"I'm astounded by people who want to know the universe when it's hard enough to find your way about Chinatown." - Woody Allen
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - I Know That My Redeemer Liveth (soprano, air)
I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see god.
For now is christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep.
***
et makes a case for extreme epistemological agnosticism, and urges us to commit to this stance, which inevitably leads towards epistemological nihilism and the impossibility of discourse:
et: A conviction that one is atheist, incidentally, is merely a faith that God does not exist. How sure are we that a God exists, or for the matter, that it/he/she does not exist, or that whether it exists or not, it is apathetic to the evolving human condition?
Nietzsche's views were, at least in my opinion, more compatible with agnosticism as they were with atheism. The barrier which blocks us from this truth in religion is most analogous to what it is like in quantum mechanics.
To understand the motion in time and space of a given particle, we must be able to observe it. A particle exists by rules collectively described as a wave function. If we observe it, quantum mechanics dictates that this wave function changes (or collapses). But why? For instance, if we examine how a particle moves using light, the energy photons emitted would change the state of the particle, and hence completely alter its state from what it would have been if we did not. Werner Heisenberg concluded that due to the nature of subatomic particles (and observation as it is inherently), we cannot tell for sure exactly where a wave or particle will exist in time and space, but we can, as with particles. This is why, as we learn in chemistry today, that orbitals are regions of density in space which correspond to the probability of finding an electron in it... It's certainly interesting and disappointing that all of quantum mechanics since Max Planck's excellent seminal work has come down to one thing – that inherently, it is impossible to know the true workings of particles by logic. Physics, then, has failed to live up to its name at the soul.
Yet it boils down to one thing – at this time and age, the truth is unknowable, and it is unmeasurable. It is not that we will never know, I am not qualified to make absolute statements like that, and indeed many who have done so in the past have been proven to be wrong.
By doing a measure in a certain way, we can come to different conclusions, because inherently we affect what would truth would theoretically be. And it suits our conclusions, or if it doesn't, we change our beliefs. Sometimes we do measurements deliberately to suit our conclusions, sometimes we do it frankly and with a neutral point of view.
The bigger question is – do we think that we could examine the truths of religion by five senses and logic? If we can, then why, logically, is it impossible for a God to exist; and why is it impossible for a God to not exist?
Assuming that you are right that Christianity is a flawed, fictional belief, why are all the other theistic beliefs in the world inherently wrong, for you to come to the big conclusion that God (or Gods) cannot exist? There is one, all-encompassing truth, but will we ever reach that truth?... But the truth remains to be found.
webmaster: I have a lack of belief in UFOs, Sasquatch, Fairies, the Loc Ness Monster, and a host of other nonsense. I lack belief in them because there is no verifiable evidence that these things exist.
For all your lofty sounding sentences, it is the responsiblity of those making a fantastic claim to prove that claim. You must prove your god. The unbeliever is not obligated to prove his lack of faith.
The whole idea of proving that UFOs don't exist is silly. If I had to disprove every single thing that someone in the world believes in, then I might as well go ahead and believe in every manmade fantasy out there.
Me: I believe in invisible, immaterial, undetectable winged pink bunnies orbiting the Planet Saturn because there is no way to disprove their existence!
et: It's unfair to say that. You reject God on the basis of there being no evidence of it/her/his existence. But, logically, wouldn't it work the other way? By your logic, one could readily accept God – or the tooth fairy – on the basis of there being no evidence that it does not exist. Your beliefs are as absurd as you would perceive a belief in the Tooth Fairy or Santa might be.
"The unbeliever does not have to prove his lack of faith." And why not? A convenient excuse? Some believers don't want to prove their faith either, and that is because he doesn't want the absolute truth to contradict what they think to be truth. Having being so enlightened, surely you're not going to settle for convenient excuses? Why have the belief that God cannot possibly exist if you're not going to justify it? You don't have to prove your beliefs to me, but you have to prove it to yourself.
Don't set standards for people until you set those same standards for yourself. Truth is all-encompassing. This is the basis for the existence of religion and religious beliefs. This is also the basis for the (yours, in particular) belief that no theistic religion is absolutely correct.
You may have talked about attaining truth, but it is my humble opinion – and maybe I am absolutely wrong – that you have neither seeked opinion nor obtained it.
Me: I think it's safe to say that most of us here have weighed the evidence for gods and found it to come up short.
It is impossible, or very hard at the very least, to prove a negative. If you accept the existence of all sorts of entities because there is no evidence that they do not exist... then good luck to you. There is a monster under your bed which disappears whenever you look under it, but comes out to ravish you each night in your sleep. The whole world is full of similarly mysterious objects and entities for which there is no evidence for their non-existence. Absence of proof might not be proof of absence, but it strongly points towards that conclusion.
The unbeliever does not have to prove his lack of faith, just as we do not have to prove our lack of faith in invisible blah blah bunnies (see above comment), but most of us are doubly certain the lack of faith is justified, since we have considered the various evidence and arguments.
ryan: et, unless you can make it clear to us what you mean by "god", then any assertion that he exists has no meaning. An assertion that god exists has neither meaning nor value. I for one have not the foggiest notion what you mean when you say "god". Do you? Who or what is god? What, if anything, are his demands on us? What, if anything, are the penalties for failing to meet his demands? Can you answer any of this, and if you cannot, can you expect to be able to answer any of this in the future? If you arrive at an answer, how can it be verified?
et, the word "god" is gibberish. The word god has no more meaning than the word Bobba-chango, or the word bruhmapunga. Let's define our terms and then proceed.
et: I define God or Gods to be creators. After all, if one does not talk about creators, how are we able to define our existence? This is the central argument behind theism. Einstein, too, famously talked of God, defining it as Spinoza's God, Spinoza being one of the great rationalists of the 19th century.
Agnostics have arguably justifiable proof, instead of just excuses. A person looking for excuses to dodge his understanding and beliefs better is not looking for truth.
For me, quantum physics is the clearest example of the limitations of current human knowledge, but as in typical scientific spirit, I also believe we will overcome that limitation one day. I might be wrong, and if you have a better example (or rebuttal), I would be quite happy to hear it. But we have not found the truth (underlying all of quantum physics, if not all of religion) today.
Agagooga – you explicitly say it is impossible to prove a negative. People have proven negatives with mathematics, but with what we call truth? I, too, feel that nobody to this date has ever done so with a rational argument.
But, having had no proof that solidifies your position as an atheist, wouldn't you better qualify as an agnostic?... People intolerant to new ideas are not simply limited to theists. Also in this group includes atheists, and, quite sadly, those who see themselves as agnostics.
The most important thing QP can teach to anybody in search of the truth: question your beliefs. Even if you're an agnostic and believe that the truth is fundamentally unknown – what if it can be known? This agnostic spirit has driven many quantum physicists to search for that truth; the texts dictate that this cannot be done, but they go ahead and do it anyway.
Me: If one talks about creators, who created the creators? And if no one created the creators, why did the universe need to be created? That is the central point debunking the cosmological argument.
How do you differentiate between "excuses" and "justifiable proof"? I think it's too flippant to claim atheists have the former, but agnostics the latter. I understand the part about quantum physics, but why do you say we have not found the truth about religions? Do you have excuses or justifiable proof? By your criteria, it would seem everyone is intolerant to new ideas. Otherwise, I would like you to qualify and substantiate your sweeping statement. Hell, by definition, all ex-Christians have questioned their beliefs.
I said it is "very hard at the very least" to prove a negative. Some negatives can be proven, but many are essentially impossible to prove, like my undetectable bunnies postulate. Just because you can't justify the non-existence of undetectable bunnies does not mean you think they might exist, or the world would be full of scary yet undetectable entities.
Jim Arvo: I do not believe in god(s) because I have seen no credible evidence for them/it/her/him/whatever. Let's start with that. Now, according to you, it would also be logical to turn that around and say that one could just as well chose to *believe* when there is no evidence *against* a given proposition... [Regarding] the logic of believing based on lack of counter-evidence, here is why that doesn't work. Belief and non-belief are not symmetrical. If you believe nothing, you are at least free of contradictions. If you believe everything, you are riddled with contradictions. If you accept the existence of your god because you have seen no credible counter-evidence, then I presume you also accept the existence of Mithra, Osiris, Isis, Zeus, elves, leprachauns, poltergeists, and little green men living in the core of Pluto. You see, the reason for not accepting things simply because they are not explicitly DIS-proven, is that doing otherwise immediately leads to a complete mess. You would be reduced to a credulous simpleton who accepts the word of Bugs Bunny as readily as that of a competent critically-thinking fellow human. If you nevertheless feel deep down that that is the way toward truth, then I say "good luck" and I bid you adieu.
et: I am pushing an agnostic view... I am not pushing the agenda for either a theistic or atheistic view, because – let me say this clearly if I have not already done so – I do not find myself qualified enough to make a definite statement about the existence or non-existence of a creator. This is what being agnostic is about... being atheists indicates to me that you have definite beliefs, and definite statements of truth; with your arguments, I can challenge my beliefs.
As for what I define God as, it is merely a reference point to talk about a creator in a more convenient denomination; the major religions are monotheistic. This is why Wikipedia groups arguments for theist and atheist articles under Arguments for ____ of God. Obviously, I have read about Agagooga's infinite creators argument, but how are we going to talk about it in simple terms?
I was quite taken aback about what others said about not having an obligation to prove a disbelief. And I'll repeat this again – a disbelief is also a belief. If one is obliged to prove a belief, one is also certainly obliged to prove a disbelief.
Albert Einstein did not believe in quantum physics to his dying day. Yet he could have simply debunked it as rubbish and use that explanation. But Einstein (and other physicists) took the responsibility to publish a paper that turned out to be quantum physics' biggest challenge ever. Even if Einstein was in fact "proven wrong" by experiments over the years, he needn't have bothered. Einstein had very little obligation to prove his disbelief. After all, he is widely regarded to be the 20th century's most prominent, most intelligent physicist, or person, for that matter. But what about lesser people like us?
Agagooga has said on this forum that he has no evidence (evidence as we know it) to back up his atheist faith. Having said that it is "near impossible" to do so could be very well equated to him having a belief that he cannot find evidence of the non-existence of God. Wouldn't that make him an agnostic?
I believe that Agagooga is a rationalist – not all rationalists need be atheists. In fact, a majority of rationalists are agnostics. But if Agagooga is not a rationalist – his support for atheism being bolstered by just faith (which many here have debunked as nonsense), then I will have nothing else to say on this matter. In writing this, I assume most of us here are rationalists.
The difference between an rationalist agnostic and a rationalist atheist is that the atheist has, without any rational backing claims (ironically), come to the conclusion that there is no God. Such a conclusion would be absolutely intolerable to a genuine rationalist, since it has no rational backing. Maybe some here find this to be a perfectly reasonable conclusion; as for me, I think it is spurious.
As for Agagooga's comment about questioning one's beliefs, it is not sufficient to challenge it once (as he did while being disillusioned by his faith), or even in fact a million times. Because the probability of obtaining the truth is so incredibly small, how can we hope to be right after even a billion tries, and for that matter, if we do, how do we know if we are correct? Even if Agagooga has indeed found the truth, however improbable statistically it may be, how about millions of atheists who claim the same? This is, of course, in terms of statistics; maybe they all have found the truth, but I find this incredibly hard to believe.
My answer to this is to continuously challenge our current beliefs; if it does not hold true, renew and find new ones. Challenge it until the point where you are convinced – that is, you have read every single challenge to that belief and debunked all of them – that you are undisputedly correct. This is one of the central teachings, if there should be any, of the agnostic spirit. Many of Bertrand Russell's – one of the best known agnostics – articles encourage the reader, agnostic or otherwise, to challenge his beliefs regularly. That last word should not be forgotten.
The process of challenging one's beliefs, to me, is such a long and tedious one, that we might as well say it is lifelong.I don't know how much older Agagooga is compared to me; I think it is not much, but the fact that he has found "truth" means that he is going to stop challenging his beliefs, and maybe it is a bit of a long shot to say this, but this is quite simply another way to say "I have become narrow-minded". And at such a young age too.
I find that perhaps my idea of "truth" is held with much higher standards that most here. Maybe the truth is much easier to find than I have put it here; I believe this is the main disagreement between us.
ficino: et, to express myself more precisely in response to your message, what's wrong with the atheist saying "as far as I know, there is no god"? That's usually the degree of epistemic certainty we get when, to use your words, we "come to the conclusion" that some matter of fact, as opposed to some analytic and/or tautological proposition, is not the case. Are you such a rigorous skeptic that you suspend judgment in every case where you're tempted to think maybe some purported entity doesn't exist? It would be neat to hear from you how you justify your own conclusions that some X or some Y does not exist, or if you never come to such conclusions, how you function in practical situations. I don't mean cases like "there's no cup on the counter," where we have used the senses to grasp universals "cup" "counter" etc. and then use the senses again to look at the counter. I mean cases like "there are no hippogriffs" when we deny that there are any members of the class "hippogriff". Maybe denial that there is a King of France would be a sure one, too.
et: I believe the beef of what you have said is that we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists. Yet it is this faith that many others on this forum page, or on the whole of this site for that matter, claim not to have, as in Agagooga's original testimonial.
The fact that we support an idea without much or any (difficult to prove a disbelief, as Agagooga said) logical evidence means that it is only held together by faith. Yet this faith is rubbished! If, as I have said earlier, his atheism is held together by faith, I will have nothing more to say on the matter. Certainly Agagooga doesn't say if logic alone will find the truth, but from what I understand from the tone of his replies and his testimony, he has very little regard for faith. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I find that this religion riddle is the most difficult question in the world to answer. In other issues, we know where to start, how to approach, and even what to normally expect. Not religion. Maybe some will hastily answer that God question, but if you do not know the answer, why should you rush into one? Why effectively lie to yourself?... as far as religion goes, I want to be as consistent to those basic agnostic principles of flexibility so that, should I ever get to know the truth, I will recognise, respect and embrace it, no matter how much it contradicts what I consider true, no matter how much it contradicts my beliefs.
Some will point out that it is easier said than done. But nobody has ever said with complete certainty that acquiring the truth was easy.
Jim Arvo: et: "I believe the beef of what you have said is that we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists. Yet it is this faith that many others on this forum page, or on the whole of this site for that matter, claim not to have, as in Agagooga's original testimonial."
That word "faith" gets thrown around a lot, both as a pejorative and as an ideal. Frankly, I don't think it's very well defined. Some people use it in the sense of "confidence", others in the sense of believing despite a lack of evidence (or even despite disconfirming evidence). So, let's look at the statement "It takes faith to be an atheist", which is little more than a cliché that gets tossed out a lot. What is that supposed to mean? That atheism (lacking belief in the unsupported claims of theists) somehow requires an absolute dogmatic *belief* in something? Geeeeez am I tired of arguing against that old red herring. Since theists (apparently) have no evidence to speak of, they try to heard everyone else into their leaky boat, pinning the word "faith" (as a pejorative!) on everybody. It's nonsense. As a general rule I do not accept things without *some* positive evidence; that's not faith, no matter how you define faith. Theists are welcome to their leaky boat. I prefer to stay ashore.
et: "The fact that we support an idea without much or any (difficult to prove a disbelief, as Agagooga said) logical evidence means that it is only held together by faith."
