|
datapad
Friday, April 29, 2005
sorry for the late reply fellas... it's the Common Test period and i spent the whole of last night cramming my ass off for my 4-hour long chinese CTs today which, needless to say, utterly destroyed me. damn am i sleepy. replies to tags: xianghong: i've no idea who suspiciousbastard is... just that he's a regular commentator on xiaxue's blog as well as a staunch atheist. vivien: my astrophysics gives you headaches?? you've yet to see the real thing, man! because of my reluctance to memorise astrophysical formulaes without first fully understanding them (and it seems i still have a long long way to go before understanding them), i am nothing compared to the rest of the science club quiz team! :P
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
my, this new athiest movement is turning out to be rather interesting... well, i'll just play along and see how it goes. in the meantime, however, i need to go save my CA results. not to mention study for the all-important Common Tests. and my throat ulcer still bugs me to no end! argh! could it be... a CURSE from the Almighty for blasphemy and heresy on my part?! no shit, je-suis, but i STILL CAN TYPE! now go back to the nothingness from whence you came! Poof!!
Sunday, April 24, 2005
If on the other hand he went to pay his respects to The Door and it wasn't there ... what then? The answer, of course, was very simple. He had a whole board of circuits for dealing with exactly this problem, in fact this was the very heart of his function. He would continue to believe in it whatever the facts turned out to be, what else was the meaning of belief? The Door would still be there, even if the Door was not. -- Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently: Holistic Detective Agency A man didn’t understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box. manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren’t there?" -- Douglas Adams, a parable spoofing creationism that Adams often told, as retold by Richard Dawkins in "Lament for Douglas" (14 May 2001) Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?. -- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See "So what do we do if we get bitten by something deadly, then?" He blinked at me as if I was stupid. "Well what do you think you do?" he said. "You die of course. That's what deadly means." -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance To See Nice comment by Agagooga (http://www.blogger.com/profile/263597), taken off LeFire's blog. If a Christian is involved in an accident, the reaction will be as follows:
Saturday, April 23, 2005
ok, for people who come to this blog simply to read up on the stuff i have to say about religion, i've made an entire section dedicated just for you! click on the link "The Fallacy of Religion" under the links section and you'll have an entire compilation of the main points of my argument against the practice of religion. have fun! alright, alright, so you all probably know to which post this post is in correspondence to, so i shan't bother with explaining. so let's start right from the beginning. what's the definition of "stupid" here? well, if you're comparing between human beings and golden retrievers, sure, humans AREN'T stupid (MINDS kids excluded)... but in this case i'd say that the stubborn and unthinking people of this world can pretty much be labelled as stupid too. and not to mention those somewhat logically-impaired normal technical students... i'm serious. i've talked to them before, and never want to do so ever again, for as long as i live. i'd say that in the specific case of singapore, the reason why we are able to exist in religious harmony is because most people consciously choose to downplay the actual dogmas of their own religion (the goal of christianity IS evangelism, like it or not, for We are His Chosen People and We must be taught to see the light, or we will not attain salvation and spend the rest of eternity with the Lord our Saviour...) they are willingly making sacrifices at the expense of their own religion for the greater good of mankind as well as for the advancement of science. the very fact that there is scientific progress shows that, more and more, people are making concessions on the part of religion for the nobler ideal of objective truth. but by doing so, they are already defying their own religion to a certain extent by refusing to follow the sacred creed! i applaud that, but i'm quite certain that's not how the current pope, former member of the Inquisition and the world's most vehement opposer of secularism, would feel. for in his eyes, his religion is the one true creed, and by God, it is meant to be blindly followed. so for most people, religion has already lost most of its original purpose for which it was created (to explain away the creation of the universe and to provide a path towards the attainment of salvation), and instead has become simply a matter of convenience, a tool whereby they can seek solace with fellow believers in the knowledge that it is not their fault that things do not turn out right, but that God has a plan and we exist to carry out His plan, so we are not supposed to question it. (if the fundamentally flawed cause for social cohesion here isn't apparent by now, i have nothing else to say.) besides, i am not saying that the possibility of the existence of a creator (no matter how remote) is fundamentally flawed, nor am i saying that religion is fundmentally flawed because it is the cause of religous conflict if interpreted literally, but rather, the unquestioning belief in the existence of a god that is. i concede that religion can be a rather useful way to prevent believers from "sinning", and in so doing maintain a semblance of social cohesion, for fear of the consequences of eternal damnation as well as for want of salvation, but then again, this system of reward and punishment that is quite ostensibly a human construct is simply distasteful. they (the believers) are not doing good out of love for their fellow human beings(in contrast with secular humanism), but instead they are doing it for the promised consequences in the afterlife. that again, no matter how it can be argued, is still plain deceitful... i can't imagine how a theist would feel if one day, it were to be known that there is no afterlife. to end off, i reiterate my earlier point, that it is indeed heartening to see religion slowly but surely giving way to science and truth. pope john paul the second's acceptance and tolerance of scientific pursuit as well as his public apology for the Inquisition's treatment of Galileo is evident of the growing acceptance of science as the key to uncovering the mysteries of our universe, and it has also given me the impression that, were he given, perhaps, a hundred years more to live, it would be possible for him to shed his religious beliefs entirely. ...i'm not so sure about benedict the sixteenth though. somebody please do something about that guy! ah, so here's my correspondence to xinyang's correspondence to my previous post. Religion might have its good points, but nevertheless it is still an entire moral belief system founded on the fundamentally flawed assumption that there is a god. in a manner of speaking, the pastor or priest or whoever conducts the sermon every sunday is lying to his followers by speaking about a creator as though he actually existed. that is something that i feel theists must come to realise. it must also be noted that while a religion strives for social cohesion amongst its followers, the same thing does not apply for when it comes into contact with people who are not followers of that religion. it is not possible for the beliefs of one religion to be congruent with those of another- one cannot be a muslim, a christian and a catholic at the same time. in fact, most religions are intolerant of the beliefs of other religions as they feel that their own religion is the one true creed- they therefore are opposed to the practice of other such religions on the grounds that it is not the "Right Way". a very good example of this is the roman-catholic Inquistion, of which cardinal joseph ratzinger was a member of before being elected to papalcy- oh the terror. and as for science, it has only one purpose- to uncover the objective truth. i do agree, though, that science can sometimes be a double-edged sword-- in the wrong hands (for example, in the hands of religious extremists), and for the wrong purposes (active elimination of all other nonbelievers), it can lead to untold death and destruction. that is not to say that religion cannot be used for the wrong purposes as well-- muslim extremists such as the JI or Al Qaeda, palestinian activists like Hamas or Hezbollah, white/american supremacists like Ku Klux or other followers of Yahweh, and not to mention the roman-catholic Inquisition, are all good examples of the darker side of religion. also, it is incorrect to say that how beneficial a religion is can be measured by its popularity, and that it would not be in humanity's best interests to oppose that religion. the power of stupid people cannot be underestimated, and it is only through the advent