Does god exist?

Q. Does god exist??
A. No until proven otherwise. "God" as a concept exists. We can imagine a god, but that does not make god real. Just like we can think of a pink unicorn.

Q. Does atheist have the burden of proof of the non-existence of god?
A. No. Any one can imagine some odd creatures and claims their existence. No one will be able to proof the non-existence of such creatures. Similarly, since theists assert there is a god, it is their burden to proof god's existence. Until proven, god does not exist.

Q. A lot of people believe in god, does it show that god exist?
A. No. Truth is not a popularity contest. A lot of people can be wrong. Just like people used to believe the earth is flat. We now know that it is not. The "common sense" changes as evidence progresses to demonstrate the real truth. "Common sense" is just the perception of most people. This is not a reason to assert the truth of the ideas. There are many different religions all claiming their is the true god. They cannot be ALL correct, but they can be all wrong.

Q. This world is filled with lives of complexity and wow. Where do they come from? Does it show that god created them?
A. No. We do not yet know how life is formed. The correct answer is "we do not yet know". A "do not know" answer does not imply "god created it". A "do not know" answer is an honest answer. "God created it" is an arrogant and naive conjecture with no logical base.

Q. A lot of smart and intelligent people believe in god, does it show that god exist?
A. No, these people are not smart and intelligent enough.

Q. Some people claim that they have been touched/felt/enjoyed/...[choice your own word] by god. Why do we not believe them?
A. Witness evidence have been proven to be laden with pre-conception and error. Some are claiming that with selfish reasons. If god exists, there should be repeatable, demonstrable evidence of its existence. Again, show the miracle. Words worth nothing in front of evidence.

Q. Life is coded in DNA. Does it not demonstrate god has created life using DNA as its language?
A. How DNA started is not understood yet. The honest answer, again, is "we do not know". There is no logical linkage between "do not know" with "god creation".

Q. How does the universe begin? Does it not demonstrate god created the universe?
A. Just like the origin of DNA, the honest and correct answer "we do not yet know". Science has formulated the best understanding we have about the origin of universe, that's the big bang theory. Science does not say anything about the universe before the big bang. Banana man claims that scientists believe nothing created everything. That's a misrepresentation. He is completely mistaken. The equivalent is 'nothing created god'.

Q. God existence is proved by the scripture, isn't it?
A. No. The bibles are just a compilation of a number of books written by some men about 2000 years ago. It does not prove anything. I can write a book about a god I created. My book is not the prove of the existence of my god. It may describe a god. Such a description does not make god real.

Q. The bible contains a lot of historical facts. Does it not make it a credible source of proving god's existence?
A. No. The bible also contains a lot of claims which have been proven wrong. Each claim should be evaluated by its own merits. There is no logical relationship among the truth of different claims within the same work. I can write a book about a god with some known historian facts mixed it. The truth of those historian facts does not make my description of my god real. It is still a work of fiction.

Q. Religion is the source of human moral. Without god, we have no moral. Since we have moral, it shows that god exists.
A. The statement "Religion is the source of human moral" is false. The falsehood is demonstrated by the existence of similar moral values by cultures with and without god. Since the first statement is false, any conclusion that follows does not have a logical foundation to base on.

Q. God answers prayer. Does that a prove of god's existence?
A. Yes only if god has answered prayers with an occurrence better than by pure chance. There is no such evidence yet.

Q. How can you make me believe in your god?
A. Show me the evidence of the existence of your god. Until then, your god does not exist and I do not believe in whatever that follows from the assumption of god's existence. That is all your religious BS is just BS to me.

Q. Why am I hostile against religion?
A. First of all, I have very low tolerance of stupidity. I am a teacher by trade. I like to see you able to reason. That is, I like to teach you to be slightly less stupid. Second, just like you would stop a crime (e.g. you see some one stealing from another, you would yell thief to stop the crime from happening), I am yelling to stop the organised criminals.

Q. Why I equate religion to criminals?
A. Religion is spreading unsupported claims. It is guilty of misinformation. It is also giving false hope to people. It is also a parasite to the society - it does not pay tax! Religion is hindering human progress - in both realms of morality and scientific progress.

Is God necessary for morality

I am a science student and hence will look at evidences. Here is a possible experiment to find out if religion is necessary for moral.


The beauty of the experiment is that anyone willing to spend the effort and time can repeat the experiment and find out for yourself what is the answer to that question.

Virgin Mary

Quote

Hat up to Daniel R. at Kiva.org

Recognition for Ms. Herrera came a few years after her husband’s death, at 98, in 2000. “Everybody says Jesse must have orchestrated this from above,” Ms. Herrera said, shaking her head. “Yeah, right, Jesse on a cloud.” She added: “I worked really hard. Maybe it was me.”

See source

Adam and Eve

Women, be silent, submit and obey

Where do I come from?

We are thinking animal. We like to know. We have been creating all kinds of things. Our perception is that all things are created.

While we are wowed by the beauty and complexity of the universe and when we think of ourselves about how the universe and we have come to being, the knee-jerk answer is someone has created us. Many a times this was reinforced by someone in a position of authority. But it is really the case?

Where do we come from? The correct and honest response is "I don't know". "I don't know" seems to be a very difficult response for a lot of people. That's strange. We really do not know. Admitting that we do not know is showing our intellectual honesty and humble character. Unfortunately, a lot of people use the "god filler".

Are those who tell us that god created us in a better position than we are in answering the same question? Do they have any evidence to show us that they know something we don't know? Sometimes the answer was "bible says so". Now, the bible was written by men (I am using this as gender neutral term to refer to human kind). These men were supposedly inspired by god. The bible was the "true words of god".

Let's take the story in Genesis 22:1-24 in which god asks Abraham to sacrifice his son. Although Abraham did not kill his son "because an angel stopped him", transfer the act to modern times, what would we think about a person, who was told by god, to kill his own son? The person would definitely end up in a mental hospital if not in prison. Men who wrote the bible were primitive and childish. How can we believe the bible can be the words of a god who is all knowing?

The bible also contains many contradictions. Again that can only lead to a conclusion that the bible are just a bundle of stories written by men. The inspiration by god is hardly seen.

Back to the question of where we all come from, the correct answer is again "I don't know".

What is wrong with the god filler answer?

Using a god filler does not answer the original question. We were asking, in a way, where the complexity came from. If we were created by god, god must be very complex. Where did god come from? The god filler is actually a think stopper. If we are satisfied by the answer, we would stop seeking answer to the original question.

ps
Even if we accept there is a god who created everything, the jump from such cosmic god to a personal god also involves huge assumptions difficult to justify.

Why people call Americans dumb?

It was question asked back in 14 Jan, 2006 by American Chronicle
In 2007, here was how Americans response to some pretty common knowledge.



In 2008:


If Bill O'reilly, a TV host, was allowed to spread wrong concept of how law should be respected, that may explain some of the American's stupidity.