Say what!? I conduct my life under the assumption that there are no gods, because I have yet to see a scrap of credible evidence that there are any gods. Is that "faith"? No, it is not. Show me some evidence, and I am prepared to change my thinking. But until then, I will make decisions based on what seems to be the most rational and parsimonious interpretation I can give to the world. If my car goes off a cliff and I find myself trapped in a car that is sinking in water, I will very likely spend my time trying to extricate myself, and not praying to a god who I have no reason to believe exists. Is that faith? No, it's pragmatism. It's giving the most plausible interpretation to the world that one can produce, based on the evidence currently available. (I'm curious to see what violence you can do to the word "faith" so that you can pin it on me.)
et: "Yet this faith is rubbished! If, as I have said earlier, his atheism is held together by faith, I will have nothing more to say on the matter."
Funny... The word rubbish came to my mind as well, but not with regard to Agagooga...
et: "I find that this religion riddle is the most difficult question in the world to answer. In other issues, we know where to start, how to approach, and even what to normally expect. Not religion. Maybe some will hastily answer that God question, but if you do not know the answer, why should you rush into one? Why effectively lie to yourself?"
Welcome back to the land of the rational. I can't complain about anything in that last paragraph.
et "...as far as religion goes, I want to be as consistent to those basic agnostic principles of flexibility so that, should I ever get to know the truth, I will recognise, respect and embrace it, no matter how much it contradicts what I consider true, no matter how much it contradicts my beliefs."
Aside from some little quibbles about the meaning of the word "agnostic", I'm prepared to give you a round of applause for that one. What you appear to be advocating is pure and simple open-mindedness. Amen (so to peak). When Huxley originally coined the term "agnostic", his motivation was to give a label to the practice of confining one's statements to the realm of what is (in principle) knowable. In his view (and mine) there is little value in rattling on and on about things you know nothing about, nor have any hope of ever knowing about. (His actual definitions got a bit confused, but that's another story.) I think you are using the word in a spirit close to what Huxley was originally thinking. So, again, I have no quarrel with that.
I'll close with a few simple questions to you, et: What is the status of Zeus in you mind? Is he a real god? An imaginary god? Is your opinion based on faith?
ficino: Dear et, I haven't worked out all the questions about what an atheist commits him/herself to, as opposed to what an agnostic commits self to, and I'm not sure I'm up to giving that task my full-blown effort, at least, right now. Questions about fine points of epistemic certainty make my head swim pretty easily. But I'm up for trying a little harder.
Either I misspoke in my last two postings or you mistook my meaning. I did not claim, as you suggest in your summary ("the beef of what you said"), that "we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists." If what I said entails that claim as a consequence, I'd profit from being shown that it does. I was trying to endorse a distinction between "belief" and "faith." You yourself used the verb "believe" but don't claim "faith," right?
You also haven't answered my question about how you go about concluding that some class of entity doesn't exist. Jim Arvo rephrased this same question.
An agnostic says something like this, right?: I believe that in principle, a human being cannot know whether an entity exists that has the properties ascribed to "god". The agnostic's state of belief is not an act of will, not the virtue "faith" spoken of by St. Paul. It's intellectual assent to a proposition; a judgment, if you will. This assent comes after reflection on and weighing of evidence taken from many quarters.
An atheist says: I don't believe the entity exists that has the properties ascribed to "god". This can be rewritten, I believe the entity etc. does not exist; because if "I don't believe" just means "I suspend judgment," then the atheist has collapsed into the agnostic.
So, does the atheist have grounds for his/her judgment? We've already talked about the degree of epistemic certainty involved in making a judgment "that not P" based on lack of supporting evidence for P. You haven't replied to my questions about hippogriffs and the King of France, though. Do we have grounds for making the judgments that those entities don't exist? I'd say, for starters, that if the entity's definition entails contradiction/s, we can get serious about cutting it out. Can we agree that square triangles don't exist, or that maybe mammals with no hearts nor lungs don't exist? What about God, then? Many mutually contradictory things are said of the God of the Bible. Maybe we can have more confidence about atheism toward that god than we can about atheism toward some supreme creative force out there somewhere, of which very few specific properties are predicated.
In the end I also feel dishonest saying I'm an agnostic when I live as though there is no god. I can't see the point of saying I'm agnostic, somehow.
Me: et: Following your position would lead us into epistemological and philosophical nihilism. Can we know anything? If not, should we even be having debates on anything?
"A disbelief is also a belief" - What about a lack of belief? Anyhow, I think we have adequately punctured all evidence for the existence of gods, so we are right to say that we believe gods don't exist. Unless the gods in question were apathetic and undetectable. In which case I could say you could not prove that you were not living in the Matrix, therefore we should give up all hope for rational discussion and lapse into despondency and despair. Or, if you prefer, I would not be able to prove that the world would not spontaneously vanish in the next second. For all intents and purposes, a positive assertion about existence needs to be proven, while a negative assertion does not, since non-existence is the status quo.
You say we need to continuously challenge our current beliefs. I agree, but not necessarily to the point of reading "every single challenge to that belief" and debunking "all of them". Take religion, for example. Since there are tens of thousands of religions (at least) in existence, or that have ever existed, should we take the time to debunk them all? Surely not, for that would take at least a dozen lifetimes, what with the voluminous amount of disingenuous apologist arguments formulated over the centuries.
Remaining open-minded is not the same as being non-commital - if one applies your logic, one must be agnostic about EVERYTHING, since at any point new information might come up to debunk your previously held beliefs. One would not be able to say that, say, Lee Kuan Yew is 80 years old, for at any point evidence of a wrongly entered date of birth might arise. Can we then assert even such a seemingly obvious fact safely? Should we live in a world of grave uncertainty and epistemological nihilism? I think not.
et: if nothing can be known for certain, how do *you* know that there's "one, all-encompassing truth"? And how do you know "we have not found the truth (underlying all of quantum physics, if not all of religion) today"?
We will never have total certainty about anything, for even the laws of logic might one day we warped and 1 + 1 = 3. Does that mean we should be agnostic about everything? Perhaps we should be agnostic
You tease a valid point about uncertainty so far that it becomes facetious. Following your logic to its ultimate conclusion, nought is left but chaos and uncertainty. Reductio ad absurdum.
***
The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
--- Henry Louis Mencken
***
Of all the Livejournal memes/chains that I've seen, this is the most retarded, yet hilarious:
If there is someone on your friends list you would like to take, strip naked, tie them to a bed post, eat them until they scream, then fuck them until both of you are sensless and unable to fuck anymore, then wait about 5 minutes, and do it all over again, then post this exact sentence in YOUR journal.
>_>
<_<
L'origine de Bert
Friday, December 17, 2004
"It is not by prayer and humility that you cause things to go as you wish, but by acquiring a knowledge of natural laws. The power you acquire in this way is much greater and more reliable than that formerly supposed to be acquired by prayer, because you never could tell whether your prayer would be favorably heard in heaven. The power of prayer, moreover, had recognized limits; it would have been impious to ask too much. But the power of science has no known limits. We were told that faith could remove mountains, but no one believed it; we are now told that the atomic bomb can remove mountains, and everyone believes it." - Bertrand Russell
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - Hallelujah (chorus)
Hallelujah! For the lord god omnipotent reigneth. The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our lord, and of his christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
King of kings, and lord of lords. Hallelujah!
***
The Origin of Children
(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork Science, University of Helsinki)
(English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of Alberta)
Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school.
In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.
Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:
1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.
4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.
6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.
***
Something for Chara:
John Horgan - Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism
"The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people.
Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation.
Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous.
What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so... But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped."
***
Hearing out religion in public debate - Dec 15, 2004
"Thoughtful debate over how to shape our life as a community is precluded if religious voices are gagged. This would disenfranchise people of religious faith, be undemocratic, and cause social disharmony." - Associate Professor Thio Li-ann (another law professor, so now A/P Tan Seow Hon is not the only religio-conservative writing op-eds for the ST)
budak asked for my "thoughts on the article... arguing against the notion of a secular system."
The article didn't really argue against a secular system. It merely asserted that religious views should be taken into account.
As philosopher Immanuel Kant taught, the logic of any moral argument is its capacity to be universalised. We should evaluate the merits of any view and ask: 'Does it serve the common good?' (from original article)
If we only apply this criterion, where would religion come into the picture? An idea coming from a religious viewpoint would have as much merit as the same idea coming from a seular viewpoint. The imperative: "Don't let the poor starve", if commanded by gods, has as much merit as the same imperative motivated by secular humanism.
What secularists mean when they disavow and discount religiously-grounded views is that ideas should be evaluated not on their spiritual merits, if any, but on their intellectual merits. ie "My god said so" is not an adequate basis on which to make public policy. As such, A/P Thio is really going off in the wrong direction.
Someone on the Young Republic mailing list:
"What I find most disconcerting is that her examples of societal and religious values coming together turns on those which are socially conservative and would limit personal choice when there might be no tangible 3rd party harm (pornography) beyond that of offending the socially conservative I suppose. With regards to AIDS, I find it terribly disturbing that there should be an ideological war on how best to combat it, especially those which support abstinence only policies or a mixed one.
I mean, where is the voice of the religious left?"
***
Wannabe Lawyer
"The dangers, as always, with centralised decision-making, are unforeseen or unintended outcomes, or just plain stupidity. The list of failures is long and illustrious. Chartered Semiconductors, Micropolis Hard Drives, the North-East MRT line, the IT industry boom and bust (anyone remember the singapore one network?), the purchase of Global Crossing by ST Telemedia without due diligence; the belated entry into the biomedical sector at a time when Big Pharma are finding it hard to innovate due to stupid patent policy, and at the same time strengthening all the components of IP laws without public debate and consultation, and ALSO ignoring a growing body of empirical evidence and real-world studies which strongly suggest that the chilling effects of overbroad and overstrong IP laws actually hinder and obstruct innovation and creativity."
Ah well. What can we do? As always, father knows best. The unwashed masses are naive, ignorant and stupid, and require someone to tell them what is right, good and proper, and what they would *really* want if they were enlightened.
As nilsinelabore comments in an earlier post about similar issues:
"Unfortunately our press is not there to question any questionable policies. The best and brightest of her youth are either co-opted into the establishment or have migrated. The remaining ones who dared to challenge the status quo probably will have their heads broken by knuckle dusters."
***
"lalala", whose email is "lalala@gmail.com", homepage is "lalala.blogspot.com" and who hails from "lalaland" writes:
"gosh gabriel, have you read hornby's 'how to be good'? you'd qualify as the angriest boy in town."
No, I have not, and I'm not sure what the Angriest Man in Holloway did to qualify for that title.
***
A novel perspective, courtesy of my favourite misanthrope:
"The same mentally-challenged pigs who are pro-censorship also tend to be anti-abortion. These two antiquated notions seem to go hand-in-hand, not unlike sodomy and Vaseline.
"Choose life!" these vapid creeps will bleat.
My question is, WHY?
Choose life, my ass. What these monsters are "choosing" actually involves no choice at all. The poor kid coming down the chute has no choice. That child is hardly begging to be born into decades of screaming hell with savage dumbshits for parents and a lifetime of wage slavery to look forward to afterward. And these clods who "choose life" will likely choose it several times, so the first mistake (i.e., kid) can have other kids to fight with. Ever seen two young siblings get together without fighting? No. Neither have I. So what's the appeal of having a multiple litter?
"You could be aborting the next Einstein," some brainless jackass will bray.
Right. But you're probably aborting the next Jeffrey Dahmer, instead."
***
FACT (Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore)
"Do you want your children to grow up learning that it is OK to gamble?
If your answer is "NO", then join us, as families living in Singapore, to say "NO" to the casino threat that's looming.
We recognise that there can be no end to the arguments on the pros and cons of having a casino in Singapore. We recognise that lotteries & betting are already legalized in some way or another in Singapore. So what's wrong with having a casino?
As concerned parents, we say: It's time to draw a line.
We are ordinary Singaporean families. We want to raise our families without the temptations and threats presented by a casino operation.
When the fundamental values of growing a family is affected by economic expediency, we as a society, must have the maturity and the courage to say "NO". Whatever the so-called economic value that is touted.
Will you be one of the Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore? Join us in petitioning our President and urge him to advise our government to reject any plan allowing a casino in Singapore.
It's not too late to turn things right. Sign Up Now!!"
Someone should set up an opposing movement:
Do you want your children to grow up learning that it is OK to let the Moral Majority (TM) impose their whims on the rest?
If your answer is "NO", then join us, as progressive intellectuals living in Singapore, to say "NO" to the Moral Majority whose shrill cries and appeals to emotion and "morals" drown out good sense.
We recognise that there can be no end to the arguments on relative morality, and no shortage of prophets of doom warning of an impending apocalypse if we give up our faux Asian Values. We recognise that the same arguments and appeals to emotion that some organisations are using have been used time and time again against various disparate causes, but in those cases have since faltered and now seem ludicrous, just as the current ruckus will one day seem a visceral backlash towards liberalisation by conservatives.
As level-headed people, we say: It's time to draw a line.
We are ordinary Singaporeans. We want to live our lives, sans families (as more and more are doing these days) or otherwise, without having to suffer the dictates of a paranoid conservative faction.
When the fundamental value of liberty is affected by distinctly illusory spectres of doom conjured up by self-proclaimed guardians of Morality and The Family, we as a society, must have the maturity and the courage to say "NO", however raucous the noises made by those wanting to return to an era of paternalism and rigidity.
Will you be one of the Individuals For Reason? Join us in petitioning our President and urge him to advise our government to continue in its liberalisation, so we may progress as a nation.
It's not too late to turn things right. Sign Up Now!!
Someone: "Who's up for setting up FARTS? Thats Families Against the kranji Racecourse Threat to Singapore!"
Amazing why the Moral Majority (TM) has not chosen to go after:
- The National Lottery (State-sanctioned and state-run gambling! A clear imprimatur from the government, if there ever was one)
- Cigarettes (Largesse from the state to destroy your bodies. Imagine the health care costs shouldered by grieving families. Imagine how people destroy their bodies over many decades. People can't stop themselves when they start gambling - so too does it apply for cigarettes. We must save idiots from themselves!)
- Prostitution/massage parlors (Again, state-sanctioned and state-regulated. Are the authorities saying it's alright for people to buy sex? What kind of message are we sending to our children?!)
- Alcohol (Essentially, it's a poison, which is why the liver metabolises it. Are we telling our children that it is alright to poison themselves just for fleeting, momentary pleasure?!)
- Abortion/contraception (An endorsement of casual sex, or sex purely undertaken for pleasure, if there ever was one)
- Divorce (Our divorce rates are approaching those of the West! Morality is crumbling. Children are suffering. Nevermind that previously many people were stuck in miserable, loveless marriages. All that matters is that they were married on paper. Who cares about the quality of their relationship, or the effects on their children?! We must maintain appearances; it is an Asian Value after all to pride appearances over reality.)