of truth that antiquated superstitions can be vanquished. also, if the maintenance of status quo is all that important, how could revolutions occur? i reiterate that science and religion are at cross purposes with each other. throughout the ages, the progress of science has met unfailingly with religious opposition. and every time science emerges victorious, a certain aspect of religion has had to recede. it is only through science- in particular, scientific revolution- that people today no longer believe that the earth is at the centre of the universe, a "baseless assertion" brought about by theological ignorance. thankfully, religion today is not as commonplace as it used to be in the past, and hopefully it is only a matter of time before it fades away completely. also, i apologise if i did not make myself clear in the previous post. when i brought up the subject of humanism, i was referring to secular humanism. on a sidenote, hinduism is NOT a philosophy. a belief system whereby people worship gods with elephant heads, gods who ride on peacocks or lions, and gods who habitually rip out the intestines of sinners, not to mention feeding newborns to the gods of the river- crocodiles... i find it quite hard to accept that as a philosphy. and i shall end off with an excerpt from the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. just for laughs: "The Babel fish," said the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it...... The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof for the nonexistance of God. "The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' " 'But,' says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It would not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' " 'Oh dear,' said God, "I haven't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
Friday, April 22, 2005
for those who have read my previous post and xinyang's corresponding post, here's the inevitable ensuing msn conversation: |agentquantum| says: the goal of every religion is peace, but how can peace be established when there is more than one religion, and followers of all religions feel that their own religion is the one true creed? |agentquantum| says: in this aspect i do not think religious harmony is possible. --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: read on |agentquantum| says: when religions come into conflict with each other, and they oftentimes do, it is where people simply cannot agree with each other because there is no point of contention- it is all based on belief |agentquantum| says: for a system where there is only one religon... fine |agentquantum| says: if the people can be deceived by a system of lies into following rules and keeping the peace i guess thats alright for some --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: i have concluded that there is only one god |agentquantum| says: but in the real world --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: and all the prophets are wrong |agentquantum| says: thats where most religions will come into conflict --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: conflict come when they think there is one god, and all the other prophets are wrong --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: there is a very big difference |agentquantum| says: it is still morally wrong to deceive the masses with lies of religion and threats of eternal damnation just so that peace will be in order |agentquantum| says: imho it is no diff from communism --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: i do not agree |agentquantum| says: why not we live in harmony, without religion, for the purpose of the advancement of mankind as opposed to salvation? --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: it is not deceit |agentquantum| says: it is a thoroughly unqualified assumption based on antiquated superstittions. --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: we do not know |agentquantum| says: but we have no evidence nor logical rationale to believe in a god --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: we have no evidence not to |agentquantum| says: humanism is a far nobler ideal to strive towards than that of a fairytale salvation --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: humanism --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: it is a fairy tale too |agentquantum| says: ockham's razor... there is no reason to believe in it. we don't need it. by assuming it is true is an outright lie. |agentquantum| says: what do you mean |agentquantum| says: humanism is a fairy tale? --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: yes |agentquantum| says: the progress of humanism is only obstructed by religion and humankind's reluctance to shed their beliefs |agentquantum| says: i dont understand you --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: what would the world be without divine justice --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: can the police force be strong enough to enfore the law> |agentquantum| says: why not? is our police force divinely sanctioned to uphold peace? --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: can we make sure the govt do not abuse their power |agentquantum| says: our government is not bound by religion |agentquantum| says: even the american government practices some distinction between church and state --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: we must realise that humans are all drawn to the materials --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: only by divine justice can we be swayed away from them, and keep the society in order |agentquantum| says: only by divine justice? |agentquantum| says: then id say its very sad for the human race --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: it is |agentquantum| says: only a possibly fictitious character can keep the most intelligent species on the face of the earth in line? |agentquantum| says: that is being unduly pessimistic |agentquantum| says: i think not. |agentquantum| says: we can have rules yes --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: mencius thinks so too |agentquantum| says: and people will have to adhere to the rules under the law --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: mencius believes that humans are kind in nature |agentquantum| says: but divine justice does not have to play a part --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: it is stronger |agentquantum| says: throughout the ages, scientific progress has always been hindered by religion |agentquantum| says: science and religion are at cross purposes with each other |agentquantum| says: i dont see how religion can bring about scientific progress --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: what makes you think that science is the corrct way to go? |agentquantum| says: because it is the most accurate way that we can learn about our universe --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: i have to admit that scientific progress is vital now that we are screwing up the earth badly |agentquantum| says: it is the objective truth. --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: it is not |agentquantum| says: religion has absolutely no logical basis in reality |agentquantum| says: why not., --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: science can explain, but they cannot control |agentquantum| says: control what? --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: i agree the science will lead to to the ultimate undertsanding of the universe |agentquantum| says: of course we are unable to control the universe --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: but in order for us to do anything with the science we learn we must have principles |agentquantum| says: uhhuh |agentquantum| says: your point? --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: and science does not teach principles |agentquantum| says: love for humanity is a very good principle i daresay --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: i daresay many do not have it |agentquantum| says: science is perfectly compatible with secular humanism |agentquantum| says: thats because of religion. --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: science is perfectly compatible with destruction |agentquantum| says: they love god more than they love their fellow men, they have become selfish, they live for an ideal that might never occur to them |agentquantum| says: religion is perfectly compatible with destruction of all other religions |agentquantum| says: and whats the link with science and destruction? --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: haha --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: i admit that i was wrong in that statement --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: there will always be people who are buay song |agentquantum| says: i know |agentquantum| says: its a macrocosmic demonstration of the uncertainty principle |agentquantum| says: just how utterly screwed up theology has become can be seen in the election of cardinal joseph ratzinger to position of pope |agentquantum| says: