Wednesday, November 27, 2013
cacoethes scribendi
The best way to deal with my cacoethes scribendi is to write more. As simple as that.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Possibly the best compliment I have ever received
Well, may be not the best ever, but in a while:
And Lillian, who upon reading a draft of my love letter, said "well, this is one of the best love letters I've ever read."
And to Elizabeth, who is the pretty much the only person who visits this blog, or the only person who comments at least.
I don't write for approval, but they sure are encouraging. Thank you.
"You deserve all the praise you get (from me, at least). I love your methodology, insight and tone. Pragmatic and materialist, but attuned to broad trends and human sympathy; eloquent but with a cheerfully ironic self-deprecation. I only wish we had talked more already. Hopefully we'll compensate some in future!"Another compliment that comes close was by a person whom I've never met - Elizabeth's friend who told her: "who is this fred paik. he is amazing. i can tell by his writing."
And Lillian, who upon reading a draft of my love letter, said "well, this is one of the best love letters I've ever read."
And to Elizabeth, who is the pretty much the only person who visits this blog, or the only person who comments at least.
I don't write for approval, but they sure are encouraging. Thank you.
Monday, November 11, 2013
I need to be honest with myself.
No one really reads my blog but it's still a shame that none of my friends and acquaintances wrote back on any of my religious posts. I did want to hear the best arguments possible for the existence of God. If a convincing argument could be made, I would be more than glad to switch over to the theist side. After all, this is not about winning or losing, but it's about being closer to the truth.
But the truth is, the more I hear from theists, the less convinced I become. Whether I listen to the apologetics or pastors, I always edge closer to the side of non-theists. In this critique's opinion, neither side can prove their claim, but non-theist's arguments are simply superior.
And after all the logical arguments have passed, one simply has to wonder - does it really make any sense? Really? An omnipotent God sits around for about 15 billion years, and then decides to make human beings based on his image in some remote corner of the universe. Every time people do something wrong, he says that's enough and eradicates them, either by flood, burning sulfur, or through genocides. And then he impregnates some virgin, to save the humans whom he wiped out just couple thousand year ago, from himself, by sacrificing himself, to himself. And then he mysteriously disappears, only to live in the hearts of the believers.
Why didn't he just sacrifice himself to begin with, when Adam first sinned or before killing so many people from the floods? I'm sure there were many innocent children during the flood, in Sodom & Gomorrah, and the Amalekite tribe. And still, even in this day and age, 11 million children under the age of 5 die every year. What have they done wrong? Why are prayers of 11 million parents unanswered? Prayer is nothing but a placebo.
If you want to believe in the Christian God, you have two monumental proofs ahead of you. First, you have to prove that God exists, and then you have to prove that the deity and the Christian God are the same. People often assume the second, but to me, the second argument is equally improbable as the first. An almighty God, who shows us no evidence except for a very poorly written book, flooded with scientific and historical errors, not to mention all the contradictions within the four gospels... I don't find it to be very convincing. In fact, I'm mad at myself for not studying the book in closer scrutiny.
At this point, I have admit it. I am an atheist. I wonder how many people back at home will still call me friends. This is a boon in a way.
Some time ago, I broke up with someone whom I truly loved because I knew she wouldn't be happy living with a non-religious person like myself. I do miss her from time to time, but I still stand by my decision. I need to be honest with myself.
But the truth is, the more I hear from theists, the less convinced I become. Whether I listen to the apologetics or pastors, I always edge closer to the side of non-theists. In this critique's opinion, neither side can prove their claim, but non-theist's arguments are simply superior.
And after all the logical arguments have passed, one simply has to wonder - does it really make any sense? Really? An omnipotent God sits around for about 15 billion years, and then decides to make human beings based on his image in some remote corner of the universe. Every time people do something wrong, he says that's enough and eradicates them, either by flood, burning sulfur, or through genocides. And then he impregnates some virgin, to save the humans whom he wiped out just couple thousand year ago, from himself, by sacrificing himself, to himself. And then he mysteriously disappears, only to live in the hearts of the believers.
Why didn't he just sacrifice himself to begin with, when Adam first sinned or before killing so many people from the floods? I'm sure there were many innocent children during the flood, in Sodom & Gomorrah, and the Amalekite tribe. And still, even in this day and age, 11 million children under the age of 5 die every year. What have they done wrong? Why are prayers of 11 million parents unanswered? Prayer is nothing but a placebo.
If you want to believe in the Christian God, you have two monumental proofs ahead of you. First, you have to prove that God exists, and then you have to prove that the deity and the Christian God are the same. People often assume the second, but to me, the second argument is equally improbable as the first. An almighty God, who shows us no evidence except for a very poorly written book, flooded with scientific and historical errors, not to mention all the contradictions within the four gospels... I don't find it to be very convincing. In fact, I'm mad at myself for not studying the book in closer scrutiny.
At this point, I have admit it. I am an atheist. I wonder how many people back at home will still call me friends. This is a boon in a way.
Some time ago, I broke up with someone whom I truly loved because I knew she wouldn't be happy living with a non-religious person like myself. I do miss her from time to time, but I still stand by my decision. I need to be honest with myself.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Anyone can cook
One of my favorite moments in cinema:
Simply brilliant
In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.
But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize that only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.
It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more.
Simply brilliant
Monday, October 7, 2013
I Ching of carpes
It's a shame that the term YOLO became an excuse for irresponsible behaviors. As cliche as it may sound, it's true - your only life is quite precious. Of course, the equally played out but slightly more educated phrase, the one that doesn't annoy as many people, is carpe diem (no need for translation I'm sure) and its lesser known twin, carpe noctem - seize the night.
But as I waft in this deluge of aphorisms, I would like to point out just one more phrase. The one that I always say with an impish grin and an index finger raised up - carpe vinum - seize the wine. When done correctly, I'd contend that there's no more seizing left to do. Hence, carpe vinum is alpha and the omega of all the carpes. It is the I Ching and the champion. At least until the next morning of course, when you wake up with a migraine and an unbelievable desire to carpe pho. Sigh. Pho.
And to my Christian friends rolling their eyes, I would like to share my favorite verse in the bible; the only verse that I happen to have memorized by heart. Ecclesiastes 9:7 - "drink wine with a joyful heart."
Label me a highfalutin pedant if you will. But moving onto matters of consequence, this cheap bottle of wine, Estratego Real, is simply amazing. Cheers.
p.s. One of my small joys of life is drinking wine straight from the bottle. I guess I enjoy feeling like a rebel, and not like a sommelier.
But as I waft in this deluge of aphorisms, I would like to point out just one more phrase. The one that I always say with an impish grin and an index finger raised up - carpe vinum - seize the wine. When done correctly, I'd contend that there's no more seizing left to do. Hence, carpe vinum is alpha and the omega of all the carpes. It is the I Ching and the champion. At least until the next morning of course, when you wake up with a migraine and an unbelievable desire to carpe pho. Sigh. Pho.
And to my Christian friends rolling their eyes, I would like to share my favorite verse in the bible; the only verse that I happen to have memorized by heart. Ecclesiastes 9:7 - "drink wine with a joyful heart."
Label me a highfalutin pedant if you will. But moving onto matters of consequence, this cheap bottle of wine, Estratego Real, is simply amazing. Cheers.
p.s. One of my small joys of life is drinking wine straight from the bottle. I guess I enjoy feeling like a rebel, and not like a sommelier.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Opinion - Introduction
I wrote this on my journal the other day, with the intention of moving my writings from blogs to Facebook. But... there's something about it that I don't quite like. I'll just post it here, and think about it for a few days and then decide. Time is editor's best friend.
----------------------------------------------------------
Opinion - Introduction
For me, reading Facebook statuses is the single most defining act of irony. It’s almost impressive how people can write so much about something so utterly unimportant, yet I find slow status updates to be irritating. What is even worse is when I see scores of likes and comments on a post that is clearly unexceptional. I don’t know whether to applaud people’s unending optimism or to conclude that they’ve been inured to celebrating mediocrity. The whole act is horribly similar to flipping through TV channels, complaining about the shows instead of switching the damn thing off. The difference is that the channels in Facebook are a culmination of 30+ years of my social life. For a split second, I wished I lived in a 14 story building.
----------------------------------------------------------
Opinion - Introduction
For me, reading Facebook statuses is the single most defining act of irony. It’s almost impressive how people can write so much about something so utterly unimportant, yet I find slow status updates to be irritating. What is even worse is when I see scores of likes and comments on a post that is clearly unexceptional. I don’t know whether to applaud people’s unending optimism or to conclude that they’ve been inured to celebrating mediocrity. The whole act is horribly similar to flipping through TV channels, complaining about the shows instead of switching the damn thing off. The difference is that the channels in Facebook are a culmination of 30+ years of my social life. For a split second, I wished I lived in a 14 story building.
But my aim is not to criticize but to
encourage. After all, just about
everyone that I know has something interesting or some
area of expertise that they can share with others. Instead of sharing videos
and articles all the time, why don’t we
produce something of value on our own? I'm not against posting videos and articles; I am for putting in extra 10 minutes to craft a well-thought out material once in a while. I'm absolutely convinced that everyone has more intriguing things to say than what they had for dinner.
So this is what I'll do. I will write 1~2 opinions a month, on slew of topics ranging from the effect of Confucianism on modern Korean society to the size of Crayon Pop's helmets. Regarding my writing, I promise two things: 1. I will attempt to write with terseness, verve and wit (emphasis on attempt - and on a side note, there ought to be a special place in hell for people who do otherwise). 2. I will be honest even if I offend people. I think we all have some despicable and ridiculous thoughts and I think it's acceptable to share some of them, as long as its ridiculousness is acknowledged. After all, it's just a thought.
For instance, when I'm near a baby that has been crying nonstop for 30 minutes, my impulse isn't to utter, "oh my, that baby must have some matters of consequence at hand." I have a flashing image of myself shot-putting the baby out of a 14 story building, because I'd hate to break my arm in the process. That would be quite tragic. I'd never do it obviously, but the thought did occur once. Tossing is probably the better option.
Some argue that Facebook is not the right medium for such writings and even kindly point out that there are these things called tumblr and blogspot. Well who cares what Facebook was meant to be? The internet was invented for military purposes, yet people use it to express their disapproval of the new Batman - and to watch porn. Spoons were made for eating, but people use it to open beer bottles. Anus was made for discharging feces, but gay people use it for coitus. In short, who cares about what something was meant to be. There is no need to eschew organizing your thoughts and posting something original, out of fear that you're not using something the way it was meant to be.
