Insecticide and Secularism

Insecticide

Let's start with a little story about insecticide.

Insecticide is a very important part of our life. It is a part of green revolution which increased agriculture yield astronomically. Say what you want about green revolution, the fact stands: without killing so many harmful insects with it, our food supply will be far lower, hence food will be far more expensive, hence millions will starve. Despite that importance, NEVER EVER drink any insecticide! Failure to obey this simple rule will end with your death!

"WAIT! I disagree with the last part! Many people NEVER drink insecticide, but they STILL DIE! How dare you smear the reputation of insecticide!"

See how stupid that counter-argument is? Non-consumption of insecticide is not a cure-all, but consumption of insecticide is a kill-all! To counter the last part of the 2nd paragraph, you have to show MULTIPLE CASES where people are not affected, or even become healthier, after drinking insecticide! 

Secularism

Same with religion in politics. Yes, religion is very important for many people. Nevertheless, mixing religion and politics is a certain death. Just pick ANY religious government/theocracy in our world today. You will find screwed-up countries. In most cases, they are poor and some even totally wrecked by conflicts. Countries like Afghanistan, Nigeria, etc. In some cases, they are rich ... but they treated women and non-believers like crap. You know, countries like Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, they are rich NOT because of theocracy but because they sit on top of gigatons of oil. Heck, the best non-secular country that come into my mind is Malaysia, you know the country that basically said one race (Malay) get all the perks while Chinese and Indians are second class citizens. In essence: a racist country. Even more tragic, the "Malay race" is defined by their religion. Ha!

That means theocracy is analog to drinking insecticide. Secularism is analog to NOT DRINKING that insecticide. Are there screwed-up secular countries? Sure, tons of it! Syria and Egypt for starters. Does that prove that secularism does not work? Hell, no! So many other secular countries work better than theocratic countries! Lenin once said, people vote with their feet. People move from the best theocratic countries (Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, etc) to the not-so-best far more secular country. (France, Germany, USA etc.)

Once you give political power to religious establishment, you will see prosecution of other religions. And other denominations. Just ask non-Muslims and the Ahmadiis in (Taliban) Afghanistan, Iran, etc.

Once you give religious power to the politicians, they will silence all protests against using "Heaven's mandate". Just ask the people who protest against the House of Saud. Just ask the Malaysian people, especially Chinse and Indian Malays, and Malays who want to change their religion.



Let me close this writing with a quote from George Carlin:
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
Especially if you don't have the same religion with the government. Oh wait. The government itself who define YOUR RELIGION. Usually when they don't like you, they will define "your belief" as heretics. Just like the Ayatollahs hate the Sunnis, and the Taliban hate the Shiites, despite both sides claim to be Muslims. Forget it, you are screwed anyway, no matter your "true" religion.

Scientists, Artists, Heaven, and Hell

"The greatest joy in Heaven is in watching the torments of the damned in Hell--a spectacle far more pleasing than any upon earth."
-- Tertullian in De Spectaculis

Yahweh is pissed. Many scientists are atheists who reject His existence. On the other spectrum, many artists also rejected religion and some even blasphemed His name because of their free-spirit and "everything for art" mentality. He decided to send them all to hell.

After some time, He noticed that more and more people are eager to go to hell. Many who have the right to go to heaven even rejected it, and chose Hell. He decided to pay Satan a visit, and what He saw appalled Him.

Hell became a very beautiful place. Full with music, marbles, fountains, etc. People in hell partying all the time. All kind of parties in different palaces or outdoor settings. Discos, eating buffet, LAN-party, etc. Only very few were tortured in some dungeon, and ... they keep asking for more torture, not asking for mercy. Furious, He approached Satan, and this dialog started:

Yahweh: What the hell is this?

Satan: DUH, yes this is Hell, should I explain the obvious?

Yahweh: This doesn't look like Hell.

Satan: Oh, you don't like this "Workplace improvement"? This is all thanks to thou! 

Yahweh: Me?

Satan: Indeed, so let me say these words that I previously thought impossible for me to utter: thank you God for giving me such blessing!

Yahweh: What trickery did you do?!

Satan: No, no, not trickery. I never initiated it. It was you who created it, indirectly. Remember when you send all those nerds with thick glasses here? When they arrived they instantly spot it: this unquenchable fire is a source for infinite energy! After millions of experiments and thinkering, they figured how to isolate the heat and harness it. Yes, there are some mechanical failures here and there, but usually we are fine.  After those geeky nerds invented and maintains this technical wonder, those hippies started to do their magic. That's why we have all this beautiful fountains, musics, and so on! Thanks a lot dude! Without those nerds and hippies, I won't enjoy this job like now!

Yahweh: THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! Now people are eager to go to Hell!!

Satan: Dude, do you remember our previous arrangement? You complained that so many assholes did good only because their fear of hell, and love of heaven. What a bunch of hypocrites you got there! Now that is no longer the case, from now on only your hardcore fans go to heaven! Hey, you got quality over quantity dude, why the complain? Think positive! Just embrace it and be grateful!