it is widely believed that he is the world's most vehement opponent of secularism --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: sigh --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: i feel that there is a part in us that would wonder about the things that science that cannot explain |agentquantum| says: thats einstein speaking too --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: this casues social unrest and distraction |agentquantum| says: but i think thats exactly the part that causes us to strive to understand the things we cannot explain --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: science cannot explain what happens after we die |agentquantum| says: what do you mean "after we die"? --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: science cannot explain what happens before we are born |agentquantum| says: i dont think there's anything that cannot be explained by science --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: science cannot explain why life is unfair |agentquantum| says: you are assuming the existence of a soul here --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: yes --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: i am |agentquantum| says: life is unfair because people choose to perceive it that way and because of luck --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: a fallacious assumption too, i know |agentquantum| says: well, there might exist a spiritual energy, like chi, that might one day be explained by science |agentquantum| says: that is what i think |agentquantum| says: based on current orgone research and such --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: science can only explain the thing that exist |agentquantum| says: and it cant explain...? --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: but it cannot explain what we want to know --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: or rather, many are unprepared for the truth |agentquantum| says: what do you mean |agentquantum| says: what do we want to know? |agentquantum| says: yeah, that is true |agentquantum| says: many are uprepapred |agentquantum| says: but it is nevertheless something we will have to face up to in our pursuit for objective truth --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: i am not saying that we should not try to find the truth --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: but we must come up with an alternative for those who cannot accept it |agentquantum| says: by rejecting the facts and succumbing to mere intuitive reasoning we are committing the same fallacy as our long time ancestors did, religion --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: religion does not need to interfere with science |agentquantum| says: we are all sentient intelligent human beings, and i feel that we all have it within us to accept the truh- after all, any other way would merely be a lie. --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: in fact, buddhism, which believes in divine justice, does not hinder science |agentquantum| says: ...so far --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: we must see that past the faults of religion --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: we should not commit to the same belief that something is able to explain everything --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: the truth lies in philosophy |agentquantum| says: that is an unqualified assumption |agentquantum| says: it is logical to assume that science can explain everything |agentquantum| says: if not then how can the explainable and the unexplainable coexist together? --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: the unexplainable need no explanation --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: it only needs reasoning --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: and the unexplainables cannot defy science because science explains verything else |agentquantum| says: what do you mean by the unexplainable |agentquantum| says: example? --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: do you even exist |agentquantum| says: well, based on all available knowledge now, yes i do --<<{teenage mutant ninja elephant}>>-- "all your base are belong to me." ~~ a japanese proton says: not to me |agentquantum| says: ok so you're talking philosophy |agentquantum| says: well, i think that as a matter of fact is possible to be subjected to science basically, what he is saying at the end is purely philosophy- the part about me not existing to him concerns ideas such as the brain in the vat argument, or the solipsist argument. before i go on i'll have to say that in a sense, everything exists. even in the remote possibility that the brain in the vat concept is true, i still exist as part of his mental construct- just as god exists today as a fairytale figure guiding the masses to fictitious eternal salvation. however, i feel that it is meaningless to talk about philosophical ideas that prove to be completely untestable to science or observable in reality- talking about the possibility of solipsism or brains-in-the-vat when they have no effects whatsoever on our observable reality amounts to nothing more than wild speculation- in itself, it's the same fallacy as suggesting that there is a transcendent omnipotent creator who can never ever be observed. simple ockham's razor at work here- if it's got nothing to do with reality, and if it doesn't affect the events in our universe in any way or another, then there's no point talking about it-- they have no "real" meaning whatsoever.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
on this note, here's an add-on to my earlier "argument against intelligent design". honestly, what more a theist might have to say, i'd dearly love to hear. --- there are many interpretations of the bible- and all are supposedly descended from god himself. plus, followers of any religion will undoubtedly claim that their religion is the one true creed- obviously there is conflict here. why are there different versions of the bible? where is the scientific evidence for the existence of a creator? Why is the rationale for the existence of a creator, for as of today, it appears perfectly possible that the universe could have come about without the intrusion of supernatural phenomena? if the creator was omnipotent, why then, does he appear to have human emotions? also, according to the bible, the earth was created before anyting else. that goes against astronomical observations. what about scientific evidence for the big bang, or the universe's calculated 14-billion year age? if there really was an intelligent creator, why then did he choose for intelligent life on earth to be created only 14 billion years after the creation of the universe? and that is already assuming the fact that the earth was not the first celestial body to be created, something that obviously goes against the geocentric model adopted by the bible.what is the purpose for the rest of the vast, unexplored cosmos then, if god intended to create only earth for his people? god also supposedly created the two lights- the greater light to rule the day (the Sun), and the lesser one to rule the night (Moon). So the bible not only states that the Sun is actually superior to the all the other stars in the universe- a fact that does not seem apparent from astronomical observations, it also states that the Moon is a source of light! Obviously, we all know that that is not true, and it should be evident that a human must have written the bible, back in the days when it was not common knowledge that the moon was not a source of light. according to the bible, god also created all the animals at the same time- something that directly contradicts cardon dating evidence from dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. the astonishingly short age of the earth as represented in the bible- only a few thousand years- also directly contradicts such cardon dating evidence as well. Another point of contention is- why did god create the first man before he created the first woman? was he sexist? or did he merely have a memory lapse and forgot that sexual reproduction was impossible without a female? all that, and the apparently magical process that obviously had to be in place in order to make such unscientific creation possible- opposes everything that we observe in our universe today. what about pseudogenes, then? why do we share the same pseudogenes as our fellow primates, why are we so genetically alike when humans are supposed to be unique in god's eyes... and what then is the purpose of these useless pseudogenes? christians are often under the misconception that atheists outrightedly reject the existence of a creator based on nothing more than belief, but that is not true. that in fact, is satanism, an equally unqualified faith. it is not in the practice of atheists to believe anything based on mere gut as feelings alone; we base our assumptions and inferences about the world on actual empirical observations. as we have absolutely no evidence nor rationale for the existence of a creator, we do not think that such