identity
thoughts
history
chatbox
readers
members
wishes
exits
kudos
The impression forces itself upon one that men measure by false standards,
that everyone seeks power, success, riches for himself, and admires others
who attain them, while undervaluing the truly precious thing in life.
~ Sigmund Freud
:: Best viewed with Internet Explorer 6.0 or 7.0 ::
Initial: Frederick
Profession: Psychology Undergraduate
Birthday: days left
Height: 1.76m
Weight: 63kg
Blood Type: A+
Waist size: 29-30 inches
Hobbies: Blogging; Reading; Songs & Movies; Chill out
Most Disliked Food: Anything crustacean - due to allergy
Favourite Songs to Sing to: For You (self-composed) & The Promise
Favourite Body Parts: Nose; Jaws
Schools: Pei Chun Public School (1989 - 1995); Chong Boon Secondary School (1996 - 1999); Nanyang Polytechnic (2000 - 2003); Monash University (2006 - )
HAHAHA.. something to keep you guyz entertained while I am away for these few days. I'll be taking a short break for my exams that is about to come in 4 days' time.
Anyway, here's my hero, Bill Maher discussing about the Vatican's approved image of the late Pope John Paul II.
Have a good laugh and a great weekend!
*editted* ...while enjoying your weekend when I am away preparing for my exams, here's the link to the news article for the above video just in case anyone misunderstood my intention.
When I return, I shall post more of my thoughts about religion on the whole...
*back to study mode*
October 22, 2007
This could be one of the lesser bit of entries which I write about love. I've been reading up on a number of blogs with topics on love and basically every one of them says about the same thing. Well, I hope I could be more unique tonight. The fact that I wrote little about love is perhaps due to its wide implications and meanings that could be subjected to the perception of different individuals. Once again, there is no absolute truth about love. It is how one sees it. Because there is no measurement for love, therefore, there is no fixed truth about it. As I have mentioned before, anything that cannot be measured or is personal, is not an absolute entity. But on second thought, it can be absolute when it in fact, does exist in its purest form.
Today, I received a very touching message from my girl. She told me that 'love is not about religion; it is not about scientific theory; but it is about the both of us.' It is something which I've always wanted to write in this entry, and I've waited for this day to come. As every readers of mine has already come to realise that I'm pretty much against religion, and the way it is being exploited or manipulated to suit an individual's ideals. However, the notion that love, which is preached within the religion itself, is something I admire, especially the Christian's messiah, Jesus.
I do not hate Christianity in it's altruistic form. Rather, I despise Christianity when it is being commercialised, exploited, and manipulated by swaggering authority of the church. In its most altruistic form, Christianity, a dogma some Christian individuals adopt, is a way for them to extend their love and care for others, in turn, making a difference in the lives of other people. However, it is the evangelical motives behind such act (if ever there is), is something which I do not respect. In fact, I would say that the way to make a difference in other people's life is in doing so not for the sake of God; not for the sake of others; neither is it for himself or his glory. An act of love or kindness should be voluntary, not because of any other ulterior motives or any hope for eternal or heavenly rewards.
Jesus is a very caring person, who is a respected historical figure that clearly made a difference in the lives of others. In my opinion, he is someone whom I admire for his deeds and his altruism. The way he was is the reason why some Christians are motivated or inspired to be more and more like him. This is something which I have nothing against. His love was known, to many Christians, as unconditional and eternal. It is something which many are inspired to develop. And that includes me. I love my girlfriend a lot. And knowing that I have difficulties believing in God, I strive to be a more loving and caring person, using Jesus as someone whom I can model after. My motivation and inspiration is not to bring people into believing in God, but rather, I am inspired to make a difference in other people's lives. This does not make me a Christian (cos I do not want to be classified but to be a unique individual in fact), but it will make me a better person as I grow to be one.