Take a look on the issue of evolution - which is a scientific theory (ie generalisations based on a huge number of observations and can be used to explain a lot of other observations). In 2007, 48% do not believe in evolution. That's is a remarkably high percentage of people with complete lack of scientific literacy. [source]

The American Chronicle's 2006 article pointed out USA became rich because of

The main factor is probably the culture built on Protestant work ethics and solid North European common sense. People work hard and they work smart. They know how to solve problems. While some may call modern Americans "wastrels", the past generations had been very thrifty. The country was built on free enterprise and for hundreds of years the government had a laissez fair policy towards business. The culture is forward looking with a "can do" attitude. People are enthusiastic and believe that they can achieve their individual dreams through discipline and never giving up. Add to this the fact that education is much more accessible to many more people than how it was in Europe and the fact that the society has a much less rigid class structure and you've got yourself a rich country. And don't forget the fact that the country has lots of natural resources and unlike the European countries there have not been any major invasions for the past 200 years or so.

Now that the education system in USA is able to produce 48% of the population who are unable to comprehend the significance of one of the most basic scientific theory, the future of USA is not that bright!

Quote

Why are these devout believers so desperate to have everyone believe as they do? Are they so insecure in their unfounded beliefs that they must compel others into them, no matter what, including being arrogant, conceited and condescending? - D.M. Murdock


People will then often say, ‘But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?’ This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway.) - Douglas Adams

What is good about a god who cannot prove his/her existence to human? - me (Albert Ip)

Dr? Hovind

Kent Hovind's PhD dissertation (submitted to Patriot University on 25th May, 1991) was leaked to the Internet. The scholarship was ... Sorry, the wrong word. The writing was grade two according to a comment on The Private Bay. The Introduction starts like this:

Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976....

This is the FIRST time I read a PhD dissertation starts like that!

Now on the first 'serious' part of a dissertation presented for a degree:

THE HISTORY OF EVOLUTION
Where in the world did the idea come from that things left to themselves can improve with time? Who would start a crazy idea like that? This idea is the opposite of everything we observe in the world today. For instance, all the highways in our nation today left to themselves decay, deteriorate, and fall apart....

Evolution was in a book called The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Hey, when writing a thesis, do the research, find the answer and cite the reference!
Let me just quickly answer the question why highway decays without constant human intervention - because highway is built AGAINST nature.

I cannot read the rest of the BS. I felt very sorry for the children who have been taught by this man. These children would be better off having no teacher!

Season Greeting

Please accept, and/or renew, without obligation, implied or implicit, the best wishes, referred to as this greeting hereafter, for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, politically correct, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, non-specific sexuality, celebration of the winter solstice holiday in the northern hemisphere and summer solstice holiday in the southern hemisphere, practised within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your preference, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. This greeting, without implied obligations also extends to cover a financially successful, personally fulfilling, emotionally enchanting and stimulating, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but with due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures or sects, in a world filled with love, peace, joy, harmony, diversity, tolerant, good will, respect and happiness, clean air and plenty of water, less pollution, reduced green house gases, and having regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith and your preference to the choice of blogging software, RSS reader, email system, web browsers, including but not limited to the free Firefox and/or Internet Explorer with due considerations of their respective differences to the interpretation and implementation of W3C web standards, computer platform, brand of microprocessor, type of visual display unit, keyboard, mouse or any other pointing device, operating system, including but not limited to singular or a plurality of variations, whether for a fee or free open source, and Internet service provider connected by modem, permanent modem, broadband, or otherwise, or dietary preference of the wishee.

This greeting must not be read if you do not accept the terms and conditions of this greeting. By having read this greeting, you have indicated your explicit acknowledgement of accepting this greeting in the aforesaid manners.

This greeting inclusively, exclusively and non-exclusively cover you, your spouse, whether same or different gender and/or whether such relationship is legally recognized or illegal in certain jurisdictions, including singularly and plurally, previous, present or future, your children including natural, adopted, by-law or sponsored, dead, alive, or unborn, and/or your parents, related by blood, by-laws, adopted, or sponsored dead or alive. Upon being covered by the greeting of the aforesaid greeting in the same aforesaid manner, those covered wishees will extend the aforesaid greeting to the same relates they have recursively and infinitum.

By accepting this greeting you are bound by these terms:

* This greeting is subject to further clarification or withdrawal.

* This greeting, including but not limited to all its associated tangible and intangible good will and best wishes, is freely transferable, duplicated, distributed, copied and reproduced subject to the conditions below.

* This greeting implies no promise by the wishor to actually implement any of the wishes.

* This greeting may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions and/or the restrictions herein may not be binding upon certain wishees in certain jurisdictions and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wishor.

* This greeting is warranted to perform as reasonably may be expected within the usual application of good tidings, for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, or automatic renewed.

* The wishor warrants this greeting only for the limited replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wishor.

* Any proprietary rights associated with this greeting, including but not limited to the intellectual and moral rights, publishing rights including but not limited to publishing via the blogosphere, by email, by web sites, on CD and/or any electronic means, the right to perform in private and in public to a small, medium or large group of present or remote audience and or the broadcast rights to transmit, preserve and retransmit by any physical or electronic means are the property of the wishor.

* This manifestation of the greeting, copyleft under GNU license or other open source license similar to GNU license and or Creative Commons when and if such license(s) is/are enforceable in certain jurisdictions, is freely transferable, duplicated, distributed, copied and reproduced provided that any further addition or alternation shall not impose any limitation beyond those implicitly or explicitly expressed by this clause.

* Any alteration and addition, including but not limited to the syntactic, semantic, linguistic, artistic, aesthetic, spiritual and material improvements, shall only be made to the original greeting in the same good faith and honour of any reasonable person.

* Any references in this greeting to "the Lord", "Father Christmas", "Our Saviour", "Santa" or any other festive figures, whether actual or fictitious, dead or alive, shall not imply any endorsement by or from them in respect of this greeting, and all proprietary rights in any referenced third party names and images are hereby acknowledged.

* Any names or terms used in this greeting, whether trademarked, copyrighted, copylefted, patented or have been placed in the open source under GNU, Creative Commons or other open source licenses belong to their respective owners and promoters.

* The wishee expressly agrees, by the acceptance of the greeting, that the greeting is accepted and enjoyed at wishee's own risk. Neither the wishor, its affiliates, nor any of their respective employees, previous or current employers, friends, relatives, spouse past, present or future, agents, third party providers or licensor's warrant that the greeting will be uninterrupted or error free; nor do they make any warranty as to the results and effectiveness of the greeting.

* The wishee may not without wishor's prior written approval disclose to any third party the results of any benchmark test of the performance of the greeting.

* The wishee expressly acknowledges and agrees that in order to protect the integrity of certain third party mechanism of enjoying the wishes, the wishor may provide for security related updates that will be automatically downloaded and installed on your holiday itinerary. Such security related updates may impair the movement, enjoyment (and any other activities during your holiday which specifically depends on the said wishes) including disabling your ability to laugh and/or smile, i.e. certain way of enjoying a holiday protected by digital rights management.

* The wisher reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the wishes. Such updates, revisions, supplements, modifications, and additional rules, policies, terms, and conditions (collectively referred to in this Agreement as "Additional Terms") will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. The wishee's continued enjoyment of the wishes following will be deemed to constitute the wishee's acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms. All Additional Terms are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.