a creator has any logical basis in reality. however, as there is no way to disprove the existence of a creator, we cannot outrightedly reject the idea, only regard it with as much scepticism as we would regard any other religion. the bible states that the creator is transcendent, and thus exists outside the four dimensions of space and time. now, assuming that a creator could be acting outside the influence of the fourth dimension is not only beyond the limits of empirical observation, it is also beyond the limits of logical reasoning. the very act of "acting" has to involve a temporal procession of cause and effect, and there is no way that any supernatural power could be "acting" or even moving outside the fourth dimension. then again, there is the problem of rationale- why should there even be a creator in the first place? also, the very notion of "existence" carries with it the idea of a spatial and temporal presence- how else could one possibly define "existence" then? what, then, do theists mean by a creator that exists beyond the four known dimensions of time and space? theists also argue that the multiverse model of the universe, being empirically untestable, also requires an equal amount of "blind faith" for it to be applied to reality. there is actually evidence of alternate universes at the quantum level (quantum eraser experiment and rochester experiment). also, the existence of other universes has a logical basis and reality as well as a rationale for it (simple probability- no one universe should be favoured over any other, therefore all should theoretically exist), while the existence of a creator does not. another point- what is the rationale for the distinction between sin and goodness? and why does it apply only to human beings? what is the rationale for there being an "afterlife"? on another note, why should christianity be the one true creed, and not islam or hinduism, both of which are religions that have been existent for far longer than christianity has been? of course, there is far more to the atheist argument than i have presented thus far, but i think that at this point it should already seem self evident that religion in general and christianity in particular are but logical fallacies and cannot be accepted as plausible explanations for the existence of our universe. of course, there is the one ultimate way to prove that God is about as existent as Mother Goose, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny- discovery of intelligent life elsewhere! you go SETI!! --- hook, line and fucking SINKER, baby. i'd like to see how theist arguments can still hold water after all the material i've published on the fallacy of religion. for starters, "argument against intelligent design" is freely available, under "the multiverse in 6 dimensions". just scroll all the way down and read. after which, if you've still got anything to say, please feel free to read the other stuff on the blog itself. and after which, in the remote possibility that some logical loophole or other still makes itself apparent somewhere in your cerebral cortex that might still make you place the basis of your entire life's existence on an omnipotent creator with a special affinity for human beings in particular... come online, and i'll see what i can do about it. till then, good day, and remember- that both theists and atheists alike do share one common goal - to uncover the objective truth, and that, in itself, is more worthy than any other worldly aspiration. yours truthfully, alwyn.
Monday, April 18, 2005
rolling on the previous success of the first spiritual guide to gracious living (i've had people ask, "the bible really said that??"), here's part 2! --- The lord commanded: "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." --Ezekiel 4:12. "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." --Levitcus 26:29. "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons, and of thy daughters which the LORD thy god hath given thee..." --Deuteronomy 28:53. "So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son." --2 Kings 6:29 "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." --Deuteronomy 23:1. The lord threatened his children: "Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces." --Malachi 2:3. "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." --Psalms 137:9. "And he (David) brought out the people that were in it and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon." --1 Chronicles 20:3. "And he (David) brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln." --2 Samuel 12:31. The men of Sodom wanted to bugger two angels abiding with Lot. Lot said, "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known a man; let me, I pray you, bring them unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." --Genesis 19:8. But the Sodomites preferred male angels. The Lot family escaped; Mrs. Lot looked back, became a pillar of salt; father Lot and daughters fled to a cave, at which time the elder daughter proposed: "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father." --Genesis 19:32. "Thus were both daughters of Lot with child by their father." --Genesis 19:36. ---
Sunday, April 17, 2005
"Godism... had to be fought when humankind made its successive steps toward science, liberty, and reform. Godism was invented in the earliest days of mankind's ignorance. It is incredible that primitive humans guessed wrongly about everything else, but discovered the truth about the origin of life. Everything about which science has discovered the origin was claimed previously to have been the work of a god. Godism recedes when a new fact is discovered. No new discovery ever supports a theistic explanation of anything." Atheism Teaches That... * There is no heavenly father. Humankind must protect the orphans and foundlings, or they will not be protected. * There is no god to answer prayer. Man must hear and help man. * There is no hell. We have no vindictive god or devil to fear or imitate. * There is no atonement or salvation by faith. We must face the consequences of our acts. * There is no beneficent or malevolent intent in nature. Life is a struggle against preventable and unpreventable evils. The cooperation of humankind is the only hope of the world. * There is no chance after death to "do our bit." We must do it now or never. * There is no divine guardian of truth, goodness, beauty, and liberty. These are attributes of humankind. We must defend them or they will perish from the earth. from ys the hot dog's blog. 1. Would you marry for money? -- let's not waste time with useless preamble. no. 2. Have you had braces? -- no. 3. Could you live without a computer? -- what for live without a computer? 4.If you could live in any past time period where would it be? -- hm. i was probably you know, at the last supper... smirks. 5. Do you drink enough water? -- i make it a habit to regularly deplete my refrigerator of soft drinks. 6.Do you wear shoes in the house or take em off? -- off. 7.What are your favourite fruits? -- don't really know. watermelon? 8. What is your favorite place to visit? -- er. dunno la! the dojo. just kidding. 9. Are you photogenic? -- you decide lor. 10. Do you dream in color or black and white? -- my dreams are fully 3-dimensional virtual realities. 11.Why do you take surveys? -- cos they're fun. 12. Do you drink alcohol? -- not often. 13. What is the most beautiful language? -- not sure. i only know two. 14. Do you like being kissed when you are asleep? -- what difference does it make?? i'm asleep!!! 15. Do you like sunrises or sunsets the most? -- sunrise! 16. Do you want to live to be 100? -- if i can remain happy, healthy and non-senile... duh. 7. Is a flat stomach important to you? -- it's cool... 18. Are you tolerant of other people's beliefs? -- only if they have a logical basis in reality. 19.When you watch movies at home, do you like the lights switched on or off? -- on. its better for my sad eyesight. 20. Do you believe in magic? -- sheesh. in ancient times, almost everything was regarded as magic. anything that can be observed, can be explained. so there. 22. Do you like to watch cartoons? -- err not really la. 23. At what age did you find out that Santa Claus wasn't real -- don't think i ever believed he was real in the first place. besides, think of all those people out there who still haven't found out that god probably ain't real either... =P 24. Do you write poetry? -- absolutely not. 25. Do you snore? -- sometimes. 26. you sleep more on your back, front,or sides? -- sides. mostly right side. 27. Would you rather have a poodle or a rottweiler? -- depends. which one tastes better? 28. Are you basically a happy person? -- ys says he once stabbed a person in his neck using a pencil in p1. but then again i stapled a person on the arm in p5! and i hate school, it's really not my fault. sucks to the ducation system. 29.Are you tired? -- not now. yes after training. stupid question. 30. Did you drink anything with caffeine in it today? -- no. 31. Have you ever met the one of the internet? -- huh?? er...no. 32. How many phones do you have in your house? -- 2. 33. Do you get along with your parents? -- i get along...