As far as blogs go, I see no need to update multiple websites for identical content. You might - but I don't. Facebook is severely limited in scope but it's pretty much guaranteed that some people will see what you write (different from reading). Blog has the potential of reaching millions of people, but honestly, no one reads your stupid blog.
The second question is, why am I sharing my opinions and writing with others to begin with? For the same reason that musicians hold concerts and artists exhibit - writers publish. We are all social creatures and we experience a rush, for whatever reason, when we share our work with others. In other words, it's fun. That alone is enough reason for me to write and share.
I hope not to waste your time. Cheers.
So this is what I'll do. I will write 1~2 opinions a month, on slew of topics ranging from the effect of Confucianism on modern Korean society to the size of Crayon Pop's helmets. Regarding my writing, I promise two things: 1. I will attempt to write with terseness, verve and wit (emphasis on attempt - and on a side note, there ought to be a special place in hell for people who do otherwise). 2. I will be honest even if I offend people. I think we all have some despicable and ridiculous thoughts and I think it's acceptable to share some of them, as long as its ridiculousness is acknowledged. After all, it's just a thought.
For instance, when I'm near a baby that has been crying nonstop for 30 minutes, my impulse isn't to utter, "oh my, that baby must have some matters of consequence at hand." I have a flashing image of myself shot-putting the baby out of a 14 story building, because I'd hate to break my arm in the process. That would be quite tragic. I'd never do it obviously, but the thought did occur once. Tossing is probably the better option.
Some argue that Facebook is not the right medium for such writings and even kindly point out that there are these things called tumblr and blogspot. Well who cares what Facebook was meant to be? The internet was invented for military purposes, yet people use it to express their disapproval of the new Batman - and to watch porn. Spoons were made for eating, but people use it to open beer bottles. Anus was made for discharging feces, but gay people use it for coitus. In short, who cares about what something was meant to be. There is no need to eschew organizing your thoughts and posting something original, out of fear that you're not using something the way it was meant to be.
As far as blogs go, I see no need to update multiple websites for identical content. You might - but I don't. Facebook is severely limited in scope but it's pretty much guaranteed that some people will see what you write (different from reading). Blog has the potential of reaching millions of people, but honestly, no one reads your stupid blog.
The second question is, why am I sharing my opinions and writing with others to begin with? For the same reason that musicians hold concerts and artists exhibit - writers publish. We are all social creatures and we experience a rush, for whatever reason, when we share our work with others. In other words, it's fun. That alone is enough reason for me to write and share.
I hope not to waste your time. Cheers.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
He deserved to be zapped
As I was checking my facebook yesterday, this was what I saw:
And as I was reading the comments, I rand into this:
I was completely blown away by the childishness of this self-centered and annoying comment. Let's analyze this comment together:
make sure your cornea (or some part - I can't remember) has enough thickness...this is one important part. This guy clearly doesn't work in the medical field, and he can't even remember if it's his cornea or some other part... And he's too lazy to google it which takes 5 seconds, yet he's giving someone a medical advice.
this is one important part. An Incredible show of verbosity. Why not say "this is important?" This guy is an ESL teacher by the way.
I had my surgery performed by Dr. Thomas Tooma in Newport Beach back in 2007. Fair enough, as long as you can relate this to the original post and help her in some way.
He is the same doctor that did the surgery on Tiger Woods. Now, if this awesome doctor gave him some advice that he can relay to the writer of the post, it might do her some good.
Of course, it was way more than the above mentioned price but he was the known as the best of the best. Nope. He wanted to use the famed doctor's credentials to elevate himself in the social ladder. In other words, he wants to feel special.
In a way, this made me feel sad. It's sad that he's 28, and you usually learn in Kindergarten that special people either do special things to others or do something incredible - they don't become special by bragging, especially bragging about someone you know.
So I decided to sacrifice my lunch time to write a reply. I hope you enjoy:
And the girl who posted this wrote:
So I replied:
Okay, fair enough, although it did strike me a bit odd... I've never seen people get surgery together, no matter how simple it was. But there's no reason not to I suppose.
And as I was reading the comments, I rand into this:
make sure your cornea (or some part - I can't remember) has enough thickness...this is one important part.
I had my surgery performed by Dr. Thomas Tooma in Newport Beach back in 2007. He is the same doctor that did the surgery on Tiger Woods. Of course, it was way more than the above mentioned price but he was the known as the best of the best.
I was completely blown away by the childishness of this self-centered and annoying comment. Let's analyze this comment together:
make sure your cornea (or some part - I can't remember) has enough thickness...this is one important part. This guy clearly doesn't work in the medical field, and he can't even remember if it's his cornea or some other part... And he's too lazy to google it which takes 5 seconds, yet he's giving someone a medical advice.
this is one important part. An Incredible show of verbosity. Why not say "this is important?" This guy is an ESL teacher by the way.
I had my surgery performed by Dr. Thomas Tooma in Newport Beach back in 2007. Fair enough, as long as you can relate this to the original post and help her in some way.
He is the same doctor that did the surgery on Tiger Woods. Now, if this awesome doctor gave him some advice that he can relay to the writer of the post, it might do her some good.
Of course, it was way more than the above mentioned price but he was the known as the best of the best. Nope. He wanted to use the famed doctor's credentials to elevate himself in the social ladder. In other words, he wants to feel special.
In a way, this made me feel sad. It's sad that he's 28, and you usually learn in Kindergarten that special people either do special things to others or do something incredible - they don't become special by bragging, especially bragging about someone you know.
So I decided to sacrifice my lunch time to write a reply. I hope you enjoy:
Hey guys, I had a surgery on my butt back in 2001. When they do the surgery, make sure that they don’t stitch up what needs to be open. Of course, I feel comfortable giving such an advice because I’m not a qualified medical professional whatsoever.
And the doctor who performed the surgery, Conrad Murray, was a physician for a famous celebrity. So by definition, he must be good, minus the little incident with Michael Jackson. But who cares about him anyway?
I’m sharing this with you because my experiences with such best-of-the-best doctors would certainly enhance your experience with a mediocre one. I call this compassion.
Please, in the future, tell me more about your experiences so that I can tell you how my experience was so much better. I mean, who wouldn’t want to hear about THAT?
And the girl who posted this wrote:
Fred, you are welcome to join us. lol
So I replied:
Let me get my ruler and measure my cornea first.
Postponing religious arguments, and where I stand
I have yet another post about religion somewhere in my journal, but I'll save it for some other time.
But the question is where do I stand? This is both easy and hard. You have so many words, apostate, lapsed Methodist, atheist, agnostic, etc. But no one word describes myself quite well. If I had to choose, agnostic would be the best description. I have no idea whether God exists or not, and I lack faith. I refuse to believe in something without (what I consider to be) sound reasons and evidence.
I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I am a bit capricious. I might change my views later - I have no qualms about switching my views. Who knows, next year, I might be in church again, or become an anti-theist.
But the question is where do I stand? This is both easy and hard. You have so many words, apostate, lapsed Methodist, atheist, agnostic, etc. But no one word describes myself quite well. If I had to choose, agnostic would be the best description. I have no idea whether God exists or not, and I lack faith. I refuse to believe in something without (what I consider to be) sound reasons and evidence.
I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I am a bit capricious. I might change my views later - I have no qualms about switching my views. Who knows, next year, I might be in church again, or become an anti-theist.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Correspondence, part 4
(this is a part of a continuing post. If you haven't, I suggest that
you start reading from a post entitled "dancing with atheism." And I'm
continuing to post exchanges with my friend, so if you're somewhat
confused, you should read previous entries first.)
Personally, I think the belief that we are all sinners and that we wouldn't really have morals without God - I think that is more pessimistic.
Well, I didn't say that hate was an important part, but what I did say was that compulsory love - or saying that love is mandatory, is problematic because it's just not possible. Plus, I think hate is just a natural aspect of human emotions, and like greed, it's not all too bad as long as you don't let it consume you.
I've only truly despised two people in my life (or at least that I can think of). From the 'hate the sin, not the sinner' point of view, I guess I despised their character - one was verbally abusive and the other was a loser.
The first person was my high school music teacher. I was actually one of the best clarinet players in Southern California, and was thinking whether I should go pro - until he came along. I gave up music when I was in 10th grade because of him, and I regret not having the courage to record what he had said and to take it up with the school board.
The second person I despised was my old pastor. He was making a lot of people cry, he was asking out people (on a date) from the congregation, when a friend of mine when to him for counseling, the pastor flat out said that he should leave the church, and the list goes on but I basically thought that the man wasn't fit to be a pastor. I didn't make the same mistake this time. I was one of the instrumental people that got him fired.
So in a way, it's not that I hate the person so much, it's just that I don't like to see abuse of power. I think fighting against such evil is time well spent, and to be honest, it's hard to stay motivated in such a fight without a little bit of hate.
I wouldn't consider myself as an iconoclast, but I do wish to be a "contrarian" - a person not afraid of having and expressing a contrary thought. But I normally don't go out of my way to destroy standard beliefs nor am I thrilled by it. If anything, I'm saddened.
As far as meliorism, I think history does show that over time, humankind does tend to get better. for vast majority of human history, our life expectancy was somewhere around 25, and probably only 1 out of 10 babies survived long enough to reproduce. So I'd take my current life over a prehistoric one any day.
I think this is an insult to all the oppressed Muslim women, millions of North Koreans dying of famine (because I would argue it is a religion), the children who were molested by Catholic priests, people who were burned alive after being charged with witchcraft, people who were murdered as human sacrifices throughout history, victims of 9/11, and so many others. Getting rid of religion won't get rid of all of its ills, but I must say that such a quote strikes me as quite insensitive.
There is a good reason why I prefer Hitchens and Harris over Dawkins. Personally, I don't really see much of a correlation between enjoying your life and existence of God. Christians are perfectly capable of enjoying their life, just like atheists are as well. For me, it's more about discovering the truth, or getting closer to it, than enjoyment.
I'm not sure what your question is, but it sounds like we are wondering about the same thing. One of my biggest question is, "why would God create someone who will go to hell?" (because God being almighty, he should know who goes to hell and who doesn't). Let me explain using an example.