- School fee hikes (School fee hikes teach our children that such a priceless thing as learning should be charged for. What kind of attitude are we inculcating in them for the Knowledge Based Economy?)
- Gays (We must set up 'Families Against Gays in Singapore' - FAGS, since we all know gays are ruinous for the institution of the Family)
- Chinese 'B' (We are allowing standards to drop just because some lazy kids complain? Hah! We must teach them the value of hard work and knowing their roots.)
- Chewing gum (By legalising chewing gum, we are teaching our kids that it is alright to spit or dispose of used gum all over the place)
- Multi storied buildings (We are encouraging people to commit suicide by leaping to their deaths from multi storied buildings... All buildings in Singapore must be made single-storied)
- Boat trips to Batam (Since everyone knows that the only reason Singaporean men travel to Batam is to have sex, we should ban males travelling singly or in groups from going to Batam. We need 'BUSTED' - 'Batam Uncles Sex Trip Education')
Really, we should ban the stock market too, for it does not create any real wealth or produce any real output, and it can similarly bankrupt people.
***
I always say: the way to get rich is to organise seminars teaching people how to get rich.
Alwyn: "even this clement chiang fella.. 2k per person per seminar.. and he has like classes of 200 people? that's close to 400k per class! minute costs
and the fact that he has a few classes going on at the same time? this guy needn't trade options to be rich! just teach it only!"
***
Keeping the Faith in My Doubt - "Opposing self-righteousness is easier said than done. How do you denounce dogmatism in others without succumbing to it yourself? No one embodied this pitfall more than the philosopher Karl Popper, who railed against certainty in science, philosophy, religion and politics and yet was notoriously dogmatic. I once asked Popper, who called his stance critical rationalism, about charges that he would not brook criticism of his ideas in his classroom. He replied indignantly that he welcomed students' criticism; only if they persisted after he pointed out their errors would he banish them from class."
Science Fair Projects - Bartholin's gland - "The Bartholin's glands (also called Bartholin glands or greater vestibular glands) are two glands located slightly below and to the left and right of the opening of the Censored page in women. They secrete mucus to provide lubrication, especially when the woman is Censored page, thus facilitating Censored page."
wth
Spider experiments with Drugs - "Scientists at the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have turned their attention from the mysteries of the cosmos to a more esoteric area of research: what happens when you get a spider stoned."
While browsing the member list of the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists I saw the picture of the hair of Patrick J. O'Brien, LFHCfS, Institut fuer Geowissenschaften, Full Professor, Chair of Petrology,
Universität Potsdam, Germany. OMG.
Interesting Christmas research - "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Joel Waldfogel at the University of Pennsylvania reported in the American Economic Review: "A potentially important micro-economic aspect of gift-giving is that gifts may be mismatched with the recipients' preferences ... Estimates indicate that between a tenth and a third of the value of holiday gifts is destroyed by gift-giving."
MovieMartyr.com - Suffering for your cinema...
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - Hallelujah (chorus)
Hallelujah! For the lord god omnipotent reigneth. The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our lord, and of his christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
King of kings, and lord of lords. Hallelujah!
***
The Origin of Children
(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork Science, University of Helsinki)
(English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of Alberta)
Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school.
In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.
Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:
1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.
4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.
6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.
***
Something for Chara:
John Horgan - Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism
"The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people.
Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation.
Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous.
What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so... But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped."
***
Hearing out religion in public debate - Dec 15, 2004
"Thoughtful debate over how to shape our life as a community is precluded if religious voices are gagged. This would disenfranchise people of religious faith, be undemocratic, and cause social disharmony." - Associate Professor Thio Li-ann (another law professor, so now A/P Tan Seow Hon is not the only religio-conservative writing op-eds for the ST)
budak asked for my "thoughts on the article... arguing against the notion of a secular system."
The article didn't really argue against a secular system. It merely asserted that religious views should be taken into account.
As philosopher Immanuel Kant taught, the logic of any moral argument is its capacity to be universalised. We should evaluate the merits of any view and ask: 'Does it serve the common good?' (from original article)
If we only apply this criterion, where would religion come into the picture? An idea coming from a religious viewpoint would have as much merit as the same idea coming from a seular viewpoint. The imperative: "Don't let the poor starve", if commanded by gods, has as much merit as the same imperative motivated by secular humanism.
What secularists mean when they disavow and discount religiously-grounded views is that ideas should be evaluated not on their spiritual merits, if any, but on their intellectual merits. ie "My god said so" is not an adequate basis on which to make public policy. As such, A/P Thio is really going off in the wrong direction.
Someone on the Young Republic mailing list:
"What I find most disconcerting is that her examples of societal and religious values coming together turns on those which are socially conservative and would limit personal choice when there might be no tangible 3rd party harm (pornography) beyond that of offending the socially conservative I suppose. With regards to AIDS, I find it terribly disturbing that there should be an ideological war on how best to combat it, especially those which support abstinence only policies or a mixed one.
I mean, where is the voice of the religious left?"
***
Wannabe Lawyer
"The dangers, as always, with centralised decision-making, are unforeseen or unintended outcomes, or just plain stupidity. The list of failures is long and illustrious. Chartered Semiconductors, Micropolis Hard Drives, the North-East MRT line, the IT industry boom and bust (anyone remember the singapore one network?), the purchase of Global Crossing by ST Telemedia without due diligence; the belated entry into the biomedical sector at a time when Big Pharma are finding it hard to innovate due to stupid patent policy, and at the same time strengthening all the components of IP laws without public debate and consultation, and ALSO ignoring a growing body of empirical evidence and real-world studies which strongly suggest that the chilling effects of overbroad and overstrong IP laws actually hinder and obstruct innovation and creativity."
Ah well. What can we do? As always, father knows best. The unwashed masses are naive, ignorant and stupid, and require someone to tell them what is right, good and proper, and what they would *really* want if they were enlightened.
As nilsinelabore comments in an earlier post about similar issues:
"Unfortunately our press is not there to question any questionable policies. The best and brightest of her youth are either co-opted into the establishment or have migrated. The remaining ones who dared to challenge the status quo probably will have their heads broken by knuckle dusters."
***
"lalala", whose email is "lalala@gmail.com", homepage is "lalala.blogspot.com" and who hails from "lalaland" writes:
"gosh gabriel, have you read hornby's 'how to be good'? you'd qualify as the angriest boy in town."
No, I have not, and I'm not sure what the Angriest Man in Holloway did to qualify for that title.
***
A novel perspective, courtesy of my favourite misanthrope:
"The same mentally-challenged pigs who are pro-censorship also tend to be anti-abortion. These two antiquated notions seem to go hand-in-hand, not unlike sodomy and Vaseline.
"Choose life!" these vapid creeps will bleat.
My question is, WHY?
Choose life, my ass. What these monsters are "choosing" actually involves no choice at all. The poor kid coming down the chute has no choice. That child is hardly begging to be born into decades of screaming hell with savage dumbshits for parents and a lifetime of wage slavery to look forward to afterward. And these clods who "choose life" will likely choose it several times, so the first mistake (i.e., kid) can have other kids to fight with. Ever seen two young siblings get together without fighting? No. Neither have I. So what's the appeal of having a multiple litter?
"You could be aborting the next Einstein," some brainless jackass will bray.
Right. But you're probably aborting the next Jeffrey Dahmer, instead."
***
FACT (Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore)
"Do you want your children to grow up learning that it is OK to gamble?
If your answer is "NO", then join us, as families living in Singapore, to say "NO" to the casino threat that's looming.
We recognise that there can be no end to the arguments on the pros and cons of having a casino in Singapore. We recognise that lotteries & betting are already legalized in some way or another in Singapore. So what's wrong with having a casino?
As concerned parents, we say: It's time to draw a line.
We are ordinary Singaporean families. We want to raise our families without the temptations and threats presented by a casino operation.
When the fundamental values of growing a family is affected by economic expediency, we as a society, must have the maturity and the courage to say "NO". Whatever the so-called economic value that is touted.
Will you be one of the Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore? Join us in petitioning our President and urge him to advise our government to reject any plan allowing a casino in Singapore.
It's not too late to turn things right. Sign Up Now!!"
Someone should set up an opposing movement:
Do you want your children to grow up learning that it is OK to let the Moral Majority (TM) impose their whims on the rest?
If your answer is "NO", then join us, as progressive intellectuals living in Singapore, to say "NO" to the Moral Majority whose shrill cries and appeals to emotion and "morals" drown out good sense.
We recognise that there can be no end to the arguments on relative morality, and no shortage of prophets of doom warning of an impending apocalypse if we give up our faux Asian Values. We recognise that the same arguments and appeals to emotion that some organisations are using have been used time and time again against various disparate causes, but in those cases have since faltered and now seem ludicrous, just as the current ruckus will one day seem a visceral backlash towards liberalisation by conservatives.
As level-headed people, we say: It's time to draw a line.
We are ordinary Singaporeans. We want to live our lives, sans families (as more and more are doing these days) or otherwise, without having to suffer the dictates of a paranoid conservative faction.
When the fundamental value of liberty is affected by distinctly illusory spectres of doom conjured up by self-proclaimed guardians of Morality and The Family, we as a society, must have the maturity and the courage to say "NO", however raucous the noises made by those wanting to return to an era of paternalism and rigidity.
Will you be one of the Individuals For Reason? Join us in petitioning our President and urge him to advise our government to continue in its liberalisation, so we may progress as a nation.
It's not too late to turn things right. Sign Up Now!!
Someone: "Who's up for setting up FARTS? Thats Families Against the kranji Racecourse Threat to Singapore!"
Amazing why the Moral Majority (TM) has not chosen to go after:
- The National Lottery (State-sanctioned and state-run gambling! A clear imprimatur from the government, if there ever was one)
- Cigarettes (Largesse from the state to destroy your bodies. Imagine the health care costs shouldered by grieving families. Imagine how people destroy their bodies over many decades. People can't stop themselves when they start gambling - so too does it apply for cigarettes. We must save idiots from themselves!)
- Prostitution/massage parlors (Again, state-sanctioned and state-regulated. Are the authorities saying it's alright for people to buy sex? What kind of message are we sending to our children?!)
- Alcohol (Essentially, it's a poison, which is why the liver metabolises it. Are we telling our children that it is alright to poison themselves just for fleeting, momentary pleasure?!)
- Abortion/contraception (An endorsement of casual sex, or sex purely undertaken for pleasure, if there ever was one)
- Divorce (Our divorce rates are approaching those of the West! Morality is crumbling. Children are suffering. Nevermind that previously many people were stuck in miserable, loveless marriages. All that matters is that they were married on paper. Who cares about the quality of their relationship, or the effects on their children?! We must maintain appearances; it is an Asian Value after all to pride appearances over reality.)
- School fee hikes (School fee hikes teach our children that such a priceless thing as learning should be charged for. What kind of attitude are we inculcating in them for the Knowledge Based Economy?)
- Gays (We must set up 'Families Against Gays in Singapore' - FAGS, since we all know gays are ruinous for the institution of the Family)
- Chinese 'B' (We are allowing standards to drop just because some lazy kids complain? Hah! We must teach them the value of hard work and knowing their roots.)
- Chewing gum (By legalising chewing gum, we are teaching our kids that it is alright to spit or dispose of used gum all over the place)
- Multi storied buildings (We are encouraging people to commit suicide by leaping to their deaths from multi storied buildings... All buildings in Singapore must be made single-storied)
- Boat trips to Batam (Since everyone knows that the only reason Singaporean men travel to Batam is to have sex, we should ban males travelling singly or in groups from going to Batam. We need 'BUSTED' - 'Batam Uncles Sex Trip Education')
Really, we should ban the stock market too, for it does not create any real wealth or produce any real output, and it can similarly bankrupt people.
***
I always say: the way to get rich is to organise seminars teaching people how to get rich.
Alwyn: "even this clement chiang fella.. 2k per person per seminar.. and he has like classes of 200 people? that's close to 400k per class! minute costs
and the fact that he has a few classes going on at the same time? this guy needn't trade options to be rich! just teach it only!"
***
Keeping the Faith in My Doubt - "Opposing self-righteousness is easier said than done. How do you denounce dogmatism in others without succumbing to it yourself? No one embodied this pitfall more than the philosopher Karl Popper, who railed against certainty in science, philosophy, religion and politics and yet was notoriously dogmatic. I once asked Popper, who called his stance critical rationalism, about charges that he would not brook criticism of his ideas in his classroom. He replied indignantly that he welcomed students' criticism; only if they persisted after he pointed out their errors would he banish them from class."
Science Fair Projects - Bartholin's gland - "The Bartholin's glands (also called Bartholin glands or greater vestibular glands) are two glands located slightly below and to the left and right of the opening of the Censored page in women. They secrete mucus to provide lubrication, especially when the woman is Censored page, thus facilitating Censored page."
wth
Spider experiments with Drugs - "Scientists at the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have turned their attention from the mysteries of the cosmos to a more esoteric area of research: what happens when you get a spider stoned."
While browsing the member list of the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists I saw the picture of the hair of Patrick J. O'Brien, LFHCfS, Institut fuer Geowissenschaften, Full Professor, Chair of Petrology,
Universität Potsdam, Germany. OMG.
Interesting Christmas research - "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Joel Waldfogel at the University of Pennsylvania reported in the American Economic Review: "A potentially important micro-economic aspect of gift-giving is that gifts may be mismatched with the recipients' preferences ... Estimates indicate that between a tenth and a third of the value of holiday gifts is destroyed by gift-giving."
MovieMartyr.com - Suffering for your cinema...
Post ID: 110321531035257667
Thursday, December 16, 2004
"The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealised past." - Robertson Davies
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - Why Do The Nations So Furiously Rage (bass, air)
Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth rise up, and the rulers take counsel together against the lord, and against his anointed.
Random Trivia bit: The Schloss Neuschwanstein castle was built by Ludwig II of Bavaria after he was inspired by a performance of "Lohengrin" by Wagner, in 1861.
Ludwig was a mad-cap. He fantasised German legends and lived in a fool's world. He however did not live in his castle happily ever after. He was deposed just three months after its finish, considered unfit to rule. A large part of his fascination came from the Hohenschwangau where he spent his childhood.
***
I am amused. There is another "Asia Blog Awards", and I have been graciously nominated by Mr Brown. Well, actually there seems to be more than one award going around this year, so it quite defeats the point.
Hopefully none of them will be as acrimonious as last year's.
I love the commentary on myrick:
Also of interest to the Singapore blogosphere is the potential catfight between XiaXue and the Sarong Party Girl - who are two of the three nominees for Best Journal/Diary . XiaXue has a rabid fan base that recently propelled her to the top of the Asia section of the 2004 Weblog Awards ? SPG has a delightfully raunchy personal blog that's mostly about sex. For that category, I'm favoring sex over photoshop.
***
There is a tax on stupidity. It's called the lottery.
There is a tax on sex. It's called children.
Trying to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies through abstinence-only programs is like trying to stop arms races through unilateral disarmament.