Yahweh: This is wrong on so many level! Hell is for infinite torture, heaven is for infinite reward! You and those nerds and hippies are acting way out of place!
Satan: Dude, chill down! Nobody here bothering you or your heaven when we enjoy our parties. Our world here is sound-proof! What's the big deal?
Yahweh: Are you kidding? The fact that they are neither tortured nor miserable bothered me and many pious followers of mine!
Satan: Woa, woa, so ... our misery is essential for the happiness of heaven?  Let me get this straight, you are against this because you want to torture people in billions infinitely and see them suffer?

Yahweh: That's the entire point of Hell! Do you think I create this to make a Disneyland? Everyone know that! How dare you NOT to torture those people!

Satan: Dude, I am a sadistic bastard who love to see people suffer, but I am also a selfish bastard. Look, if I still torture them after they provide such upgrade for my office, everything will falling down. I am sneaky as a snake, but not an omni-scient being who can maintain this wonder indefinitely. Those nerds ... they are nasty human, you know that right? They will figure it out how to screw my if I screw them first. 
That's why my selfishness trumped my sadism, that's why I let them enjoy their eternity here in good atmosphere, as long as I can enjoy it too. Relax, there are so many things to enjoy in this universe! Like ... torturing those masochist! You have to see them dude, they ASKED to be tortured! That's why you still see some were still tortured.
Yahweh: How dare you telling me what to do! I have ordered you, and millions, BILLIONS of people have to be tortured for eternity, not a fraction of it, not because they ask it, and that is final!
Satan: (Shaking his head.) Until today they still call you the good one? Hey, who is your P.R guy, I really want to meet him!

Yahweh: That's it, this has to stop! 

Satan: (Laughing his ass off.) What do you want to do? Sue me? Before the first scientist or artist was born, you already send every single lawyer here!

Yahweh: I'll see you in court.

In the court, every single lawyer were in Satan's side. When they called for "expert witnesses," they have infinite numbers of scientist who objectively prove Satan's point. On the other hand, all witnesses from Heaven are dismissed because they refuse to give any coherent testimony, they only start praising Yahweh. But those witnesses are not needed. The judge and jury have conscience. They don't think that infinite torture is a good think to be upheld  In the end, Satan can keep his Hell, and Yahweh got a court's order to stay away from Hell. Thus from that day, he and Hell's population are  free from infinite torture.

What? Do you expect me to say that they live happily ever after? Hey, don't denigrate escaping from infinite torture! That is at least as valuable as "live happily ever after"! Especially when He who wants to torture you infinitely has good PR, millions of fanatical followers, and omni-in so many ways.

As for Yahweh, Tertullian, and many heaven's population ... they lost their "live happily ever after" status, because they can't watch the misery of hell anymore. Founded upon the torment of others, such happiness crumble once the torment ends. That is what I call a good ending!

The Bible, Modern Morals, and Zeitgeist

I have argued that many Bible stories have despicable morals and should not be followed.

Many Christians argued back "You can't use modern moral to judge those stories"! Or in more fancy words: The Zeitgeist has changed. 

Err ... yes I can. And no, the Zeitgeist has nothing to do with it.

1) You start it by using ancient history as modern moral compass

The problem is they want to make the bible today's moral compass. For example, they ask repeatedly to put the bible in school, not only physically but also in the curriculum! They want to harass today's homosexuals based on the Bible. And now suddenly they are upset when I pointed out that many morals in it are despicable? That's the whole point! The Zeitgeist has changed,  that's why today we have no excuse to use ancient rules from different Zeitgeist. 

2) We can say that because we are imperfect, fallible, and mere mortals unlike the all-powerful God.

Of course we have to put the Zeitgeist into consideration, because Moses don't get the idea of human rights, equality, democracy, etc.

But WAIT!! We never speak about Moses or Abraham or any other mere mortal, we are speaking about God himself! Moses and pals were only "the hand." They are definitely NOT "the brain." An omni-benevolent and omniscient being doesn't have an excuse for such imperfection. What? That kind of standard is impossible to fulfill? That means your God is impossible to exist.


3) In fact, some other religions already set higher standards SINCE ANCIENT TIME
I am not a big fan of Islam, but one thing I can't deny: their holy scripture treated slaves far more humanely than the Bible.

The Quran is not the only one. The Zoroastrians' holy scripture even prohibit slavery totally.

If the writer of the Bible is the perfect God ... how come OTHER holy scriptures exceed its morality?


So, yes, the bible was written in ancient time, according to ancient Zeitgeist, proving that it was NEVER written by an omniscient and omni benevolent being. That is the reason why it is NOT an up-to-date moral standard that we can use today. Only some parts of it are usable in that way. Some. Not every part. Definitely not all parts.

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!

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!

Reasons Against Gay Marriage

Once again "gay marriage" become an issue in the US. Some people want to ensure the legality of gay marriage. Others try hard to stop it. So, what is the argument against gay marriage? 

It undermines the institution of marriage!