Let say that a man, (why don't we give him a name... his name shall be Benito) murders 100 people and ends up going to hell. And there is a wise old man, with his infinite wisdom, who just knows with 100% certainty that Benito was doomed to go to hell. Is the old man to blame for anything? Of course not. This is all Benito's fault, and the old man really has nothing to do with Benito and his going to hell (although I would argue that it's not really Benito's fault, I don't want to get into determinism vs. free will argument here).
But let's say that the old man was actually the person who created Benito in the first place (through genetic engineering or whatever), and he knew precisely, with 100% certainty, that Benito would murder 100 people and go to hell. Arguably, it is still Benito's fault, but I think we can all agree that our old man is exceptionally cruel. Knowing Benito's fate, the fate of 100 innocent lives and their families, the old man proceeded to create Benito anyway. He is either extremely cruel or indifferent.
It shouldn't take much guesswork to see that our old man represents God.
May be people would argue that it was absolutely necessary to create Benito, because for some unknown reason, the world somehow became a better place. Perhaps 1,000 lives were somehow saved in a mysterious way because of Benito's murder. There are three problems. 1. In a way, Benito's a hero for saving so many lives, but he is going to hell. 2. May be the world might become a better place, but our Benito would forever ask in hell, "why me, why did he create me? Why do I have to go through infinite suffering for a finite sin?" You see, even if Benito killed one billion people, that is still a finite amount of sin, which he will serve an infinite punishment. 3. If God really is almighty, I think he could've came up with a better solution to save our 1,000 lives than sending Benito to hell.
So there are four possible answers to our problem: God is cruel, God is indifferent, God is not almighty, or this problem exists because perfection is really an idea conjured by man and such a thing as a perfectly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being does not exist.
I know what my answer is.
(oh and you probably heard this before: "can God create a brick so heavy that he can't lift?" Of course, you can dismiss this as a play on words, but it is pointing out the contradictory nature of the word "almighty". This is one of argument through reductio ad absurdum - pointing out the contradictory nature. The idea of almighty, or able to do EVERYTHING, is a human creation and does not seem to exist anywhere outside of human imagination. And I can make infinite number of these: Can God create a burrito so hot that he can't eat? Can God create a hell so hot that he can't go in? Can God say, "I lie all the time", and keep his word? Ha perhaps it's better to ignore that last one, it might drive you nuts)
This is definitely a difficult question. It would be better if such things didn't happen, but I grudgingly support abortion, at least for babies in their first trimester. When an embryo is 3 days old, it's merely a collection of 150 cells - a fly's brain has 100,000 cells in it. You can argue that the embryo could potentially become life, but so can Luke's sperms, especially with today's genetic technology. So whenever Luke is masturbating, he is in fact committing a genocide I suppose.
To be honest, I don't really have an opinion but if I must decide, I think women's right to choose is more important especially when we can be quite certain that the embryo hasn't yet to develop a conscience mind.
"for me it would seem based on pure definition, atheists are merely more pessimistic people. I may be wrong, but it seems that way; optimism doesn't seem like it would fit in an atheists view."Well, I don't see the link between pessimism and atheism, although it may exist. My opinion is that atheists are not pessimists but skeptics. I don't think they're any more or less pessimistic than average human beings.
Personally, I think the belief that we are all sinners and that we wouldn't really have morals without God - I think that is more pessimistic.
When we spoke on Sunday, you stated that you wanted I'm paraphrasing "you want to hate." I can't remember verbatim what you said I just remember that hate was something important to you. So, with that said. If you hate, what do you do with your hatred? Do you act upon it? And if so, how?
Do you consider yourself an iconoclast? How about meliorism, what do you think of that?
Well, I didn't say that hate was an important part, but what I did say was that compulsory love - or saying that love is mandatory, is problematic because it's just not possible. Plus, I think hate is just a natural aspect of human emotions, and like greed, it's not all too bad as long as you don't let it consume you.
I've only truly despised two people in my life (or at least that I can think of). From the 'hate the sin, not the sinner' point of view, I guess I despised their character - one was verbally abusive and the other was a loser.
The first person was my high school music teacher. I was actually one of the best clarinet players in Southern California, and was thinking whether I should go pro - until he came along. I gave up music when I was in 10th grade because of him, and I regret not having the courage to record what he had said and to take it up with the school board.
The second person I despised was my old pastor. He was making a lot of people cry, he was asking out people (on a date) from the congregation, when a friend of mine when to him for counseling, the pastor flat out said that he should leave the church, and the list goes on but I basically thought that the man wasn't fit to be a pastor. I didn't make the same mistake this time. I was one of the instrumental people that got him fired.
So in a way, it's not that I hate the person so much, it's just that I don't like to see abuse of power. I think fighting against such evil is time well spent, and to be honest, it's hard to stay motivated in such a fight without a little bit of hate.
Do you consider yourself an iconoclast? How about meliorism, what do you think of that?
I wouldn't consider myself as an iconoclast, but I do wish to be a "contrarian" - a person not afraid of having and expressing a contrary thought. But I normally don't go out of my way to destroy standard beliefs nor am I thrilled by it. If anything, I'm saddened.
As far as meliorism, I think history does show that over time, humankind does tend to get better. for vast majority of human history, our life expectancy was somewhere around 25, and probably only 1 out of 10 babies survived long enough to reproduce. So I'd take my current life over a prehistoric one any day.
"What do you think of this statement: getting rid of religion will do nothing to rid mankind of its ills."
I think this is an insult to all the oppressed Muslim women, millions of North Koreans dying of famine (because I would argue it is a religion), the children who were molested by Catholic priests, people who were burned alive after being charged with witchcraft, people who were murdered as human sacrifices throughout history, victims of 9/11, and so many others. Getting rid of religion won't get rid of all of its ills, but I must say that such a quote strikes me as quite insensitive.
And this statement: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." This was on the atheists buses in England, whom Dawkins backed.
There is a good reason why I prefer Hitchens and Harris over Dawkins. Personally, I don't really see much of a correlation between enjoying your life and existence of God. Christians are perfectly capable of enjoying their life, just like atheists are as well. For me, it's more about discovering the truth, or getting closer to it, than enjoyment.
"So if God based on how you view(ed) him, If he knew that 1 out I don't know 50-100 people born is going to be a murderer, then why not just say, don't have any children at all?"
I'm not sure what your question is, but it sounds like we are wondering about the same thing. One of my biggest question is, "why would God create someone who will go to hell?" (because God being almighty, he should know who goes to hell and who doesn't). Let me explain using an example.
Let say that a man, (why don't we give him a name... his name shall be Benito) murders 100 people and ends up going to hell. And there is a wise old man, with his infinite wisdom, who just knows with 100% certainty that Benito was doomed to go to hell. Is the old man to blame for anything? Of course not. This is all Benito's fault, and the old man really has nothing to do with Benito and his going to hell (although I would argue that it's not really Benito's fault, I don't want to get into determinism vs. free will argument here).
But let's say that the old man was actually the person who created Benito in the first place (through genetic engineering or whatever), and he knew precisely, with 100% certainty, that Benito would murder 100 people and go to hell. Arguably, it is still Benito's fault, but I think we can all agree that our old man is exceptionally cruel. Knowing Benito's fate, the fate of 100 innocent lives and their families, the old man proceeded to create Benito anyway. He is either extremely cruel or indifferent.
It shouldn't take much guesswork to see that our old man represents God.
May be people would argue that it was absolutely necessary to create Benito, because for some unknown reason, the world somehow became a better place. Perhaps 1,000 lives were somehow saved in a mysterious way because of Benito's murder. There are three problems. 1. In a way, Benito's a hero for saving so many lives, but he is going to hell. 2. May be the world might become a better place, but our Benito would forever ask in hell, "why me, why did he create me? Why do I have to go through infinite suffering for a finite sin?" You see, even if Benito killed one billion people, that is still a finite amount of sin, which he will serve an infinite punishment. 3. If God really is almighty, I think he could've came up with a better solution to save our 1,000 lives than sending Benito to hell.
So there are four possible answers to our problem: God is cruel, God is indifferent, God is not almighty, or this problem exists because perfection is really an idea conjured by man and such a thing as a perfectly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being does not exist.
I know what my answer is.
(oh and you probably heard this before: "can God create a brick so heavy that he can't lift?" Of course, you can dismiss this as a play on words, but it is pointing out the contradictory nature of the word "almighty". This is one of argument through reductio ad absurdum - pointing out the contradictory nature. The idea of almighty, or able to do EVERYTHING, is a human creation and does not seem to exist anywhere outside of human imagination. And I can make infinite number of these: Can God create a burrito so hot that he can't eat? Can God create a hell so hot that he can't go in? Can God say, "I lie all the time", and keep his word? Ha perhaps it's better to ignore that last one, it might drive you nuts)
"And do you think its barbaric to have abortions? I mean who are you to tell someone they can't murder their baby?"
This is definitely a difficult question. It would be better if such things didn't happen, but I grudgingly support abortion, at least for babies in their first trimester. When an embryo is 3 days old, it's merely a collection of 150 cells - a fly's brain has 100,000 cells in it. You can argue that the embryo could potentially become life, but so can Luke's sperms, especially with today's genetic technology. So whenever Luke is masturbating, he is in fact committing a genocide I suppose.
To be honest, I don't really have an opinion but if I must decide, I think women's right to choose is more important especially when we can be quite certain that the embryo hasn't yet to develop a conscience mind.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Correspondence, part 3
(this is a part of a continuing post. If you haven't, I suggest that
you start reading from a post entitled "dancing with atheism." And I'm
continuing to post exchanges with my friend, so if you're somewhat
confused, you should read previous entries first.)
No, I don't think you've ever looked at me with judging eyes. In fact, I think you're one of the most respectful Christians I've ever talked to, which is why I would like to try to return that respect.
Haha, I have no idea why you would feel inadequate, so I have no response to that comment. It's not like I'm an erudite you know.
I'm not mad at God, because I doubt his existence. But yes, I am mad at how grown men and women oppress others under the name of God and dogma. Countries forcing women to wear veils, people being ostracized because of their faith, holding up God hates fag signs... this has to stop. I don't see anything wrong with being continually mad and I refused to be inured to the situation.