Friday, April 15, 2005
Frank Zindler: You see, the whole problem is he is saying that there is no scientific explanation to these things. He's saying only a magical solution is possible. Now one of the other things that Dr. Gish is required to believe without any contradiction from the evidence that he might someday find, is that humans and the apes were created separately, and that the humans and the apes are totally unrelated to each other. Now one of the problems, of course, that creation science, so-called, has, is to account for the fact that when you analyze the genome of the chimpanzee and that of the human being you find that the genes of chimps and humans are 99% identical. Now I know that Dr. Gish is fond of talking about clouds and watermelons being 99% water, but they aren't related. But, of course, he knows that a cloud is not 99% water, 40 and that what we're talking about is... the recipe [sic] for making a chimpanzee and a human being are 99% identical. We're not talking about the recipe to make a cloud or to make a watermelon. How do you account for this near identity of chimps and humans if they are not related? Duane Gish: The... it is said and I, I, I simply doubt that it's certainly rigidly true that chimpanzees and humans are 98.4% genetically similar. Frank Zindler: That's in the gorilla. Duane Gish: Now that has to be in the genes that governs the structural proteins, the enzymes and things like that, which would certainly not be a shocking surprise to a creationist. 41 After all apes and humans eat the same food, we have the same metabolic problem, we have to do all of these things. Why would not our biochemistry in that sense, be similar? 42 But now Frank, if you're trying to tell me and this audience that a chimpanzee and man are 98.4% similar, I will b'lieve that when you will allow your daughter to date a chimpanzee and so forth. And you know you wouldn't do that because there's a whale of a difference between a chimpanzee and a human. Frank Zindler: Ha, ha, ha. That's, that's a wonderful ad hominem. I've not heard that one before in all my years of debating. Duane, I'll give you the medal for that one. (laughter all around) Duane Gish: All right, now here's another thing. I have articles with me where molecular biologists are pointing out that contradictions between evolutionary phylogenetic trees based upon proteins and things like that, they are absolutely contradictory, they do not follow any... any evolutionary pattern at all. 43 Frank Zindler: Well, the entire, the overall pattern of molecular studies. Dr. Gish, you know perfectly well, shows a very close parallelism between the molecular evidence of homology and the comparative anatomical and fossil phylogenetic trees that have been drawn up. Now, one thing we better get back to the chimpanzee... Duane Gish: Now wait a minute Frank... Frank Zindler: Wait a minute, wait a minute! [hubbub] Duane Gish: I can contradict you... in an article just published in the... 1987... where the scientists, they have a ex... specific example, they studied mammalian phylogenetic trees based either on morphology or protein sequences, and this is what they say. This is published by Wyss, Novacek, and McKenna, 44 Molecular Biological Evolution, [sic] and that is 1987, they say this: "To a large extent, the mutual affinities of the mammalian orders continue to puzzle systemists [sic, Gish] even though comparative anatomy and amino acid sequences offer a massive data base from which these relationships could potentially be adduced." They go on to say, "Qualitative comparisons between the morphologically based and molecularly based trees are were [sic, Gish] also made; only moderate congruence between the two was observed." Jim Bleikamp: Okay, I want a brief response from Frank and then I'm going to go to some calls here. We're getting off here into some pretty highly technical... Frank Zindler: Yeah, I hope all the people out in listening land have memorized that. But I want to ask Dr. Gish, how come not only are the hemoglobins of chimpanzees and humans identical, but we share even pseudogenes. These are genes that are there in our DNA makeup, but the genes are non-functional. They can't do anything. How is it that we got the same useless genes from the creator that the chimpanzee did? Duane Gish: What is a pseudogene Frank? Frank Zindler: A pseudogene is a stretch of DNA that codes for a protein, but it lacks one of the control regions, and therefore it can't be turned on to actually produce protein. Duane Gish: You're saying there's a section of gene that has no function? Frank Zindler: That's correct. Duane Gish: It's useless? Frank Zindler: That's right. It's identical... Duane Gish: And you say that these have been carried on in the chimpanzee and the human for millions of years. Frank Zindler: Yes... Duane Gish: That's nonsense! --- footnote by frank zindler: At first, I thought Gish was trying to trap me into making some slight error in my definition of 'pseudogene,' so that he could make himself look like a superior authority in molecular genetics as well as in Genesis genetics. It is clear from what follows, however, that Gish is actually completely ignorant on the subject. In actual fact, pseudogenes are very useful to scientists in reconstructing evolutionary histories (phylogenies) of plants and animals. Since the pseudogenes no longer code for a protein or enzyme product which might determine the survival of its owner, pseudogenes have broken free from the constraints of natural selection and are free to mutate completely at random over the course of time. Analysis of the different changes that have accumulated in the pseudogenes of humans, apes, and other primates make it possible to reconstruct the pathways by which those species have separated from each other in the course of evolution. A good example of a pseudogene that is shared by humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans is the wn-globin gene. Spiritual Guide To Gracious Living, according to the Holy Bible. "...the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction; and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods (piles) in their secret parts." --1 Samuel 5:9. The lord was appeased, however, after the men had made golden images of their emerods (piles). --1 Samuel 6:4. "...(become) eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." --Matthew 19:12. (Origen, Paul and other early Christians faithfully carried out this divine injunction.) "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee: cut them off, and cast them from thee." --Matthew 18:8. "...so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and that they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning..." (She died) --Judges 19:25. King Saul asked 100 foreskins in return for his daughter in marriage. David zealously pared off 200 Philistine prepuces to win his bride. --I Samuel 19:25-27. Moses told his soldiers: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." --Numbers 31:17-18. Christ demanded: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." --Luke 19:27. Christ announced: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." --Matthew 10:34. [for once, i agree with him.] "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." --Exodus 22:18. Thanks to the vigilance of good Christians, "witches" were killed in great numbers before the year 1712. ...In this "sacred" book of family scandals we find filth, sex orgies, cannibalism, atrocities, sex perversions, incest, bloody violence unparalleled in any other chronicle in all the literature of the world. Fortunately, not one-third of the human family has ever heard of the Christian Bible; not one-tenth of the Christians have ever read it, and no two who have read it agree as to its meaning. Won't you help get this book out of the hands of our children, out of decent homes, and out of hotel and motel rooms? "The conference was in Seven Hills, Ohio, a Cleveland suburb. Marshall and Sandra got up together to give one talk. But as the discourse bounced back and forth between husband and wife every minute or so, things began to unravel. Clearly enough, they explained that the heliocentric theory was a "Satanic counterfeit," and they told of vacationing on the plain of Gibeon -- where Joshua had commanded the Sun