So ... you mean if gay marriage is legal, there would be more divorce? Or you would divorce your spouse if gay people start marrying? Wow, are you really that insecure? 

It paves the way for incest, bestiality, and other barbarity!

Funny isn't it, this argument was also used to stop inter-racial marriage. Funny how exactly the same kind of people, the conservatives, try to stop gay marriage now. History loves to repeat itself!

It is not natural because they can't procreate!

Seriously? By this logic, anyone who is infertile can't marry. Anyone who lost their fertility also has to dissolve their marriage. Including old people. What? That is atrocious? That's because this argument is atrocious!

A child needs a father and a mother! Not two mothers! Not two fathers!

So, what are you waiting, JAIL ALL SINGLE PARENTS! Take their children from them! Give their children for adoption! A mother and a father for every single child! NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND!

It is God's order!

What? The same God who forced us to do incest? The same God who demanded us to be sycophant 24/7? The same God who threatened us with infinite torture but has the nerve to claim that he is just? The God who thought that regulating menstruating women is more important than prohibiting slavery? Seriously? I need to obey this monstrous entity? Tell you what, my conscience, my empathy, my intellect, and my decency actually say that I have ONE MORE reason to legalize gay marriage: to piss that slavery enabling dude! Oh, by the way, am I arguing against "God" or against people who are arrogant enough to know "God's will"? Never mind, whatever the case, gay marriage would piss a jerk.

Marriage is between a man and a woman!
Excuse me, please speak with the people who use "God's order" as their argument. Their holy scripture said that marriage is also between:

Oh you two are the same person? So ... I bet you get your wife after burning and looting her country? Yay?

I AM A CONTROL FREAK! I WANT TO CONTROL YOUR LOVE LIFE! YOUR SEX LIFE!

Well ... nobody said this blatantly, but that is what they imply when they try to stop gay marriage right? They may use God, the Bible, biology, or anything as justification, but in essence, this is the foundation of their argument. They are so full of themselves that they think they have the right to control how others love, how others fuck. 

So, are you a control freak? Really, that is the only relevant question in this debate. The rests are cosmetics.

Terrorism, Religion, Fanatics, Moderates

In today's world, thousands, or even millions religious fanatics used terrorism to reach their goal. Suicide bombing, mob attack, pogrom, etc. are practiced repeatedly. For many, such monstrosity is baffling. How could those religious fanatics do that?

Fanatics vs Moderates
Well, basically, religious fanatics give this kind of arguments to validate their terrorism:

"Quetzacoatl ordered us to kill them!"

"Quetzacoatl told us that those who rejects him are sinners, and deserves to be killed as a warning for everyone!"

"Quetzacoatl has wrote a holy book that explain to us that it is correct to kill them all!"

Etc. I think you got the point.

Basically, religious moderates give these kinds of arguments to counter terrorism:

"Quetzacotal order us to love everyone."

"Quetzacoatl told us that killing is prohibited."

"Quetzacoatl has wrote a holy book that explain to us that we have to be friend with everyone!"

Etc.

What are the problems with those counter-arguments from the moderates? 

1) Who can judge what Quetzacoatl really said and ordered?

2) How to falsify or prove any order or words from Quetzacoatl?

That means, the moderates use theological arguments to counter the fanatics claims. Since as far as I know Quetzacoatl never deny or approve ANYTHING from ANYONE in our current time, that also means, the moderates use flimsy-unprovable arguments to attack the fanatics' flimsy-unprovable arguments. It is like witnessing 2 small children arguing which one will won the fight between Superman vs Ultraman. And there is another hole in this kind of argument too.


Fanatics AND Moderates
One similarity between any kind of fanatics, are their own assumption of the total primacy of their religion. Or ideology.

Every Nazi insist that the "Aryan identity" is the most important, to hell with gender, profession, nationality, religion or any other identity.

So does an Interhamwe militia in Rwanda. For them "ethnic identity" is the most important. Kill all Tutsis, regardless their gender, profession, nationality, etc.

So does any religious fanatics. Only their religion matters for them. Gender, profession, nation, etc are irrelevant  or even ... distracting so has to be suppressed with zeal!

The problem with the religious moderates' theological argument is, that means they ACCEPT this premise and try to fight the fanatics on their ground. This kind of discourse confirm and strengthened the premise of the total-primacy of religion.

Fortunately, that is not the only way to debate a religious fanatics. Secularists, nationalists, and many others attack the moral ground of the fanatics differently.


Fanatics vs Secularists, nationalists, etc.
Basically, the arguments against religious terrorism from them are:

"We have our official criminal laws, and killing is a criminal offense!

"Have you ever heard about the human rights? One of those rights is the right to live. Others are the freedom of religion."

"Do you realize that such terrorism is bad for business? Do you know that the income of millions of people's will be destroyed by terrorism?"

Etc.

That means, the secularist, nationalist, etc used philosophical-pragmatical arguments to counter the fanatics claims. Unlike theological arguments, these arguments are not based on unobservable-supernatural explanations, therefore they are debatable, falsifiable, and provable.