It doesn't take religion or any other faiths in order for one to love others. Because love is voluntary. One does not need to love others because God or Jesus, or even the bible tells you so. One does not need to love others just because one is told to love or how to love. It is in-built in us, the altruistic gene that is inside each and everyone of us, which motivates that spirit of loving and being kind to others. It is this altruistic gene in us (despite some selfish genes) that helps us discern the rights from wrongs. They are all in-born desires from the day of our birth, that helps us in our moral decisions, loving kindness, thoughtfulness, and helpfulness. Our desire to love, to care, to share, and to have sexual intimacies are within us from the very beginning. We do not need religion to tell us how to love others, especially teaching us to love for the sake of God. The verses: "When you do unto others, you are doing unto me" says Jesus. And "When you are serving others, you are serving me". says Jesus. These verses are comforting in the way they sound, which motivates believers to do as they are told because if they do not do so, they do not actually serve Jesus or being kind to Jesus, the person they worship. I don't think this is the right way to love others.
Love cannot be forced. Love cannot be told what to do. It must come naturally, and it must exist when there is initiation. Love must not desire fame, glory, or carry ulterior motives. It must be responsible, voluntary, independent, and straight to the point.
Finally, love includes commitment. In every aspect, commitment is a driving force towards the success of any dreams and ambitions. It is commitment that brings success to every aspect of life, much less in relationships. It doesn't take much strength to commit. All it takes, is one's decision to do so. It doesn't take one's life away in order to commit within a relationship. All it takes, is one's decision to love that person no matter what. Many intellectuals whom I used to know are afraid of commitment, especially within relationships. It doesn't take so much strength to decide whether one desires to spend the rest of his or her life with another party. It just takes an action and firm decision to make the relationship work. That is all there is to it. The rest of the relationship depends on how one chooses to maintain.
My ex-girlfriend left me out of a sudden, not because of an involvement of a third party, but rather, she felt she couldn't commit. Although I couldn't believe that this is an answer to the real reason behind her decision, but I feel sorry for her. She need not come back to tell me how sorry she was, because I've forgiven her. She need not avoid me either just because she has no face to face me after all the hurt she inflicted upon me back then. Because now I realise that unless she gets to truly understand the meaning of love and commitment, she would never enjoy the bliss of having a significant other. Even if she chooses to be single all her life, that would never solve her problem of being afraid to commit. I find her rather childish and immature, also rather shameful. This is because it is a great pity that she does not understand what it takes to be a decisive person in the area of loving somebody, except herself. This is rather selfish as well. Love is not selfish. It is a decision, and it takes two person for it to show. What life's difference would it make if one only love him or herself? It doesn't make a stark different at all. It is plain selfish.
To love is to risk not being loved. To commit is to risk not achieving success. But it is still better than not putting in any effort through one's decisiveness. I rather open myself to loving and committing to the areas of my own life, such as my family, relationships, friends, and studies, than to sacrifice one of them which is rather unfair. If I knew at first that I would have no time for a certain commitment, I would have rejected it anyway, why wait till the very last minute?
No relationships can be formed without any amount of commitment. A relationship without commitment is a relationship within oneself. The loner. The most selfish, stingy, and self-centered bastard ever lived on earth... or is it Mars or Saturn?
In sum, I do not think religion, tradition, or education is the answer to loving others or being committed to a significant other. It takes a willing heart and a firm desire to be committed in a loving relationship, or friendship with others. All these boils down to one's upbringing and parental attachment, which I don't think my ex-girlfriend has. That's why i feel sorry for her.
The Petition for Penal Code 377A in the latest news of Singapore have stirred a nation-wide debate upon the support for as well as the discriminating sentiments against gays in Singapore.
Adopted from Mr.Brown's blog, this is the definition for that particular law: 377A : Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.
This archaic law was left behind by the British who abolished it years ago. Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and even China have also passed laws decriminalising such acts.
Personally, I am not a gay and certainly will never be one. This is not because I am homophobic, but rather, I know myself that I am straight, I do not fancy guys or have any affectionate feeling for guys, and am definitely NOT attracted to men. I love women so much you see... However, I do not approve the fact that gays should be discriminated by the law, much less the people, whom I consider them to be rather ignorant.
Though I'm not gay, I do have friends or acquaintances who are gays. And I heard so much from them - the things they share to me, especially their struggles in relationships (with guys of course). I don't see them as criminals. I don't see what they are doing is wrong because I believe that inasmuch as the tendency for humans to be nurtured environmentally or some who are brought up in a way that led them into this state, there are also biological causes such as birth defects or differences in the levels of testosterones when these group of nice people are born.
