Einstein and an Atheist Professor

One "inspirational" story that is said and posted REPEATEDLY is "How the young Einstein humiliated an atheist professor." Here is the story:

The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"

The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"

The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."

"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."

Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."

The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man."

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.

The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN. 

This story is so wrong on so many levels. Unfortunately, religious people, like my Christian friends, take it at face value. They regard it as a prove that Einstein is a theist, therefore as the prove that God exists. So, how can we started ... let's put it into 4 level of bullshits:

Einstein, 14 years old

1) Existential

God/Yahweh has so many properties. He cares about this world and repeatedly interferes. He is omni-benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, an omnipresent ... wait, OMNIPRESENT? Doesn't that means he ALWAYS EXIST? By saying that God didn't exist during those evil occasions, you prove that your version of GOD doesn't exist. No omnipresent being can be ABSENT at any point. It is like there is no triangle with more than 3 sides.

2) Ethical-Moral

Basically that story is about PASS THE BUCK from God. Sorry, you can't do that. Let me put it this way, if your God really interferes on this world, while being omni-benevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, that means NOTHING CAN ESCAPE HIM! You see, like I say before, more power means more responsibility. Infinite power means infinite responsibility. You can't pass the buck. Seriously, you can't.

3) Philosophical

There is one long, elaborate philosophical rebuttal of this argument. Basically, the student confused "secondary qualities" with existence. Here is a paragraph that for me crystallize the whole rebuttal perfectly:

"So, if someone murders your mother tonight, nothing happened? There was just an absence of morality in your house? Wait, I forgot... she's not dead... she's just experiencing an absence of life, right?"

4) Historical

My first reaction to that story is "Did Einstein really said that?" Nope. He never said that. Let me emphasize it: NEVER. Einstein is NOT a theist. Whenever he said anything about "God" or "religion" it is not about "Yahweh" or "Judaism" or "Christianity." Most of the time he refer to the cosmos, the universe itself, to the natural law. Not to God or Jesus or Allah.

So ... that means you end your argument by putting false claim? Nice way to end your argument there. 

When I for the first time encounter this, my Christian friend responded by saying "So what? It is not really important if Einstein never said it." If you think like that SHAME ON YOU! Let me put it this way. Check back again the long philosophical rebuttal in #3. I could add to that story:

"And the name of professor is ... Karol Józef Wojtyła alias Pope John Paul II."

What? Are you offended? Are you pissed when I just falsely claim that a pope argued AGAINST your argument? Of course you are. That is because NOBODY want to eat bullshit. Not you, not me, not anyone. That's why I would never try to claim such bullshit in my argument. That's why YOU should be ashame when you say the truth is not important. Oh sorry, maybe the truth is not important to you. Maybe CONVERTING ME is more important.

That means, next time a smug Christian tries to convert you, try to b.s. that evil is the absence of God, just ask back:

"So it is moral for me to beat you with this monkey wrench and take your money now? Hey, pain is not exist, pain is only "the absence of health," and you won't be broke, you just experience "absence of money!" Thank Lord for the non-existence of misery!"

Criticism of Religion & Racism

Civilized people agree that racism is wrong. Anyone who declare that another race(s) is greedy, stupid, weak, or any other negative label will look like a fool, or a jerk. Or both.

Nowadays, people try to equate all criticism of Islam with "Islamophobia." After that, they equate "Islamophobia" with racism. See how Sam Harris, because of his criticism of Islam, was accused of first Islamophobia, THAN racism. Heck, they even tried to put this in the UN! Repeatedly! Of course this is not only about Islam, some people from other religions also think that their critiques are some sort of racist.  All of this reminds me of the authoritarian dictator named Soeharto from Indonesia, who equate religion with race and class conflict in his SARA policy. That is the context of this discourse, an authoritarian effort to silence critics. A "Big Brother" style effort to censor, and squeeze freedom of speech.