But such arguments could only work if you debate with a normal person. A brainwashed fanatics often couldn't get any philosophical or pragmatical reason. They could easily dismissed any moderates who try to reason this way by branding them "hypocrite cherry-pickers" or even worse "traitors."

So, how if we try to convince the fanatics with theological arguments, while arguing with non-fanatics with philosophical-pragmatical arguments? The problem is, that means we argue incoherently. We have to start with the fundamental first: is there any PRIMARY identity that trumps every other identity in every occasion? Who actually has the authority to interpret God's law? Trying to debate in different ways without answering this fundamental question only undermines your argument. Anyone can pointed out that you are cherry-picking your religion, only using verses that suited your point of view, etc. So what is the best way?


The Best Method?
In my opinion, to be consistent we have to remind EVERYONE that they are not God, and no human can equate themselves with God, because it is a blasphemy. Heck, not only they are mere mortals, their prophets who wrote their books and scriptures are humans too!Their prophet is not God.

What? One of their prophet LITERALLY believed to be the incarnation of God despite all contrary rationals and historical evidences? And they even try to explain his Godhood with absurd argument, and pointed out since it is absurd, that means he is the true God? Wow ... okay ... let's see ... is that an exception or is there anything like that in another religion ...

Oh, here is its "sister religion" who claimed that God is singular, and no human can claimed to be God! Let's see .... anyone who draw the picture of their prophet would be beheaded? Pointing out that prophet had done some wrong also offended every single follower of him? 

... OK, I give up. They prefer to insult their own God, my intelligence, and everyone else while insisting that we have to respect them! 

Dear the rest of humanity, let them speak their minds. Let them reveal how vicious, how ignorant they are. Just make sure they STAY AWAY from any kind of power. 

Oh wait, many of them wields FORMAL POWER in some countries that prepared to go nuke. We are really screwed ...

Context, Language, and Holy Scripture

Another favorite argument from Bible or Quran or any other holy scripts apologist:

"We have to put everything in context."

Or in similar spirit:

"You got it wrong. That is not what it say in original language."

They argue that the "universal message" and "perfect moral code" in the scripture is so good that everyone can use it, as long as the context of each verses is correctly assessed. 

Oh, you want to talk about context? Yippee, sounds like fun!

1) Thou shall not kill! Thou shall not steal!

Remember the 10 Commandments? We have to put that in context. Just like the whole book, it is basically a screw-up moral guidance, omitting many important morals while disregard freedom of religion. But that is not all! The context of the #6 and #8 commandments is actually "Thou shall not kill fellow Israelis! Thou shall not steal from fellow Israelis!  So, if you put it in context, we shall not kill anyone who believe in God, but we have to fight EVERYONE who refuse to worship Him! Oh yeah, don't forget to loot them too!

Why the context is like that? Hey, this is 3 thousand years before our current time, people at that time are TRIBAL. They don't speak about humanities. Not yet. They speak about their small tribes in the Levant. Gary Blecher has a say about tribal mentality: "My tribe YAY! Your tribe BOO! As simple as that."

Oh yeah, don't forget, after giving the 10 Commandments, God ordered the Israelis to kill everyone in the promised land, and of course loot their lands, livestocks, etc. Actions speaks louder than words folks! Q.E.D., the context of the 10 commandment is "Those non-believers are sub-human!"

You see ... even your precious 10 commandments IS A TRAVESTY if you put it in context! You still want to put everything in context? I am all game!

2) What is the context?

You may argue that I put the 10 Commandments in the wrong context. Okay, what is the correct context? To know the correct context, you have to know the ancient language of that time, their daily life, the geo-political situation of that time, the Zeitgeist of that era, etc.. IF you know more about those things than me, than you can argue that my "context" is not that accurate. That means ... you have to be an ancient historian to exactly know the context. That means ... at least 4 years in college, studying all existing documents in all forms from that era.

What? I thought you said that your holy scripture is a universal moral guidance? How come it is UNIVERSAL if you have to be an ancient historian to know the context? Silly me, when we talk about religion, FAITH reigns supreme, LOGIC is tossed from the discussion from the beginning!

3) Another context: the history of the Scripture.

Bart D. Ehrman explained eloquently the history of the new Testament. Basically, it was copied BY HAND, and in many cases BY ILLITERATES. Is he kiddin me? No, he is serious. Since Christianity is a religion for the low class at its infant stages during the ancient Roman time, where literacy was defined as "able to write your own name," it was understandable that most of the people who copy its document were actually illiterate.

You see where this is going right? If you ask illiterates to copy a text, rampant omissions, errors, and redundancies were INEVITABLE! 

That is the context of the Bible. Every single chapters and words were copied for hundreds of years by illiterates. Only after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, experts started to do these important duty. So ... you expect me to be 100% sure that this text is IDENTICAL to the ORIGINAL one wrote by Paul, Peter, John etc.?