Birthday

Isaac Newton's birthday is coming soon. How do you prepare to celebrate?

BTW, here is a list of people born on 25th December. Who you will celebrate? [source]
* 1250 – John IV Laskaris, Byzantine Emperor (d. c. 1305)
* 1461 – Christina of Saxony, queen of Denmark and Norway (d. 1521)
* 1583 – Orlando Gibbons, English composer (d. 1625)
* 1584 – Margaret of Austria, queen of Spain and Portugal (d. 1611)
* 1628 – Noël Coypel, French painter (d. 1707)
* 1652 – Archibald Pitcairne, Scottish physician (d. 1713)
* 1665 – Lady Grizel Baillie, Scottish songwriter (d. 1746)
* 1667 – Ehrengard von der Schulenburg, English royal mistress (d. 1743)
* 1674 – Thomas Halyburton, Scottish theologian (d. 1712)
* 1700 – Leopold II of Anhalt-Dessau, Prussian general (d. 1758)
* 1711 – Jean Joseph de Mondonville, French composer (d. 1772)
* 1716 – Johann Jakob Reiske, German scholar and physician (d. 1774)
* 1730 – Philip Mazzei, Italian physician and friend of Thomas Jefferson (d. 1816)
* 1742 – Charlotte von Stein, German friend of Goethe (d. 1827)
* 1745 – Chevalier de Saint-Georges - "Black Mozart", African-French Swordsman, Soldier of Fortune, and Composer (d. 1799)
* 1757 – Benjamin Pierce, U.S. politician (d. 1839)
* 1763 – Claude Chappe, French telecommunications pioneer (d. 1805)
* 1771 – Dorothy Wordsworth, English diarist and sister of William Wordsworth (d. 1855)
* 1810 – Alexandros Rhizos Rhankaves, Greek poet and statesman (d. 1892)
* 1821 – Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross (d. 1912)
* 1829 – Patrick Gilmore, Irish-American composer (d. 1892)
* 1856 – Hans von Bartels, German painter (d. 1913)
* 1856 – Pud Galvin, American professional baseball pitcher (d. 1902)
* 1860 – Manuel Dimech, Maltese philosopher and social reformer (d. 1921)
* 1861 – Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, Indian founder of Banaras Hindu University (d. 1946)
* 1863 – Charles Pathé, French pioneer of film and record industries (d. 1957)
* 1864 – Thomas Cahill, American soccer coach (d. 1951)
* 1865 – Evangeline Booth, the 4th General of The Salvation Army (d. 1950)
* 1870 – Helena Rubinstein, Polish-born American cosmetics industrialist (d. 1965)
* 1873 – Otto Frederick Hunziker, Swiss-born American dairy educator (d. 1959)
* 1874 – Lina Cavalieri, Italian soprano (d. 1944)
* 1875 – Theodor Cardinal Innitzer, Austrian archbishop (d. 1955)
* 1876 – Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan (d. 1948)
* 1876 – Adolf Otto Reinhold Windaus, Nobel laureate (d. 1959)
* 1878 – Louis Chevrolet, Swiss-born race car driver (d. 1941)
* 1884 – Evelyn Nesbit, American actress (d. 1967)
* 1886 – Kid Ory, American musician (d. 1973)
* 1887 – Conrad Hilton, American hotelier (d. 1979)
* 1889 – Lila Bell Wallace, American magazine publisher (Reader's Digest) (d. 1984)
* 1890 – Noel Odell, British mountaineer (d. 1987)
* 1890 – Robert Ripley, collector of odd facts (d. 1949)
* 1891 – Clarrie Grimmett, Australian cricketer (d. 1980)
* 1899 – Humphrey Bogart, American actor (d. 1957)
* 1901 – Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (d. 2004)
* 1902 – Barton MacLane, American actor (d. 1969)
* 1904 – Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel Prize laureate (d. 1999)
* 1906 – Lew Grade, Ukrainian-born film producer (d. 1998)
* 1906 – Ernst Ruska, Nobel laureate (d. 1988)
* 1907 – Cab Calloway, American bandleader (d. 1994)
* 1907 – Glenn McCarthy, American oil tycoon and businessman (d. 1988)
* 1907 – Mike Mazurki, Ukrainian-born actor (d. 1990)
* 1908 – Quentin Crisp, English author (d. 1999)
* 1908 – Jo-Jo Moore, baseball player (d. 2001)
* 1908 – Zora Arkus-Duntov, Belgian-American automotive engineer (d. 1996)
* 1908 – Ernest L. Massad, U.S. Army general (d. 1993)
* 1911 – Louise Bourgeois, sculptor
* 1912 – Tony Martin, American singer and actor
* 1912 – Natalino Otto, Italian singer (d. 1969)
* 1913 – Henri Nannen, German journalist (d. 1966)
* 1914 – James Muir Cameron Fletcher, New Zealand industrialist (d. 2007)
* 1915 – Pete Rugolo, Italian-born composer
* 1918 – Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, Nobel laureate (d. 1981)
* 1918 – Ahmed Ben Bella, politician, first President of Algeria
* 1919 – Naushad Ali, Indian music director (d. 2006)
* 1919 – Paul David, French Canadian cardiologist, founder of the Montreal Heart Institute (d. 1999)
* 1919 – Noele Gordon, English actress (d. 1985)
* 1921 – Zaib-un-Nissa Hamidullah, Pakistani journalist (d. 2000)
* 1923 – Rene Girard, French historian, literary critic and philosopher
* 1924 – Rod Serling, American television writer (d. 1975)
* 1924 – Atal Bihari Vajpayee, former Prime Minister of India
* 1925 – Carlos Castaneda, Peruvian-born author (d. 1998)
* 1926 – Enrique Jorrín, Cuban composer and musician (d. 1987)
* 1927 – Nellie Fox, baseball player (d. 1975)
* 1927 – Ram Narayan, Indian sarangi player
* 1928 – Dick Miller, American actor
* 1929 – Stuart Hall, British radio and television presenter
* 1929 – Chris Kenner, American singer and songwriter (d. 1976)
* 1930 – Emmanuel Agassi, Iranian boxer and father of Andre Agassi
* 1930 – Salah Jaheen, Egyptian poet and cartoonist (d. 1986)
* 1932 – Mabel King, American actress (d. 1999)
* 1935 – Stephen Barnett, American legal scholar who opposed the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 (d. 2009)
* 1935 – Al Jackson, baseball player
* 1936 – HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent
* 1936 – Ismail Merchant, Indian-born film producer (d. 2005)
* 1937 – O'Kelly Isley, Jr., American singer (The Isley Brothers) (d. 1986)
* 1938 – Noel Picard, Quebec ice hockey player
* 1938 – Duane Armstrong, American painter
* 1939 – Bob James, American composer and musician
* 1940 – Pete Brown, English poet and lyricist
* 1943 – Hanna Schygulla, German actress
* 1943 – Wilson Fittipaldi Júnior, Brazilian racing driver
* 1944 – Jairzinho, Brazilian footballer
* 1944 – Kenny Everett, British entertainer (d. 1995)
* 1944 – Henry Vestine, American musician (d. 1997)
* 1944 – Nigel Starmer-Smith, English Rugby Union commentator.
* 1945 – Noel Redding, English musician (d. 2003)
* 1945 – Rick Berman, Star Trek producer
* 1945 – Gary Sandy, American actor
* 1945 – Mike Pringle, Scottish politician
* 1946 – Jimmy Buffett, American singer and songwriter
* 1946 – Larry Csonka, American football player
* 1946 – Gene Lamont, American baseball player and manager
* 1948 – Barbara Mandrell, American singer and actress
* 1948 – Alia al Hussein, of Jordan (d. 1977)
* 1948 – Joel Natalino Santana, Brazilian soccer coach
* 1949 – Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan
* 1949 – Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira, Singer and icon of the Brazilian music
* 1949 – Sissy Spacek, American actress
* 1949 – Joe Louis Walker, American musician
* 1950 – Peter Boardman, British mountaineer (d. 1982)
* 1950 – Manny Trillo, baseball player
* 1950 – Yehuda Poliker, Israeli singer-songwriter
* 1950 – Karl Rove, former American presidential advisor
* 1952 – CCH Pounder, Guyana-born actress
* 1952 – Desireless, French singer
* 1954 – Annie Lennox, Scottish singer
* 1954 – Steve Wariner, American country music singer
* 1955 – Alannah Myles, Canadian singer
* 1957 – Chris Kamara, English footballer and commentator
* 1957 – Shane MacGowan, Irish musician
* 1958 – Hanford Dixon, American football player
* 1958 – Rickey Henderson, baseball player
* 1958 – Cheryl Chase, American voice actor
* 1959 – Michael P. Anderson, astronaut (d. 2003)
* 1960 – Ron Bottitta, British actor
* 1961 – Ingrid Betancourt, Colombian senator
* 1962 – Dean Cameron, American actor
* 1962 – Darren Wharton, British Keyboardist (Thin Lizzy and Dare)
* 1964 – Gary McAllister, Scottish footballer
* 1964 – Tim Royes – Music Video Director and Editor
* 1964 – Bob Stanley, English musician (Saint Etienne), filmmaker and journalist
* 1966 – Toshihiro Arai, Japanese rally driver
* 1967 – Jason Thirsk, American bass player (d. 1996)
* 1968 – Helena Christensen, Danish model
* 1968 – Jim Dowd, American ice hockey player
* 1970 – Emmanuel Amuneke, Nigerian footballer
* 1971 – Dido, English singer
* 1971 – Justin Trudeau, Canadian media personality
* 1971 – Noel Hogan, Irish musician
* 1972 – Josh Freese, American drummer
* 1972 – Mac Powell, American musician, singer/songwriter (lead singer of Third Day)
* 1973 – Robbie Elliott, English footballer
* 1973 – Chris Harris, American professional wrestler
* 1973 – Alexandre Trudeau, Canadian journalist
* 1973 – Ewen Macintosh, English Actor
* 1974 – Nagma, Indian actress
* 1975 – Marcus Trescothick, English cricketer
* 1975 – Hideki Okajima, Japanese baseball player
* 1975 – Rob Mariano, American reality show contestant
* 1976 – Tuomas Holopainen, Finnish keyboardist and songwriter (Nightwish)
* 1976 – Armin van Buuren, Dutch DJ & Producer
* 1977 – Uhm Ji-won, South Korean actress
* 1977 – Israel Vasquez, Current WBC Super bantamweight champion
* 1978 – Joel Porter, Australian footballer
* 1978 – Simon Jones, English cricketer
* 1980 – Marcus Trufant, American football player (Seattle Seahawks)
* 1980 – Reika Hashimoto, Japanese actress
* 1980 – Locó, Angolan footballer
* 1980 – Laura Sadler, British actress (d. 2003)
* 1981 – Katie Wright, American actress
* 1981 – Willy Taveras, baseball player
* 1982 – Shawn Andrews, American football player
* 1982 – Rob Edwards, Welsh footballer
* 1982 – Shystie, British rapper-songwriter
* 1982 – Trenesha Biggers, American professional wrestler
* 1984 – Chris Cahill, Samoan footballer
* 1984 – Alastair Cook, English cricketer
* 1984 – Georgia Moffett, British actress
* 1984 – The Veronicas, Australian singers (twin sisters)
* 1985 – Leon Pisani, Welsh singer
* 1985 – Perdita Weeks, British actress
* 1986 – Doug Loft, English footballer
* 1987 – Justin Sweeney, Australian rules footballer
* 1988 – Eric Gordon, American basketball player
Noop, Jesus was NOT born on 25th December. "The Bible itself tells us that December 25 is an unlikely date for His birth. Palestine is very cold in December. It was much too cold to ask everyone to travel to the city of their fathers to register for taxes. Also the shepherds were in the fields (Luke 2:8-12). Shepherds were not in the fields in the winter time. They are in the fields early in March until early October. This would place Jesus' birth in the spring or early fall. It is also known that Jesus lived for 33.5 years and died at the feast of the Passover, which is at Easter time. He must therefore have been born six months the other side of Easter - making the date around the September/October time frames. " [source]