and the Moon to stand still -- and receiving a revelation from god that the Moon is the clue to it all. Without telling how long they played twenty questions with god after receiving this clue, the Halls proceeded to prove that the Sun goes around the Earth. Marshall had hardly launched into his "proof" before his train of thought became derailed. He groped for words and stalled. He couldn't find a way to pass the ball to Sandra. Soon he was weeping openly, announcing that god "any minute now" was going to give him the right words. But god didn't get involved quickly enough, and so Sandra got back into the show. She told once how they had watched an eclipse of the Sun in which the Moon's "shadow" had moved the wrong way! (She never made it clear when she was talking about the Moon's blackened image viewed against the Sun, and when she was talking of the eclipse shadow moving across the Earth's surface). Hope springing up eternal, she took two Styrofoam cups and tried to model the motions of the Sun and Moon during the eclipse. Marshall stopped crying and gave encouragement. But alas! Within another minute, both of them were hopelessly befuddled by the Satanic counterfeit. Not only could they not realize than when facing the Sun their left hands had faced east, but that when turning their backs to the Sun (and to the audience) their left hands were pointing west, they also seemed to be unaware that the pinhole cameras commonly used to view the eclipses also reverse left and right. When the time for the Halls' performance ran out, they could only announce that they had given everybody the key with which to unlock the treasure chest of astronomical knowledge, and they implored those with experience in the subject to go for it. As far as I know, a number of creationists today are doing just that." In 1988, the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists published a volume of articles entitled Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems. Among the articles in that book is one written by one Rabbi Simon Schwab. Its title is "How Old Is the Universe?" The rabbi writes: Our question is: How old is the Universe? Answer: the Universe is 5735 years old, plus six Creation Days.(6) [The article was originally published in 1962, so we can add thirty more years to the age of the universe.] Rabbi Schwab, like Henry Morris, is concerned with light. Unlike Morris however, he focuses on the problem posed by light being created on the first day of creation, even though the sun and stars were not zapped into existence until the fourth day. He also is concerned to explain the peculiar fact that Elohim is said to have divided the light from darkness -- a process Mark Twain likened to picking black-eyed peas out of tapioca, ridiculing the authors of Genesis for not knowing that darkness is merely the absence of light. While the rabbi seems to have come up with an unfalsifiable method for reconciling the great age of the Universe required by astronomy with the absurdly young age required by Genesis there remains a problem. Apart from the fact that unfalsifiable statements -- statements for which you can't even imagine a way to devise a test -- are scientifically meaningless there is the awkward difficulty involving the sequences of events recorded by Genesis on the one hand, and geology on the other. Thus, we have Genesis chapter one telling us that green plants are older than the sun, whereas the record in the rocks gives us something more than a sneaking suspicion that the sun is older than green plants! It quite boggles the mind to contemplate green plants waiting millions of years for the sun to begin to shine. Genesis tells us that birds are older than reptiles, whereas the paleontological evidence is crystal clear: birds are descended from reptiles, and did so many, many millions of years after the first reptiles appeared. In addition to the problems with the sequence of creation given in Genesis chapter one, there is the stupendous problem of Genesis chapter two. In that chapter we learn that Adam -- the first male of the human species -- was created before all other kinds of living things, even before plants -- and Eve was created as an afterthought when Adam couldn't quite get into bestiality. Perhaps the timewarp proposed by the good rabbi also worked as a sequencewarp. Quoted. Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles: * A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. * Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions. * A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general. * A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it. * A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us. * A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility. * A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. Secular humanism as an organized philosophical system is relatively new, but its foundations can be found in the ideas of classical Greek philosophers such as the Stoics and Epicureans as well as in Chinese Confucianism. These philosophical views looked to human beings rather than gods to solve human problems. During the Dark Ages of Western Europe, humanist philosophies were suppressed by the political power of the church. Those who dared to express views in opposition to the prevailing religious dogmas were banished, tortured or executed. Not until the Renaissance of the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries, with the flourishing of art, music, literature, philosophy and exploration, would consideration of the humanist alternative to a god-centered existence be permitted. During the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, with the development of science, philosophers finally began to openly criticize the authority of the church and engage in what became known as "free thought." The nineteenth century Freethought movement of America and Western Europe finally made it possible for the common citizen to reject blind faith and superstition without the risk of persecution. The influence of science and technology, together with the challenges to religious orthodoxy by such celebrity freethinkers as Mark Twain and Robert G. Ingersoll brought elements of humanist philosophy even to mainline Christian churches, which became more concerned with this world, less with the next. In the twentieth century scientists, philosophers, and progressive theologians began to organize in an effort to promote the humanist alternative to traditional faith-based world views. These early organizers classified humanism as a non-theistic religion which would fulfill the human need for an ordered ethical/philosophical system to guide one's life, a "spirituality" without the supernatural. In the last thirty years, those who reject supernaturalism as a viable philosophical outlook have adopted the term "secular humanism" to describe their non-religious life stance. Critics often try to classify secular humanism as a religion. Yet secular humanism lacks essential characteristics of a religion, including belief in a deity and an accompanying transcendent order. Secular humanists contend that issues concerning ethics, appropriate social and legal conduct, and the methodologies of science are philosophical and are not part of the domain of religion, which deals with the supernatural, mystical and transcendent. According to a rather well-known 1600-year-old book... Genesis 30:37-41, to be particular. An offspring's genetics can be changed simply by placing spotted sticks in front of the mother. my, the wisdom of Religion. nearly two millenia past, and people still haven't learned. And as for the rest of you, please, do not try this at home. Quoted. "Humanists are often asked, "If you don't believe in a higher authority, how do you know what is right or wrong?". We start finding the answer by observing that man's responsibilities and attitudes toward their fellow man have evolved. Slavery and barbaric treatment of women were once accepted behavior in the bible and society. Morals and ethics are normative standards we discover together over time. They are tested by their consequences and are amenable to rational guidance. We believe in the moral decencies of honesty and integrity, fairness and justice, tolerance and compassion. We abhor discrimination and subjugation."