Oh, the Quran was better, but not much. You see, the Quran was COMPILED after the death of Muhammad SAW. Wait ... so ... you say that the people who compiled it were PERFECT and couldn't make a mistake? Sorry, as far as I know, in Islam, only Allah is perfect. Don't expect me to put those compilers above criticism.

4) What language again?

Oh, mistakes in copying is not the only context to doubt the authenticity of any historical script. There is a language barrier too. You see ... many of the texts written in ancient language. Everyone who master more than one language know that THERE IS NO PERFECT TRANSLATION! Even when the language is close, like English and German, when you translate it from one to the other, in many cases it is very tricky. Here I have to give credit to the Quran, since it insists to use Arabic!

But that open another problems. First, I can easily say that means God is not fair, since he favor the Arabs. Isn't that a cultural imperialism at its best? The people who were subjugated never felt it since they thought it is God's will. YAY, important note for all tyrant and dictator wannabe:used religion to subjugate and control people! It works! Wait a minute, they already did that repeatedly! Silly me.

Second, you may preserve the authenticity of the script, but in the end, the laymen, the mass has to translate it IN THEIR HEAD to get its message. That means, we have to master Arabic in order to get its LITERAL meaning perfectly. So ... you have to spend HOURS in learning a foreign language only to get the correct moral guidance? So ... what is so universal about this book again?


5) How they wrote it?
Fine, I suspend my disbelieve. I give modern translators the benefit of doubt that they PERFECTLY can translate it, just like modern translators translate English to German or to Mandarin perfectly. The problem is, many of those original texts written in scriptio continua, which means they didn't use spaces, and only used capital letters. Oh yeah, forget about comma, period, question mark, and exclamation mark too! Scriptio continua is literally continuous script, without any break.

ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDIN ME? Even modern English in scriptio continua, is troublesome! Ehrman gave an example: "GODISNOWHERE" It can be "God is nowhere." It can also be "God is now here." Which one is the case? And you used text like this for your moral guidance?

You see, when you start to put "everything in context" you open a Pandora box. That only open thousands of ways to criticize your holy scripture. The context often makes the verse invalid in our time, because OUR MODERN CONTEXT involve human rights, scientific progress, etc. You know, shit that God of the ancient time FORGET to write, so secular-humanist, philosophers, and other non-believers have to figure by themselves. Once you read it "in context," that means you actually FILTER your holy scripture. You know "Look, at that time genocide is normal, so God order His people to genocide, but today it is not acceptable anymore." Err ... that means you put that filter above the words of God. Hey, here is a think, forget your scripture, JUST USE YOUR FILTER as your moral guidance. That is what Deist, humanist, atheist, agnostic, and free-thinker do all the time!

"The context" prove that your holy scripture is a horrible moral guidance. Most likely it is not authentic. Definitely it is not universal. Don't like it? Blame your God who is a lousy writer since He forget to put coherence, human rights, and so many other important traits of a good moral guidance. Blame God who refused to write any of His scripts in universal language, understood by every humanbeings. I never created this mess, I only point it out.

Further reading:
Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman.

7 Deadly Sins

"Seven Deadly Sins" is one of the most prominent things from Christianity, although it is never written in the Bible. It is an interpretation of the Bible, and I have to admit, it's a good one ... and confirm that the Bible is a horrible book in general. Why so? Just check those sins:

Lust

Mostly interpreted as: excessive libido. 

More concretely interpreted as: No pornography! No masturbation! Missionary is the only acceptable position! Heck, maybe the "no condom" rule also stem from this one!

For me it is: The church tries to control the sexual life of the people.

Yes, excessive libido is bad, yeah we get it. And? Suddenly they try to CONTROL our sex position? So the logic goes like:
1) Excessive libido is bad!
2) Therefore we can rule how you position yourselves during copulation!!

So ... let me guess, " "having fun" or "be creative" during sex" is equal to excessive libido?  I tell you, these guys are CONTROL FREAKS. And no, "these guys" are not limited to the Catholic church. I know TONS of Protestant church that has the same mentality. It is not about the danger of uncontrolled sex, it is about THE CHURCH CONTROLLING OUR SEX LIFE!! It is about the church forcing you not to enjoy one of the most basic activity in life!

Gluttony

Mostly interpreted as: excessive eating

More concretely interpreted as: Surprisingly, I can't figure it out ...

For me it is: Seriously, I don't know. Looks like they miss this one.

Seriously, after trying to control our sex life, looks like the church back down at this one. I don't know any bad rule based on this "sin." Maybe I were wrong and those clerics as not as bad as I thought? NAAAAH, wait till you see the next one.

Greed

Mostly interpreted as: excessive desire.

More concretely interpreted as: Be charitable! Donate 10% to your church! No, not other church, not other foundation, MY CHURCH FIRST!

For me it is: Ordering you to give money, while threatening you with eternal torture, FROM MORAL HIGH GROUND!!

YEAH BABY, I love how the church exploit this sin! Religion is the only way to looks righteous even after you scare other people shitless with your bullcrap, get tons of money from it, and even got people's thanks! Have I mentioned to you that the church look righteous even after doing this ass-pull? No wonder religion still alive today, there is always a weasel who see this and use it to get your money ... and political support!