Well, Mr.Brown has linked me up to Mr. Wang who is more eloquent in his debate on this issue.
Anyway, I do not see the point for Singapore to add on to so many people's misery by enforcing an additional law this time. This adds more pressure to everyone. It stirs up fundamentalists like many Christians who thought that gays should be condemned because of their sexual origins or preferences. Yes, I've read the bible and indeed, the bible says that homosexuality is sin. But what if a person just happens to prefer something that is different from others? Do we stone them to death? Do we condemn them by setting them on fire and burn them at stake for being rebellious against god? NO! Certainly not! There are more humane procedures such as liberating them to do what they are able to discern themselves.
The law is there to guide the people, not to control the people.
One can do anything according to what he or she discerns is right in their own beliefs. Everyone is entitled to do as they pleases as long as there are no potential harm inflicted on the psychological or physical aspects of any individuals. That should be the way to go. Let's not be biased against others who are different from us. If the gays should be discriminated, just because they are the minorities, then should Eurasians be segregated in our nation as well? HUH??? Anyone? Reply me please.. Should Eurasians be segregated because they are different from us and they are the minority of the four distinct races?
Singapore is a nation who pledges itself to have equality and justice. What justice will it make if gays are discriminated because of their minority and differences but not Eurasians, or Lesbians.. or donkeys? By the way, Eurasians ARE being prejudiced as being called "ANG MOS" for that matter. Also, Lesbians ARE being prejudiced as being nicknamed "BUTCHES", or "TOMBOYS" as well. What about donkeys? They are asses. Plain asses who think that condemning homosexuality with their tiresome whines just because it goes against their closed-minded faith. Thank goodness they are the minority in my context. What equality will it be if there is none in the first place, since Social Darwinism is the philosophy of our young meritocratic society? YES, survival of the fit indeed. Equality? More like a Christian's fantasy of a new born society.
Anyway, I've signed the petition for the repeal... hopefully it's not too late. Even if it is so, the site is still up and alive. So I'd just post my thoughts up there for the nation to see.
I understand that Singapore is a conservative nation with a small view of so many issues yet to be discussed and brought up. It is time for it to stop being a dormant ignorant dog and start being a faithful one to itself. Let's be more open-minded, but of course, not being too open-minded until our brains fall out. But nonetheless, if everyone is more accepting in terms of being rational and use their brains to think, rather than to stick to traditions, customs, religions, and other non-thinking dogmatic beliefs, the world would be free and liberated from the tyranny of such tragic ignorance.
October 21, 2007
The Naked Truth
And if you are a Christian who is not very open to facts or any scientific evidence, please, do not view this. It will stumble you and your faith. So the best way to do this, is to keep thy religion to thyself and stay "HOLY". Thank you.
More posts coming up.
October 16, 2007
Finally, after a long consideration... I decided to have a new look. Don't ask me why, I really have no idea.. but it seemed my fringe was giving me a hell of a trouble. Thus, it's time to get a new look!
This was before the haircut this morning:
And this, is MY NEW LOOK:
YUP! Now I can finally concentrate better in my preparation for my upcoming exams.
Signing off...
October 15, 2007
The G.O.D. Experiments: How Science Is Discovering God In Everything, Including Us
Evolutionary Psychology: A Beginner's Guide
The Open Society and Its Enemies (Vol.1): The Spell of Plato
The Open Society and Its Enemies (Vol.2): Hegel and Marx
Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design
Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
Evolutionary Explanations of Human Behaviour
After some shopping around last week, I now have a few books on my wishlist.
They are all listed above...
So I guess that's all for now. I will be posting some more of my thoughts soon.
October 13, 2007
Firstly, two cases and all thanks to atheistmedia for posting this. It seems that one of City Harvest's favourite foreign evangelical speaker Richard Roberts is now facing some problem with the lawsuits against his university. The Oral Roberts University was sued for some scandals or controversies that were going on within the organisation itself. Check out this video and have a look at what the news is reporting:
Here is the lawsuit against Oral Roberts University. If this is a false news, a sensationalised tabloid, or a blackmail, I don't see the purpose for such news to be broadcasting such disgraceful discovery. If the media is THAT bias, then I don't see its purpose for being accessible to the public since all the public wants is the truth. And now, ORU is under attack and GOD help them manz...