Monday, April 11, 2005
okay, so it seems some people have run into a couple of rough spots recently. as for me, i've had a better than average day today i think, having finished up my two month-long overdue ying yong wens in under 2 hours-- and juust in time for training. coupled to the fact that i survived training today, yeah today was pretty okay. but not so, it seems, for several others who have been, ah, bitching quite a bit lately about how their life sucks and so on... and most of them are like, the usual freethinkers or so-so christians (staunchies who complain about how life isn't turning out as it should cos' God doesn't seem to be there etc etc. DO NOT COUNT)... and then along comes a supposedly devout christian who goes on to excitedly recount the wonderful healing experience she just had with a spiritual healer. misleading, isn't it? so i shall now make use of whatever influence i wield to try and shift this unhealthy balance of power. first off, i'd like to state that no, i'm not saying that your experience ain't credible in any way... and yes, i believe the healing part of your story. i think you do owe alot of thanks though to the nice old lady who certainly is very talented in the spiritual sense. for it is rather true that you do not have any evidence whatsoever that it was really a higher being doing the curing for you and not the spiritual healer herself =D) what makes it kinda sad is that ther old lady is so ignorantly unaware of her own innate talents, attributing them instead to a gift from a higher being. to the others, i have only one thing to add: only WE are in control of our own lives, and it is not surprising at all that if you keep on ranting about how your life sucks and blah your life will just keep on going downhill. see, it really IS important to have a positive outlook on life. after all, life's the only thing that keeps us going, ain't it? so treasure it while you may! cheers, agentquantum (i SO sound like cherie.)
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
i am bored. i can't get the gawdaamned music to load on my blog. i shall do this very bimbo survey from mitchell's newly resurrected bloggiepooz. 1. Name = Alwyn 2. Piercing = none 3. Tattoos = none 4. Height = start of year, 175... 5. Shoe size = 11 i think 6. Hair color = black - LAST - 7.thing u did? = huhh??? 8. song u listened to = Dang Ni Gu Dan Ni Hui Xiang Qi Shui by Zhang Dong Liang 9. cd u bought = collin raye. heheheh. 10. person u called = my mom. - DO - 11. u have a crush on someone = highly unlikely, however i can't say no due to the very uncertain nature of quantum indeterminacy... 12. u wish u could live somewhere else = most definitely, anywhere habitable but on earth. 13. u think abt suicide = think, but never seriously contemplate. unless it can really help me escape from the matrix *snigger* 14. u believe in online dating= you decadent infidel! 15. others find u attractive = i dunno 16.u want more piercings = no 17.u like cleaning = baths are cool, yes, but what's the point of this question? i hate washing, if that's what you mean. 18. u write in cursive or print= how 'bout... flamboyant scrawl? HAVEYOU - 19. ever cried over a girl = ...nah 20. ever cried over a guy = nah 21. ever lied to someone = yah. it's not nice to lie though. necessary evil. 22. ever been in a fist fight = yah - WHAT - 23. shampoo do u use = ginvera green tea 24. are u scared of = whatever. 25. number of times i have been in love = nil 26. number of times i have had my heart broken = nil. so boliao can. 27.number of times my name appear in the newspaper = couple of times... but only once in the chinese news and that was for psle. 28. number of scars i have on my body = stupid question. 29. number of things in my past that i regretted = and you care why? FAVOURITE - 29.word(s) = uhh... (no seriosly i have no idea) 30. cereal = honey stars 31. chewing gum = don't like. 32.color(s) = green 33. day(s) of week = Friday 34. least fave day = monday 35. flower(s) = dunno. honestly. 36. special skills = now let's see, besides the fact that i am bloody brilliant, i can usually tell what people are going to say before they actually finish it. people are so predictable nowadays. oh, and i have this mysterious affinity with traffic lights. always can tell when they're turning from green to red even though i don't actually see them turn from red to green. and it also seems i can generate static on my fingers. oh i don't know. 37.summer/winter = winter - HAVE YOU EVER - 38. gone out in public in ur pyjamas = no 39 cried during a movie = as in boohoohoo? no. get choked up, yes. 40. been to new york= no 41. china = yes 42. california = no 43. germany = no 44. hong kong = no 45. australia = no -RANDOM- 46. wad time is it now = please don't ask. 47. apples or bananas = bananas 48. Blue or Red = both 49.wad are u gonna do after this = sleep and hope to dream forever 50. wad was e last thing u ate = rotiboy bun 51. wat do u do when u're bored = music, books, thinking... or sleeping 52. last noise u heard = what the heck? the keyboard? 53. last time u went out of state/province = last year end FRIENDSHIP & LOVE - 54. do u want kids one day and if so,how many = c'mon man... i've got better things to occupy my mind with than these... 55. most important thing to u in a frenship = trust, honesty, understanding - OTHER INFO - 56. thing u dislike abt urself the most = apparent lack of discipline 57. worst feeling in the world = unaccomplished. oh man... 58. who u love = i just realised that it's fucking late and i should sleep. but myself. 59. u miss = not much point in missing people. 60. who u like = lots of people actually.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Taken off Hypography again: By tarak- The concept of God is an extension of human ego.Human ego is finite and has to be bundled in between boundaries.God reminds the frailty of humanness and makes one understand the relvance of his/her position towards a reference point in a very elemental way.For people who want to break the barrier through reason and logic,their own theorizations supported by scientific facts satisfy the finiteness of the ego. Our world is the extension of our own mind.Our boundaries are very specific,personal and relative.So even our God too is relative.Human, being a social animal, his entire anxiety of his existence has been chanelized and structured as religion and the traditional God. By C1ay- I must say that in a way I agree with you there. For me, God is an invention of man from ancient times. God is man's effort to explain all of the things he could not understand. God was invented in man's image instead of the reverse. For men, God has been everything man has wanted him to be. Man has endowed his creation with all of the qualities he felt God should have and then turned to worship him. Yes, I would say an extension of the human ego is quite the description. just for fun. i know most people must've already heard this lots of times. anyway, my "quintessential argument" against intelligent design is up! just click on "multiverse in 6 dimensions", scroll all the way down and read!