Sloth

Mostly interpreted as: laziness.

More concretely interpreted as: You must praise the Lord all the times!

For me it is: SICK SICK SICK!!

How low can you go? For the church, "Demanding YOU to lick their imaginary friend's buttock 24/7" low. NAAAAH, they can go lower. Just check the next sins!

Wrath

Mostly interpreted as: Uncontrolled anger.

More concretely interpreted as: Thou shalt be full of forgiveness!

For me it is: Good ... but a double standard.

This rule is actually very good. Anger could be used to our advantage, but uncontrolled anger almost always lead to misery and regret. The problem is, the Bible itself REPEATEDLY wrote about "The wrath of God." So ... "follow what I say but not what I do"? So ... God asked us to follow a moral guidance that HE HIMSELF can't follow? Hypocrites.

Envy

Mostly interpreted as: excessive desire, 

More concretely interpreted as: the #10 commandment from the 10 Commandments

For me it is: YAY! More excessive rule from the same control freak! BOY, I REALLY ENJOY THIS!

The 10 Commandments are horrible laws. Individually, some of them are good. As a set, they are the product of a barbaric age. Seriously, which omni-benevolent & omni-potent ruler FORGET to say "thou shall not enslave" and "thou shall not genocide" but remember to put "thou shall remember that the 7th day is MY DAY!"?? 

After some thought, the #10 rule is the worse of them all. Hey, let me tell you something, NOBODY CAN FOLLOW THAT RULE!! Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY can be totally free from envy. Here is a fundamental rule of a good law: make a law that PEOPLE CAN OBEY!! Ratifying an impossible law only makes the writer looks stupid ... oh I forget, that is not the case. They already get away with asking people to lick "the writer"'s bottom 24/7, looking stupid is the least of their concern. Silly me. NEXT!! (More on this in the conclusion part.)

Pride

Mostly interpreted as: Egoism, Arrogance, Self-Centered-ness.

More concretely interpreted as: Don't be arrogant! Remember about others!

For me it is: The sign of ultimate arrogance from the church.

This sin is considered as the highest one, the source of all sin. Same like many previous sins, excessive pride is really dangerous. But the church actually try more than curtail excessive pride. They remind you that YOU, individuals, are beneath God, beneath the church! YOU have to remember to give your 10%. You have to remember to praise Him all the time. You have to shut your mouth whenever your mind speak against the representation of God in this world, the church. 

To me, this is the sign of the ultimate arrogance. The people who say that they represent God in this world say that Pride is bad? The people who claim to KNOW WHAT GOD HATE claim that pride is a sin? The people who repeatedly equate their position with GOD and those against them "against God" want to lecture me about how bad "pride" is? Appalling!

You see the trend? The church picks a normal, very human feeling, exaggerated how bad it is, and label it as a "SIN" without putting the word "excessive" in front of them. Why they do that? Simple, the same reason they put the #10 commandment:

THEY WANT TO MAKE YOU FEEL GUILTY!!

Yes, since those are very humane emotions, it is a no-brainer. EVERYONE has done it at least once in their lifetime. Like I said before, ordinary impossible law only makes the writer looks stupid, but this is not ordinary law, this is God's laws! So instead of making the writer looks stupid, it will make everyone feels guilty. This is one of the oldest trick in mind-control: make your target feels guilty. "Guilt" will make people more vulnerable to b.s. like religions, religious laws, and religious clerics.

The Bible Screwed-Up Priorities

The Bible really screwed-up their priorities. Inside its 66 books it has a say about:

• How "unclean" women with period is! (Leviticus 15: 19-20) 
• Shaving (Leviticus 19:27)
• KEEP THOSE IMPERFECT-DISABLED PEOPLE FROM THE HOLY TEMPLE! (Leviticus 21:17 - 23)
• Prohibiting women from ball-squeezing (Deuteronomy 25:11)
• DONATE WELL OR DIE! (Acts 5) 
• Profanity (Ephesians 5:4) 
• There are still many ridiculous things that the Bible discusses and tries to regulate, but you get my point right?

While busy THREATENING everyone who does anything from that list in the wrong ways, the Bible never talk about:

Abolition of slavery 

Oh, I forgot, God repeatedly ordered the Israelis to enslave the non-believers! (Leviticus 25:44) Paul also ordered slaves to respect their master like man respect God! (Ephesians 6:5) And looks like Peter agreed with him! (1 Peter 2:18)  Silly me.

Freedom of religion 

Oh, I forgot, on the contrary, God repeatedly ordered His follower to BUTCHER Israelis who worship other God! (That's the main point of the book of Judges, Samuels, Kings, etc.) Silly me.

Prohibition of genocide

Oh, I forgot, on the contrary, God ordered the Israelis to KILL every single living being on any city they conquered! (That's the point of the whole book of Joshua, Judges, etc.) Heck, God even did a genocide himself! (The story of Noah.) Silly me.