Why there is so much intellectual dishonesty from the religious?

The header of Ray Comfort's (aka the Banana Man) Atheist Central is a quote from Einstein. When challenged, he responded:

Notice that although Einstein didn’t believe in a personal God (as revealed in the Bible), he wanted to know "His" thoughts, referred to God as "He," acknowledged that He reveals "Himself," asks how God "created this world," and refers to "His" thoughts. In other words, it is clear that he wasn’t a pantheist (that God and nature are one in the same--see his below quote: "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."): [source]

Now, the christian god is a personal god. That's a fact.
Einstein, as quoted, said he did not believe in a personal god. I.E. He is NOT a christian.

Comfort is either unable to think logically or deliberately deceptive.

Science by leading theologian

Check out these videos on the view of science by the leading theologians:
On creationism/Intelligent Design

Are we along?



It is the conservative religious right which is deliberately trying to dumb down Science education.

Bus slogans

Out of the slogans at Freedom From Religion Foundation, these are those I like:

Religion Once Ruled the World. It Was Known as the Dark Ages. (Ruth Hurmence Green)
Science flies humans to the moon. Religion flies planes into buildings.
Religion - root of most wars.
If there is a God, why is there poverty--and baldness? --Woody Allen
Fairy Tales are for Kids.
Religion is the Placebo of the Masses (Dr. Gregory House).
Be creative - not created - Evolve
Man created God in his image: intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent.
All religions can't be right. All religions can be wrong!
Atheist: A person who has REALLY READ the Bible.
Stop praying for help and start helping
Why be "born again" when you can just grow up?
Science delivering on promises while religion keeps on promising.
Why is it that both God and Unicorns are invisible?
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions.
Atheism is a non-Prophet organization
No one was ever persecuted in the name of Atheism
Education not indoctrination
What could we accomplish if we focused on this life instead of pretending there's a next one?
Religion. Over one billion fooled
I like a dog as long as it's not spelled backwards
A lie is a lie no matter how many people believe it. Truth is the truth even if no one believes it.
Religion is for people who don't understand Science!