***
US Forced To 'Diet' Soft Drinks - Suicide On An Installment Plan
"Reality is in that twisted Diet coke can. It's poison. It's killing the unborn, raining tumours and seizures on the population, destroying children, incapacitating workers, mimicking MS, erasing memory and blinding.
Inexorably Diet Coke visits a plague of 92 symptoms listed by our FDA on a secret report they'll never show which names diet soda as the first source of aspartame disease. And yes, Death was one of the 92.
Diet Coke is poison. And it's addictive, some victims drink several litres a day and keep it on their nightstands. If Coke changes the formula to remove aspartame the world will heal and the surge of hatred and vengeance by the disabled and bereaved shall certainly destroy Coca Cola.
The poison in Diet Coke is aspartame. As a member of the National Soft Drink Association, Coke opposed FDA approval of aspartame for beverages. Their objections, running to several pages published in the Congressional Record of 5/7/85, said aspartame is uniquely and inherently unstable and breaks down in the can. It decomposes into formaldehyde, methyl alcohol, formic acid, diketopiperazine and other toxins. In a study on 7 monkeys 5 had grand mal seizures and one died, a casualty rate of 86%."
These articles are so wildly deluded, they're almost funny.
I am, of course, more inclined to trust Cecil Adams, the world's most intelligent human being: The Straight Dope: Did aspartame (NutraSweet) cause "gulf war syndrome"?
"For the most part researchers have been unable to replicate adverse aspartame reactions in the lab. In numerous studies investigators recruited individuals who said aspartame triggered headaches, epileptic seizures, or what have you. Typically they fed half the subjects aspartame and the other half a placebo. In most cases there was no observable difference."
Oh yes, I forgot. They're all in the conspiracy too and have been paid millions by the Evil Corporations (TM) to keep mum.
***
Of all the unwanted mail in my NUS Email account, this takes the cake:
"Hi,
I am looking for a gal who went to Sentosa last Sunday (12/12/2004) because I need to pass something to her. She is with her bunch of NTU and NUS friends. One of her friends is called Zhenjing, NTU EE2 if I remember correctly. You were playing frisbee with a bunch of people and one of them is from NUS.. Kindly reply this mail if you are the one. Please ignore this mail if you are not the intended recipient.
Sorry for sending this email.
Thanks."
!@#$%^&*()
***
Star Entertaintment Pte Ltd present(s) World Wrestling Superstars Challenge Live in Action
For one night only, Star Entertainment is proud to bring to Singapore and Malaysia the “WORLD WRESTLING SUPERSTARS CHALLENGE: CLASH OF THE TITANS”, with the grand finale held in Singapore. Coming all the way from USA, these Superstar Wrestlers include well-known celebrities like Power of Pain, Honky Tonk Man, Barbarian, Dionk the Clown, Gangrel, Bull Buchanan, One Man Gang and female wrestlers such as Lady Victoria and Venus. Featured for the very first time in Singapore, we present the Red Indian Thrilling Cage Match! Join us for a night of unforgettable experience and excitement!
The above event was cancelled.The Moral Majority must have protested that if offended their Asian Values and encouraged violence among youth.
lotise informs me that The wrestling even was cancelled because the wrestlers delivered were not of the fame of those touted. The local organizers got conned, they reported it on the daily rag. No MM involved i guess, or maybe the rag is at work again, haha.
This is what happens when you don't read the nation-building press.
***
Seattle Weekly: News: Is Bush the Antichrist?
"Yet the more love-thy-neighbor-advocating mainstream church is not dead. In The American Prospect magazine, Baptist Sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter charges the fundamentalists with "the abandonment of some of the basic principles of Christianity." And in his brilliant 1997 book, Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, author Bruce Bawer accuses fundamentalism of replacing Christ's Church of Love with a Church of Law, lamenting "the horrible monster that 20th-century legalistic Christians have made out of their God and Savior and the hateful institution that they have made out of his church." He notes acidly that the movement got its biggest boost in reaction not to the Supreme Court's 1963 school-prayer ban but to the Carter-era IRS crackdown on segregated Christian schools. "The Religious Right didn't grow out of a love of God and one's neighbor—it grew out of racism, pure and simple."
"Kids growing up in Church of Law families nowadays think that the only two sins, or at least the only two really, really important ones, are having an abortion and having gay sex," Bawer told Seattle Weekly. "The notion that love, tolerance, and inclusiveness are moral values has been dropped down the memory hole."
A soldier in the U.S. Army e-mailed Seattle Weekly, "I'm just a citizen who was raised in a Christian community and is tired of having my values hijacked by a conservative movement that only applies them selectively at home and hardly at all overseas." The soldier asks to remain anonymous."
"God Is With Us": Hitler's Rhetoric and the Lure of "Moral Values"
"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Holocaust was able to flourish in Germany because of Europe's secular ways... One might expect regular citizens to be ignorant of history, but a Supreme Court Justice? Does he imagine that the phrase "Gott mit Uns" was a German clothier's interpretation of "Got Milk"?
'Strauss loved America enough to try to save her from the errors and terrors of Europe. He was convinced that the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic led to the rise of the Nazis. That is a debatable matter. But Strauss did not openly debate this issue or provide arguments for his position in his writings. I am inclined to think that it is Strauss's ideas, and not liberal ideas, that invite the kinds of abuses he wished to avoid. It behooves us to remember that Hitler had the utmost contempt for parliamentary democracy. He was impatient with debate and dispute, on the grounds that they were a waste of time for the great genius who knew instinctively the right choices and policies that the people need. Hitler had a profound contempt for the masses - the same contempt that is readily observed in Strauss and his cohorts. But when force of circumstances made it necessary to appeal to the masses, Hitler advocated lies, myths, and illusions as necessary pabulum to placate the people and make them comply with the will of the Fuhrer. Strauss's political philosophy advocates the same solution to the problem of the recalcitrant masses.'
Substituting "America" for "Germany," many of Hitler's religious assertions could have been uttered by Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson -- with Hitler even asserting that God punished Germany for turning away from Him -- before promising that renewed piety would protect the Fatherland and make it prosperous and successful once more. "Once the mercy of God shown upon us, but we were not worthy of His mercy. Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell, fell as scarcely any other people heretofore. In this deep misery we again learned to pray," Hitler said in 1936, sixty-five years before Falwell and Robertson blamed abortionists and feminists for the tragedies of Sept. 11."
***
budak:
To put it another way, why stop at a casino? There’s countless threats to our cherished values out there: prostitution (which is legal), private mahjong sessions, prolonged overseas assignments (which open the door to infidelity), latchkey kids (let’s force these parents to work less hard and stay at home more often!), wilfully childless or gay couples (we can’t have such bad examples for our children, can we?). Aren’t all those “necessary evils” that should be rejected by upright, family-first societies? And sorry, I almost forgot to mention those two vices that daily assault our senses with seductive allure: the pint and the pipeweed. Now who can doubt that these twin evils do nothing but lasting harm to our offspring, and thus deserve the deepest censure. Shall we not call for their utter banishment from this land, rather than tolerate their sanction by a system that issues healthy words of warning while earning a pretty sum from sales?... Isn’t it really all about wanting to shield families and kids from the big bad world out there, and demanding that the nanny state exercise its paternal instincts over individual sensibilities. Whither might the guardians of propriety turn their eyes next?
***
Does Singapore Have a Bona Fide Labour Union?
"In Singapore, the lack of bona fide union representation is all the more glaring given that this is not a welfare state and the state does not provide any relief for the unemployed. The government's clear message to the retrenched worker is not to look for free "hand-outs" (quoting the words of Straits Times writer Ms Chua Lee Hoong).
Does asking for a descent job qualify as a "hand-out". I think that the average
Singaporean only wishes to be given the opportunity to earn his keep, and it is not his fault that he has fallen victim to an imperfect system."
Instead of taking the well-trodden path of complaining about how ministers are paid highly to urge workers to accept lower wages, I shall offer a few thoughts from another angle.
Competitive wages are indeed necessary to compete in the global economy. However, we cannot compete with third world countries solely on the basis of comparable wages, not least because the cost of living here is higher than in said countries. We need to move up the value chain, and indeed this is being done, and encouraged.
We are bombarded with talk about maintaining competitiveness to maintain full employment, but by intervening in the labour market, the government brings wages below their equilibrium level. This seems to depress unemployment, but that caused in part by people withdrawing from the labour force, since wages are too low to make work worth their while (mmm, bumming is good). Meanwhile, all the wage slaves who cannot afford to quit the labour force will be stuck with lower salaries.
Of course, the typical bureaucrat would probably make a face and talk menacingly about recession, the End of the World, the ruling party's fall from power and what not, but why interfere with the aggregated preferences of Singaporeans?
Of course, the wage level theory is fraught with problems, not least that of the problem of aggregation, but if/when I explore them it shall be after I have grown in wisdom and lore (ie after a semester or two) and am able to utter words of greater profundity.
***
Some recent additions to How Girls Waste Time
40. Flirting with each other and generally acting completely lesbian when exclusively in the company of girls.
109. Making expansive hand gestures repeatedly
110. Imputing undue importance to certain essentially meaningless dates (eg First pet's death anniversary, conjunction of certain designated heavenly bodies, day and time of first hickey given by boyfriend), then kicking up a big fuss if they are not adequately commemorated
110. a) Imputing undue importance to certain essentially meaningless facts about themselves (eg Volume of flow, crests of biorhythms, favourite texture of parquet), then kicking up a big fuss if they are not remembered
111. Analysing and cross-analysing in excruciating detail the words and actions of others, often reading into them implicit meanings that don't actually exist, and seeing daggers where there are none (which explains why girls like to do Literature)
112. Using PMS and their gender as excuses to get things/get away with things.
113. Talking in great detail about menstrual cycles and the like, just to gross guys out
114. The adoration of boys who look like girls. See F4, 5566, Orlando Bloom as Legolas, etc.
114. a) A subset of this is reading Japanese manga where the males are distinguishable only by their slightly narrower eyes and wider jaws. And inevitably, these manga will feature falling flower petals and sparkling eyes at some point or the other.
115. Being fag hags. If a girl is a fag hag, she will start up on every single straight-identifying man in the vicinity by asking loaded questions like, "Come on. Would you sleep with a guy if you really had to?" and then proclaiming they are either gay and/or in denial. Then she'll start matchmaking even straight guys together. See: Yaoi/slash fangirl.
116. Being passive-aggressive. "I'm not mad at you. Really. ...WTF YOU ARE SO ANNOYING OMG."
117. Making fun of guys who indulge in anything from the above list. And using metrosexual as an insult.
119. Entering Pavlovian fits of ecstasy when they see a food they like (eg Brownies), then, after gorging on them, complaining about weight gain and the need to exercise.
"Not interested in starting up a list [on males] because it probably won't go beyond 20 or something (porn, video games, ogling girls, watching soccer...)"
***
Sexxx or Something else? - "Are these people engaged in sex or doing something else? You decide!"
I got 9/16. Damn.
MasaManiA=???? - "He is Ki master. He is now in training of Ki, He try to get power from tree. He is fucking serious. He believe that he can get power from Ki power from tree by training. What's the fuck, Ki ??"
Don't look at me. It's a Jap thing.
Japanese men lap up new comfort - "Japanese men without a shoulder to cry on this Christmas are being offered a woman's lap - made out of foam - to rest on instead."
Men get the equivalent of the Boyfriend Arm Pillow. Though I think most men would rather have a torso with swellings that they can grasp.
Cat crosses Siberia to find its home - "Two-year-old male cat named as Kuzya has made an unprecedented journey across the Yakutia republic in Russia's Siberia. The cat walked 2,150 kilometers in three months to find its home"
The Ketchup Conundrum - "Mustard now comes in dozens of varieties. Why has ketchup stayed the same?"
The Moronosphere: Paying For It - "I know people who work in the sex industry, quite a few of them. I know adult web masters, erotic artists, writers. I know escorts. I know strippers. I know phone sex operators. Some of these people are on a short list of my very good friends. I have nothing, absolutely nothing, but respect for these people. They do something far, far more important than I do, far more necessary, far more useful. I sit in an office making sure people who use software tools can use the tools correctly. Basically, I help other people make computers. My friends in the sex industry deal in pleasure and satisfaction. They meet a real, basic human need, as basic, as essential, as shelter and companionship and physical safety. Some of them are part therapist. Some of them do work that's actually dangerous. The strippers, the escorts, they are in real physical danger at times, and they risk disease on the job every day. These people work hard. They don't, for the most part, get rich. So why do they do it?"
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - Why Do The Nations So Furiously Rage (bass, air)
Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth rise up, and the rulers take counsel together against the lord, and against his anointed.
Random Trivia bit: The Schloss Neuschwanstein castle was built by Ludwig II of Bavaria after he was inspired by a performance of "Lohengrin" by Wagner, in 1861.
Ludwig was a mad-cap. He fantasised German legends and lived in a fool's world. He however did not live in his castle happily ever after. He was deposed just three months after its finish, considered unfit to rule. A large part of his fascination came from the Hohenschwangau where he spent his childhood.
***
I am amused. There is another "Asia Blog Awards", and I have been graciously nominated by Mr Brown. Well, actually there seems to be more than one award going around this year, so it quite defeats the point.
Hopefully none of them will be as acrimonious as last year's.
I love the commentary on myrick:
Also of interest to the Singapore blogosphere is the potential catfight between XiaXue and the Sarong Party Girl - who are two of the three nominees for Best Journal/Diary . XiaXue has a rabid fan base that recently propelled her to the top of the Asia section of the 2004 Weblog Awards ? SPG has a delightfully raunchy personal blog that's mostly about sex. For that category, I'm favoring sex over photoshop.
***
There is a tax on stupidity. It's called the lottery.
There is a tax on sex. It's called children.
Trying to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies through abstinence-only programs is like trying to stop arms races through unilateral disarmament.
***
US Forced To 'Diet' Soft Drinks - Suicide On An Installment Plan
"Reality is in that twisted Diet coke can. It's poison. It's killing the unborn, raining tumours and seizures on the population, destroying children, incapacitating workers, mimicking MS, erasing memory and blinding.
Inexorably Diet Coke visits a plague of 92 symptoms listed by our FDA on a secret report they'll never show which names diet soda as the first source of aspartame disease. And yes, Death was one of the 92.
Diet Coke is poison. And it's addictive, some victims drink several litres a day and keep it on their nightstands. If Coke changes the formula to remove aspartame the world will heal and the surge of hatred and vengeance by the disabled and bereaved shall certainly destroy Coca Cola.
The poison in Diet Coke is aspartame. As a member of the National Soft Drink Association, Coke opposed FDA approval of aspartame for beverages. Their objections, running to several pages published in the Congressional Record of 5/7/85, said aspartame is uniquely and inherently unstable and breaks down in the can. It decomposes into formaldehyde, methyl alcohol, formic acid, diketopiperazine and other toxins. In a study on 7 monkeys 5 had grand mal seizures and one died, a casualty rate of 86%."
These articles are so wildly deluded, they're almost funny.