And Christians still wonder why so many people think the Bible is a horrible moral guidance? Really? Are those Bible lovers THAT slow? 

n.b: check the Skeptic Annotated Bible for full analysis of every Bible verse.

Your Prophet Is Not Your God

Many people have asked me why I refuse to believe in the existence of the Christian God, Yahweh. I already give you some reasons, now let me imagine a conversation with a typical Christian to give you another good reason ...

GOD ... at least according
to Michaelangelo

Christian: Why do you refuse to believe the existence of God, the Lord almighty? 

Me: Err ... because your book is incoherent? Because the concept of hell is just too disgusting to be part of my ethics? Because I don't think forcing someone to do incest is just? 

Christian: What? No, you are just misguided and misinformed. How could you reject Yahweh who sacrifice His own Son for you?

Me: (Fed up and really want to argue that Jesus is actually not that great, but decides to try another angle.) Let's for the sake of argument, assume that I were wrong. Let's assume that Yahweh exists. My next question is "Okay, He exists, so what does He said? How can I know what he wants from me?" 

Christian: Ah, for that we have the Bible!

Me: WOA, stop there, you want me to believe in hearsay? Yes, the Bible is a fine example of a hearsay evidence. You know that Jesus never write anything right? It was written EARLIEST 30-40 years AFTER Jesus "resurrection," so that is the very definition of hearsay!

Christian: No it is not a hearsay, the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and God!

Me: Do you know how it was collected? 

Christian: What? The Bible?

Me: YES, you know that each book is a separate writing but collected some centuries after its writing right? Some of them even with dubious origins. The Bible was NEVER faxed from Heaven.

Christian: Those blessed predecessors are also guided by Holy Spirit in their action.

Me: What? Seriously?  You want to say that the Bible needed some editors who decided which books could be kept, which should be tossed aside? Tell you what, let me give you this 10 Bucks, go to the nearest pharmacy, buy some anusol. I am sure such epic ass-pull hurts. Go on, I wait. Got it? Okay, now I can continue ... even if there is some marvelous miracle happens, and I believe in God as the result, I NEVER BELIEVE in any humans who are arrogant enough to claim that he write God's words. In the end, even my believe to your God is IRRELEVANT.

That's the problem with Yahweh existence, religion, and morality. Jesus, Yahweh, or other kind of God IS NOT EQUAL with the religion associated with each of them. I can say easily "I don't trust your prophet" and my ethics will be the same with "I don't believe in the existence of your God." But you can see the difference right? Oh yeah, the reaction from the prophet if you say this to their face is also exactly the same: branding people who distrust them as kafir, infidel, heretic, satan worshipper, ammoral-child-molester, yadda-yadda-yadda. Some prophets even executed those "heretics". 

Why?

Because they are THAT arrogant, they really equate themselves with God.

Because they KNOW that they don't have any good reason to be trusted, therefore they resort to some unobservable-supranatural-existence to prove their point.
Because some of them are so insecure, but desperate to make people obey them, that they had to resort to violent coercion to get people to agree with them.

Wake up, stop putting your whoever-prophet into a pedestal. By your own definition, only GOD deserved that position on the pedestal. 

In essence: This is not about God. This is about YOUR WORDS, YOUR ARGUMENTS. At most you can prove that YOUR PROPHET said so. Not God. Stop bragging about knowing God's mind. Be humble for heaven's sake!

God and Objective Morality

William Lane Craig
From wikipedia

One philosophical attack thrown by Christians to atheist is the statement:

"Without God, there is no objective morality!"

This attack is so liked by Christians, even their best apologist at this time, William Lane Craig, often use it. He use fancy rhetorics to mask the emptiness of this argument, but in the end it is still an empty argument.I already told you that one of the simplest way to answer this is just laugh and answer back:

"if objective morality means incest, I'll use subjective one!"

That is how to REACT against that attack, defensive. There is a way to make a preemptive attack, offensive, against this argument. Just propose a dilemma:

"Which one is the case? Is it (objectively) moral because God said so, OR God said so because it is (objectively) moral?"

If it is moral because God said so, continue in the line "So, that means incest, genocide, and slavery are all morally correct? Really? Sorry, morally correct is not strong enough. They were obligatory in many cases in the Bible! Is that you want to say?" You can also say "So might is right? That sounds subjective to me ..."

If God said so because it is moral, you can ask back "so God was limited by morality? Then He is not God. Oh, by the way, genocide is still wrong. Looks like your God do a lousy job in obeying morality."

I myself think the 1st answer is the more coherent one. Hey, if God only ordered morally correct things, why the incest, slavery, and genocide? It is more logically coherent, but it is not morally correct. Remember, this God is the one who demanded us to love Him more than our children, threaten us with eternal torture if we refuse, and He ordered all of these nonsense while He can do wrong. And the preachers are still have the nerve to ask me to obey Him?