Providing eye care for 20 Rupees

That's right, for about USD0.43, yes 43 cents at today's rate, Aravind in India is delivering quality eye care to many at 1% the cost of the equivalent in UK.

Please help urge the world leaders ...

Since I am more concerned with the climate change than religion, I am linking a poster here for those church-goers to bring a bell to urge leaders to agree to a more effective climate strategy in the coming week. [source]



thank you ZaMa for the head up.

Science Is The Dumbest Religion!

Best god in show

Who designed the designer?

The biological complexity that we found in our world today is explained by evolution, namely all life from has originated from a single source and via random mutation, some forms out-perform some other forms and become more abundant.

Intelligent design has a different explanation, namely the complexity is created by a divine being.

How do we choose between these two "possible" explanations?

1. We need a question for designer of the designer because the divine being must be more complex than the sum of the complexity we found in order to be able to create such complexity. Here we end up with an entity which is more complex than the artefacts being explained. Saying god is only a mind without a body and hence is more simple is non-sense. A mind without body cannot create things. In order for a bodiless god to create thing, we need further assumption that god can do so. That's complexity on complexity. Evolution demonstrate ONE way (may not be the only way) how complexity can be created out of simplicity. Evolution reduces the complexity. Yes, there is still a first cause unexplained by evolution - and evolution does not claim to explain that too.
2. We also may look at the predictive power of the explanation. Can the theory lead us to discoveries which further support the theory? God leads us no where in terms of finding new species. Evolution can and has. Note: the acid test of a theory is whether the theory can predict in the domain where the theory applies. If we apply god as an explanation, then god must be used to predict outcome about biological complexity. So far, none! For those interested, read Francis Collin's The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, p86-87, how a devoted christian scientists reject intelligent design.

I really find it very interesting to look at the amount of mental contortion religious has to do in order to fit their god into things when they use god as a gap-filler.

Bible is out of date

Intelligent test

The State of Religion

Anti-theism

Common Sense Atheism quotes The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom by Roberty Morey:

Militancy is the difference between [historical atheism] and the modern movement of “anti-theism.” The atheists of the old school… felt that if people were foolish enough to believe in religion, that was their problem…

In today's political climate, USA in particular, religious lobbies are blocking many actions which atheists consider as progress, such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriages... I believe that is one of the reason atheism can no longer leave the religious alone.

Story has it that if you put a frog in water and slowly start heating up the water, by the time the frog realised that it was too hot, it would be too late to escape. We are in EXACTLY the same situation as the frog in the climate change issue. While we may still have time to rescue ourselves, the religious right is blocking the way in every step. There is no god who created the universe for human. Although human is the dominant species on earth to day, many of our close relative species are now extinct. [source] Nature will go on with or without us. I just wish the religious can leave the scientists alone to do their research and the governments of the world can listen to the best science and do whatever it takes to let us out of the hot!

Quote

Science is as much a mindset as a body of knowledge; its premise is that thought is to be guided by publicly testable and rationally consistent evidence. The discipline of this approach makes short work of the foundation of today's religions, which lie in the ignorance of people living several millennia ago. - A.C. Grayling

A caller has proof of Creationism

The caller cannot think nor argue! Is that the result of too many blessings from his god?

The Atheist Christmas Carol

Lyrics:

It's the season of grace coming out of the void
Where a man is saved by a voice in the distance
It's the season of possible miracle cures
Where hope is currency and death is not the last unknown
Where time begins to fade
And age is welcome home

It's the season of eyes meeting over the noise
And holding fast with sharp realization
It's the season of cold making warmth a divine intervention
You are safe here you know now

Don't forget
Don't forget I love
I love
I love you

It's the season of scars and of wounds in the heart
Of feeling the full weight of our burdens
It's the season of bowing our heads in the wind
And knowing we are not alone in fear
Not alone in the dark

Kiefer and the Christmas Tree

Religion in the curriculum

Dan Dennett proposes to include religion (all religion) in every level which covers "history, creed, rituals, music, symbols, ethical commands and prohibition" - facts which everyone agrees on.

That's why I am fascinated by Physics

That's why I am fascinated by Physics when I was young and why I am still fascinated by Physics some 50 years later.


If looking at mother earth from one of Saturn's moon is not exciting enough, watch how science figure out the black hole at the center of our own galaxy.


Do we still need the imaginary god to give us wow?

An Atheist Christmas: Reason For The Season

Debunking - Richard Dawkins and the "Nothing Butters"

Gary DeMar, Nov 24, 2009 wrote:

Atheists and evolutionists do not like to be compared to people like Adolf Hitler.

So are the theists. Hilter WAS a Christian! [source]

Just because someone shares a similar ideology with a tyrant in one area does not mean that he shares everything that tyrant did.

So why mention this in the first place, Gary?

Atheist Richard Dawkins “regards belief in a God who does not exist as the root of all evil.”

It is Christropher Hitchens who really makes the case in his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

The religious likes to claim moral high ground. Unfortunately, the reverse is true. In USA's prisons, atheists are under represented. In developed societies, atheism is directly linked to better society and lower crime rate. [Journal of Religion and Society] The conclusion is copied below [my emphasis]:

The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.

It is important to be able to look at the evidence and make conclusion from the facts. It is NOT the same as wishful thinking and blind faith claim. We, human, progress by utilising the ability of separating facts from myths, wishful thinking from scientific claims, being moral without the god, being rational and being humble enough to know that we are just the lucky branch on the evolution tree. Nature will go on with or without human. The world was not created for us. This is humbling. Do you have the ability to understand that human are just part of a larger eco-system?

While religious like to claim that they are moral because of their god, the fact does not support that. While atheists do not make any special moral claim, atheists are behaving in better ways - as supported by numerous researches.

Religious leaders are either too stupid to see that god does not exist, or they are deliberately lying for selfish reasons. Next time when theists try to claim moral high ground, you know they are either too stupid or are lying.

ps a more recent paper by Gregory S. Paul updated the argument above. 30th November 2009

Church placed its own reputation above the protection of children in its care

The "Report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin" covered a period from 1975 to 2004.

It has laid bare a culture of concealment where church leaders prioritised the protection of their own institution above that of vulnerable children in their care. [my emphasis]

Is that news anymore? It makes one's blood boil how church leaders were abusing their trust, in the name of god! It reminds me of Dan Brown writing: religion [has] established itself as a tollbooth to heaven [The Lost Symbol].

Atheists cross as religious forum secures taxpayer funding

The Parliament of the World's Religions begins on December 3 at the new Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre and has also received $2 million from the Federal Government and $500,000 from the Melbourne City Council.
...
The Atheist Foundation of Australia says it approached all three levels of government for a total of $270,000 for its conference, to be held at the same venue early next year, but has received no funding.

This is discrimination!

Where did god come from?

Why don't we save a step?

Symphony of Science

Just a Little Embarrassing...