If those Evangelicals did what God wanted them to do, or if this is the God they actually worship, I'm not impressed. Okay, I'm not impressed by such limit a God can do. God is omnipotent. God is all powerful, all knowing, and all wise... but if this is what evangelicals show through their testimony to the public, then I'm not impressed. It is not me that's limiting God, it is they themselves who are undoing God in a disgusting way.
Here's another case which I'd like to share here in a very brief statement: -
EUROPEAN UNION SAYS NO TO CREATIONISM
YES!!! And it's true. If not, I won't even bother posting this up! Here are what the European Union thinks about the interference of the religious Creationist belief in modern Science.
1. The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.
2. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.
3. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.
4. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.
5. Creationists question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.
6. We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.
7. There is a real risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.
8. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.
9. The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a not insignificant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.
10. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.
11. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.
12. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.
13. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.
14. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of the sciences in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.
15. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.
16. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.
17. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.
18. Investigation of the creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late.
19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities:
to defend and promote scientific knowledge;
strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;
to make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;
to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;
to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.
20. The Assembly welcomes the fact that 27 Academies of Science of Council of Europe member states signed, in June 2006, a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.
For the sake of credibility, here's the link as a reference to my entry.
So, if Christianity is a controversy to the sane world, how could you not agree more? Since Science and its evolutionary thoughts and explanations actually over-rules Creationism (which is turning uncertain facts into ultimate truths), why do much of the world's population still choose to remain brainwashed by Creationists' lies?
Evolution is lacking evidence? Well, if you can't find the fossils of a Triceratop or a Sabertooth Tiger, then the fact of evolution theory is in danger of collapse.
But if you can't find the fossils of unicorn, it doesn't mean that evolution is flawed, but rather, unicorns are make-beliefs. Whether they exist or not exist, their existence still remain untested and unknown. Whereas for dinosaurs and other common ancesters of our current species, the reason why such hypotheses are supported because of evidence - TONS and TONS of evidence.
I won't be surprised if fossils that belong to make-belief animals or beings cannot be found, that is because they have never existed.
Unlike religion or Creationism for that matter, Science is a humble discipline that doesn't pretend to know everything about the world, neither does it go all out declaring to the world that what it believes is true, even though that specific hypothesis may be supported in the long run. We do not say that an unknown phenomena is non-existent just because it cannot be tested and proven. Yet, we certainly do not assumed that just because it cannot be proven, hence, it shall be true.
It takes an individual the courage to wake up in the universe full of possibility and learn to appreciate the variety and beauty of life. I am not ashame to have come to realise that we, as lifeforms on earth, are mere chemical reactions, because I do not try to deny this harsh reality of who we are and what we are made up of. To deny such reality by creating another god for oneself is a delusion. Religion is a social institution, formed by the fundamentals of social agreements and beliefs. Science is a universal discipline, formed by factual evidence and theories through ages of discoveries, testings, researches, and philosophies (constant thinking).
But if one thinks that religion such as Islam or Christianity has just taken over the world, this is a rather wrong assumption. It's time for us all to realise that we are living in a society that does not set some people on fire just because they don't agree with us. This is because we are living in the age of reason. As such, the society has become secular. Secularism in society is the key to embrace the beauty of Science and knowledge. Knowledge is not just power, it is ability.
If Jesus hates secularism, as what Pastor Kong preached some time ago, then I wonder if what he truly meant, was that Jesus was actually a sinless man living in a society where women were discriminated at, where heretics were stoned, where rapists were forced to marry their victims, and where wars were fought in the name of God.
"In the name of God" is the purpose of all such faith like Christianity. People do not have a mind to think for themselves because everything is done for God's sake. The reason is either because God tells them so, or because it's God's decision or will. It limits lateral thinking and would definitely, I hypothesize, affect the scores for IQ tests in the long run.