Regarding Bob Coy... how should I say this - I'm not a fan. Just the way he starts off had me rolling my eyes - the assumptions that he makes - "we know exactly where he [God] is," - no I don't, "The bigger question is where are you man." Actually, the location of a supreme being, if he exists, is an infinitely bigger question than the location of my meager self (I know that's not what he means). "There will be a pain, a tragedy so great, that you'll think, where's God?" I understand that this makes a lot of sense to Christians as in your father will comfort you when you need it the most, but to many others, it's almost an anathema, saying, 'you might be able to deny God when you're at the apex of your mental and physical strength, but you will come crawling back when you've become too weak.' I almost see this as a challenge and it makes my non-theism more resolute.
In addition, I don't like his ingratiating tone. I don't like the theatrical style - my opinion is that he's a ham actor. And most of all, I feel like his sermons are geared towards people who already believe in God's existence and the validity of the bible. Because our foundations aren't the same, I decided to turn it off after 10 minutes.
The Dawkins vs. Lennox video, on the other hand, was quite interesting, and thank you for finding this. I am aware of Lennox, and whether you're a fan of Lennox or not, one has to admit that he is a master of rhetoric. And I do marvel at his command of the language, although I don't agree with his beliefs.
I don't mind the title of the video at all, and I don't even mind all the one sided subtitles - I do like a little provocations here and there as long as there's substance. But what I did mind, was the fact that the uploader disabled all the comments and the likes/dislikes. But anyways...
A. On whether evolution "could" be guided: When Dawkins claims that evolution (or any scientific law for that matter) works without guidance, he is essentially re-iterating words of French mathematician, Laplace. While explaining the mechanics of the solar system to the king who asked where God was in this model, Laplace replied, "it works well without that idea, your majesty."
And when Lennox suggests that evolution in fact "could" be guided, I find this argument to be troubling. Because the world "could" be anything really. Perhaps, it is God. Perhaps, it's many gods. Perhaps, you are nothing but a brain in a vat and everything you see is an illusion. Perhaps, the aliens are conducting scientific experiments on us, and the entire physical universe as we know it is just a big laboratory. You can't prove that any of these propositions are not true, just like you can't prove the non-existence of unicorns. But there are no reasons to believe in it either.
B. Going from simple to complex
I actually disagree with Dawkins here. As far as evolutionary biology is concerned, this may be true, but you simply cannot apply this idea to all aspects of life and science.
C. God is an agent, not a mechanism. What Lennox is essentially saying is that Dawkins is merely describing how a car works. You can describe all the mechanics of internal combustion, acceleration, coolants, etc. but all this has nothing to do with who made the car.
This is an age old argument, which is very similar to saying, "Have you seen a chair create itself? Have you seen a watch create itself? There is a cause and effect, and everything that has been created has a creator."
As you can guess, I am adamantly against this idea. By definition, all man-made things have a creator - humans. I can easily ask a paradoxical question too, "Have you seen a star created by a supreme being? Have you seen a mountain created by a supreme being?" Just because a few organisms on earth has power to create things doesn't mean that everything has a creator. This fallacy arises from the fact that humans are looking for patterns everywhere. And even if the theory of cause and effect were true, there needn't be a supreme being that is the cause of everything.
Plus, God's existence cannot be deduced by reasons alone (quote by occam). For centuries, virtually all humans in the world thought that it was perfectly reasonable and logical that the earth was flat, but the evidence was contrary.
D. Irrationality that mind comes from matter
I wish that Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, could've debated Lennox instead of Dawkins. In my opinion, mind does come from matter, called neurons to be exact. We know that when a certain part of the brain is damaged and the neurons can't function in that part, we lose a certain part of the mind (ability to talk, ability to reason, ability to feel, etc). So we do have evidence to believe that mind comes from matter, but when it comes to the spirits and supernatural, there is no evidence of anything. .
E. How was universe created?
As far as this question goes, both answers are quite bizarre and I can't quite comprehend both answers. To say that the universe was just there is quite hard to grasp, and to say that some supreme being created this universe (then who created this supreme being?) is equally bizarre.
From a statistical point of view, the chaos theory, makes the most sense to me - that life on earth was created at random. Because the universe is nearly infinitely big, and chances of creation of life is equally infinitesimal, we would only have very few life in very few places of the universe, which seems to be the case.
F. Is there ultimate justice?
No. I say that it's just a product of wishful thinking because humans yearn for fairness. And in the ancient world, this must've been a handy tool for the rulers to appease the masses.
Plus, how does the fact that there are massive injustices around the world prove the existence of God? I would argue otherwise. Again, all this is just reasoning not based on any real evidence.
Personally, I agree with Hitchen's view, (starting from 5:20)
If God is so powerful, why not stop it in the first place? Why hide under the excuse that God is mysterious?
G. Existence of Jesus
I agree with Lennox here, I think Jesus actually did exist. But I also do believe that there is no evidence to believe that he was God or Son of God.
I hope you read this in tone that's not me pointing at you, or judging but rather just with a wonder and curiosity, tis all. But hey speaking with you on occasion, I learn something new haha; you're Mr. Onion.
On an honest side note: Sheesh, it takes a lot to keep up with you Fred if one wants to get to know you; one can feel inadequate when speaking with you.
No, I don't think you've ever looked at me with judging eyes. In fact, I think you're one of the most respectful Christians I've ever talked to, which is why I would like to try to return that respect.
Haha, I have no idea why you would feel inadequate, so I have no response to that comment. It's not like I'm an erudite you know.
I honestly feel, that God and man(people) will gravely upset you, well, I think God has already done that.
I'm not mad at God, because I doubt his existence. But yes, I am mad at how grown men and women oppress others under the name of God and dogma. Countries forcing women to wear veils, people being ostracized because of their faith, holding up God hates fag signs... this has to stop. I don't see anything wrong with being continually mad and I refused to be inured to the situation.
if you want to hear the particular sermon that I was speaking of from Bob Coy here it is http://www.activeword.org/media.cfm?st=4&keyword=God&filter=tv.
Click the next button to the third page, and click on Where's God? He's just one that I listen to, there are many more, however, I know you are open to listening,
Regarding Bob Coy... how should I say this - I'm not a fan. Just the way he starts off had me rolling my eyes - the assumptions that he makes - "we know exactly where he [God] is," - no I don't, "The bigger question is where are you man." Actually, the location of a supreme being, if he exists, is an infinitely bigger question than the location of my meager self (I know that's not what he means). "There will be a pain, a tragedy so great, that you'll think, where's God?" I understand that this makes a lot of sense to Christians as in your father will comfort you when you need it the most, but to many others, it's almost an anathema, saying, 'you might be able to deny God when you're at the apex of your mental and physical strength, but you will come crawling back when you've become too weak.' I almost see this as a challenge and it makes my non-theism more resolute.
In addition, I don't like his ingratiating tone. I don't like the theatrical style - my opinion is that he's a ham actor. And most of all, I feel like his sermons are geared towards people who already believe in God's existence and the validity of the bible. Because our foundations aren't the same, I decided to turn it off after 10 minutes.
The Dawkins vs. Lennox video, on the other hand, was quite interesting, and thank you for finding this. I am aware of Lennox, and whether you're a fan of Lennox or not, one has to admit that he is a master of rhetoric. And I do marvel at his command of the language, although I don't agree with his beliefs.
What do you think about this snippet of this particular debate? And please negate, the title, I'm not looking for a pow wow, based on the title.
I don't mind the title of the video at all, and I don't even mind all the one sided subtitles - I do like a little provocations here and there as long as there's substance. But what I did mind, was the fact that the uploader disabled all the comments and the likes/dislikes. But anyways...
A. On whether evolution "could" be guided: When Dawkins claims that evolution (or any scientific law for that matter) works without guidance, he is essentially re-iterating words of French mathematician, Laplace. While explaining the mechanics of the solar system to the king who asked where God was in this model, Laplace replied, "it works well without that idea, your majesty."
And when Lennox suggests that evolution in fact "could" be guided, I find this argument to be troubling. Because the world "could" be anything really. Perhaps, it is God. Perhaps, it's many gods. Perhaps, you are nothing but a brain in a vat and everything you see is an illusion. Perhaps, the aliens are conducting scientific experiments on us, and the entire physical universe as we know it is just a big laboratory. You can't prove that any of these propositions are not true, just like you can't prove the non-existence of unicorns. But there are no reasons to believe in it either.
B. Going from simple to complex
I actually disagree with Dawkins here. As far as evolutionary biology is concerned, this may be true, but you simply cannot apply this idea to all aspects of life and science.
C. God is an agent, not a mechanism. What Lennox is essentially saying is that Dawkins is merely describing how a car works. You can describe all the mechanics of internal combustion, acceleration, coolants, etc. but all this has nothing to do with who made the car.
This is an age old argument, which is very similar to saying, "Have you seen a chair create itself? Have you seen a watch create itself? There is a cause and effect, and everything that has been created has a creator."
As you can guess, I am adamantly against this idea. By definition, all man-made things have a creator - humans. I can easily ask a paradoxical question too, "Have you seen a star created by a supreme being? Have you seen a mountain created by a supreme being?" Just because a few organisms on earth has power to create things doesn't mean that everything has a creator. This fallacy arises from the fact that humans are looking for patterns everywhere. And even if the theory of cause and effect were true, there needn't be a supreme being that is the cause of everything.
Plus, God's existence cannot be deduced by reasons alone (quote by occam). For centuries, virtually all humans in the world thought that it was perfectly reasonable and logical that the earth was flat, but the evidence was contrary.
D. Irrationality that mind comes from matter
I wish that Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, could've debated Lennox instead of Dawkins. In my opinion, mind does come from matter, called neurons to be exact. We know that when a certain part of the brain is damaged and the neurons can't function in that part, we lose a certain part of the mind (ability to talk, ability to reason, ability to feel, etc). So we do have evidence to believe that mind comes from matter, but when it comes to the spirits and supernatural, there is no evidence of anything. .
E. How was universe created?
As far as this question goes, both answers are quite bizarre and I can't quite comprehend both answers. To say that the universe was just there is quite hard to grasp, and to say that some supreme being created this universe (then who created this supreme being?) is equally bizarre.
From a statistical point of view, the chaos theory, makes the most sense to me - that life on earth was created at random. Because the universe is nearly infinitely big, and chances of creation of life is equally infinitesimal, we would only have very few life in very few places of the universe, which seems to be the case.
F. Is there ultimate justice?
No. I say that it's just a product of wishful thinking because humans yearn for fairness. And in the ancient world, this must've been a handy tool for the rulers to appease the masses.