But the argument is even a bigger and emptier hollow shell than I thought because we NEVER have any IRREFUTABLE evidence that religious moral codes come from God Himself. As far as I know, it is more probable that some dude in ancient times won a war and branded his law as "God's law." Even moreso, the Bible and so many other holy scriptures are not an easy read. They need to be ... interpreted to be used as guidance. So, we can argue back "What objective morality? Where is the evidence that this come from God? Why these laws need INTERPRETATION? As far as I know, you can't escape SUBJECTIVITY in interpretation. Ergo, your argument about objective morality is nonsense, you never offer it to me, you only offer me YOUR subjective morality, but you mask it with God's label to make it looks fancy ... and objective!"

So that is the paradox: If God exists, then atheists, agnostics, deists, freethinkers, and other people who never mention God when they debate ethics actually are the people who respect God most since they never try to claim their words as God's, or torturing and slaying in thousands in the name of God, slandering His name. Yay! Here is a good one-liner to close this writing, for you people who still want to believe in God: 

"Be a Deist to Respect God!"

Love Jesus!

Jefferson Bethke.
From this website.

Remember when I said that I hate the idea that God asks us to suck His ass 24/7?

 "The Great" Jefferson Bethke reminded and PROVED me that I made a mistake. I underestimate the problem. Jesus himself asked to be loved MORE than your mom, your dad, etc. Jesus asked for EVERYTHING! 

Wow ... 

It is NOT ENOUGH to say "Halleluya" in every occasion, you have to put God (READ: your preacher.) above everything else. No, Bethke even plainly said that Jesus (READ: your pastor.) demanded OBEDIENCE from us, ABOVE everything else. Yup, Jesus (Read: your priest.) ordered you to put Him HIGHER than your loved ones.

I am sure, many of you will protest that "READ: your preacher/pastor" statement I put after God. Let me ask you this: does God EVER give any order to you directly? Hmm? If you answer "Yes," I suggest you make an appointment with your psychiatrist, looks like you got a schizophrenia. If you answer "Well, not directly ..." I should pointed out to you: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT VALID!! More on that later, let's first dissect his argument.

Bethke try to b.s. his way by saying that:
1) So many other things actually ask for EVERYTHING too, e.g.: mistress, boyfriend, job, power, etc.
2) Jesus only asked for everything AFTER he sacrificed himself for us.

Okay ... I am not really agree with #1, but let's for the sake of argument we assume that he is correct about that. So ... you said that 2 wrongs makes a right? Isn't that wonderful, the Messiah actually doing the same thing that those "despicable things" done: asking for TOTAL OBEDIENCE? 

The 2nd point is even worse. First ... what sacrifice? Okay, He suffered on a crucifix for one day, died for 3 days, but in the end, he came back to life. Hey, if He is NOT a God, okay, being crucified IS A BIG DEAL, but as far as I know, the Christian God is OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT. So, why such a fuss? Why His follower whined about small problem like that? Oh yeah, even if you try to b.s. that "He was a human too, thus He suffer greatly!" I have to point out that MANY HUMANS suffer like Him too! How many people are crucified by the Romans? How many people died during a famine? Uh, uh, I know, how about the suffering of thousands of women who were accused as WITCH by the church? Or the suffering of the victims of inquisitions? Etc. Stop exaggerating his suffering. Start talking about the victim of His follower.

Oh, by the way, he did that without our concern. So ... he did that only to BLACKMAIL US, only to have an excuse to torture us forever if we don't buy it? It reminds of a statement from a mafia: "Hey, you should be thankful that nothing happens to your nice shop here, you know, we are the reason for that. So YOU HAVE TO PAY US!" That didn't surprise me. God of the Old Testament already approved this mafioso mentality. Just read the story about David, Nabal, and Abigail. Let's return to the previous point: when religion say "God" it actually means "priests/preachers/pastors."

Let me put it like this, we know everything about "Jesus sacrifice" from one single book. Yes ONLY ONE book. One single source. Why only one? The church for centuries BURN EVERY SINGLE CONTRADICTING RECORD! And it was not even written by Jesus OR directly during his time. And that book is very long, and complicated. Hey, this is the  same book that recorded that God is not consistent, He also screws-up repeatedly, and He even forced His creations to do incest to survive. So ... you want me to listen to a dude who regulate slavery, racism, and child abuse? In order to defend that book you has to do a "theodicy" or in a less fancy words: "pulling same excuses from your ass to sugar-coat God!" and who can do better other than the people who has the INTEREST in make sure you view God favorably, like ... your pastor? Q.E.D.

Oh yeah BTW, if you refuse to believe those preachers, God will torture you forever in His private dungeon, called Hell . Nice!

So let me recap, God (Read: the priests) actually ASKED us to praise & obey Him unconditionally & constantly, and whining when "so many other things do it too!" His track record is awful, and He (Read: the church) mentally blackmailed us and in the end, for good measure, He (Read: the preachers) threatened anyone with eternal torture. I don't know about you but for me ... that sounds like an insecure bully.  

And now, this Bethke HAS THE NERVE to ask me to love this bully? Pissed off, and go **** yourself. Oh, by the way, Happy Holiday!