I am, of course, more inclined to trust Cecil Adams, the world's most intelligent human being: The Straight Dope: Did aspartame (NutraSweet) cause "gulf war syndrome"?
"For the most part researchers have been unable to replicate adverse aspartame reactions in the lab. In numerous studies investigators recruited individuals who said aspartame triggered headaches, epileptic seizures, or what have you. Typically they fed half the subjects aspartame and the other half a placebo. In most cases there was no observable difference."
Oh yes, I forgot. They're all in the conspiracy too and have been paid millions by the Evil Corporations (TM) to keep mum.
***
Of all the unwanted mail in my NUS Email account, this takes the cake:
"Hi,
I am looking for a gal who went to Sentosa last Sunday (12/12/2004) because I need to pass something to her. She is with her bunch of NTU and NUS friends. One of her friends is called Zhenjing, NTU EE2 if I remember correctly. You were playing frisbee with a bunch of people and one of them is from NUS.. Kindly reply this mail if you are the one. Please ignore this mail if you are not the intended recipient.
Sorry for sending this email.
Thanks."
!@#$%^&*()
***
Star Entertaintment Pte Ltd present(s) World Wrestling Superstars Challenge Live in Action
For one night only, Star Entertainment is proud to bring to Singapore and Malaysia the “WORLD WRESTLING SUPERSTARS CHALLENGE: CLASH OF THE TITANS”, with the grand finale held in Singapore. Coming all the way from USA, these Superstar Wrestlers include well-known celebrities like Power of Pain, Honky Tonk Man, Barbarian, Dionk the Clown, Gangrel, Bull Buchanan, One Man Gang and female wrestlers such as Lady Victoria and Venus. Featured for the very first time in Singapore, we present the Red Indian Thrilling Cage Match! Join us for a night of unforgettable experience and excitement!
The above event was cancelled.
lotise informs me that The wrestling even was cancelled because the wrestlers delivered were not of the fame of those touted. The local organizers got conned, they reported it on the daily rag. No MM involved i guess, or maybe the rag is at work again, haha.
This is what happens when you don't read the nation-building press.
***
Seattle Weekly: News: Is Bush the Antichrist?
"Yet the more love-thy-neighbor-advocating mainstream church is not dead. In The American Prospect magazine, Baptist Sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter charges the fundamentalists with "the abandonment of some of the basic principles of Christianity." And in his brilliant 1997 book, Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, author Bruce Bawer accuses fundamentalism of replacing Christ's Church of Love with a Church of Law, lamenting "the horrible monster that 20th-century legalistic Christians have made out of their God and Savior and the hateful institution that they have made out of his church." He notes acidly that the movement got its biggest boost in reaction not to the Supreme Court's 1963 school-prayer ban but to the Carter-era IRS crackdown on segregated Christian schools. "The Religious Right didn't grow out of a love of God and one's neighbor—it grew out of racism, pure and simple."
"Kids growing up in Church of Law families nowadays think that the only two sins, or at least the only two really, really important ones, are having an abortion and having gay sex," Bawer told Seattle Weekly. "The notion that love, tolerance, and inclusiveness are moral values has been dropped down the memory hole."
A soldier in the U.S. Army e-mailed Seattle Weekly, "I'm just a citizen who was raised in a Christian community and is tired of having my values hijacked by a conservative movement that only applies them selectively at home and hardly at all overseas." The soldier asks to remain anonymous."
"God Is With Us": Hitler's Rhetoric and the Lure of "Moral Values"
"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Holocaust was able to flourish in Germany because of Europe's secular ways... One might expect regular citizens to be ignorant of history, but a Supreme Court Justice? Does he imagine that the phrase "Gott mit Uns" was a German clothier's interpretation of "Got Milk"?
'Strauss loved America enough to try to save her from the errors and terrors of Europe. He was convinced that the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic led to the rise of the Nazis. That is a debatable matter. But Strauss did not openly debate this issue or provide arguments for his position in his writings. I am inclined to think that it is Strauss's ideas, and not liberal ideas, that invite the kinds of abuses he wished to avoid. It behooves us to remember that Hitler had the utmost contempt for parliamentary democracy. He was impatient with debate and dispute, on the grounds that they were a waste of time for the great genius who knew instinctively the right choices and policies that the people need. Hitler had a profound contempt for the masses - the same contempt that is readily observed in Strauss and his cohorts. But when force of circumstances made it necessary to appeal to the masses, Hitler advocated lies, myths, and illusions as necessary pabulum to placate the people and make them comply with the will of the Fuhrer. Strauss's political philosophy advocates the same solution to the problem of the recalcitrant masses.'
Substituting "America" for "Germany," many of Hitler's religious assertions could have been uttered by Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson -- with Hitler even asserting that God punished Germany for turning away from Him -- before promising that renewed piety would protect the Fatherland and make it prosperous and successful once more. "Once the mercy of God shown upon us, but we were not worthy of His mercy. Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell, fell as scarcely any other people heretofore. In this deep misery we again learned to pray," Hitler said in 1936, sixty-five years before Falwell and Robertson blamed abortionists and feminists for the tragedies of Sept. 11."
***
budak:
To put it another way, why stop at a casino? There’s countless threats to our cherished values out there: prostitution (which is legal), private mahjong sessions, prolonged overseas assignments (which open the door to infidelity), latchkey kids (let’s force these parents to work less hard and stay at home more often!), wilfully childless or gay couples (we can’t have such bad examples for our children, can we?). Aren’t all those “necessary evils” that should be rejected by upright, family-first societies? And sorry, I almost forgot to mention those two vices that daily assault our senses with seductive allure: the pint and the pipeweed. Now who can doubt that these twin evils do nothing but lasting harm to our offspring, and thus deserve the deepest censure. Shall we not call for their utter banishment from this land, rather than tolerate their sanction by a system that issues healthy words of warning while earning a pretty sum from sales?... Isn’t it really all about wanting to shield families and kids from the big bad world out there, and demanding that the nanny state exercise its paternal instincts over individual sensibilities. Whither might the guardians of propriety turn their eyes next?
***
Does Singapore Have a Bona Fide Labour Union?
"In Singapore, the lack of bona fide union representation is all the more glaring given that this is not a welfare state and the state does not provide any relief for the unemployed. The government's clear message to the retrenched worker is not to look for free "hand-outs" (quoting the words of Straits Times writer Ms Chua Lee Hoong).
Does asking for a descent job qualify as a "hand-out". I think that the average
Singaporean only wishes to be given the opportunity to earn his keep, and it is not his fault that he has fallen victim to an imperfect system."
Instead of taking the well-trodden path of complaining about how ministers are paid highly to urge workers to accept lower wages, I shall offer a few thoughts from another angle.
Competitive wages are indeed necessary to compete in the global economy. However, we cannot compete with third world countries solely on the basis of comparable wages, not least because the cost of living here is higher than in said countries. We need to move up the value chain, and indeed this is being done, and encouraged.
We are bombarded with talk about maintaining competitiveness to maintain full employment, but by intervening in the labour market, the government brings wages below their equilibrium level. This seems to depress unemployment, but that caused in part by people withdrawing from the labour force, since wages are too low to make work worth their while (mmm, bumming is good). Meanwhile, all the wage slaves who cannot afford to quit the labour force will be stuck with lower salaries.
Of course, the typical bureaucrat would probably make a face and talk menacingly about recession, the End of the World, the ruling party's fall from power and what not, but why interfere with the aggregated preferences of Singaporeans?
Of course, the wage level theory is fraught with problems, not least that of the problem of aggregation, but if/when I explore them it shall be after I have grown in wisdom and lore (ie after a semester or two) and am able to utter words of greater profundity.
***
Some recent additions to How Girls Waste Time
40. Flirting with each other and generally acting completely lesbian when exclusively in the company of girls.
109. Making expansive hand gestures repeatedly
110. Imputing undue importance to certain essentially meaningless dates (eg First pet's death anniversary, conjunction of certain designated heavenly bodies, day and time of first hickey given by boyfriend), then kicking up a big fuss if they are not adequately commemorated
110. a) Imputing undue importance to certain essentially meaningless facts about themselves (eg Volume of flow, crests of biorhythms, favourite texture of parquet), then kicking up a big fuss if they are not remembered
111. Analysing and cross-analysing in excruciating detail the words and actions of others, often reading into them implicit meanings that don't actually exist, and seeing daggers where there are none (which explains why girls like to do Literature)
112. Using PMS and their gender as excuses to get things/get away with things.
113. Talking in great detail about menstrual cycles and the like, just to gross guys out
114. The adoration of boys who look like girls. See F4, 5566, Orlando Bloom as Legolas, etc.
114. a) A subset of this is reading Japanese manga where the males are distinguishable only by their slightly narrower eyes and wider jaws. And inevitably, these manga will feature falling flower petals and sparkling eyes at some point or the other.
115. Being fag hags. If a girl is a fag hag, she will start up on every single straight-identifying man in the vicinity by asking loaded questions like, "Come on. Would you sleep with a guy if you really had to?" and then proclaiming they are either gay and/or in denial. Then she'll start matchmaking even straight guys together. See: Yaoi/slash fangirl.
116. Being passive-aggressive. "I'm not mad at you. Really. ...WTF YOU ARE SO ANNOYING OMG."
117. Making fun of guys who indulge in anything from the above list. And using metrosexual as an insult.
119. Entering Pavlovian fits of ecstasy when they see a food they like (eg Brownies), then, after gorging on them, complaining about weight gain and the need to exercise.
"Not interested in starting up a list [on males] because it probably won't go beyond 20 or something (porn, video games, ogling girls, watching soccer...)"
***
Sexxx or Something else? - "Are these people engaged in sex or doing something else? You decide!"
I got 9/16. Damn.
MasaManiA=???? - "He is Ki master. He is now in training of Ki, He try to get power from tree. He is fucking serious. He believe that he can get power from Ki power from tree by training. What's the fuck, Ki ??"
Don't look at me. It's a Jap thing.
Japanese men lap up new comfort - "Japanese men without a shoulder to cry on this Christmas are being offered a woman's lap - made out of foam - to rest on instead."
Men get the equivalent of the Boyfriend Arm Pillow. Though I think most men would rather have a torso with swellings that they can grasp.
Cat crosses Siberia to find its home - "Two-year-old male cat named as Kuzya has made an unprecedented journey across the Yakutia republic in Russia's Siberia. The cat walked 2,150 kilometers in three months to find its home"
The Ketchup Conundrum - "Mustard now comes in dozens of varieties. Why has ketchup stayed the same?"
The Moronosphere: Paying For It - "I know people who work in the sex industry, quite a few of them. I know adult web masters, erotic artists, writers. I know escorts. I know strippers. I know phone sex operators. Some of these people are on a short list of my very good friends. I have nothing, absolutely nothing, but respect for these people. They do something far, far more important than I do, far more necessary, far more useful. I sit in an office making sure people who use software tools can use the tools correctly. Basically, I help other people make computers. My friends in the sex industry deal in pleasure and satisfaction. They meet a real, basic human need, as basic, as essential, as shelter and companionship and physical safety. Some of them are part therapist. Some of them do work that's actually dangerous. The strippers, the escorts, they are in real physical danger at times, and they risk disease on the job every day. These people work hard. They don't, for the most part, get rich. So why do they do it?"
Post ID: 110304508238550069
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Channel Newsasia has gotten hacked!
Whodunit? Whodunit?
Some portuguese guy, apparently.
Message: "Afinal, papai noel anda de trenó ou de helicóptero?"
Translation: "After all, papa noel walks of sleigh or helicopter?"
In other news, http://channelnewsasia.com is considered an undesirable site: "Access control configuration prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel this is incorrect."
Whodunit? Whodunit?
Some portuguese guy, apparently.
Message: "Afinal, papai noel anda de trenó ou de helicóptero?"
Translation: "After all, papa noel walks of sleigh or helicopter?"
In other news, http://channelnewsasia.com is considered an undesirable site: "Access control configuration prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel this is incorrect."
Post ID: 110304239086760745
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
"We all have strength enough to endure the misfortunes of others." - Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - Lift Up Your Heads, O Ye Gates (chorus)
Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the king of glory shall come in.
Who is this king of glory? The lord strong and mighty, the lord mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the king of glory shall come in.
Who is this king of glory? The lord of hosts, He is the king of glory.
***
A: Although I think the word Athiest, has an anti-God conotation ring to it. I prefer to call myself a confirmed non-believer.
Me: Anyhow if Atheist has an anti-gods connotation to it, does non-white have an anti-white connotation to it? Heh.
B: Don't forget atypical (dead-set against all that is typical?), asymmetric (irrationally refusing to be symmetric?) and asymptomatic (dogmatically opposed to symptoms?). Oh, and agagooga... :-)
Heh heh.
***
A random blessing
May you have
enough happiness to make you sweet,
enough trials to make you strong,
enough sorrow to keep you human,
enough hope to make you happy and
enough money to buy me gifts.
(wander)
Wicked, simply wicked *g*
***
Someone on the putative law against "religious hatred" in the UK (which, among other things, would get the Satanic Verses censored):
"I think on reflection it would be best to support this law. Then on the day it comes into effect, go along to the appropriate authoritities and have them ban the Bible and Koran."
Rowan Atkinson: “Unfortunately, what is very arguable is the definition of the terms – the definition of a tolerant society. Is a tolerant society one in which you tolerate absurdities, iniquities and injustices simply because they are being perpetrated by or in the name of a religion and out of a desire not to rock the boat you pass no comment or criticism. So as not to cause discomfort to anyone, not to cause embarrassment. A society with a veneer of tolerance concealing a snake pit of un-aired and of course unchallenged views... A joke is essentially an exaggerated truth and the truth can hurt. Should the predictability of offence being taken mean that you have committed a crime? Is it an unacceptable joke – an illegal joke – simply because some are bound to be offended by it? Surely not. The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended."
What I find more amusing is that somehow "incitement to religious hatred" is viewed to be worse than incitement to other forms of hatred:
"Let’s try the T-shirt test:
Which of the following T-shirt captions should we prohibit people from displaying in public on grounds of ‘incitement to hatred’?
The Bible sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Christians
The Torah sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Jews
The Koran sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Muslims
‘Mein Kampf’ sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Nazis
‘Das Kapital’ sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Communists
‘The Origin of Species’ sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere evolutionists
If we prohibit one, why not all?
And why is 'incitement to religious hatred' any worse than 'incitement to political hatred'?"
Ah well. It's because of the same Muslim exception that results in some school canteens in the UK becoming halal to placate a minority: Dhimmi Watch: UK: Schools' halal provision debated
Some of the comments smack of neo-fascism and are downright ridiculous ("by the time
'Qar'an For Dummies' is printed Al Britain will be a Muslim state and they will be Dhimmis.Al Margarine will be running Sharia and the Queen will become Begum Al Windsor,suitably clad in a burka.Sheik Charles bin Windsor will wear flowing Arab dress with Arafat headband and there'll be a black Banner stuck over No 10 Downing Street), but others proffer worrying and disturbing anecdotes:
"Why can't they just bring their own halal lunches to school? I don't understand this need for public institutions to take on additional cost and effort to appease primitive superstitions. The total ban on pork products is unacceptable. Stupid politicians. They just don't have a clue what they're doing."