Plus, how does the fact that there are massive injustices around the world prove the existence of God? I would argue otherwise. Again, all this is just reasoning not based on any real evidence.
Personally, I agree with Hitchen's view, (starting from 5:20)
If God is so powerful, why not stop it in the first place? Why hide under the excuse that God is mysterious?
G. Existence of Jesus
I agree with Lennox here, I think Jesus actually did exist. But I also do believe that there is no evidence to believe that he was God or Son of God.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Correspondence, part 2
(this is a part of a continuing post. If you haven't, I suggest that
you start reading from a post entitled "dancing with atheism." And I'm continuing to post exchanges with my friend, so if you're somewhat confused, you should read previous entries first.)
Deuteronomy 21:11-13
If you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
The above quote is bizarre, but this quote is just immoral:
If the bible contains 'contaminated' stories and commands, then why should it be considered as a holy & sacred text? To what extent should it be considered as a holy text? Then how are those parts of the bible different than Rick Warren's purpose driven life? To what extent has it been changed?
Plus, we have nothing but assumptions - it is our assumption of a benign God that makes us ponder "perhaps, the verses about rape has been influenced by man." But if God is truly mysterious, perhaps the command about love has been fabricated by man, but the verses about rape were truly his words? (I know this sounds ridiculous, but from a logical stand point, why not?)
From a personal point of view, Christians always bring this argument whenever they see a verse that they don't like. This is cherry picking.
According to 2 Samuel 22:31 and Psalm 18:30, God is perfect. So according to that logic, he has nothing to learn, and he makes no mistakes. Unless, of course, those two verses were fabricated to "fit" their lifestyle as you have suggested.
...speaking of which, God really doesn't seem to learn from his "mistakes" does he? He had to cast out Adam and Eve from Garden of Evil (because man sinned), wipe out nearly all life forms through a flood (because man sinned), destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (because man sinned), kill all amalekites (because man sinned), and finally, send his only Son and sacrifice him (which I still believe is odd, barbaric, and immoral act). And since the vicarious redemption, there is no more sulfur from the sky or a deluge. Now, if he knew that human beings were going to be so sinful, why didn't he send down Jesus Christ to begin with, instead of wiping humanity out in a flood?
Oh and he just says that he won't kill everyone with a flood. He still either orders or commits a genocide here and there after the flood (amalekites, Sodom & Gomorrah). So I would definitely disagree with your statement, "let them make mistakes, do what they want and not wipe them off the face of the Earth."
Before, I thought that Noah's Ark actually could've been scientifically possible - the bible doesn't talk about rain but it talks about water above the sky and on the ground - perhaps the earth we used to know it was different from the earth we've inherited. Perhaps, what we know as the oceans were actually surrounding the earth, above the atmosphere. Perhaps, it blocked out all the uv rays, and created a green house effect all over the earth, where the temperature would've been equal whether you were in Antarctica or Libya.
But I later found out that science has better answers (and evidence) for all this. If water were surrounding the earth, the pressure would be too high, and the earth would be unfit to support humans. And, even if you say that all the ice caps in the world melted and there were no more water in the atmosphere (it all rained down), it still wouldn't be enough to cover all the land in the world.
I'm not asking for a perfect world. I'm just pointing out that God could have at least been more compassionate and could've WRITTEN about condemning issues such as gender inequality and slavery. He doesn't even do that. Instead, bible is filled with stories of mass killings (noah's ark), genocides (amalekites), stoning, what to do after raping virgins, etc.
If a man fails to live up to God's expectations, that's one thing, but to have God commanding genocide - that's completely different.
[and I wrote about the free-will "paradox" in a different post. If I had to name one thing that shook my faith the most during the years, it's the free-will paradox).
Remember the
strange passage about marriage, rape, slavery and shaving woman's head
and cleansing for some period of time and stuff? Here, I found it:
Deuteronomy 21:11-13
If you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
The above quote is bizarre, but this quote is just immoral:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
(but if you read verses before, it tells you that a man raping a married woman is a sin punishable by death - stoning to be exact).
I suppose people can take a view that God has a rather "progressive will" for human beings, and argue that such treatment for women were actually ahead of its time. Obviously, I would disagree with this view, and contend that it reflects moral bankruptcy and extreme insensitivity on the part of the arguers. Rape was equally traumatizing and vicious back then as it is now, whether you're married or not. Since God had such influence over the behavior of man to the point where they would mutilate their genitals for God (God, you want me to do what to where?), I would contend that he could've commanded better laws about raping virgins.
Never mind that God doesn't even bother to intervene - to me, this is a rationalization of rape (of virgins). Yes, rape is a violation, but it's okay as long as you marry her and pay her father. It makes perfect sense that a group of chauvinistic, barbaric men in the ancient world would write such a command but a benign, sagacious, almighty God surely wouldn't have inspired anyone to write something so brutal and barbaric.
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
(but if you read verses before, it tells you that a man raping a married woman is a sin punishable by death - stoning to be exact).
I suppose people can take a view that God has a rather "progressive will" for human beings, and argue that such treatment for women were actually ahead of its time. Obviously, I would disagree with this view, and contend that it reflects moral bankruptcy and extreme insensitivity on the part of the arguers. Rape was equally traumatizing and vicious back then as it is now, whether you're married or not. Since God had such influence over the behavior of man to the point where they would mutilate their genitals for God (God, you want me to do what to where?), I would contend that he could've commanded better laws about raping virgins.
Never mind that God doesn't even bother to intervene - to me, this is a rationalization of rape (of virgins). Yes, rape is a violation, but it's okay as long as you marry her and pay her father. It makes perfect sense that a group of chauvinistic, barbaric men in the ancient world would write such a command but a benign, sagacious, almighty God surely wouldn't have inspired anyone to write something so brutal and barbaric.
"I mean those were man made laws; it doesn't state anywhere that God said that is how it has to be done. Rather, people possibly falsely interpreting what God was saying, to fit their lifestyle?"
If the bible contains 'contaminated' stories and commands, then why should it be considered as a holy & sacred text? To what extent should it be considered as a holy text? Then how are those parts of the bible different than Rick Warren's purpose driven life? To what extent has it been changed?
Plus, we have nothing but assumptions - it is our assumption of a benign God that makes us ponder "perhaps, the verses about rape has been influenced by man." But if God is truly mysterious, perhaps the command about love has been fabricated by man, but the verses about rape were truly his words? (I know this sounds ridiculous, but from a logical stand point, why not?)
From a personal point of view, Christians always bring this argument whenever they see a verse that they don't like. This is cherry picking.
"perhaps, God is capable of making mistakes?"
According to 2 Samuel 22:31 and Psalm 18:30, God is perfect. So according to that logic, he has nothing to learn, and he makes no mistakes. Unless, of course, those two verses were fabricated to "fit" their lifestyle as you have suggested.
I'm curious to how you interpreted how God handled his "creation" when he brought the flood that wiped out everyone except, Noah and his family. After the flood happened God, as I have read it, realized he may have too far in his own anger. And decided afterwards to let his creations be and to not kill no matter what his "creations" do. Let them make mistakes, do what they want and not wipe them off the face of the Earth.
...speaking of which, God really doesn't seem to learn from his "mistakes" does he? He had to cast out Adam and Eve from Garden of Evil (because man sinned), wipe out nearly all life forms through a flood (because man sinned), destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (because man sinned), kill all amalekites (because man sinned), and finally, send his only Son and sacrifice him (which I still believe is odd, barbaric, and immoral act). And since the vicarious redemption, there is no more sulfur from the sky or a deluge. Now, if he knew that human beings were going to be so sinful, why didn't he send down Jesus Christ to begin with, instead of wiping humanity out in a flood?
Oh and he just says that he won't kill everyone with a flood. He still either orders or commits a genocide here and there after the flood (amalekites, Sodom & Gomorrah). So I would definitely disagree with your statement, "let them make mistakes, do what they want and not wipe them off the face of the Earth."
Before, I thought that Noah's Ark actually could've been scientifically possible - the bible doesn't talk about rain but it talks about water above the sky and on the ground - perhaps the earth we used to know it was different from the earth we've inherited. Perhaps, what we know as the oceans were actually surrounding the earth, above the atmosphere. Perhaps, it blocked out all the uv rays, and created a green house effect all over the earth, where the temperature would've been equal whether you were in Antarctica or Libya.
But I later found out that science has better answers (and evidence) for all this. If water were surrounding the earth, the pressure would be too high, and the earth would be unfit to support humans. And, even if you say that all the ice caps in the world melted and there were no more water in the atmosphere (it all rained down), it still wouldn't be enough to cover all the land in the world.
God, again in my mind, is giving freedom of choice even though he knows the outcome.
If he wanted a perfect world, then I guess he could've or should've just made a bunch of robots with predetermined attitudes, thoughts etc.
I'm not asking for a perfect world. I'm just pointing out that God could have at least been more compassionate and could've WRITTEN about condemning issues such as gender inequality and slavery. He doesn't even do that. Instead, bible is filled with stories of mass killings (noah's ark), genocides (amalekites), stoning, what to do after raping virgins, etc.
If a man fails to live up to God's expectations, that's one thing, but to have God commanding genocide - that's completely different.
[and I wrote about the free-will "paradox" in a different post. If I had to name one thing that shook my faith the most during the years, it's the free-will paradox).
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Ether (aether)
(this is a part of a continuing post. If you haven't, I suggest that
you start reading from a post entitled "dancing with atheism.")
I promise you, that although I haven't written anything here, I've been doing a whole lot of writing. I have been exchanging correspondences with a Christian friend, whom I will say, is very thoughtful and well mannered. I think we both learned a lot (or at least I did), and even though she does not read this blog, I would like to thank her. And because I do not wish to write the same material twice, I will publish some of our exchanges here. I have edited both the questions and comments, but I especially condensed her comments, since I have no idea how she feels about them being posted here.
________________________________________________________
Haha, of course atheists don't know EVERYTHING, but I think explaining a bit about ether (also spelled aether) will help with my explanation - and I will mention it again later in this message.
May be you knew this already, but for centuries and centuries, Europeans thought that the universe was filled with this invisible substance called ether. After all, they had good reasoning behind it - a baseball does not just float on air, a rock simply just does not levitate; but the moon and the stars and the planets do! So the universe must be filled with ether and the moon and the stars must be floating, similar to objects in water.