It is therefore essential for every individual to think rationally for themselves, to decide they own fate, and to exercise critical thinking. Because these could be very useful in problem solving and being stable mentally and emotionally, with the help of moral philosophies. I'm certain that Aristotle would agree that every single person has the responsibility to make decisions for himself. And Bentham, on the other hand would also agree that in the process of making a decision, the decision has to be for the greater good for the greater number (Utilitarianism). If philosophies are bad just because they consist many different sides of perceptions by various philosophers, then it would not be impressive enough as, in this case, humans are already perceived to be a slave to set of religious laws, and not natural laws.
I don't know what the future may hold if people are going to think like that, and continue to go on thinking like that.
Whatever the case may be, the truth shall yet to set us free.
October 05, 2007
This day marks another happier day in my life. This is the day I turn 24, and the day I get to celebrate my birthday with my sweetheart.
However, we did not celebrate alone. There were many others who actually made this day a meaningful one for me as well. To those who were there at PS Swensen's restaurant, I am very touched and grateful for you guyz who took the time to wish me a happy birthday, not just with words but with your presence too. Thank you all so so so much! You've all made my day.
Of course, who could ever forget not to snap some photos..? I did, we all did!
The atmosphere of that restaurant sucks if not for our group's lively and amiable presence. Not forgetting the lousy service at PS Swensen's. A waiter could not even take a complete order correctly and properly! Almost three quarter of the orders he took from us (a group of 8 individuals) were wrong! And for goodness sake, it wasn't as if the place was noisy or our orders were confusing. If a waiter can't hear properly, he can jolly well go dig his ears. But if a waiter can't take an order from a small group of 8 hungry souls, then he deserves to be fired. It wasn't the first time he took our orders wrongly. The next round of orders he took from us were also fucked up. One must really wonder who the hell is the manager who hires such incompetent employee.
And speaking of a lousy service, I can't even share my birthday cake with my friends in the restaurant. In another words, we were told we could blow the candles, cut the damn cake, but could not eat in the premises. This is one hell of a fucked up system that makes me look like an idiot on that spot! Somehow I just wish I could burn that restaurant down and steal all their money. They don't need those money for bringing screwed up services with their fucked up system. This combo-cup of ice-cream was unnecessary, but still, it's a courtesy from our dear Albert, who was so nice to me by ordering this in replacement of the birthday cake. We then made the arrangement to have the real birthday cake consumed at Starbucks instead. Then again, Swensen's sucks because it is such a right-winged asshole.
And the way my steak was done, PATHETIC! The potion of the dish looked as if ants could finish them all up in ten minutes...
If this is what Swensen's could offer, I'm NOT impressed! Sorry.. but Sakae Sushi can do better than this. I'd not eat at Swensen's again.
Anyway, I hate to complain like this but nothing has got me so frustrated to this point that I began to blog my dissatisfaction here. I really hope those waiters and waitresses could improve their order taking, and that the restaurants could be a little more "libertarian-like". I think customers should deserve the right to bring "foreign" cakes into Swensen's. I know they have a business to worry about, and hence, the "no-foreign-food" law inside the restaurant's premise, but hey... it's somebody's birthday! Okay, maybe these people don't give a shit and that is why I think corporations are fucked up. But then again, these assholes can strut their stuffs in the money-making industry, but would it make them lose a single testicle just by giving some customer's right to eat their birthday cake in peace for Holy Mary's sake (Even if the cake was "foreign")..?
Fortunately, my good mood has paid off. Despite the lousy service and screwed up system within the accursed restaurant, the birthday celebration was a success. I would like to thank Sean, Elaine, Albert, Yongfa, Waimun, and Steve for making yourselves present at my 24th birthday dinner. Finally, a special thanks to my darling, for making this year's birthday celebration a memorable one. I love you lots!
And I love you guyz too!
Ciao
October 02, 2007
While slaving for my psychology report, I suddenly thought of blogging. Out of no reason whatsoever, I also thought it's time to give tribute to a great comedian of our time - my dad's time rather. He's none other than George Carlin. Nope he's not dead yet, and I certainly hope he could live longer to crack more jokes on stage.