"I remember reading about these same sorts of demands from Muz immigrants in Detroit. No pork, oh no! Mohammed Jr. might goof up and eat it. So all the American kids had their food choices diminshed."
"In Canada Islamic groups have used Racism and Islamophobia to force some public schools to host teachings on Islam amd the Quran... they pre-suppose every non Muslim is a bigot and therefore must be educated about Islam.Not one Mosque has every allowed a female Christian to speak to a crowd of Muslims about Jesus and Christianty. Muslims at Concordia U. are demanding a prayer room through the human rights board,and demand a foot washing trough be put in the washrooms for use before praying. For now they use the sinks other student use to wash hands and brush their teeth,Muslims don't see the hygene worry for non-muslim users of these sinks."
"In France,gangs of young muslims have vandalized supermarkets,just because they sell pork products."
"Prince Charles is very pro-muslim. In fact, according to some sheik, he actually converted to Islam a while ago, so I hate to think what will happen if or when he ascends the throne." Okay, this one's a hoot. Allow me to look outside my window and laugh for a bit.
"My family kept kosher when I grew up. That meant that I brought my lunch to school most days instead of buying it. If the lunch on sale was vegetarian (pizza, say), then I would buy it. At my mother's request, the school administration mailed her the menu each month so she would know when to give me a sandwich and when to give me money to buy lunch. Was that an outrageous hardship? Did it ever occur to me or my parents to demand that the school sell only kosher meat? No, and no. BTW our school was maybe 60-70% Jewish, and maybe 5-10% of the students were Jews who kept kosher."
"durning swimming classes one of the Muslim students said he could not get in to the swimming pool with the unclean Infidels. Shortly ther after, the 14 muslim students and their parents ,in a school of hundreds of other non-Muslim students banded together in an attempt to pressure the school to provide seperate swimming classes for them."
***
Battlefield Earth - "The environment is in trouble and the religious right doesn't care. It's time to act as if the future depends on us – because it does."
I'm usually deeply suspicious of the articles on Alternet, but this seems one of the less wild ones.
Stupid Dino Tricks: A Visit to Kent Hovind’s Dinosaur Adventure Land - "Young-earth creationist Kent Hovind has built a dinosaur-filled theme park in the Florida panhandle and claims to prove that evolution is bunk. A visit there shows that it is definitely a fantasy land."
Save us from the politicians who have God on their side - "Bob Woodward vividly records in his book Plan of Attack an exchange with Bush, in which he asked whether the president had discussed the Iraq invasion with his father before making the decision to act. No, said Bush. He preferred to consult his "higher father"."
Why Academia Shuns Republicans - "Am I the only person who fails to understand why conservatives see this finding as vindication? After all, these studies show that some of the best-educated, most-informed people in the country overwhelmingly reject the GOP. Why is this seen as an indictment of academia, rather than as an indictment of the Republican Party?"
***
Hong Kong-vs-Singapore: Who is winning?
"Last Sunday, I walked along Hong Kong's Causeway Bay... What I saw was a carnival scene, a little organised chaos and a picture of flourishing business created from adversity... In Singapore, I quickly told myself, such scenes would not have been possible.
I'm pretty sure that Singaporeans by the hundreds would have complained to the authorities about the crowds and the noise; businessmen would want them removed for blocking their shops.
And in 10 minutes, the efficient Singapore police would have moved in and cleared everything away.
Well, that's what makes Hong Kong different. The former British colony is less regulated and a lot livelier.
Slowly, Singaporeans are learning that orderliness and tranquillity do not always spell economic opportunities.
Instead of getting the police to evict them, the Hong Kong shopkeepers did better. Instead of whining, they turned adversity into ringing cash registers and making money from the crowds... But it was not only the people who stood out. The authorities, too, were tolerant in allowing small private entrepreneurs to do their stuff.
Faced with the same situation, the Singapore government would probably be handling it in a regulatory way. Break the law and you would get fined."
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - Lift Up Your Heads, O Ye Gates (chorus)
Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the king of glory shall come in.
Who is this king of glory? The lord strong and mighty, the lord mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the king of glory shall come in.
Who is this king of glory? The lord of hosts, He is the king of glory.
***
A: Although I think the word Athiest, has an anti-God conotation ring to it. I prefer to call myself a confirmed non-believer.
Me: Anyhow if Atheist has an anti-gods connotation to it, does non-white have an anti-white connotation to it? Heh.
B: Don't forget atypical (dead-set against all that is typical?), asymmetric (irrationally refusing to be symmetric?) and asymptomatic (dogmatically opposed to symptoms?). Oh, and agagooga... :-)
Heh heh.
***
A random blessing
May you have
enough happiness to make you sweet,
enough trials to make you strong,
enough sorrow to keep you human,
enough hope to make you happy and
enough money to buy me gifts.
(wander)
Wicked, simply wicked *g*
***
Someone on the putative law against "religious hatred" in the UK (which, among other things, would get the Satanic Verses censored):
"I think on reflection it would be best to support this law. Then on the day it comes into effect, go along to the appropriate authoritities and have them ban the Bible and Koran."
Rowan Atkinson: “Unfortunately, what is very arguable is the definition of the terms – the definition of a tolerant society. Is a tolerant society one in which you tolerate absurdities, iniquities and injustices simply because they are being perpetrated by or in the name of a religion and out of a desire not to rock the boat you pass no comment or criticism. So as not to cause discomfort to anyone, not to cause embarrassment. A society with a veneer of tolerance concealing a snake pit of un-aired and of course unchallenged views... A joke is essentially an exaggerated truth and the truth can hurt. Should the predictability of offence being taken mean that you have committed a crime? Is it an unacceptable joke – an illegal joke – simply because some are bound to be offended by it? Surely not. The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended."
What I find more amusing is that somehow "incitement to religious hatred" is viewed to be worse than incitement to other forms of hatred:
"Let’s try the T-shirt test:
Which of the following T-shirt captions should we prohibit people from displaying in public on grounds of ‘incitement to hatred’?
The Bible sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Christians
The Torah sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Jews
The Koran sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Muslims
‘Mein Kampf’ sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Nazis
‘Das Kapital’ sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Communists
‘The Origin of Species’ sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere evolutionists
If we prohibit one, why not all?
And why is 'incitement to religious hatred' any worse than 'incitement to political hatred'?"
Ah well. It's because of the same Muslim exception that results in some school canteens in the UK becoming halal to placate a minority: Dhimmi Watch: UK: Schools' halal provision debated
Some of the comments smack of neo-fascism and are downright ridiculous ("by the time
'Qar'an For Dummies' is printed Al Britain will be a Muslim state and they will be Dhimmis.Al Margarine will be running Sharia and the Queen will become Begum Al Windsor,suitably clad in a burka.Sheik Charles bin Windsor will wear flowing Arab dress with Arafat headband and there'll be a black Banner stuck over No 10 Downing Street), but others proffer worrying and disturbing anecdotes:
"Why can't they just bring their own halal lunches to school? I don't understand this need for public institutions to take on additional cost and effort to appease primitive superstitions. The total ban on pork products is unacceptable. Stupid politicians. They just don't have a clue what they're doing."
"I remember reading about these same sorts of demands from Muz immigrants in Detroit. No pork, oh no! Mohammed Jr. might goof up and eat it. So all the American kids had their food choices diminshed."
"In Canada Islamic groups have used Racism and Islamophobia to force some public schools to host teachings on Islam amd the Quran... they pre-suppose every non Muslim is a bigot and therefore must be educated about Islam.Not one Mosque has every allowed a female Christian to speak to a crowd of Muslims about Jesus and Christianty. Muslims at Concordia U. are demanding a prayer room through the human rights board,and demand a foot washing trough be put in the washrooms for use before praying. For now they use the sinks other student use to wash hands and brush their teeth,Muslims don't see the hygene worry for non-muslim users of these sinks."
"In France,gangs of young muslims have vandalized supermarkets,just because they sell pork products."
"Prince Charles is very pro-muslim. In fact, according to some sheik, he actually converted to Islam a while ago, so I hate to think what will happen if or when he ascends the throne." Okay, this one's a hoot. Allow me to look outside my window and laugh for a bit.
"My family kept kosher when I grew up. That meant that I brought my lunch to school most days instead of buying it. If the lunch on sale was vegetarian (pizza, say), then I would buy it. At my mother's request, the school administration mailed her the menu each month so she would know when to give me a sandwich and when to give me money to buy lunch. Was that an outrageous hardship? Did it ever occur to me or my parents to demand that the school sell only kosher meat? No, and no. BTW our school was maybe 60-70% Jewish, and maybe 5-10% of the students were Jews who kept kosher."
"durning swimming classes one of the Muslim students said he could not get in to the swimming pool with the unclean Infidels. Shortly ther after, the 14 muslim students and their parents ,in a school of hundreds of other non-Muslim students banded together in an attempt to pressure the school to provide seperate swimming classes for them."
***
Battlefield Earth - "The environment is in trouble and the religious right doesn't care. It's time to act as if the future depends on us – because it does."
I'm usually deeply suspicious of the articles on Alternet, but this seems one of the less wild ones.
Stupid Dino Tricks: A Visit to Kent Hovind’s Dinosaur Adventure Land - "Young-earth creationist Kent Hovind has built a dinosaur-filled theme park in the Florida panhandle and claims to prove that evolution is bunk. A visit there shows that it is definitely a fantasy land."
Save us from the politicians who have God on their side - "Bob Woodward vividly records in his book Plan of Attack an exchange with Bush, in which he asked whether the president had discussed the Iraq invasion with his father before making the decision to act. No, said Bush. He preferred to consult his "higher father"."
Why Academia Shuns Republicans - "Am I the only person who fails to understand why conservatives see this finding as vindication? After all, these studies show that some of the best-educated, most-informed people in the country overwhelmingly reject the GOP. Why is this seen as an indictment of academia, rather than as an indictment of the Republican Party?"
***
Hong Kong-vs-Singapore: Who is winning?
"Last Sunday, I walked along Hong Kong's Causeway Bay... What I saw was a carnival scene, a little organised chaos and a picture of flourishing business created from adversity... In Singapore, I quickly told myself, such scenes would not have been possible.
I'm pretty sure that Singaporeans by the hundreds would have complained to the authorities about the crowds and the noise; businessmen would want them removed for blocking their shops.
And in 10 minutes, the efficient Singapore police would have moved in and cleared everything away.
Well, that's what makes Hong Kong different. The former British colony is less regulated and a lot livelier.
Slowly, Singaporeans are learning that orderliness and tranquillity do not always spell economic opportunities.
Instead of getting the police to evict them, the Hong Kong shopkeepers did better. Instead of whining, they turned adversity into ringing cash registers and making money from the crowds... But it was not only the people who stood out. The authorities, too, were tolerant in allowing small private entrepreneurs to do their stuff.
Faced with the same situation, the Singapore government would probably be handling it in a regulatory way. Break the law and you would get fined."
Post ID: 110295645914135659
Monday, December 13, 2004
"Ignorance may be bliss for some, but knowledge is power" - Forum poster
Heh heh.
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - He Trusted In God (chorus)
He trusted in god that he would deliver him; let him deliver him, if he delight in him.
Random Trivia bit: Honey is an amazing substance. The medicine of the bees. These incredible insects have their own pharmacy product which humans have used to treat wounds.
While honey's thick consistency and moistness provide protection and a healing environment, the sugars draw dirt and moisture from the wound site, protecting the wound from outside infections; the moistness also allows skin cells to grow without forming a scar. Bacteria growth is also inhibited by the acidity present.
The bees' enzyme in the honey breaks down into hydrogen peroxide which is a very effective disinfectant. Add the properties of an anti-inflammatory and pain killer and honey is indeed a valuable remedy.
Special honeys are required to be of any use. The supermarket product has been sterilised and is ineffective.
(Insect Physicians - Creepy Crawly Medicine)
***
I think, in just over a semester in NUS, I've gotten more quotes (file-size wise) than from anywhere else in a comparable length of time.
The quotes file for NUS weighs in at 111KB. A distant second is quotes from my time in slavery (sans SMM and Obedience School [BMTC]).
***
A fellow hater of M$N Instant Messenger:
"You can't rename your contacts which is very important considering how everyone changes their nick a million times.
You have to download stupid MSN plus or other patches like polygamy which makes u more enslaved to other stupid MSN products and patches, just so you can rename your contacts and open more than one MSN simultaneously because of their stupid 150 limit. Don't understand why they can't allow us to open more than one MSN client from the start. They didn't expect people to have more than 150 friends? WTF? Just because they're losers doesn't mean everyone in the world are!! Start a campaigne against Microsoft's MSN"
Indeed.
***
Bastila: There is a bond between us, I do not dispute that. I can feel it, as I'm sure you can. The nature of that bond and its effect on our mission remain in dispute.
Main character: I think you're interested in more than just the 'bond' between us.
Bastila: Please! I'm a Jedi. Such feelings, such attractions, are... well, they're beneath me, quite frankly.
Bastila: I admit, I find you intriguing. Uh... I mean, I find your command of the Force intriguing. But my interest in you is purely academic. I'm sure you can understand why.
[...]
Bastila: I'd like to ask you some questions, given our relationship.
Main character: Our relationship? Is this some kind of clumsy come-on?
Bastila: I was referring to the bond we share; the one the Jedi Council spoke of. If I actually was interested in you, rest assured I could come up with a better approach than this!
Main character: Whoa, guess I touched a nerve there, huh?
Bastila: Touched a nerve, no. Getting on my nerves, most definitely. I suppose this is what you men consider being witty. *sigh*
Bastila: Now, are you going to answer my questions? Or would you rather just keep annoying me?
Main character: Uh... the second one.
Bastila: I see you intend to be childish about this. I guess I won' get anywhere continuing our discussion right now, would I?
Bastila: I suppose I'll just have to speak to you again later. Hopefully you'll behave less like a little boy and a little more like a... like a man!
[...]
Main character: You have something you want to ask me?
Bastila: I do. How did you know?
Main character: Well, you keep staring at me. See anything you like?
Bastila: You are easily the vainest, most arrogant man I have ever met! Besides, I know you can't be serious, since I was purposefully *not* staring in your direction.
Bastila: I am a Jedi, remember? I have far too much mental discipline to reveal what goes on inside my mind with such obvious physical clues.
Bastila: My thoughts remain hidden, including whatever my feelings are for you. Uh... I mean whatever I feel *about* you. uh... I mean whatever I think *about* you.
Main character: You're so cute when you're embarrassed.
Bastila: I... that is, you... Why must you be so impossibly infuriating?
This is why it's more fun playing as a male character than a female. I'll attribute it to game designers being male.
***
Jerald has notified me of the existence of a Qute icon set for Miranda.
Ah, now my Miranda experience is complete.