And like everything else, people had a lot of questions about ether: Is ether hot, is it cold? What is the density of ether? Is it uniform throughout? Would humans be able to travel through ether?
But of course, there is a problem. There may be a convincing reason to believe in ether, but there is no evidence of it existing. So the modern scientists said well, there is no evidence of it existing, so let's say that it doesn't exist until we find a good evidence for it. And once scientists denied the existence of ether, all the questions regarding it became very easy to explain. I think the same thing is happening with God. It's not that atheists are smarter, but simpler model is simpler to explain.
[I watched a clip of 30 minute video she had suggested, but I turned it off after 10 minutes]
It's unfair to compare you watching videos of atheists and me watching videos of pastors. The reason is, I've spent the majority of my life (and I'm pretty old as you know) going to church and listening to pastors, often 2~3 times a week, and usually 3 sermons on Sundays. And this doesn't even include all the books and pamphlets that I've read.
Excuse me for presuming, and I'll apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but I would guess that you didn't spend 16 years of your life listening to Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens or other atheists at least twice a week. So it's not that I'm not open-minded. I think it has more to do with the fact that I'm weary. I haven't heard everything, but 90% of the time, after the introduction, I know what the sermon is going to be about. I've seen enough.
And now, I want to make a very important point. I really couldn't care less about the weight of ether, the density of ether, or any other properties of ether. The only thing I care about is whether it exists or not. I'm not even asking for a proof; I'm just merely asking for a good enough evidence to convince me to believe in ether. Until this matter is settled, discussions about the property of ether is a waste of my time.
My feelings towards Christianity are similar. I first want to see evidence on whether God exists or not, and then, I want to see an evidence that the bible is his word. Not a proof, but good enough evidence to convince me. I no longer really care about the contents of the bible and whatnot, because to me, this is like talking about properties of ether when it's not even established that it exists.
And if you're wondering why I cite from the bible from time to time - perhaps you might even find it hypocritical - it's because I'm arguing through reductio ad absurdum (not my preferred method of arguing by the way) - its inherent contradictions that suggest, at least to me, that bible really isn't the word of God... at least not a benign or just God.
So naturally, I'm not really interested in hearing pastors like Bob Coy, because in essence, he is talking about properties of ether. But I am very open and interested in videos like Lennox vs. Dawkins, because they are not talking about properties of ether but the existence of it. It's not that I don't want to hear your argument - after all, you did send me links to two videos and I looked at one of them in agonizing detail. It's just that one of them didn't pertain. For future reference, I will probably prefer videos of apologetics.
I love the ether metaphor when explaining my problems with God. There is may be a good reason to believe in it (I'm even doubting that these days), but no good evidence whatsoever. Therefore, I prefer to take Occam's razor and zap - there it goes.
I promise you, that although I haven't written anything here, I've been doing a whole lot of writing. I have been exchanging correspondences with a Christian friend, whom I will say, is very thoughtful and well mannered. I think we both learned a lot (or at least I did), and even though she does not read this blog, I would like to thank her. And because I do not wish to write the same material twice, I will publish some of our exchanges here. I have edited both the questions and comments, but I especially condensed her comments, since I have no idea how she feels about them being posted here.
________________________________________________________
"Anyways, it seems like atheists have an answer to everything. Not one thing seems to make atheists sit back and say, humm?"
Haha, of course atheists don't know EVERYTHING, but I think explaining a bit about ether (also spelled aether) will help with my explanation - and I will mention it again later in this message.
May be you knew this already, but for centuries and centuries, Europeans thought that the universe was filled with this invisible substance called ether. After all, they had good reasoning behind it - a baseball does not just float on air, a rock simply just does not levitate; but the moon and the stars and the planets do! So the universe must be filled with ether and the moon and the stars must be floating, similar to objects in water.
And like everything else, people had a lot of questions about ether: Is ether hot, is it cold? What is the density of ether? Is it uniform throughout? Would humans be able to travel through ether?
But of course, there is a problem. There may be a convincing reason to believe in ether, but there is no evidence of it existing. So the modern scientists said well, there is no evidence of it existing, so let's say that it doesn't exist until we find a good evidence for it. And once scientists denied the existence of ether, all the questions regarding it became very easy to explain. I think the same thing is happening with God. It's not that atheists are smarter, but simpler model is simpler to explain.
"The pastor's sermon I directed you to - I understand how you may feel towards him and his "presentation." However, in the light of us discussing, I have listened without pausing or skipping or muting the videos you gave me because its important to you and helps me understand your "beliefs.""
"If this request is a no go, then I guess it really means you're not as open as I had thought and it's futile for me to present anything else. How do you feel about that?"
[I watched a clip of 30 minute video she had suggested, but I turned it off after 10 minutes]
It's unfair to compare you watching videos of atheists and me watching videos of pastors. The reason is, I've spent the majority of my life (and I'm pretty old as you know) going to church and listening to pastors, often 2~3 times a week, and usually 3 sermons on Sundays. And this doesn't even include all the books and pamphlets that I've read.
Excuse me for presuming, and I'll apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but I would guess that you didn't spend 16 years of your life listening to Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens or other atheists at least twice a week. So it's not that I'm not open-minded. I think it has more to do with the fact that I'm weary. I haven't heard everything, but 90% of the time, after the introduction, I know what the sermon is going to be about. I've seen enough.
And now, I want to make a very important point. I really couldn't care less about the weight of ether, the density of ether, or any other properties of ether. The only thing I care about is whether it exists or not. I'm not even asking for a proof; I'm just merely asking for a good enough evidence to convince me to believe in ether. Until this matter is settled, discussions about the property of ether is a waste of my time.
My feelings towards Christianity are similar. I first want to see evidence on whether God exists or not, and then, I want to see an evidence that the bible is his word. Not a proof, but good enough evidence to convince me. I no longer really care about the contents of the bible and whatnot, because to me, this is like talking about properties of ether when it's not even established that it exists.
And if you're wondering why I cite from the bible from time to time - perhaps you might even find it hypocritical - it's because I'm arguing through reductio ad absurdum (not my preferred method of arguing by the way) - its inherent contradictions that suggest, at least to me, that bible really isn't the word of God... at least not a benign or just God.
So naturally, I'm not really interested in hearing pastors like Bob Coy, because in essence, he is talking about properties of ether. But I am very open and interested in videos like Lennox vs. Dawkins, because they are not talking about properties of ether but the existence of it. It's not that I don't want to hear your argument - after all, you did send me links to two videos and I looked at one of them in agonizing detail. It's just that one of them didn't pertain. For future reference, I will probably prefer videos of apologetics.
I love the ether metaphor when explaining my problems with God. There is may be a good reason to believe in it (I'm even doubting that these days), but no good evidence whatsoever. Therefore, I prefer to take Occam's razor and zap - there it goes.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Fundamental Christians
(this is a part of a continuing post. If you haven't, I suggest that
you start reading from a post entitled "dancing with atheism.")
Sam Harris has some excellent observations on fundamental Muslims. I'll post the link here, but for those of you in a hurry, I will paraphrase what he said.
That was what I got out of Sam Harris's incredibly insightful lecture.
Now here is a question for you. What would a fundamental Christian look like? A person who takes the entire bible, or nearly all of it, quite literally and seriously? After all, why wouldn't you take it all of it seriously when it's the inerrant and infallible word of God? Who are you to disregarded some of its teachings?
Well, he most likely wouldn't believe in gender equality.
Some people may feel that I've taken the quotes out of context, but it's rather difficult to take "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord" out of context. I'm not sure how you can interpret this any other way. Perhaps, some may erroneously argue that because husbands are called to love their wives, this somehow balances the equality issue. Well, I love my dog, but we are not equals in power.
God's inherent sexist views shouldn't surprise anyone. He, after all, supports slavery. You would have to go through some impressive logical acrobatics to argue otherwise. Jesus himself uses a number of parables with slaves, and he, along with everyone else in the bible, never criticizes the institution once.
It seems painfully clear to me that Lincoln was on the wrong side of the bible. And it's not a surprise that proponents of the confederacy often cited the inerrant word of God to support their peculiar institution.
So our model fundamentalist Christian would be sexist and a slave supporter. What else? Well, he probably would believe that homosexuality was a sin.
While it is true that Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors, including gay people, the bible also clearly states that gay people aren't going to heaven (therefore they will presumably go to hell). After all, going to heaven or hell isn't judged by popularity. In other words, your love towards gays and their reservation in hell have nothing to do with each other.
Now imagine an all powerful being - a being who is benign, sagacious, and even powerful enough to create this entire universe. If this being wrote a book, just how good would it be? Wouldn't it be so good, almost to the point where it's basically the only book you needed in life? Wouldn't it be better than all of your favorite books combined? And now imagine a person, who devotes his entire life, striving to follow the exact instructions of this book. How awesome and awe-inspiring would this person be?
But the reality is, the bible is only a mediocre book at best. Sure, it has its moments like 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 where Paul defines love in beautiful prose, but most of the book consists of phantasmagorical imagery, inane lists (numbers and Nehemiah), and archaic laws and stories that (even most Christians agree) no longer pertains in the modern world. Only people who seem to enjoy the book are the ones indoctrinated to the belief. And sadly, fundamental Christians aren't all that awe-inspiring. In fact, I would be scared of a person who has never read anything except the bible, and literally believes in every word of it. He would be a chauvinistic, homophobic, and dogmatic person, who supports slavery and other inequality amongst human beings. He would also believe in stoning a whole lot of people.
There is nothing wrong with the word fundamental in fundamental Christians.
___________________________________________________
on a side note:
Personally, I do not understand gay Christians. Why would you have faith - believing in something with zero evidence - on a religion that calls you "unrighteous," and calls you to be stoned to death? Why would you love someone that calls you an "abomination?" It seems masochistic to me, which, in a strange way, makes sense since God does seem quite sadistic.
But then again, all church goers are told what sinful, dirty and detestable creatures they are. And then, grown men and women are expected to kneel down, grovel and relinquish everything to a being who has absolute control over them. All this is done out of love. Perhaps many Christians, not just gay Christians, enjoy a bit of masochism.
Sam Harris has some excellent observations on fundamental Muslims. I'll post the link here, but for those of you in a hurry, I will paraphrase what he said.
