I'm not sure how obvious this is in Singapore or the USA: but it seems to me that Christmas has developed into 2 separate holidays - one Christian and the other secular.

Save for the name, practically nothing people associate with the Christmas holidays has anything to do to at all with Jesus or Christianity: gifts, family & friends, feasts, decorated trees, candy cane, snowman, Santa Claus, log cakes, mistletoe etc. There actually are non-Christian Christmas celebrations (obviously...).

So here, enjoy this video by TheThinkingAtheist regarding Christmas traditions.

 
On a related note, I just want to say that atheists can celebrate whatever holiday, religious or not, if they want to. I'm just not celebrating the myths -- if anything, the secular aspects (friends, family and common values etc) are what's worth celebrating.

Morality and Christianity

Sam Harris makes the case against Christian "morality".

Pulling Jesus out of FHM

In an act of deference to religious hypersensitivity, FHM Singapore is pulling its latest issue off the shelves because of two articles that were described as "highly objectionable and deplorable" by the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS).

TODAYonline reports in the article "FHM pulled off selves, editor apologises":

SINGAPORE - The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) has sharply criticised two articles published in the latest edition of FHM Singapore, describing them as "highly objectionable and deplorable". The criticism prompted an immediate apology from the senior editor of the men's magazine and the removal of the publication from newsstands islandwide.

In a statement yesterday, the council, which represents more than 150 churches across denominations, said the articles "make fun of the Lord Jesus Christ". The statement, signed by NCCS president Bishop Dr Robert Solomon and its three vice-presidents, added: "These articles appear during the holy season of Lent when Christians remember the sufferings and sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and they cause serious offence and hurt the sensitivities of the Christian community."

The NCCS also urged the authorities to "look into the matter and ensure the material in question is removed", adding that "such offensive articles threaten the religious harmony that we work so hard to build and maintain".

Noting that it has become "fashionable" to depict religions in the media in ways that are offensive to religious communities, the council urged that "society must be on guard against such trends". FHM Singapore is a title produced by MediaCorp Publishing. The articles in question were entitled "Which of These Celebs Might Secretly be Jesus?" and "Jesus 2.0: What can we expect?".

When contacted, FHM Singapore senior editor David Fuhrmann-Lim said: "We would like to apologise for any offence caused ... We are always sensitive to people's religions and beliefs, and while the article was written with a tongue-in-cheek humour, we do realise now it was not done in the best taste or judgment. We will certainly be more mindful of such sensitive issues in the future."

"Furthermore, we will immediately remove all copies on sale in the newsstands; this process should be completed in the next two days," he added.

When contacted, a spokesperson for the industry regulator Media Development Authority said: "We are investigating this complaint for a possible breach of our content guidelines for publications."

Let's see what do we have here. We have religious hypersensitivity being used to justify censorship. We have religious folk who don't differentiate between humor and malice. We have a business kowtowing to religious bullies. We have the same meaningless "FOR religious harmony!" rhetoric being employed. We have the authorities being invoked to possibly penalize the expression of unpopular speech.

On a side note, why are these good Christian folks reading FHM? Oh wait. My bad. All their sins are forgiven so what would a little lusting hurt anyways. Duh.

Back to the topic; There's really not much left to talk about. This nonsense is small compared to the bigger nonsense that is our social-legal environment here. Religions are accorded undue respect and influence on our freedom of speech here in Singapore. There is no reason why such humor should be censored because some religious folks are "offended" that not everyone has nice things to say about their sacred stuff.

Imagine if the Prophet Muhammad was depicted instead. Given the climate in Singapore, I'll be surprised if no one was prosecuted under the Sedition Act. Yet, it should be allowed just as FHM shouldn't be censored. But then again, the authorities would simply give in to religious pressure because those religious folks might riot over such inane offense.

Singapore. Where we wuss out to religious hypersensitivity.

Seriously MOE? Abstinence?

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?

Examining the Existence of a Historical Jesus

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.

Catholic Church trafficking babies in Spain

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.

Jesus Camp, Singapore

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!

Clash of Church and State in the Philippines

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.

Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman

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:

1. A Historical Assault of Faith
2. A World of Contradictions
3. A Mass of Variant Views
4. Who Wrote the Bible?
5. Liar, Lunatic or Lord? Finding the Historical Jesus
6. How We Got the Bible
7. Who Invented Christianity?
8. 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.

Of Catholics and Condoms

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.

How Man created God

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.

A Sadomasochistic God

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.

El, Elohim and Yahweh

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".

Arrest the Pope

Is there nothing that we can prosecute the pope for? I would think that the two atrocities that the Roman Catholic Church has committed should at the least warrant some international legal action.

First off, the Church's cover up of the pedophile priests is just plain criminal. And we're not talking about one or two isolated cases, we're talking about scores of child rape and molest allegations across the world. Evidence suggest that the pope cannot possibly have been ignorant of the rampant child rapes occurring in the parishes.