So, why criticisms toward religions are totally different than racism? Why criticism of religion is a sine qua non of a free society?

1) Genetic vs culture

Race is a genetic fact. Your skin color is imprinted inside your DNA. Not even plastic operation can change that. Religion on the other hand is a set of believe. It is a matter of choice. Anyone can reject their old religion and pick a new one anytime.

2) Your religion is not God

God is by definition above criticism. But religion is not God. Religion is a system, an ideology that was BELIEVED that it was written by God, then written and maintained by mere mortals. A critic of religion is a critic to a HUMAN. Don't insult God by equate Him with your preachers or prophet. They are 2 different beings. Oh, what is this has to do with race again? Doubting the truth of some of this believe is racist? Get real! 

Yes, we know you were offended, but your rage
also offended us!

3) Do they have the balls to be criticized?

None make a prohibition to criticize Einstein theory of relativity.

None persecute who hate Picasso's work. 

How come? Because both of them are ballsy enough to be criticized. Because their admirers are sane. smart, mature, and ballsy enough to let others criticized those 2 maestros. They don't throw "RACIST" accusation whenever anyone criticized Picasso's painting or Einstein's relativity theory. The lack of courage to be criticized really put the claim that those religion represent an omnipotent-omnibenevolent-being into great doubt.

4) I am offended!

You know this cliche: "I am offended, therefore I have the right to burn, loot, maim, and kill!" Are you kiddin? Everybody get offended EVERYDAY! An offensive statement is not a racist statement per se. Those people who react against offensive statement with violence are just whiner. They actually proved the point that their religion is a religion of war, of violence. They also humiliate their own religion, making it look far more insecure than other religions. Yes, there are tons of trolls and idiots, who criticize solely with name-calling, ad hominem, and without any substance. Let them embarrass  themselves. No need to make any physical threat to them, let alone attack them with machete. Don't embarrass yourself or your religion.

5) All religions made mistakes
Do you notice that many religion actually REGULATE slavery? Some religion also ordered genocides. Now ... imagine if anyone who try to abolish slavery was attacked as "blasphemer" ... oh right, silly me, that happened all the time. 

So seriously, if that is still not clear enough let me spell it for you: religion IS NOT RACE!

Affirmative Action and Quotas in Germany

Germany rejects Affirmative action. Their parliament refuse to put women quota on German's companies. Hurra! i already pointed out that affirmative action is sexist, racist, wrong, and in the end benefit no one, not even the women or the minorities or whomever its target group. In fact, it denigrates those target groups, since it assumes they can't be successful without any forceful intervention from the government. 

That's why the Deutsche Welle article that reports it baffled me. Sorry, "report" is not a correct word. "Feminist propaganda" is more appropriate. So, let's get started! Here are 2 most important points in that article that really annoys me.

First, these sentences: 
"Pohl admits that a quota is senseless, because it would not do justice to women and may even create new injustices. "But as long as we have no other instrument to solve the inequalities that still exist, it is unfortunately the only instrument that will work.""

Huh? Those sentences contradict each other. The first one validated my opinion. But, this Pohl suddenly change his mind. It is like saying "Racism is morally wrong, and economically unsound. It costs the society not only its moral high ground, but also its money. But since it is acceptable and beneficial for the society, we will use it."

Now, let's talk about "instrument to get gender equality." Hey, here is an idea, what about letting the women prove their capability in the company that decide to hire them WITHOUT quota, WITHOUT affirmative action? I am 100% sure many women can kick ass, they will prove to the whole world that misogyny is just stupid, detrimental, and above all ... expensive.

Second, we have this gem:
"Critics claim a women's quota "promotes mediocrity" and represents "an economic risk for the company." Sociology professor Heather Hofmeister says this argument is an indication of open misogyny: one can't just say that the female half of the population is less capable than the male, and Germany's good economic shape cannot be explained by the fact that its companies are almost exclusively run by men.""