Jainism is an Indian religion that emphasis non-violence towards all living things and equality between all forms of life. If you're a fundamental Jain, there is no need to be scared of you. Jains will walk with their heads down so that they don't step on an insect, and drink through a cloth for they fear accidentally drinking a bug.
No one needs to worry about fundamental Jains, and the same can be said about most Buddhists, Amish, etc.
But what if you're a fundamental Muslim, like Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or the members of the Taliban, etc? Had they claimed that they were fundamental Buddhists, Jains, or Amish, their lie would be painfully obvious, and we would argue that their violent actions stem from NOT following the teachings of Jainism, Buddhism, Amish, etc. But with fundamental Muslims, the opposite is true. They behave in such fashion because they are striving to follow every word of the holy book. The word fundamental is not the problem. Muslim is.
That was what I got out of Sam Harris's incredibly insightful lecture.
Now here is a question for you. What would a fundamental Christian look like? A person who takes the entire bible, or nearly all of it, quite literally and seriously? After all, why wouldn't you take it all of it seriously when it's the inerrant and infallible word of God? Who are you to disregarded some of its teachings?
Well, he most likely wouldn't believe in gender equality.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man. She must be quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12)
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22)
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (1 Corinthians 11:3-7)
Some people may feel that I've taken the quotes out of context, but it's rather difficult to take "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord" out of context. I'm not sure how you can interpret this any other way. Perhaps, some may erroneously argue that because husbands are called to love their wives, this somehow balances the equality issue. Well, I love my dog, but we are not equals in power.
God's inherent sexist views shouldn't surprise anyone. He, after all, supports slavery. You would have to go through some impressive logical acrobatics to argue otherwise. Jesus himself uses a number of parables with slaves, and he, along with everyone else in the bible, never criticizes the institution once.
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also the cruel. (1 Peter 2:18)
It seems painfully clear to me that Lincoln was on the wrong side of the bible. And it's not a surprise that proponents of the confederacy often cited the inerrant word of God to support their peculiar institution.
So our model fundamentalist Christian would be sexist and a slave supporter. What else? Well, he probably would believe that homosexuality was a sin.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:27)
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
While it is true that Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors, including gay people, the bible also clearly states that gay people aren't going to heaven (therefore they will presumably go to hell). After all, going to heaven or hell isn't judged by popularity. In other words, your love towards gays and their reservation in hell have nothing to do with each other.
Now imagine an all powerful being - a being who is benign, sagacious, and even powerful enough to create this entire universe. If this being wrote a book, just how good would it be? Wouldn't it be so good, almost to the point where it's basically the only book you needed in life? Wouldn't it be better than all of your favorite books combined? And now imagine a person, who devotes his entire life, striving to follow the exact instructions of this book. How awesome and awe-inspiring would this person be?
But the reality is, the bible is only a mediocre book at best. Sure, it has its moments like 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 where Paul defines love in beautiful prose, but most of the book consists of phantasmagorical imagery, inane lists (numbers and Nehemiah), and archaic laws and stories that (even most Christians agree) no longer pertains in the modern world. Only people who seem to enjoy the book are the ones indoctrinated to the belief. And sadly, fundamental Christians aren't all that awe-inspiring. In fact, I would be scared of a person who has never read anything except the bible, and literally believes in every word of it. He would be a chauvinistic, homophobic, and dogmatic person, who supports slavery and other inequality amongst human beings. He would also believe in stoning a whole lot of people.
There is nothing wrong with the word fundamental in fundamental Christians.
___________________________________________________
on a side note:
Personally, I do not understand gay Christians. Why would you have faith - believing in something with zero evidence - on a religion that calls you "unrighteous," and calls you to be stoned to death? Why would you love someone that calls you an "abomination?" It seems masochistic to me, which, in a strange way, makes sense since God does seem quite sadistic.
But then again, all church goers are told what sinful, dirty and detestable creatures they are. And then, grown men and women are expected to kneel down, grovel and relinquish everything to a being who has absolute control over them. All this is done out of love. Perhaps many Christians, not just gay Christians, enjoy a bit of masochism.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Something I never understood
(this is a part of a continuing post. If you haven't, I suggest that
you start reading from a post entitled "dancing with atheism.")
The origin of the word "scapegoat" comes from a practice of transferring your transgressions to a goat and sending it off to a desert to die. I don't know about you but I find this practice to be fascinating. Let's hypothetically say that someone raped a girl during the days when women were considered to be slightly more valuable than a heifer. The man, after admitting guilt, takes a few goats, and "scapegoats" the poor animal and claims to be free of his sins. Is this practice just? Is it moral?
The practice is unjust. It is immoral. As unethical it may be, you can transfer your penalties to someone else, but you can never transfer your sins, no matter how many goats you sacrifice. Even if vicarious redemption were moral, it is simply impossible to free you of your sins, unless there is a time machine. If you commit a murder, I can take your place on the electric chair but that does not change the fact that you are a murderer. What is done is done. You are not free from your sins.
So what happens when you decide to sacrifice something far more valuable than a goat? A thousand cows, or son of God for example. Does value of the sacrifice make the practice just and moral?
No, of course not. The idea of vicarious redemption is nonsense.
The central idea of Christianity is undoubtedly Jesus Christ's supposed sacrifice for the humanity. I find this story to be rather contemptible and ridiculous for two reasons, and I have already explained one.
The second immoral aspect of the crucifixion story is the idea of inherited transgressions, the idea that sins of your parents can be transferred onto their children, which gave birth to the doctrine of Original Sin. I hope I don't have to explain in detail why this is so immoral and despicable. Children are not exempt from the original sin, yet the only sin they've committed is the sin of being born - something they had no control over.
It's no surprise to me that so many fundamental Christians condemn gays. These people have no shame in hating people for the way they were born.
The origin of the word "scapegoat" comes from a practice of transferring your transgressions to a goat and sending it off to a desert to die. I don't know about you but I find this practice to be fascinating. Let's hypothetically say that someone raped a girl during the days when women were considered to be slightly more valuable than a heifer. The man, after admitting guilt, takes a few goats, and "scapegoats" the poor animal and claims to be free of his sins. Is this practice just? Is it moral?
The practice is unjust. It is immoral. As unethical it may be, you can transfer your penalties to someone else, but you can never transfer your sins, no matter how many goats you sacrifice. Even if vicarious redemption were moral, it is simply impossible to free you of your sins, unless there is a time machine. If you commit a murder, I can take your place on the electric chair but that does not change the fact that you are a murderer. What is done is done. You are not free from your sins.
So what happens when you decide to sacrifice something far more valuable than a goat? A thousand cows, or son of God for example. Does value of the sacrifice make the practice just and moral?
No, of course not. The idea of vicarious redemption is nonsense.
The central idea of Christianity is undoubtedly Jesus Christ's supposed sacrifice for the humanity. I find this story to be rather contemptible and ridiculous for two reasons, and I have already explained one.
The second immoral aspect of the crucifixion story is the idea of inherited transgressions, the idea that sins of your parents can be transferred onto their children, which gave birth to the doctrine of Original Sin. I hope I don't have to explain in detail why this is so immoral and despicable. Children are not exempt from the original sin, yet the only sin they've committed is the sin of being born - something they had no control over.
It's no surprise to me that so many fundamental Christians condemn gays. These people have no shame in hating people for the way they were born.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Sadism
(this is a part of a continuing post. If you haven't, I suggest that you start reading from a post entitled "dancing with atheism.")
God is good, my pastors used to tell me. Well, here's a passage and a question for them.
This is what the Lord Almighty says... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' 1 Samuel 15:3
Why would a loving God order a genocide?
Here are some possible answers, taken from various websites and my memory of what pastors had said: Amalekites were sinful people, God knows all so you must have faith in his actions, bible is really a metaphor so you don't know what exactly happened, it really wasn't a genocide, and my favorite, this is before Jesus's redemption so God had to kill all the sinners.
Here's what all the answers have in common. It's an attempt to rationalize the irrational. It's an attempt to justify what people under normal conditions would dare not justify. Such actions, both the command and the justification, are beyond moral bankruptcy.
But then again, if you're a regular reader of the bible, you should've realized a long time ago that infanticides and mass killings are a common and reoccurring theme in the bible.
God first begins by ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son - something unimaginably cruel. Of course, Christians would contend that it was merely a test. Well, it's a shame then, that Job drew the short end of the stick for his test, because God gave permission to kill all 10 of Job's children. In Leviticus, God says "[if you disobey me] you will eat the flesh of your sons and flesh of your daughters," and here's one that you won't hear in church very much: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" (Psalm 137:9).
But who cares about a couple kids? After all, God demolished Sodom & Gomorrah because they lacked righteous people (I'm sure a lot of kids and infants died as well), and he wiped out virtually all living things in a deluge. There's a few more but I think everyone gets the point.
Here's is what Hitchens has to say about God's cruelty. In one of the most brutal verbal beat downs I have ever witnessed, Hitchens just destroys Christianity in mere 3 minutes.
And here is Sam Harris on God's cruelty, starting from 52 second. A lot more detached style and significantly longer, but it's equally brutal.
After all this, the church teaches you that God loves you. This is incredibly sadistic.
God is good, my pastors used to tell me. Well, here's a passage and a question for them.
This is what the Lord Almighty says... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' 1 Samuel 15:3
Why would a loving God order a genocide?
Here are some possible answers, taken from various websites and my memory of what pastors had said: Amalekites were sinful people, God knows all so you must have faith in his actions, bible is really a metaphor so you don't know what exactly happened, it really wasn't a genocide, and my favorite, this is before Jesus's redemption so God had to kill all the sinners.
Here's what all the answers have in common. It's an attempt to rationalize the irrational. It's an attempt to justify what people under normal conditions would dare not justify. Such actions, both the command and the justification, are beyond moral bankruptcy.
But then again, if you're a regular reader of the bible, you should've realized a long time ago that infanticides and mass killings are a common and reoccurring theme in the bible.
God first begins by ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son - something unimaginably cruel. Of course, Christians would contend that it was merely a test. Well, it's a shame then, that Job drew the short end of the stick for his test, because God gave permission to kill all 10 of Job's children. In Leviticus, God says "[if you disobey me] you will eat the flesh of your sons and flesh of your daughters," and here's one that you won't hear in church very much: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" (Psalm 137:9).