***
Corporate Gibberish Generator
At China Aviation Oil, we have come to know how to grow virally. Our technology takes the best features of RDF and CSS. What does it really mean to mesh "perfectly"? We believe we know that it is better to upgrade interactively than to recontextualize compellingly. The metrics for 24/7 bloatware are more well-understood if they are not customer-directed. We apply the proverb "Strike while the iron is hot" not only to our interfaces but our power to deliver. Without Total Quality Control, you will lack models. The development factor can be summed up in one word: scalable. Think user-centric. Think long-term. Think customer-directed. But don't think all three at the same time. We pride ourselves not only on our feature set, but our newbie-proof administration and simple configuration. Do you have a game plan to become bricks-and-clicks? What do we implement? Anything and everything, regardless of anonymity!
***
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine
- John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand
In "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand portrays the fallacy of the commonly held altruistic idea that we should live for others - and / or expect others to live for us.
Ultimately, we are each responsible for our own self. Period. Anything else we claim to be living for is ultimately going to lead to a contradiction.
As the quote I had a few days ago goes: "We are here on Earth to do good to others. What the others are here for, I don't know." - W. H. Auden
***
Mysteries of the universe: What does it mean when in movie credits the crew have letters after their names?
Examples:
- Wayne Wahrman A.C.E (Editor)
- David Cohn CSA (Casting)
- Garry Ulmer CAS (Re-Recording Mixing Supervisor)
- Jeffrey L. Sandler MPSE (Supervising Sound Designer)
I found a whole string of qualifications on a Sony page: "ACE, ADG, AMPAS, ASC, BAFTA-NY/LA, CAS, CSA, DGA, HFPA, LAFCA, MAHS, MPEG, Nat. Board of Review, Nat. Society of Film Critics, NYFCC, PGA, SAG Nom Comm., SDSA, VES, and WGA Members and a Guest Are Welcome"
***
The Return of the King Extended Edition 4-DVD set is $80 at Borders. Daylight robbery, with the cost of production being what it is, and considering the number of copies likely to be sold and that they've already more than covered the film's production costs through box office takings, sales of merchandise and the previous DVD release of the non-extended version.
Oh, and not to forget the ridiculous region codings for DVDs which just infuriate those who actually pay for the product.
And the MPAA and RIAA wonder why people are driven to downloading stuff off the Internet. Try to screw consumers and they screw you back.
***
"Tip: Bejeweled is very effective in picking up girls. Try it if you don't believe me." - Heh.
James Dobson's War on America - "It's one thing for a religious leader to control his 'church' with an iron grip, quite another when he interferes in the lives of his employees and colleagues. The author goes over in excruciating detail how, as his marriage was faltering, his employer and so-called friend would talk to his wife and then confront him at the office on her behalf, regularly met with the marriage counselor he'd recommended to the couple to discuss their case and confront Gil at work afterwards, and eventually booted Gil from the radio show after his divorce in order to avoid any potential negative feedback from having a divorced man on a family counseling show."
WorldNetDaily: A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities - "I propose that the U.S. immediately adopt and publish the following nuclear doctrine: In the event of a WMD attack by terrorists on the U.S. homeland or U.S. military facilities overseas, the U.S will immediately and without discussion use its immense nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy the 100 largest Islamic cities on earth, regardless of state, and destroy all of the military facilities of Islamic-dominated states. This will include all of the capitals and at least the 10 largest cities of all Islamic-dominated states and the "holy" cities of Mecca and Medina. In addition, North Korean cities and military installations will be destroyed."
This guy is mad and has no grasp of geo-political realities
Who was Typhoid Mary? - "Mary Mallon was a carrier of typhoid. Although it was (and is) widely believed that she herself never became sick with the disease, it's far more likely that she did become sick and recovered. Regardless, she was a cook in a house in Mamaroneck, N.Y., for less than two weeks in the year 1900 when the residents came down with typhoid. She moved to employment in Manhattan the next year, and members of that family developed fevers and diarrhea, and the laundress died. She went to work for a lawyer, until seven of the eight household members developed typhoid. Mary spent months helping to care for the people she made sick, but of course the contact made many of them worse."
Quotes:
[Me: Mysteries of the Universe] They should make that into a module
Heh heh.
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - He Trusted In God (chorus)
He trusted in god that he would deliver him; let him deliver him, if he delight in him.
Random Trivia bit: Honey is an amazing substance. The medicine of the bees. These incredible insects have their own pharmacy product which humans have used to treat wounds.
While honey's thick consistency and moistness provide protection and a healing environment, the sugars draw dirt and moisture from the wound site, protecting the wound from outside infections; the moistness also allows skin cells to grow without forming a scar. Bacteria growth is also inhibited by the acidity present.
The bees' enzyme in the honey breaks down into hydrogen peroxide which is a very effective disinfectant. Add the properties of an anti-inflammatory and pain killer and honey is indeed a valuable remedy.
Special honeys are required to be of any use. The supermarket product has been sterilised and is ineffective.
(Insect Physicians - Creepy Crawly Medicine)
***
I think, in just over a semester in NUS, I've gotten more quotes (file-size wise) than from anywhere else in a comparable length of time.
The quotes file for NUS weighs in at 111KB. A distant second is quotes from my time in slavery (sans SMM and Obedience School [BMTC]).
***
A fellow hater of M$N Instant Messenger:
"You can't rename your contacts which is very important considering how everyone changes their nick a million times.
You have to download stupid MSN plus or other patches like polygamy which makes u more enslaved to other stupid MSN products and patches, just so you can rename your contacts and open more than one MSN simultaneously because of their stupid 150 limit. Don't understand why they can't allow us to open more than one MSN client from the start. They didn't expect people to have more than 150 friends? WTF? Just because they're losers doesn't mean everyone in the world are!! Start a campaigne against Microsoft's MSN"
Indeed.
***
Bastila: There is a bond between us, I do not dispute that. I can feel it, as I'm sure you can. The nature of that bond and its effect on our mission remain in dispute.
Main character: I think you're interested in more than just the 'bond' between us.
Bastila: Please! I'm a Jedi. Such feelings, such attractions, are... well, they're beneath me, quite frankly.
Bastila: I admit, I find you intriguing. Uh... I mean, I find your command of the Force intriguing. But my interest in you is purely academic. I'm sure you can understand why.
[...]
Bastila: I'd like to ask you some questions, given our relationship.
Main character: Our relationship? Is this some kind of clumsy come-on?
Bastila: I was referring to the bond we share; the one the Jedi Council spoke of. If I actually was interested in you, rest assured I could come up with a better approach than this!
Main character: Whoa, guess I touched a nerve there, huh?
Bastila: Touched a nerve, no. Getting on my nerves, most definitely. I suppose this is what you men consider being witty. *sigh*
Bastila: Now, are you going to answer my questions? Or would you rather just keep annoying me?
Main character: Uh... the second one.
Bastila: I see you intend to be childish about this. I guess I won' get anywhere continuing our discussion right now, would I?
Bastila: I suppose I'll just have to speak to you again later. Hopefully you'll behave less like a little boy and a little more like a... like a man!
[...]
Main character: You have something you want to ask me?
Bastila: I do. How did you know?
Main character: Well, you keep staring at me. See anything you like?
Bastila: You are easily the vainest, most arrogant man I have ever met! Besides, I know you can't be serious, since I was purposefully *not* staring in your direction.
Bastila: I am a Jedi, remember? I have far too much mental discipline to reveal what goes on inside my mind with such obvious physical clues.
Bastila: My thoughts remain hidden, including whatever my feelings are for you. Uh... I mean whatever I feel *about* you. uh... I mean whatever I think *about* you.
Main character: You're so cute when you're embarrassed.
Bastila: I... that is, you... Why must you be so impossibly infuriating?
This is why it's more fun playing as a male character than a female. I'll attribute it to game designers being male.
***
Jerald has notified me of the existence of a Qute icon set for Miranda.
Ah, now my Miranda experience is complete.
***
Corporate Gibberish Generator
Your Randomly-Generated Corporate Gibberish:
We will empower the power of paradigms to harness.
At China Aviation Oil, we have come to know how to grow virally. Our technology takes the best features of RDF and CSS. What does it really mean to mesh "perfectly"? We believe we know that it is better to upgrade interactively than to recontextualize compellingly. The metrics for 24/7 bloatware are more well-understood if they are not customer-directed. We apply the proverb "Strike while the iron is hot" not only to our interfaces but our power to deliver. Without Total Quality Control, you will lack models. The development factor can be summed up in one word: scalable. Think user-centric. Think long-term. Think customer-directed. But don't think all three at the same time. We pride ourselves not only on our feature set, but our newbie-proof administration and simple configuration. Do you have a game plan to become bricks-and-clicks? What do we implement? Anything and everything, regardless of anonymity!
We will utilize the capacity of paradigms to repurpose.
China Aviation Oil is the industry leader of mission-critical process management. We will e-enable the term "user-defined". What do we aggregate? Anything and everything, regardless of semidarkness! The aptitude to leverage virtually leads to the aptitude to unleash globally. We pride ourselves not only on our scalable feature set, but our non-complex administration and newbie-proof operation. Think mission-critical. Think plug-and-play, out-of-the-box. Think revolutionary. But don't think all three at the same time. The value-added, efficient TQM factor is seamless. A company that can aggregate defiantly will (at some undefined point of time) be able to actualize faithfully. What does it really mean to e-enable "wirelessly"? What do we harness? Anything and everything, regardless of obscureness! Is it more important for something to be real-world or to be bleeding-edge? The CAD factor can be summed up in one word: scalable.
Our technology takes the best aspects of CSS and J++.
China Aviation Oil practically invented the term "e-businesses". The metrics for social networks are more well-understood if they are not user-defined. Our technology takes the best features of HTTP and WAP. We will monetize the term "bleeding-edge". Quick: do you have a world-class plan for monitoring emerging structuring reports? We pride ourselves not only on our leading-edge feature set, but our easy administration and easy configuration. Do you have a plan of action to become efficient? What does the term "end-to-end" really mean? Think C2B2B. Your budget for reinventing should be at least three times your budget for transforming. What does the jargon-based term "six-sigma" really mean?
Our feature set is unparalleled, but our reality-based versioning and simple operation is often considered a remarkable achievement.
Have you ever been pressured to evolve your feature set? In one step? We will reinvent the commonly-used standard industry jargon-based term "killer, dot-com". What does the term "user-centric" really mean? Our technology takes the best aspects of VOIP and WAP. The capacity to whiteboard virally leads to the capability to reinvent wirelessly. Your budget for implementing should be at least one-tenth of your budget for leveraging. If all of this comes off as fabulous to you, that's because it is! Do you have a strategy to become blog-based? Without TQM, you will lack bloatware. We will seize the term "out-of-the-box". We realize that if you upgrade wirelessly then you may also mesh dynamicly. Our technology takes the best features of JavaScript and VOIP. We always unleash scalable action-items. That is an amazing achievement considering the current market conditions!
Think enterprise. Think interactive. Think transparent, seamless. But don't think all three at the same time.
China Aviation Oil has revamped the idea of CAD. The mindshare factor is real-time. If all of this comes off as amazing to you, that's because it is! Your budget for disintermediating should be at least twice your budget for visualizing. We will engineer the commonly-used term "best-of-breed". We will grow the term "customized". Quick: do you have a back-end scheme for handling emerging user-centric TQC metrics? We think we know that it is better to implement seamlessly than to recontextualize magneticly. The methodologies factor can be summed up in one word: seamless. We will architect the power of methodologies to transition.
If all of this sounds unclear to you, that's because it is!
Have you ever been pressured to leverage your feature set? Instantly? The process management factor is short-term. Do you have a strategy to become frictionless? We will enable the power of mindshare to transform. Do you have a plan to become open-source? If you facilitate virally, you may have to aggregate intuitively. The power to redefine wirelessly leads to the capability to actualize wirelessly. Without sufficient paradigms, relationships are forced to become out-of-the-box. Without TQC, you will lack re-sizing. Think cyber-co-branded, cross-platform. We believe we know that if you deploy transparently then you may also facilitate seamlessly.
Think intra-1000/60/60/24/7/365.
China Aviation Oil practically invented the term "Total Quality Control management". Our functionality is unmatched, but our proactive niches and simple operation is constantly considered a remarkable achievement. If you matrix macro-perfectly, you may have to streamline perfectly. We will expedite the term "24/7/365". If you implement ultra-virally, you may have to expedite virtually. We will exploit the term "customized". Do you have a strategy to become reconfigurable? Think robust. Think cross-media. The C2C factor is killer. What does the buzzword "one-to-one" really mean?
Is it more important for something to be fractal or to be 24/7/365?
China Aviation Oil is the industry leader of impactful next-generation accounting. It sounds dumbfounding, but it's 100 percent true! Quick: do you have a 60/24/7/365 plan for managing emerging aggregation? Think cutting-edge. It seems dumbfounding, but it's true! Without sufficient web-enabled reporting, infrastructures are forced to become six-sigma. What do we upgrade? Anything and everything, regardless of humbleness! Quick: do you have a customer-defined game plan for monitoring unplanned-for systems? What does it really mean to deploy "magneticly"? Our sticky feature set is unparalleled in the industry, but our front-end interfaces and easy configuration is constantly considered a remarkable achievement. Is it more important for something to be 60/60/24/7/365 or to be e-business?***
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine
- John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand
In "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand portrays the fallacy of the commonly held altruistic idea that we should live for others - and / or expect others to live for us.
Ultimately, we are each responsible for our own self. Period. Anything else we claim to be living for is ultimately going to lead to a contradiction.
As the quote I had a few days ago goes: "We are here on Earth to do good to others. What the others are here for, I don't know." - W. H. Auden
***
Mysteries of the universe: What does it mean when in movie credits the crew have letters after their names?
Examples:
- Wayne Wahrman A.C.E (Editor)
- David Cohn CSA (Casting)
- Garry Ulmer CAS (Re-Recording Mixing Supervisor)
- Jeffrey L. Sandler MPSE (Supervising Sound Designer)
I found a whole string of qualifications on a Sony page: "ACE, ADG, AMPAS, ASC, BAFTA-NY/LA, CAS, CSA, DGA, HFPA, LAFCA, MAHS, MPEG, Nat. Board of Review, Nat. Society of Film Critics, NYFCC, PGA, SAG Nom Comm., SDSA, VES, and WGA Members and a Guest Are Welcome"
***
The Return of the King Extended Edition 4-DVD set is $80 at Borders. Daylight robbery, with the cost of production being what it is, and considering the number of copies likely to be sold and that they've already more than covered the film's production costs through box office takings, sales of merchandise and the previous DVD release of the non-extended version.
Oh, and not to forget the ridiculous region codings for DVDs which just infuriate those who actually pay for the product.
And the MPAA and RIAA wonder why people are driven to downloading stuff off the Internet. Try to screw consumers and they screw you back.
***
"Tip: Bejeweled is very effective in picking up girls. Try it if you don't believe me." - Heh.
James Dobson's War on America - "It's one thing for a religious leader to control his 'church' with an iron grip, quite another when he interferes in the lives of his employees and colleagues. The author goes over in excruciating detail how, as his marriage was faltering, his employer and so-called friend would talk to his wife and then confront him at the office on her behalf, regularly met with the marriage counselor he'd recommended to the couple to discuss their case and confront Gil at work afterwards, and eventually booted Gil from the radio show after his divorce in order to avoid any potential negative feedback from having a divorced man on a family counseling show."