This is one controversial video that would get many Christians provoked to the very edge of their seats. But it is really very light-hearted... the way Carlin puts it across to the audience who were, apparently, having a good time. Meanwhile, I'm almost done reading Richard Dawkin's latest book "The God Delusion", and somehow or rather, I came across a quote by Carlin, found in this short film, written as the abstract of chapter 8 in "The God Delusion". Here it goes:
'Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man - living in the sky - who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time... But He loves you!'
- George Carlin
Well, in the name of God, one could do anything, and everything. In the name of dogmatic Marxism or doctrinaire, an insane and unscientific eugenics theory tinged with sub-Wagerian ravings, one could also do anything, and that includes evil. It is the spirit of belief that motivates men to rise up against one another, to the extent of mass killings or genocide. However, if one were to take an average human being who has no staunch belief in the supernatural, or in any dogmas whatsoever, it would be implausible for that individual to cause violence; to kill; to pillage; to destroy; to burn synagogues; or to persecute rival believers of another religion, all for the sake of an absence of belief. On the other hand, if one has a reason to do good, just for the sake of honouring or glorifying God, but not himself, what difference would it make by being a significantly pleasant person just because God says so, and not being significantly pleasant when God does not command that? NO DIFFERENCE! In fact, it is like stealing a sibling's toy when mama's not around or couldn't care less about the matter. But some Christians might disagree with me saying that all these are to be done unto others as though they are doing them unto the Lord, regardless whether God ask of it, it is their responsibility as Christians to be a good testimony to others, since God is living inside them.
It boils down to a simple conclusion altogether. Religion, in this situation, is something like a desperately needed guide for man to embrace in order to do good, to get heavenly rewards (which is lacking in huge amount of evidence), to be morally moulded by a god whom they claim exists, and finally, to be transformed into a better person of a respectable character (as perceived by only within their religious community itself). Note that no religious leaders would tell an atheist, an agnostic, a free thinker, or anyone outside of their specific religion that they have indeed achieved a respectable form of character, without first acknowledging or believing in their god, and having strong convictions to their god. Thus, to theologians or any religious leaders, the only way to develop a positively moulded and spiritually transformed character, is to be convicted to the God they are worshipping, especially to the Christian Evangelical God. In short, anyone that is not a committed believer in a god those religious people are believing in, are considered no better off than anything. Hence, the name callings (Gentiles, the Lost Sheep, the Unbelievers, the Sinners, the Wretched, the Crooked, the Unclean, the Infidels, and interestingly, the Untouchables etc).
One might wonder if a morally sane person would behave far better off than just mere name calling. Such behaviour, was derived from none other than the Holy Book, where God made many statements against the Unclean, the Gentiles, the Unbelievers and so on... I could say no more than just telling you guyz to read more of the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament. Read the bible from cover to cover, which I once did. Ask yourselves these questions: "Do I know exactly what the heck was written inside this book?", "Do I know exactly what some stories inside are describing about?" "Do I have any slightest idea what was written, when did the events happened, and why they did?"
If any Christian were to tell me that we do not take the verses of the bible literally, then how should we take those verses as? The truth is, different individuals have different responses and perceptions regarding language and its interpretation. Do we, exactly know what was going on in the minds of those biblical scholars back in those days, when they were working on the testament? If those concepts or events were passed down by word of mouth, then I would say that the evidence they provide isn't very credible or valid. If they were written in a way that needs interpretations, this would create even more confusion, much less a diverse variation of doctrines that might have resulted in formations of cults and so on. That said, what have they got to hide? Were they hiding from persecutions? Can't be, since martyrs were very eager to die during that point in time. Honestly, from my opinion, no sane or moral man would write as cruelly and brutally like those works found in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, or Judges. I'm only stating part of the examples. Of course, there are many more other books in the bible which are too much to be listed here.
I've got this question, however, "Why can't we derive our sense of morality from moral philosophies?" Is it too hard to abide by moral philosophies that are deem acceptable to different individuals? The question here is not how one would live a fulfilled life with or without God. Rather, it is a question of whether one could be made free to choose to accept any particular philosophy in this life time, without any religious name callings, nor risking any evident potential of failed ties and relationships, nor simply negative judgments from religious people.
If you have an answer to my question, you are free to express.