Instead of handing the priests to the authorities so that justice may actually be served, the Church has decided to cover up the scandal. And when that failed, they're issuing monetary compensation left and right while moving the offending priests to other parishes (where they likely would offend again).

That alone, I would think, warrant some real justice to be served. But hell no, the pope is still in his golden throne preaching around the ills of materialism and immorality of "secular" people from his multi-billion dollar palace.

The second atrocity, in my opinion, should be considered a crime against humanity. The pope, that infallible pope, has, in his infinite wisdom, freaking LIED to the African people. He essentially told them that condoms do not protect people against HIV but increases their chances of contracting the virus.

WHAT A PREPOSTEROUS LIE. That lying prick deserves prison. The death penalty even, if it applies. How is that any different from committing genocide against the African people himself? And he doesn't even need to stray from his own fucking religion to know lying is wrong.

ARGH.

Here's a video of Richard Dawkins at the recent "Protest the Pope" march where he gives the Pope a much deserved tongue lashing (and that's already too nice, I think):

If atheists went to heaven

Here's Darkmatter2525 interesting video on the entry to heaven.



For those who can't see the point to this comedy, here's darkmatter2525's answer:

This video was about how if the tables were turned, we wouldn't want to see you burned.

That is, the heaven and hell system as described by Christianity is fundamentally unjust.

Chain Mail: God Vs Science

I was hit by the following chain mail a long while ago and has since been wanting to post something about it on my blog. I have finally got about to doing so today.

Warning: This post is going to be a looonngg one. The contents of the chain mail are as follows:

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, “Let me explain the problem science has with religion.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

“You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”

“Yes sir,” the student says.

“So you believe in God?”

“Absolutely.”

“Is God good?”

“Sure! God’s good.”

“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”

“Yes.”

“Are you good or evil?”

“The Bible says I’m evil.”

The professor grins knowingly. “Aha! The Bible!” He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?”

“Yes sir, I would.”

“So you’re good…!”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

“But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.”

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. “He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”

The student remains silent.

“No, you can’t, can you?” the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

“Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”

“Er…yes,” the student says.

“Is Satan good?”

The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. “No.”

“Then where does Satan come from?”

The student falters. “From God”

“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?”

“Yes.”

“So who created evil?” The professor continued, “If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.”

Again, the student has no answer. “Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?”

The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

“So who created them?”

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. “Who created them?” There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues onto another student. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor, I do.”

The old man stops pacing. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?”

“No sir. I’ve never seen Him.”

“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”

“No, sir, I have not.”

“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?”

“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”

“Yet you still believe in him?”

“Yes.”

“According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?”

“Nothing,” the student replies. “I only have my faith.”

“Yes, faith,” the professor repeats. “And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.”

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. “Professor, is there such thing as heat?”

“Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”

“And is there such a thing as cold?”

“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”

“No sir, there isn’t.”

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.”

“Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

“What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?”

“Yes,” the professor replies without hesitation. “What is night if it isn’t darkness?”

“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.”

“In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?”

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. “So what point are you making, young man?”

“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.”

The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. “Flawed? Can you explain how?”

“You are working on the premise of duality,” the student explains. “You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.”

“It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.”

“Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”

“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”

“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

“Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?”

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

“To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.”

The student looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?” The class breaks out into laughter.

“Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.”

“So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?”

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. “I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.”

“Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,” the student continues. “Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?”

Now uncertain, the professor responds, “Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”

To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”

The professor sat down.

There are various versions of the story (this version was taken from this blog). Some are shorter. And some even claim that the student portrayed in the story was Albert Einstein - LOL.

I'll put this outfront: Only the scientifically illiterate or ill-informed masses would be impressed with this huge argument from personal incredulity. Just look at the comments in the blogs that appear after a search on Google.

A quick glance of the story would reveal several fallacies for anyone who is well-informed about Science in general. However, I shan't be taking the arguments apart personally since I found a rather nicely written "sequel" to the story in question.

This was a comment by Ash on this blog:

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?"

No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.

The professor, amused at the student's antics, asks the student whether he's ever read anything about science.

"No," says the student. "I only know what I've heard in church."

"That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man," says the professor. "Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist."

"Oh," said the Christian.

"No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it."

"Oh, I see. That makes sense," said the Christian student.

"Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn't be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?" said the professor.

"I guess not."

"In fact, if I had no brain I couldn't do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!"

The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.

"Evolution is known to be true because of evidence," continued the professor. "It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley's "Firing Line" show. Did you see it?"

The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, "My mom won't let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith."

The professor shook his head sadly. "Knowledge does have a way of doing that," he said. "But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed."

The Christian student sputters, "You--you mean we HAVE seen it?"

"Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?"

"Uh, no."

"Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London's underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos. But enough about evolution. That doesn't have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?"

"Well..."

"What does it have to do with our issue?" asked the professor.

"Well, if you don't believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes."

The professor laughed. "Evolutionists don't believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor."

"Wow!" said the Christian. "That's not what they told me at church."