Okay, here Hofmeister is just being sexist. Or dishonest.

"Women's quota promotes mediocrity and represent an economic risk" NOT because of the assumption that "all women are less capable than man." That is simply a strawman attack.

Gender equality is about moving BEYOND gender dichotomy. It is an idea that an individual gender has nothing to do with their competence. It is an idea that meritocracy is supreme, far above gender dichotomy. 

Look, let's just get real about those management positions, shall we?
Many women are more capable than many men.
Many men also more capable than many women.
A woman quota will advantage less competent women over a more competent men. It is a form of sexism, discrimination against men, not eradication of racism. The possibility that an incompetent women will be accepted ONLY because of her XX chromosome escaped Hofmeister entirely. I thought we are all about gender equality? Silly me, many feminist, leftist, etc just want to discriminate male, and starting the matriarch.

Let's just stop discriminating anyone just because she got a vagina. Don't start discriminate anyone just because he got a penis. Why it is so hard and complicated? Oh yeah, because according to many people, equality is not the issue. DOMINATION is actually the issue. Because according to certain ideology, two wrongs makes a right, and women has the right to dominate men. Silly me.

Multi Level Marketing

I never got sucked into the monstrosity called "Multi-Level Marketing" or MLM.

Maybe because I am asking too many questions?

Here is a list of questions that I always asks whenever I meet an MLM marketer:

1) Can you tell me more about this product? Give me time to research this awesome product of yours!

MLM is selling MEMBERSHIP, not product. Focus on the product to see them crumble. For example, if the product is vitamin supplement, asked for the ingredients. No, even better, asked for a sample OF THE PACKAGING. You know, the box where it states its ingredients, with a piece of paper with more details about that product. Bring those stuffs to your local vitamin sellers. Asked those sellers about SIMILAR products. Compare the ingredients and the prices. Or better, bring that box asked your nutritionist. Etc. Usually they crumble, since they only want to sell the membership, not the product. Even if they are ready with the product, usually it is not that special. You can get similar products with cheaper price in Wal-Mart.

2) If it is all about passive income ... why you aren't enjoying life in your house now?

One of the mantra keep repeated by MLM marketers is, MLM will create a "passive income," that means you can get money even though you don't do any work. Great, but isn't try to convince me to join is also a kind of work? Oh, you also spend hours for convincing other people to join your scheme? How high is your success rate? Do you feel your energy DRAINED by those efforts? Yup, in the end this "passive income" needs tons of active salesmanship!

3) So you suggest me to compete with my own friends?

One thing that many people forget about MLM is, you compete with your own friends. For example, "A" recruits "B" and "C". So far so good. But here comes the kicker: when B & C want to recruit their friends, they have to compete with each other ... and with "A" too! Please remember, all three of them have lots of common friends. Everytime we recruit new people, we also shrunk our recruiting pool ... and theirs. Before long, those 3 already dried up the pool.

4) Interesting success stories about those rich "Diamond Distributors". How long did they need to achieve that? When did they achieve that? Where did they live? How many are they? How long they keep their "Diamond Distributor" status?

There are success stories, MLM marketers who became "Diamond Distributor," who became millionaires. Let's put them under scrutiny. Let's talk about how many people are able to reach that level ... in comparison with the TOTAL amount of people who become a member in that scheme. My guess it won't be higher than 1%. So, that means roughly you have ONE PERCENT chance of success ... oh sorry it is even worse. Your chance to be an MLM millionaire is FAR LOWER than that 1%. Definitely those millionaires are the first participants of the scheme. When it's already 2 years after the first day this MLM opened their business, forget about it. You are just a small goldfish compete with existing sharks ... and many other goldfishes. (See #3 above.)

5) I think you read too many Robert Kiyosaki. Do you know that he has gone bankrupt?

