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 - )
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.