Yes, it is embarrassing. How can the most technically advanced country like USA habour scientific illiteracy like this?

I have no issue with the second line, "Let me grow up and choose for myself". That's exactly what we should be doing. Do NOT indoctrinate young minds with stupid ideas.

Evolution is one of the most elegant scientific theory supported by tons of evidence. I am a biology layman, but I still understand how evolution theory can be used to "predict". Even Francis Collins admits in his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief wrote:

No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution to explain the marvelous complexity and diversity of life. In fact, the relatedness of all species through the mechanism of evolution is such a profound foundation for the understanding of all biology that it is difficult to image how one would study life without it. (p. 90)

East vs. West -- the myths that mystify

I am not suggesting that the myths of India is true or not. I just like to share with you a spiritual journey other than your christian god.

Enjoy.

Analysis of Comfort's Intro in Origin of Species

Comfort's confused polemic, disguised as an informational Introduction but full of mistakes, half truths, untruths, muddled logic, old creationist arguments, misleadingly excerpted quotations, and ill-framed analogies — plus a good dose of fire and brimstone at the end — will do a severe disservice to anyone who takes it for an entryway to Darwin's great book. [source]

Who is intolerant?

The catholic church uses its weapon, not to administer the sacrament, to pressure US congressman Patrick Kennedy to stop supporting abortion.

Where is the separation of church and state? Well pressure to a congressman is just the opposite of lobbying.

Human's ability to see pattern

[source]
What do you see in the picture on the left? Do you see "gliders" moving from middle of top to right lower corner?

In fact, the algorithm is just the following:
Each of the cell has two state, either live (in dark above) or dead (white)
1. Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by underpopulation.
2. Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.
3. Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.
4. Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell.

In other words, each cell is only controlled by its neighbour. However, as human, we see pattern and do not see the underlying principle directly.

We, human, are similar in certain extend. We are continuously exchanging the atoms in our body with those from air and food. It has been told that the human body regenerate every 7 years. [source] While the source of this claim is doubtful, the source points out a more recent research which supports the claim.

The material make-up of our body (those atoms) are constantly changing, quite like the state of the cells in the above diagram, right?

Another interesting fact is there is about 1.2 kg of bacteria co-existing in our body. One of the main function these bacteria do for us is breakdown of food. [source]

Who are we? Are we really divine?

A really inconvenient truth

For those who still hide their heads in the sand disowning the mess we human has created, please, PLEASE, go to FORA.tv and watch this slightly over 1 hour program.

Humans respond best to threats that are immediate, visible, simple, personal, have historical precedent, and are caused by another “tribe” (think Al-Qaeda). Unfortunately, climate change, has none of these characteristics and this may partially explain why so little is being done to address the biggest threat mankind has ever faced.

For those religious who still think the world is only 6000+ years old and believe in creation science, please keep out of the debate of climate change and let those who really know do the work to save us and our children. There are over 4 billion people who do not believe in the end of world would like to live on and preserve the civilisation as we know it.

Quote

Islam is becoming more regressive, sharia courts and Wahhabism are spreading, and no tradition of tolerance for other religions has been established. No moderate or alternative versions of the religion are being offered because such alternative mosques would be threatened and would suffer from a lack of funding. The Islamic focus on indoctrination, high population growth, fomenting of insurgencies, and infiltration is part of the global jihad, a full-on religious war against infidel nations. - Janet Levy

They are like those sacred cows in India which, I am told, eat up all the printed paper they can find in the streets... Yes, they gobble up all the printed pages from books that have been written centuries ago, but they do not digest them. They no longer think for themselves; they read and repeat, read and repeat - and the students who listen to them learn only to read and repeat, generation after generation. ...on the whole, Al-Azhar has lapsed into the sterility from which the whole Muslim world is suffering... If there is to be any change for the better, thinking must be encouraged instead of the present thought-imitation... - Shaykh Mustafa al-Maraghi, Quoted by Muhammad Asad in The Road To Mecca

Fantastic doctrines (like Christianity or Islam or Marxism) require unanimity of belief. One dissenter casts doubt on the creed of millions. Thus the fear and the hate; thus the torture chamber, the iron stake, the gallows, the labor camp, the psychiatric ward. - Edward Paul

In the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people. It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. - Marmaduke Pickthall

When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is trying to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind. - J. (Jiddu) Krishnamurti

A New Christianity for a New World

Very interesting ideas from Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong :

Twelve points for Reform

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.[source]

The above quote is lifted directly from wikipedia. The link of the source to is Gerald O'Collins, “What of the Spong Song?,” Apologia 7, no. 2/3 (September 10, 1994): 112–113.

After the reform, what is left is a tedious amount of wealth collected by the poor believers and huge political power to do whatever the church wants to do without the need to defend the non-defendable BS. (highlight to see my answer, but you may guess first.)

LFACC - On moving to become an advanced society

Letter from a Christian Citizen was written in 2007. There is a very interesting paragraph on pages 42-43

A quick comment on your comparisons of advanced societies (as the “least religious societies on earth”) to the third worlders (bringing up the rear) which you identify as “unwaveringly religious.” What you left out of that evaluation is what worldview was predominant in all the advanced countries you mention when they first attained that advanced position. All of the nations you mentioned (with the exception of Japan) were Christian at the time of their ascendancy. Not only so, but many of the nations you mention, having abandoned their Christian heritage, are also on their last legs. Europe, the remains of old Christendom, has about twenty years left before they go under the Islamic flood.

First, US of America is founded on the "separation of state and church", explicitly stating that it is NOT a christian nation.

Second, the spectacular collapse of the financial institutions in late 2008 occurs 18 years earlier than the predicted over flooding by muslims. :-)

The book also created a very interesting thought experiment (page 44-46):

Let us suppose we have two men of atrocious character—they have both raped and murdered repeatedly and have expressed their contempt for the dignity of mankind in many other secret ways as well. They are both of them a piece of work, but one is a convinced atheist and the other is (in his intellectual commitments anyway) a Christian and a member of a Christian church. Now suppose further that because these two men are very clever, or because they were lucky enough to have incompetent cops assigned to their cases, or for whatever other reason, they both got away with their crimes, with no suspicion falling on either one of them. They both reached eighty years of age as respected members of their communities. Both of them successfully managed to live a double life. They have both come to their death beds, their crimes hidden and their intellectual commitments intact. One is still an atheist and the other still a Christian.

The first thinks to himself, “I made it through the obstacle course. I did whatever I wanted to do. I am about to die, and I will never have to answer for anything that I ever did.” The second man is increasingly troubled in his conscience because “I got away with everything here, but I am going to a place where everything will be made manifest and judged.” The former believes that he will not be judged for any of his crimes, and the second man believes that he will be judged for all of them. Now, given your atheism, which man is correct? This reveals that the wicked Christian lived an inconsistent life, while the wicked atheist lived a consistent life. His consistent lifestyle is not binding on you personally, but you are in no position to reject it for him.

Now my question is not “Are you a horrible criminal like the first man?” The question is not whether or not you as an atheist are promoting the same criminal choices that this other atheist made. I am not like the Christian in this illustration, and there is no reason why you have to be like that atheist.