I save the best for the last. Kiyosaki is a prophet for many MLM marketers. "Passive income" is a phrase created by him, repeated ad nauseam by MLM marketers.  He wrote a bogus book that convinced his followers that he gave good advice ... although in essence he gave them CLICHES about money. In 2012, his company has gone bankrupt. His fanatic followers still try to spin it, saying "It's only his company, not himself". Ha! What's next, they try to sell the moon via MLM?

So, does that means that MLM is always a big no-no ? Not really. If an MLM scheme tried to sell a unique product that you have checked RIGOROUSLY, that you can't find anywhere else, that you can afford, you can be their member to be able to get the distributor discount for that product. I think that is the only condition where you can benefit from joining an MLM scheme. Good luck finding that kind of MLM.

Further readings:
Don't Answer Calls from Old Friends, They Could be MLM Agents

John T Reed analysis on "Rich Dad Poor Dad"

Amway: The Wrong Way

Joel Osteen: How He Hates Expertise

One of my Facebook friend posted a Joel Osteen's status on his wall. Here it is:

At first, I was amazed. Then, I was enraged.

This ... this .... ARGH, this is just ... here let me explained why I don't like that status at all.

1) Noah's flood story is not special.

There are HUNDREDS global flood stories from other religions. Is that an evidence that a great flood really happened once upon a time? Nope. There is a superior explanation. 

All civilizations were born nearby a river, since water is an essential thing for our existence. Those rivers definitely floods its surrounding several times, so it is normal for a poet, for a writer, of every civilization, of that time to write a "great flood" epic, even though no global flood ever happened.

Oh yeah, not only a flood from local river, a tsunami can also inspire ancient writers to write such epic. No global flood needed.

2) "What God has put in your heart"

Whatta heck is that? Seriously, what is that? Gut feeling? Intuition? Instinct? Desire? If you want to give an advice, please give a concrete, testable, and falsifiable one. If not, you are just a politician who give amorphous, non-definite promise to escape blame if anything goes wrong.


3) And don't forget about "God's experts" like Mr. Osteen here ...

Since #2 is NEVER clear, many people claimed to be "God's expert" to tell you what God really wants, what God really puts into your heart. Thanks to that we got the Spanish inquisition, witch-hunt, multiple crusades, and many more! 


4) The best expert has been wrong ...

Here is the irony, by Osteen's definition, GOD is the best expert for everything. Every single thing. Unfortunately, God made mistakes too!

What? You disagree? You thought that God is infallible? So tell me, how come God wiped out most living beings using the great flood? 

Oh, God also admit that He can forget His promise and plan evil, then ... surprise, surprise, he was corrected by a mere mortal named Moses! No wonder Osteen despises expert. His "best expert" is just ... not that trustworthy!

5) The Titanic once existed. The Ark never exists.

How I know it never happened? Simple, because if it happened, the  soil would record it! The permanent ice in Greenland, Siberia, etc would record it too! Since there are no record about such flood, it is safe to state that the flood never happens. 

Even if the flood really happened, there is another record that can show the existence of a population bottleneck, that shows that every single modern human being are the descendants of the 8 members of Noah's family. This can be done since our mitochondria gives accurate record about our mother, while our Y-chromosome gives accurate information about a male's father. So, using mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal analysis, we can know our common ancestors. The result is out. Nope, it is not Noah's family. The "Adam" and "Eve" are totally different. Definitely not Noah or any of his family.

That makes comparing Noah's Ark with Titanic like comparing Boeing 747 with Santa's sleigh. I bet Santa's sleigh has superior track record! 

Why Osteen spouted nonsense like this to his followers? Simple, because he wants them to hate all kind of experts that he disagree. Because he wants to monopolize truth. Yes, once again this is about power over "hearts and minds," especially "minds." What do you expect? We are talking about religion here!

Three Reasons to Hate Asterix

I read all kind of comics. My top 10 comics consists of Japanese Manga , American superheroes, and Franco-Belgian comics. As long as it is a good read, I'd give my thumbs up!