"I'm sure. They can't refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don't you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?"

"I didn't know that."

"In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley's 'Firing Line,' which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact."

"Really?"

"Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?"

"I guess not."

"Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant."

"I see that now," said the Christian. "I don't even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence."

"Well," said the professor. "As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones."

"I'm guess learning already," said the student, looking at the floor.

"But back to the problem of evil," said the professor. "You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?"

The student said lifelessly: "If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil." It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated.

The professor shrugged his shoulders. "Okay, let's suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?"

"There is the absence of good," said the student.

"But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it."

The student looked confused. "But why should he prevent it? It's not his fault."

"If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, 'It's not my fault,' we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil."

The Christian student thought for a moment. "I guess I'd have to agree."

"So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil," said the professor. "At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it."

The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. "But that's according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can't judge him by our standards."

The professor laughed. "Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed."

"I don't understand," said the student, wrinkling his brow.

"If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?" "Of course it is," said the Christian student. "That's what a car is."

"But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it's not a car?"

"No," said the student. "It still fits the definition of a car. That's what we mean by saying that it's a car. It doesn't fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn't call it that."

"Exactly," said the professor. "If it fits the definition, then that's what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be 'good' in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good."

"I don't believe it!" said the Christian student. "A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn't fit the definition of good, so he's not good."

"There you go," said the professor.

"But wait a minute," said the student. "God could still be good in some other definition even if we don't call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he's good. Even if we couldn't call him good, that doesn't mean that he isn't good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway."

"Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition," said the professor.

"Why not?" "Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition."

"That's right!" said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. "If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that's his definition of eternity!"

"Now you're thinking!" said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. "This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students."

The Christian student continued. "God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that's his definition of keeping a promise!"

"Yes, yes," said the professor.

"I can't believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It's so indefensible," said the student, shaking his head. "Just a few moment's thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse."

"So it would seem," said the professor.

"I'm going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn't tell me the truth about evolution!"

The sequel doesn't end here. It continues for another two short paragraphs.

I'm deliberately dividing the ending from the rest of the sequel - I don't agree entirely with what it is about to say.

The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person's life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.

The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.

The statement in italics is, in my opinion, incorrect. I seriously doubt that anyone could deconvert within 15 minutes because of a short discussion with his/her professor.

Deconverting to become an atheist is not like conversion to a particular religion. There typically isn't a epiphany where one goes "Ahha! I don't believe god exist anymore!" Chances are that deconversion is a long process beginning with doubting the validity of your current religion and probably ending with understanding your philosophy in life. The learning doesn't stop even then.

Actually, I find the ending rather counterproductive as well. Any decent believer who reads such an ending would be put off by the rather condescending implication that they would be easily deconverted by such an event.

In fact, by writing such an ending, it would be committing the same mistake as the believer who wrote the original story in the first place. A condescending remark in a chain mail just doesn't quite fly.

Any opinions?


* By the way, it was this entry by the Singapore Mormons that probably prompted my orignal interest.

** On a sidenote, wait... there are Mormons in Singapore?! Wow...

Jepthah

NonStampCollector has made yet another excellent video. This one is a script based on the story of Jepthah - About the child sacrifice that went through.

How very moral, Yahweh.

Christianity - NonStampCollector Style

Here's NonStampCollector latest video - The Great Debate. And it's nice coincidence. The video is related to the Fine Tuning Argument and it points out to a leap of faith that is typically made by theists. This one is not related to the entry title though.

Another great video that I posted here previously is "What would Jesus NOT do?"

Here's a nice little poem - Ode to Yahweh

And here's some other videos worthy of attention.

Free will - God Style
► Part 1 - A gift?
► Part 2 - Responding to Christians
► Part 3 - Finale

Yahweh's Perfect Justice
► Part 1 - Sticks and Stoning
► Part 2 - Rape

The Central Absurdity
► Forgiveness, Grace and God's Death Sentence

God is the short form for...
► The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker.

Modern Christianity
► Jesus and the Interpreter

I kid you not!

I was in discussion with christian who thinks that the bible "did not make a mistake on the issue" about the solar system being heliocentric/geocentric.

So, I replied with the following [Post #106]

But of course! The bible cannot be wrong - It's the big book of multiple choice.

You want geocentric universe? Supported by the bible.

You want heliocentric universe? Supported by the bible.

It's the reason behind why modern christians can say that the bible wasn't wrong but their predecessors are wrong.

[I quoted Wikipedia where it mentions that the Church was against Copernicus and Galileo because their theories were against the "Holy Scripture".]

The Power of the Holy Book of MCQ - It supports anything you want as long you search hard enough.

I kid you not - he replied with the following.

Hehe... and did you even wonder why Bible is infallible like what you said, it supports anything as long as you search hard enough. Can ordinary men even come up with such a book???

Lesson of the day:
Only god could have come up with such a contradictory book that can support any position due to its ambiguity.

Praise Yahweh! Praise Jesus!

LOL.