But who cares about a couple kids? After all, God demolished Sodom & Gomorrah because they lacked righteous people (I'm sure a lot of kids and infants died as well), and he wiped out virtually all living things in a deluge. There's a few more but I think everyone gets the point.
Here's is what Hitchens has to say about God's cruelty. In one of the most brutal verbal beat downs I have ever witnessed, Hitchens just destroys Christianity in mere 3 minutes.
And here is Sam Harris on God's cruelty, starting from 52 second. A lot more detached style and significantly longer, but it's equally brutal.
After all this, the church teaches you that God loves you. This is incredibly sadistic.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Extraordinary Proof
(this is a part of a continuing post. If you haven't, I suggest that you starting reading from a post entitled "onion")
Atheism, or non-theism, is a belief that there is insignificant evidence to warrant a belief in a God or gods. Traditionally, atheism was associated with a positive denial of deity, but it is becoming more and more synonymous with agnosticism, with the former being the preferred term.
Some people reject atheism because atheists cannot prove the non-existence of God. Well, technically, there is no need for a burden of proof for an atheist (would a non-astrologist have the burden of disproving astrology?) but let's just contemplate about this anyway. Suppose that I ask you to prove the non-existence of unicorns. How would you go about doing this? The chances are that you don't have a chance of proving it.
Even if you are able to trace the original author who admits to making up the tale, this is not a proof. After all, Europeans talked about black swans as a fictitious bird for centuries and centuries, and we even know the author and the date of fabrication - Juvenal in 82 CE. This, of course, was until the European discovery of Australia and - surprise - black swans that dwelled in it.
So for all we know, there may be unicorns in a parallel universe somewhere, sipping on coffee and discussing about the hypothetical existence of human beings. You cannot possibly expect people to disprove God when we can't even do it with unicorns.
But despite our lack of ability to disprove unicorns, how would our society view a man who adamantly insists on its existence? Even if he cites some ancient texts and claims that it's metaphoric and whatnot, the chances are that no one would take him seriously. Let's take this even further, and suppose that this man claims that the unicorn is extremely powerful, and he will torture you for eternity because of your great, great, great, great, great grandparent's sins unless you grovel at his feet and become his subservient slave in which you will be truly happy and free. Oh, and he's your father by the way, and he needs roughly 10% of your income.
Wouldn't such an extraordinary claim require an extraordinary evidence? There is no reason to believe this without reason. There is no need to depend on faith, which is by definition belief without proof, when we have our own ratiocination.
You may find my unicorn story to be repulsive and silly, but that is roughly how the story sounds like to someone who's not indoctrinated to Christianity. The most notable difference between the two stories is that Christianity is by far more outlandish.
Take thousands of now extinct religions and gods around the world - Zeus for instance, or the Korean tale of a rabbit living on the moon. They're quite silly obviously. But if it's your religion, it suddenly becomes perfectly sensible to believe in people walking on water or riding a chariot to the heavens. I can't disprove either Zeus or the flying chariot, but I really have no reason to believe in them either.
You don't even have to take a dead religion. Suicide bombers believing in 72 virgins? Japanese believing that their emperor is god? Isn't it terrifying how religion is able to make perfectly decent people believe in some outrageous claims with zero proof? And how they dictate nearly every aspect of your behavior, from what you eat to what you do naked in bed. Perhaps, you are one of the suckers.
Atheism, or non-theism, is a belief that there is insignificant evidence to warrant a belief in a God or gods. Traditionally, atheism was associated with a positive denial of deity, but it is becoming more and more synonymous with agnosticism, with the former being the preferred term.
Some people reject atheism because atheists cannot prove the non-existence of God. Well, technically, there is no need for a burden of proof for an atheist (would a non-astrologist have the burden of disproving astrology?) but let's just contemplate about this anyway. Suppose that I ask you to prove the non-existence of unicorns. How would you go about doing this? The chances are that you don't have a chance of proving it.
Even if you are able to trace the original author who admits to making up the tale, this is not a proof. After all, Europeans talked about black swans as a fictitious bird for centuries and centuries, and we even know the author and the date of fabrication - Juvenal in 82 CE. This, of course, was until the European discovery of Australia and - surprise - black swans that dwelled in it.
So for all we know, there may be unicorns in a parallel universe somewhere, sipping on coffee and discussing about the hypothetical existence of human beings. You cannot possibly expect people to disprove God when we can't even do it with unicorns.
But despite our lack of ability to disprove unicorns, how would our society view a man who adamantly insists on its existence? Even if he cites some ancient texts and claims that it's metaphoric and whatnot, the chances are that no one would take him seriously. Let's take this even further, and suppose that this man claims that the unicorn is extremely powerful, and he will torture you for eternity because of your great, great, great, great, great grandparent's sins unless you grovel at his feet and become his subservient slave in which you will be truly happy and free. Oh, and he's your father by the way, and he needs roughly 10% of your income.
Wouldn't such an extraordinary claim require an extraordinary evidence? There is no reason to believe this without reason. There is no need to depend on faith, which is by definition belief without proof, when we have our own ratiocination.
You may find my unicorn story to be repulsive and silly, but that is roughly how the story sounds like to someone who's not indoctrinated to Christianity. The most notable difference between the two stories is that Christianity is by far more outlandish.
Take thousands of now extinct religions and gods around the world - Zeus for instance, or the Korean tale of a rabbit living on the moon. They're quite silly obviously. But if it's your religion, it suddenly becomes perfectly sensible to believe in people walking on water or riding a chariot to the heavens. I can't disprove either Zeus or the flying chariot, but I really have no reason to believe in them either.
You don't even have to take a dead religion. Suicide bombers believing in 72 virgins? Japanese believing that their emperor is god? Isn't it terrifying how religion is able to make perfectly decent people believe in some outrageous claims with zero proof? And how they dictate nearly every aspect of your behavior, from what you eat to what you do naked in bed. Perhaps, you are one of the suckers.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Dancing with atheism
I feel like I'm coming out of the closet, but I refuse to be disingenuous. I am not quite ready to completely denounce my faith, but I am moving towards that direction - little by little bit every day (Ha!). Soon, I can picture myself being labeled as a lapsed Methodist or an apostate - very soon.
I guess it's fair to say that I've always found religion to be irrational. More than believing in the ideals, I wanted to believe in them. And this was fine as long as I suppressed the deep inner questions occurring within myself. Then, a few notable events took place in my life.
First there was a pastor, whose name I shall not mention, whom I disagreed so much with. I vividly remember listening to his sermons Sunday after Sunday, and repeatedly murmuring to myself, "this is some bullshit."
Then, all the doubts and questions I've been repressing came roaring back. Do mainstream Christians think like this guy? Moving to Korea was a big help, because I was able to closely scrutinize religion and my own faith in a rather impartial way. After all, it is quite inconvenient for a regular church-goer to stop attending church, which can affect one's partiality.
And then came the interview with Christopher Hitchens.
I don't remember whether it was NPR or 60 minutes, or whether it was 2011 or 2012. To be honest, I didn't think much of the interview at first, until I started contemplating about the subtitle of his book, god is not Great - religion poisons everything. Religion poisons everything...
It was as if I was hit by a hammer. I always saw religion as a sine qua non for human morality but I realized that in so many cases, it was the other way around. Religion, or at least organized religion, makes ordinary people behave in strange ways, and it rationalizes those actions. It's almost as if either organized religion or organizations acting like a religion is absolutely necessary in order to have large groups of people act in wicked and completely nonsensical fashion.
How many atheist suicide bombers have you read about? Why is it that you're greeted with derision if you literally believe the story of Romulus, the eponymous founder of Rome, yet it's perfectly fine for millions of people to believe in talking snakes? (Romulus and his twin brother Remus, was raised by a wolf). Why is it that people take unequivocal positions when it comes to Hitler and Pol Pot's genocides, yet genocide is perfectly permissible when it comes to killing Moabites and Canaanites?
Basically, I stopped rationalizing religious behaviors and stories in the bible and tried to see them with an objective mind. It was a rather astounding experience I have to say. And Hitchens was right. Organized religion is poisonous. Religious zealots act in strange ways, and they have no problem justifying their unique actions.
I'm just beginning to scratch the surface with some of the questions that I have. Hopefully, I'll be able to express my views in an articulate, eloquent, and succinct fashion before my break is over. Stay posted.
I guess it's fair to say that I've always found religion to be irrational. More than believing in the ideals, I wanted to believe in them. And this was fine as long as I suppressed the deep inner questions occurring within myself. Then, a few notable events took place in my life.
First there was a pastor, whose name I shall not mention, whom I disagreed so much with. I vividly remember listening to his sermons Sunday after Sunday, and repeatedly murmuring to myself, "this is some bullshit."
Then, all the doubts and questions I've been repressing came roaring back. Do mainstream Christians think like this guy? Moving to Korea was a big help, because I was able to closely scrutinize religion and my own faith in a rather impartial way. After all, it is quite inconvenient for a regular church-goer to stop attending church, which can affect one's partiality.
And then came the interview with Christopher Hitchens.
I don't remember whether it was NPR or 60 minutes, or whether it was 2011 or 2012. To be honest, I didn't think much of the interview at first, until I started contemplating about the subtitle of his book, god is not Great - religion poisons everything. Religion poisons everything...
It was as if I was hit by a hammer. I always saw religion as a sine qua non for human morality but I realized that in so many cases, it was the other way around. Religion, or at least organized religion, makes ordinary people behave in strange ways, and it rationalizes those actions. It's almost as if either organized religion or organizations acting like a religion is absolutely necessary in order to have large groups of people act in wicked and completely nonsensical fashion.
How many atheist suicide bombers have you read about? Why is it that you're greeted with derision if you literally believe the story of Romulus, the eponymous founder of Rome, yet it's perfectly fine for millions of people to believe in talking snakes? (Romulus and his twin brother Remus, was raised by a wolf). Why is it that people take unequivocal positions when it comes to Hitler and Pol Pot's genocides, yet genocide is perfectly permissible when it comes to killing Moabites and Canaanites?
Basically, I stopped rationalizing religious behaviors and stories in the bible and tried to see them with an objective mind. It was a rather astounding experience I have to say. And Hitchens was right. Organized religion is poisonous. Religious zealots act in strange ways, and they have no problem justifying their unique actions.
I'm just beginning to scratch the surface with some of the questions that I have. Hopefully, I'll be able to express my views in an articulate, eloquent, and succinct fashion before my break is over. Stay posted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