There is this one very famous Franco-Belgian comics; on par with Tintin, Spirou & Fantasio, and the Smurfs; the comic that no matter how hard I tried to love it, I still hate it until today: Asterix by Goscinny and Uderzo. At first, I couldn't pointed out why exactly I hate that comic. Fortunately, now I can. So, let's get started, these are 3 main reasons why I hate this comic ....

Oh yeah, one last thing, there are still many small details of this comic that annoys me. I only list these 3 because they are the primary reasons.

1) No danger, no suspense

For those who have no idea about Asterix, basically this is a comic about a Celtic village in ancient France during the late Roman Republic. After the Roman Republic crushed the last Celtic resistant in the battle of Alesia to be more precise. This village managed to defy Roman rule due to the magic potion created by their resident druid, Panoramix/Getafix. The magic potion basically makes its user temporarily super-strong, super-fast, and invulnerable. Asterix sidekick, Obelix, has no need to drink that potion, because he drank the whole cauldron when he was very small, so he permanently has those superpowers. And ... everything went downhill after that.

Seriously, if you were a member of a village of supermen, with enemies armed only with spears and swords, life is not hard at all. This is one tricky part of writing a superhero story. If the superpower is too powerful, you take out all the suspense from it! You don't care anymore, since the enemy pose ZERO threat to the hero!  Every single Asterix comic book, I must emphasize here: EVERY SINGLE ONE, full with Asterix and Obelix sending Roman soldiers flying with their fist, while Roman swords, arrows, and spears can't even scratch their skin. It get's old quite fast. After 2 books, I start to snore. It is like reading a story about an expert ninja, master of illusion , hand-to-hand combat, projectile throwing, magic, and all other ninja stuffs, veteran of fighting against anything from the most vicious warlords to demon hordes ... only to fight a gang of primary-school bullies who cries whenever they see blood. In the end, the ninja won, and beat every single bully of the story. Boo-hoo, what a surprise! And this happens THROUGHOUT the series! I don't know about you, but I just can't stand the boredom.

And boredom is not the only thing that those magic potion created.

2) They are just a group of bullies.

After sometime, I also realize that they had gone too far in describing the relationship between Asterix and the Romans. Just like the writers of "Tom & Jerry" and "Bugs Bunny," which I despise wholeheartedly, they turn the victim into bullies. They repeatedly BEAT UP ANY ROMAN ARMY THEY MET, often without provocation, often definitely not out of self-defense, but for petty excuses.

If that is not bullying, I don't know what is.

Once again "It is cute and funny if the bully is the underdog (People from small village fighting against the Roman Legions.)." 

No it is not. Bullying is bullying, and disgusting.as hell.

And as my #1 pointed out, they are NOT the underdogs. Their superpower took out that status since book #1. Underdog or not, they are plain and simple bullies.

3) Because their enemies are stupid
Both #1 & #2 are reinforced by the stupidity of the Romans. Seriously, if I were the Romans, I would poison the village with the most lethal poison available. Just poison their wine or food before the feast that routinely done. Once everyone is dead, the Romans can turn the village into anything they like.

Or just poison Obelix and Panoramix. Without them, no superpower. Without any superpower, wiping out the village with conventional means would be a cakewalk.

Or what about this, kidnap Falbala, the girl that Obelix (and Asterix to lesser degree) has crush on, so Asterix & Obelix rush to save her, while Panoramix is attending one of the druid meeting. Crush the village during the window time when those 3 are not in the village. If they kept spare magic potion, make sure they waste it using feign attack(s). After finishing the village, than eliminate the 3 survivors one by one. THAT is what we call "defeat in detail" ladies and gentlemen!

Bottom line: There are SOO MANY other methods to neutralize the village, but did the Roman tries? Nope, because they are all stupid. 


So, in essence, it is excruciatingly hard to LIKE a comic whose heroes are just mega-powerful bullies, and the antagonists are not that bright.