Saturday, April 02, 2005
2. What is your favorite ice cream flavor? erm...durian. but i like nydc's run and raisin thingy. 3. What movie/s are you waiting for? star wars 3 lor. and matthew reilly's new movie contest! 4. If you wanted to be in a band, what genre of music would your band play? maybe rock or pop, and definitely not metal or jazz. 5. what is the weirdest thing you've ever eaten? i don't know... but i think eating fish eyeballs are freaky. 6. do you want to live with your parents forever or move out? move out man! can't stand this place as it is already. 7. Where is the place you want to be right now? anywhere habitable other than earth. 8. What songs do you listen to feel happy? john lennon. his 'imagine' is the ultimate. but i got lots of other songs too 9. In The Lord of the Rings , who are your favorite characters? legolas because he is the only one who uses projectiles for weapons and so is the smartest. 10. In Star wars, who is your favorite character? Han Solo. hehehh. and Master Yoda! 11.What movie/s made you cry? movies no, books yes. 12.Name famous people that you have a crush on: mandy moore? 13.What is your favorite drink? vanilla coke. 14. Which cartoon character is your favorite? errrrr......err......the mask! 15.Paper or Plastic? anything. 16.If you could freely kill just one celebrity, who would it be? just one?!?! tough decision to make, but... 50 cent lah! shot 9 times alrd he can't always be that lucky. 17. coke or pepsi? coke. 18.In a week, how many times do you go online? everyday 19.If you could be someone else for a whole day, who would it be? dead: einstein or feynman. alive: brian greene or ed witten! 20. Single or married? single lah. im still a minor 21. Describe yourself in one word? oooh. passionate? 22. . What's the first thing you do when you wake up? think about the dream i had. then attempt to go back to sleep. 23. What's the last thing you do before you go to bed? put phone on charger. 24. Something about you that you're proud of: i am bloody brilliant. 25. Are u in love? nopes. 26. What's your mobile number? you'd seriously think i'd publish on it on the net issit 27. Are you happy? rather. but things could be better. teh world is screwed up. 28. why? you know, the usual- wars, religion, and whatever obstacles to the scientific pursuit of truth that might crop up. i actually think religious strife is a good idea btw. cleans up the gene pool. 29. What is the most important material object you possess? my books...phone...money. 30. WHAT ARE YOU LISTENING RIGHT NOW? now ah. jian dan ai by jay. 31. COMPLETE THIS SENTENCE: THE WORLD NEEDS truth, goodness and beauty. yeah man. 32. WHAT WAS THE LAST THING YOU ATE? hokkien mee and justea 33.IF YOU WERE A CRAYON, WHT COLOR WOULD YOU BE? i do not wish to be a crayon! but if its for my favourite colour, green cos its supposed to signify intelligence. ^^ 34.WHAT DO YOU DO DURING YOUR BREAKFAST TIME? eat. and think. 35.LAST PERSON YOU TALKED TO ON THE PHONE? i dreamt that i was talking to some ppl on the phone last night but that doesnt count. er my mom. 36.LAST PERSON WHO SENT YOU AN SMS? i dunno 37.LAST PERSON YOU SENT AN SMS? stil dunno... 38.THE FIRST THING YOU THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU SEE THE OPPOSITE SEX? ta de jie mao! no lah. i go 'look ! a girl!' 39.AUTO OR MANUAL CAR? auto lor. 40.FAVORITE DAY OF THE WEEK friday 41.FAVORITE PLACE? hullet memorial library is where i do my reading, thinking and month-old homework. 42.FAVORITE SPORT? judo is about all i play. unless you count pool a sport which i think is bloody fun but not tiring at all 43.SIBLINGS? 3, of which 2 i feel are redundant. KILL! 44.THE BEST WAY I HAVE DONE TO RELEASE ANGER? relax...no need for caps. but seriously. relax. 45.PEOPLE I HATE MOST? i try not to hate people. but PRISCILLA LIM really ain't human!! 47.THE LAST THING U BOUGHT? lunch yesterday. 48.SCARY MOVIES OR HAPPY happy! 49.MY BEST FRIEND/s IS/ARE yaksy! NO WAIT i mean yaxy2k! heheheh. 50.WHEN IM STUCK IN A JAM? i wonder is bus no. 13 really is supposed to be that unlucky. 51.SMS OR CALL? sms. call so mahfan for both parties. 52.iF YOU COULD TURN BACK TIME,YOU WOULD... kill jesus. 53.IN YOUR WALLET, YOU HAVE? money. ezlink. phonecards. calendar. cd-rama card. photocopy card. library card. moor house card. and housekeys.
Friday, April 01, 2005
back to the argument over how the existence of a creator must have preceded the creation of such an elegant and beautiful universe, here's more from the One who hopes that people will just grow up. YOU lot think that just because the universe appears so systematic and orderly and elegant to YOU, it is impossible that a chance event such as the big bang could have created it?? do you have ANY idea about how the big bang theory explains concepts such as galaxy, planetary and stellar formation and that the very reason they appear elegant is because they actually MAKE SENSE? how about the timeframe, then? do you people have any idea how long it took for our universe to develop into this extremely organised state as of today, that it was NOT ALWAYS SO in the past?? that for millenia after the first event, whatever that may be, the universe was basically ONE BIG MESS OF PARTICLES and that there was absolutely NO WAY to tell in which developmental path it would take next, what would happen due to the great uncertainties involved? that it was simply a matter of chance that our universe came to be so systematic and orderly today, and that had the strong nuclear force grown a little stronger in the formative period of the universe, molecules would not have been able to form? would any of you dare to say that a creator exists in that case then? our universe came to be this way because it just so happened to be the universe that grew up properly despite its rough childhood-- who knows how many other universes out there have started, screwed up and failed! just because our universe developed into such an elegant form despite the incredible odds stacked against it doesn't mean that there is a foregin process involved! despite the extremely low probability that a universe like ours could happen, the fact remains that it can still happen and therefore given a sufficiently long timeframe MUST INDEED HAPPEN! and that's precisely how we came about, too! | |||||