WorldNetDaily: A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities - "I propose that the U.S. immediately adopt and publish the following nuclear doctrine: In the event of a WMD attack by terrorists on the U.S. homeland or U.S. military facilities overseas, the U.S will immediately and without discussion use its immense nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy the 100 largest Islamic cities on earth, regardless of state, and destroy all of the military facilities of Islamic-dominated states. This will include all of the capitals and at least the 10 largest cities of all Islamic-dominated states and the "holy" cities of Mecca and Medina. In addition, North Korean cities and military installations will be destroyed."
This guy is mad and has no grasp of geo-political realities
Who was Typhoid Mary? - "Mary Mallon was a carrier of typhoid. Although it was (and is) widely believed that she herself never became sick with the disease, it's far more likely that she did become sick and recovered. Regardless, she was a cook in a house in Mamaroneck, N.Y., for less than two weeks in the year 1900 when the residents came down with typhoid. She moved to employment in Manhattan the next year, and members of that family developed fevers and diarrhea, and the laundress died. She went to work for a lawyer, until seven of the eight household members developed typhoid. Mary spent months helping to care for the people she made sick, but of course the contact made many of them worse."
Quotes:
[Me: Mysteries of the Universe] They should make that into a module
Post ID: 110278982804123867
Sunday, December 12, 2004
ExChristian.net has finally published my testimony!
After reading some of the testimonies on ExChristian.net, I feel that my story cannot really compare to the bulk of those on this site. I did not suffer from the hypocrisy and iniquity of fundies, as so many of my fellow apostates have. I was not trapped in a vicious circle of hate, self-doubt and false promises for years, or even decades, like so many of you were. I was and am not surrounded by hordes constantly trying to preach the word of their god to me and to save my soul. Nonetheless, I too have a story to share. Most here saw the light when they realised the logical contradictions and absurdities inherent in the concept of the Christian god, when the sanctimony of (then) their fellow believers showed them that Christianity does not necessarily make one a better person, when no gods came to comfort or save them in my time of need, or when they realised that the bible was just another tome of mythology (and not a particularly interesting one at that, unlike Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology). My path towards self-actualization was slightly different. It has been a year and 9 months since I embarked upon this journey, and maybe a year and 7 since I've become an atheist.
As far as religion is concerned, I am lucky to have been born in Singapore, and not in the US, as most people on this site seem to have been. In Singapore, Christians make up 15% of the population or so, and our polity is secular, so religion does not pervade public discussion and discourse as much here as I am led to believe it does in the USA. People tend to be less evangelistic here, perhaps due to the need to show respect for those of other religions, and kids don't go around talking to other kids about their gods (and condemning others to hell for blasphemy). I am also lucky not to have been born into a particularly religious family - though my mother brought me up in the tenets of the faith, I was never dragged to church or fed daily tales about the invisible man in the sky (at least not after I was about 9 or so, at least); my father is a free-thinker and my sister does not talk much about her religious beliefs, whatever they might be. Perhaps naturally, I grew up a liberal, non-denominational Christian with an idea about the more general and commonly agreed-upon Christian doctrines, and believing in them, not because of any good reason, but because I had been brought up to do so and vaguely felt the Christian god's presence every now and then. Religion entered my mind but rarely, and I usually didn't dwell upon religious thoughts, seeing no point in doing so.
One of my best childhood friends was and is a staunch Catholic, and comes from a religious family, so the two of us did discuss some religious issues. He told me about things like demons, exorcisms, visions and the like, and I listened curiously; almost incredulously. As time went by, he became more and more devout, and correspondingly hardline in his religious views, and often accused me of not being a real Christian (among other reasons, because I thought homosexuality was permissible), and wondering which god I really worshipped. One of the reasons for his religious fervor was a Catholic retreat which he'd gone too at the age of 16 (if my memory serves me right), from which he'd come back charged and more religious than ever, and from time to time he waxed lyrical about how good the retreat was, and about what he'd experienced. I was a little skeptical about this whole retreat business, and even joked, at the time, that I might become an atheist after the retreat. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine how prophetic my words would be; this retreat was the pivotal point in my religio-spiritual life. Meanwhile, my two other best adolescent friends, by demographical chance, were coincidentally Christians as well, and as time went by they also became more religious, though they were much more reserved in sharing their religiously-inspired views, and were less extreme, to boot.
At the age of 18, I was enslaved. Not having the courage to be a conscientious objector and stew in military barracks for 2 1/2 years, I allowed myself to be enslaved and trained as a killing machine (though I must add, not a very successful one, fortunately). As one might expect, in my despondancy and misery, one of my ways of coping was by turning to religion, and I became slightly more religious, deriving a modicum of comfort from my delusion. Time went by, and slightly more than a year after my enslavement, my staunch Catholic friend asked me to go for the retreat. Apparently it was the last time that this "excellent" priest would be conducting it, so it was my last chance. Biting the bullet, I decided to go for it, to grow in my faith and come closer to my god.
The retreat was an eye-opener. I had been to some church services before, but never had I experienced charismatic preaching and fundamentalist beliefs (eg the condemning of oral sex and contraception), which were alien to my liberal disposition. For its seven days, I was forced to think upon many questions that I had never asked myself, or indeed had been sub-consciously avoiding. I examined and questioned my faith, and the basis for it, and ultimately, after a great deal of (unanswered) prayer, meditation and thought, found that there really was none. There was no evidence at all for the existence of god (or gods, if you like). However, I did witness a Great Power while at the retreat. A power which could slay half the crowd in the spirit. A power which could induce people to start talking in tongues. A power which could heal people of perennial pains. A power which granted great and marvelous visions to all who were struck by it. The power of mass hysteria and wishful thinking.
It would have been easier to just believe, no doubt, but I knew I could not believe in a lie without losing my soul (so to speak).
Some might question the role that logic and reason have to play in religious matters. Prima facie, this is a fair point. However, if we trust only to faith, how are we to tell the true religion(s) from the false? Many tens of thousands of religions and denominations (at least) have been extant on this planet, at one time or another. How are we to tell which are true and which are false? How are we to decide whether to offer libations to? Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, Buddha, Zeus, Amon-Ra, Pele, Kim Jong Il, Quetzalcoatl, Odin, Zarathrustra, Anshar, that big tree over there or the Tooth Fairy? All of them? Or perhaps none of them? Given that a great deal of religions are mutually exclusive and contradictory, it is quite safe to say that they cannot all be right. A true religion, should stand up to the rigour of a test of logic. After all, gods might defy nature, but surely they cannot defy logic.
Some would doggedly insist in the power of faith. However, as Nietzsche memorably observed: "A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything". One can have faith that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, that NASA didn't really visit the Moon, or that Jews are evil and were behind the September 11th attacks, or even that God is a rabbit, but that does not change objective reality. Some would argue that they know their god is the true god because they have experienced his power. To which I reply that 4 million Americans believe - indeed *know* - that they have been abducted by aliens (it's called sleep paralysis, among other things). And what about the hordes who claim that they saw Elvis walking into their local pub just the other week? If everyone *knows* that their god exists, and is the only god, who is right? Of course, the faithful will dismiss the others' experiences, just as theirs are in turn dismissed by the rest.
Liberal Christians might be tempted to pull me back into the fold by saying that true Christianity is very different from the fundamentalist streak that disgusts so many non-Christians so. Some even tell me that non-Christians do not go to hell, even though the verses in the New Testament dealing with that topic are among the clearest and hardest to "interpret" away. However, no matter how liberal Christianity may be, there is still no basis for it, so ultimately there is no reason to believe.
I sincerely wish that more may see the light and free themselves from the shackles of religion. One may believe in anything he likes, as long as he does not harm others, but I find self-actualization to be much more meaningful than religious delusion.
As I am wont to tell others:
"My eyes were opened.
I saw the light.
The Truth set me Free!"
Amen.
Sex: Male
URL: http://gssq.blogspot.com
Country: Singapore
Became a Christian: Birth
Ceased being a Christian: 20
Labels before: Liberal, non-denominational Christian
Labels now: Atheist, bright
Why I joined: Born into it
Why I left: I realised the truth
I wonder how many comments this will get on ExChristian.net.
After reading some of the testimonies on ExChristian.net, I feel that my story cannot really compare to the bulk of those on this site. I did not suffer from the hypocrisy and iniquity of fundies, as so many of my fellow apostates have. I was not trapped in a vicious circle of hate, self-doubt and false promises for years, or even decades, like so many of you were. I was and am not surrounded by hordes constantly trying to preach the word of their god to me and to save my soul. Nonetheless, I too have a story to share. Most here saw the light when they realised the logical contradictions and absurdities inherent in the concept of the Christian god, when the sanctimony of (then) their fellow believers showed them that Christianity does not necessarily make one a better person, when no gods came to comfort or save them in my time of need, or when they realised that the bible was just another tome of mythology (and not a particularly interesting one at that, unlike Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology). My path towards self-actualization was slightly different. It has been a year and 9 months since I embarked upon this journey, and maybe a year and 7 since I've become an atheist.
As far as religion is concerned, I am lucky to have been born in Singapore, and not in the US, as most people on this site seem to have been. In Singapore, Christians make up 15% of the population or so, and our polity is secular, so religion does not pervade public discussion and discourse as much here as I am led to believe it does in the USA. People tend to be less evangelistic here, perhaps due to the need to show respect for those of other religions, and kids don't go around talking to other kids about their gods (and condemning others to hell for blasphemy). I am also lucky not to have been born into a particularly religious family - though my mother brought me up in the tenets of the faith, I was never dragged to church or fed daily tales about the invisible man in the sky (at least not after I was about 9 or so, at least); my father is a free-thinker and my sister does not talk much about her religious beliefs, whatever they might be. Perhaps naturally, I grew up a liberal, non-denominational Christian with an idea about the more general and commonly agreed-upon Christian doctrines, and believing in them, not because of any good reason, but because I had been brought up to do so and vaguely felt the Christian god's presence every now and then. Religion entered my mind but rarely, and I usually didn't dwell upon religious thoughts, seeing no point in doing so.
One of my best childhood friends was and is a staunch Catholic, and comes from a religious family, so the two of us did discuss some religious issues. He told me about things like demons, exorcisms, visions and the like, and I listened curiously; almost incredulously. As time went by, he became more and more devout, and correspondingly hardline in his religious views, and often accused me of not being a real Christian (among other reasons, because I thought homosexuality was permissible), and wondering which god I really worshipped. One of the reasons for his religious fervor was a Catholic retreat which he'd gone too at the age of 16 (if my memory serves me right), from which he'd come back charged and more religious than ever, and from time to time he waxed lyrical about how good the retreat was, and about what he'd experienced. I was a little skeptical about this whole retreat business, and even joked, at the time, that I might become an atheist after the retreat. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine how prophetic my words would be; this retreat was the pivotal point in my religio-spiritual life. Meanwhile, my two other best adolescent friends, by demographical chance, were coincidentally Christians as well, and as time went by they also became more religious, though they were much more reserved in sharing their religiously-inspired views, and were less extreme, to boot.
At the age of 18, I was enslaved. Not having the courage to be a conscientious objector and stew in military barracks for 2 1/2 years, I allowed myself to be enslaved and trained as a killing machine (though I must add, not a very successful one, fortunately). As one might expect, in my despondancy and misery, one of my ways of coping was by turning to religion, and I became slightly more religious, deriving a modicum of comfort from my delusion. Time went by, and slightly more than a year after my enslavement, my staunch Catholic friend asked me to go for the retreat. Apparently it was the last time that this "excellent" priest would be conducting it, so it was my last chance. Biting the bullet, I decided to go for it, to grow in my faith and come closer to my god.
The retreat was an eye-opener. I had been to some church services before, but never had I experienced charismatic preaching and fundamentalist beliefs (eg the condemning of oral sex and contraception), which were alien to my liberal disposition. For its seven days, I was forced to think upon many questions that I had never asked myself, or indeed had been sub-consciously avoiding. I examined and questioned my faith, and the basis for it, and ultimately, after a great deal of (unanswered) prayer, meditation and thought, found that there really was none. There was no evidence at all for the existence of god (or gods, if you like). However, I did witness a Great Power while at the retreat. A power which could slay half the crowd in the spirit. A power which could induce people to start talking in tongues. A power which could heal people of perennial pains. A power which granted great and marvelous visions to all who were struck by it. The power of mass hysteria and wishful thinking.
It would have been easier to just believe, no doubt, but I knew I could not believe in a lie without losing my soul (so to speak).
Some might question the role that logic and reason have to play in religious matters. Prima facie, this is a fair point. However, if we trust only to faith, how are we to tell the true religion(s) from the false? Many tens of thousands of religions and denominations (at least) have been extant on this planet, at one time or another. How are we to tell which are true and which are false? How are we to decide whether to offer libations to? Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, Buddha, Zeus, Amon-Ra, Pele, Kim Jong Il, Quetzalcoatl, Odin, Zarathrustra, Anshar, that big tree over there or the Tooth Fairy? All of them? Or perhaps none of them? Given that a great deal of religions are mutually exclusive and contradictory, it is quite safe to say that they cannot all be right. A true religion, should stand up to the rigour of a test of logic. After all, gods might defy nature, but surely they cannot defy logic.
Some would doggedly insist in the power of faith. However, as Nietzsche memorably observed: "A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything". One can have faith that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, that NASA didn't really visit the Moon, or that Jews are evil and were behind the September 11th attacks, or even that God is a rabbit, but that does not change objective reality. Some would argue that they know their god is the true god because they have experienced his power. To which I reply that 4 million Americans believe - indeed *know* - that they have been abducted by aliens (it's called sleep paralysis, among other things). And what about the hordes who claim that they saw Elvis walking into their local pub just the other week? If everyone *knows* that their god exists, and is the only god, who is right? Of course, the faithful will dismiss the others' experiences, just as theirs are in turn dismissed by the rest.
Liberal Christians might be tempted to pull me back into the fold by saying that true Christianity is very different from the fundamentalist streak that disgusts so many non-Christians so. Some even tell me that non-Christians do not go to hell, even though the verses in the New Testament dealing with that topic are among the clearest and hardest to "interpret" away. However, no matter how liberal Christianity may be, there is still no basis for it, so ultimately there is no reason to believe.
I sincerely wish that more may see the light and free themselves from the shackles of religion. One may believe in anything he likes, as long as he does not harm others, but I find self-actualization to be much more meaningful than religious delusion.
As I am wont to tell others:
"My eyes were opened.
I saw the light.
The Truth set me Free!"
Amen.
Sex: Male
URL: http://gssq.blogspot.com
Country: Singapore
Became a Christian: Birth
Ceased being a Christian: 20
Labels before: Liberal, non-denominational Christian
Labels now: Atheist, bright
Why I joined: Born into it
Why I left: I realised the truth
I wonder how many comments this will get on ExChristian.net.
Post ID: 110278716759366346
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