My question is simply this: having made those choices and congratulating himself on his death bed, where is he wrong in his reasoning? I am not saying that his reasons provide a good rationale for you to go live that way—you obviously don’t want to. But he did want to and what in your thinking can persuade him to think differently? And the use of this phrase “want to” identifies where the problem is. Given atheism, morality reduces to personal preferences. You don’t need to protest that you don’t share those preferences. I grant it. But the man in my illustration doesn’t share yours either. Any reason he should?

Without checking my copy of Sam Harris' book, I cannot remember the point Wilson is referring. The interesting thing I find in this thought experiment is why a devoted christian would have committed the crimes in the first place. The reason would be the same for the atheist in the thought experiment! Anthropologist has shown that there are 5 foundations of morality irrespective of culture and belief. The atheist criminal, so is the christian criminal, in the thought experiment is obviously lacking some or all of the basic human moral instincts. Now to answer Wilson's question: where is he wrong in his reasoning, my answer would be the christian believed he could beg for forgiveness in the last moment and escape the eternal punishment in the name of Jesus. If the fear of punishment was so great, the crimes would not have been committed in the first place! The problem is in the vicarious redemption which Christopher Hitchens has pointed out to be the biggest moral crime advanced in the new testament.

Pathway to atrocity

"There is a logical pathway leading from religion to the committing atrocity,... but there is no such logical pathway leading from atheism or secularism to any such atrocious act."

The Christianity of Hitler

How is it possible that the religious think Adolf Hitler was an atheist? Is the horror he was a Christian too much for them to bear so they perpetuate a lie? Check it out yourself here.

Hitchens and Fry Verse The Catholics

This debate, unfortunately is very one sided. Before the debate, the audience votes were 678 vs 1102 with 346 undecided. After the debate, the votes were 268 vs 1876 with 34 undecided.
You can download the debating material from here.

My Response to God Vs Science

Comment on the argument itself: The philosophy teacher is not starting off with a solid foundation. For evidences, we no longer just base on the observation of the 5 human senses. The lack of evidence of god is simply lack of evidence, in whatsoever perception including extending our human observation techniques to the best of the current practice.

The counter argument itself is flawed because of the use of analogy. The falsehood of an analogy of a statement A does not imply the falsehood of statement A itself. There is NO correlation between the truth or otherwise between a statement and its analogy. Analogy is useful for a casual understanding. Logically, there is no link between an analogy and the statement.

God owns everything?

God owns everything. That is is the biblical view: “The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it” (Ps. 24:1). God delegated ownership and dominion of property to his Image, man (Gen 1:26–28). God sanctioned the protection of private property in His law—the Ten Commandments—including a prohibition of theft (Ex. 20:15). Jesus (Matt. 19:18) and the Apostles (Acts 5; Eph. 4:28) upheld this law. [source]

What is expressed here is a very dangerous view. We now know that this planet earth is a symbiotic system with every parts linking to every other parts. The input is the sun's energy. Just as an example, consider water. Within this system, everything gets recycled. Waste water flows to wetland, plants and micro-organisms remove the pollutants and the water eventually flows to the ocean. Sun's energy evaporates the water to form clouds which float over to land and become rain to replenish the fresh water supply.

In the last 200+ years, we human have messed up the system. We have dug out a large fraction of all the stored carbon and emit them into the atmosphere. According to the bible, we own the earth and we can do every thing allowed by the out-of-date rules in the old books. Unfortunately, the earth's atmospheric cleaning systems - the rain forests - were being destroyed at the same time supported by the same out-of-date ownership concept. Large quantities of green house gas do not get removed in time and is building up rapidly. This concept of ownership is becoming a dangerous idea. The fact is man does not own the earth. We live on the earth. We depend on earth to provide us with air, water and food.

The above quote comes from the promotion of a book. When the underlying concept of the book is morally wrong, we don't need to read to book to know the conclusion it draws will not be sound.

God Vs Science

I will give my response tomorrow. Stay tuned.

My Prayer

Our Father in imagination,
hollowed as in your name,
Your kingdom is a con,
Your will be gone
on earth as it is in imagination.
Rob us today our daily bread.
Fortifying our debts,
as we also have demanded our debtors.
Lead us into temptation,
And deliver us into the evil one.
For yours is the imagination and the power and the glory for someone's secret reason.
Ahol.”

Is Yahweh moral?

No, definitely.

But the broader question is "Does religion provide morality?" Unfortunately, the answer is also no.

One frequent defense made on behalf of religion and theism is the claim that they are necessary for morality. This claim takes a variety of forms: people wouldn't behave morally if it weren't for religion or fear of gods, some god or gods are the authors of morality so we can't be moral without following their commands, religion and gods provide reasons to be moral, the absence of religion or gods encourages immorality, a moral person is simply assumed to be religious, and so forth. [source]

Austin Cline makes it very clear here: One example would be all the killings which the Jewish god orders throughout the Old Testament — pretty standard stuff for that time period, but not exactly appropriate for a perfectly good and just deity. Another example would be the very principle of salvation behind Christianity: people who deserve some sort of punishment are let off the hook by punishing a completely innocent individual, and if people don't accept this then they are destined for an eternity of torment regardless of the scope or seriousness of their misdeeds. Neither side of that equation is the least bit moral.

The saddest things are actually that the society is allowing the stupid parents denying necessary medication on the basis of religious faith, and that the society is tolerating such stupidity to further propagate to the young unprepared minds. While I respect people's right to be stupid, I do hope we have advanced to a stage that we know what is real and what is imaginary.

When will this stop?

LFACC - On embryonic stem cell research

This post will deal with the issue of embryonic stem cell research in Douglas Wilson's Letter from a Christian Citizen [page 30 - 36]

Here is a blatant hypocrisy: embryonic stem cell research uses the "excess" stem cell which will be discarded. Wilson is willing to let the stem cell "die" naturally, but not to be used to contribute to research into human illness.

Do we have souls?

To answer this question, we must look at the evidence. First, at the beginning years when we were born, can we think? Can we articulate what is happening around us? To test this, I call it the threshold of self-realisation. Ask yourself, what is the earliest moment in your life you can recall. Now, think about all those "experiences" you have BEFORE that threshold of self-realisation. Your brain was still developing. But some time before that threshold, your brain has not developed enough to build a "memory". Your soul did not exist until you started to be able to think, right?

Second, has anyone been able to communicate with the death? All human is immortal, so far. If every human has a soul, there would have over 7 billion souls. If soul exists, no doubt some of these souls would have made communication.

Atheist, like most moral being, treasures life. When faced with a difficult choice, I base my choice on morality which has developed via compassion and empathy. I denounce sport fishing. I eat fish. But, catching a fish, with sharp hook and then releasing it is a cruel sport. If I catch a fish, I will kill it and eat it. That's part of the cycle of life.

I do not condone teen girls abortion after they have *fun* knowing that they should have chosen to use suitable protection. But in the case of rape or other medical reason, abortion is a choice and I support it. Similarly, producing human embryonic cell for research is objectionable. However, I don't see any problem with using "excess" embryonic stem cells from IVF procedures.

Wilson attacked Harris argument's structure. It seems to me Wilson has avoided answering the questions at the core of the argument.

Stop the killing

Amnesty International reports that 3 Kurdish nationals in Iranian custody are scheduled to be executed for "enmity against God" (apostasy, or denying the truth of Islam).

This is just insane! Help is needed urgently.

10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

Bible study

Scripture does not argue the existence of God, for example, it rather assumes it from page one, because it was the given understanding for those to whom it was written. [source]

Well said. If you are still living with an understanding equal to those men and women in the desert about 2000 years ago, you are forgiven in believing and not questioning the existence of a god. In modern time, with all the advances made in Science, it is very sad and an indication of the failure of education that so many are still fooled by the false promise of a god. If you are capable of applying reasons and requiring evidence for your everyday activities, why on earth would you believe in something as absurd as a super natural being supervising everyone of our daily activities. Even if a creator exists, why does it care about what happens to us, a species living on a small planet in one of the many stars of one of many galaxies?

Please, my dear religious readers, think for yourself and apply reason and require evidence. Where is the evidence of any god, let alone yours?

Tearing a Page from the Bible

Gary DeMar wrote:

Ian McKellen of Lord of the Rings (Gandalf) and X-Men (Magneto) fame is an admitted homosexual. He is in the habit of tearing out the Bible passage that condemns homosexuality, specifically Leviticus 18:22 which reads, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

What is your business to mind about someone's private sexual preference? If he sins in the eyes of your imaginary god, so be it. Let your imagine god do whatever it can. Ooops, of course your imaginary god cannot do a thing, because it is imaginary!

LFACC - On Slavery & moral

This post will deal with the issue of slavery raised in Douglas Wilson's Letter from a Christian Citizen [page 21 - 30]

Wilson asks "Given your worldview, what is wrong with this [ He (Jesus) did teach Christian slaves to make a special point of working diligently for believing masters.]? There is nothing wrong with it on your principles, where the universe is just time and chance acting on matter. Why does it matter if the master matter acts on the slave matter? Who cares? ... But how could atheism lead to a condemnation of slavery?"

The fact that such questions are being asked is strikingly worrisome. It seems to me that Wilson will, if not being a Christian and hence afraid of the punishment, do *everything*. The fact is people have evolved innate compassion towards other people and things. No wonder there is no child's behind left under religious care!

Atheism is not moral guide. Atheist are people who do not believe there is a god. Period. Simple. Get it?

The fact that atheist is 10% in the USA population, but 0.1% in the prison population should say something which Wilson either is ignorant of or conveniently disregarded. People in prison not necessary, as Wilson pointed out, are immoral. But at least, it means rational atheists understand the rule of law and are able, statistically, to be better citizens.

I have pointed out before, moral is a moving social standard. Many atheists, me included, condemn industrialised slavery (sweatshop production). We condemn slave, including child sex slave. Unlike the old testament, we at least will not condone such practice (Wilson seems to praise the OT to set limits on the practice as a moral guide). Yes, I understand OT was 2000+ years ago. That is exactly why religion, based on a single set of books, cannot be used as modern moral guide. They are out-dated!

Wilson puts up the fear mongering again on page 20:

The judgments that fall in the Old Testament are largely temporal judgments. The judgments that Jesus speaks of are eternal.

Punishment should be appropriate for the crime. What have I done to deserve eternal hell fire? Because Adam & Eve ate the forbidden fruit? Where is the justice?

If current laws represent the current moral standard, it seems to be people with faith have the same proportion in society and in prison whereas atheists are statistically significantly under represented in the prison population. Obviously, either the moral guide in the bible is out of date or people with faith have lower moral standard.

ps Question to Wilson, people in prison are slave (There are over two million people currently incarcerated in the United States. page 25) or people in prison are students (graduate schools of crime and vice from courtrooms page 26)

LFACC - Who & Whether questions of God

In Letter from a Christian Citizen, Douglas Wilson raised many interesting points. This post will deal with the point of atheism towards Muslims and towards Christianity. [page 13-15] Here is how Wilson describes the issue:

You [Sam Harris] advance an argument that might be called an argument for partial atheism: “The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims” (7). But I am afraid that this is a false analogy entirely. You say, “Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions” (7). Well, no, not exactly. And well, actually, no, not at all.

Suppose we are considering a phenomenon that is, by most accounts, inexplicable as an unsupervised occurrence—three of us attend a sophisticated party uptown, and half way through the evening at the party we find a trout in the punch bowl. At this point, the three of us divide into three schools of thought. I think that Smith, a practical joker, put it there; our friend Murphy thinks that Jones, the avant-garde performance artist, put it there; and you think that it has simply shown up as the result of natural forces. My central point is not to interact with the truth or falsity of your naturalistic position—except perhaps through the use of this absurd example of the punchbowl—but rather to show that you are arguing for something completely different from what Murphy and I are arguing. We all have an explanation but your explanation is of a different kind altogether.

The differences between two of us (between Murphy and me) concern who put the trout in the lunchbowl. The difference between the both of us together and you is over whether someone put a trout in the punchbowl. And who and whether represent different questions entirely. Quite apart from who is right and who is wrong about this, it is important to note that we are not disagreeing in the same way or over the same kind of issue at all.

So when an atheist says "you understand why I don't believe in your god when you understand why you don't believe in other gods", atheist is missing a point. Both christians and muslims believe in a god, they are just disagreeing on whose version of god is true. We, atheists, cannot see any evidence to support ANY god. Wilson is right that who and whether are two different questions. However one of these questions (whether there is a god) must be answered first before asking which god to believe.

The sticky point is the burden of proof. From a pure logical angle, the burden of proof is with the claimant. There is no way for anyone to disprove anything which is only in the mind of the claimant. However, I can also agree that there is NO way any religion can prove the existence of a god which will/can intervene with the natural laws.

The demand of the proof is that it must be objective, repeatable and observable. For any miracle to be "repeatable", it is no longer miracle. When under a certain condition, a miracle *always* happens, then it is no longer miracle. It is just a scientific observable data. Millions of miracles are happening everyday everywhere, e.g. calling someone up using your mobile phone, life saving operations in the hospitals etc. They are no longer in the realm of religion.

Since there is no way religious people can demonstrate their imaginary god, we have to settle to other means of resolving the issue.

For me, if anything needs a creator, the creator also needs a creator. Since it is impossible, the conclusion I have is there is no creator. This settle the "whether" part. The rest flows logically and simply. The "who" does not worth asking.

The origin of universe and then the origin of life are unsolved questions. But I refuse to substitute "god" as a solution because, as pointed out above, that begs the question who created god, and who created the creator who created god,...

Even if a creator were to exist, the chance that the creator would be interested in human's daily activities is non-existence. The jump from a cosmic god to a personal god as claimed by the religious is another huge mental gymnastic no rational mind can perform.

The fact that Wilson pointed out this difference in Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation does not prove anything.

I will discuss other parts of Wilson's book in the future.