The ‘Glorious’ Koran

Just now when I was listening to La Campanella, the beautiful melody was suddenly disturbed by some loud, crappy, monotonous voice from a nearby Mosque that shouted: “ALLAH~~ UH AKHBAR!!!~~~” Very annoying, seriously. This per se is sound pollution.

While they’re airing their ‘Allah’s words’ out, do we even know what’s the meaning of the words? The Muslims are reading the Koran everyday, and what they read have a possibility to influence them. Influence to what? Let’s see.

I have an English version of the Koran, titled ‘The Meaning of the Glorious Koran’. Here are ‘Allah’s words’:

Surah 4, Verse 56:
Lo! Those who disbelieve Our Revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.

Surah 4, Verse 89:
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.

Surah 8, Verse 39:
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is seer of what they do.

Surah 8, Verse 60:
Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.

Surah 47, Verse 4:
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

FITNA

How glorious.

*Note that this post is regarding only those extremists.

Distorting Science

This is the third time I’ve came across this short dialogue, and I know that many of you had received or read this story before. It’s about an atheist professor questioning his student on God and get defeated in the end. Take some time to read it, and think about it.

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty.

He asks one of his new Christian students to stand and…..

Professor: You are a Christian, aren’t you, son?

Student : Yes, sir.

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student : Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student : Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn’t. How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can’t answer, can you? Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?

Student :Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student : No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student : From… God.

Prof: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student :Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?

Student :Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

(Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son… Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student : No , sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever
had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science say your GOD
doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student : No sir. There isn’t.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white
heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?

Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light… But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument
is going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?….. No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.

Student : That is it sir… The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

It turned out later that this student was Albert Einstein.

Surely, to most stern believers of God and creationists, this fictitious story may be what they wanted to refute atheism. Well, live on your dreams. I’ll point out the falsehood of the whole thing.

Firstly, the author had surely been trying hard to distort science and the professor by saying that “science has disproved God”. The truth is, science never disproved God, and will not be able to, given his omnipotence property. And since he is omnipotent, thus its existence is not perceivable by our perceptions, and science can only state that “there’s no measurable evidence or observation to prove or disprove God’s existence”.

Secondly, the author is arguing that love does not subscribe to the premise of duality. I have to make this clear here: the principal of duality applies on all adjectives, and now particles (anti-matter). But it does not imply upon energy or any noun. Heat and light is energy, and the bottom limit for them is absence of them. The absence of heat we call it cold, which could hit -459.67 Fahrenheit in maximum. There’s no opposite of energy. Energy is a noun. Similarly, there’s no great darkness, more darkness, or extreme darkness. Its absolute is only zero brightness.

Also, death is NOT the absence of life. The student got it very wrongly. You can’t say that a book is dead becase it has no life. Similarly, you can’t say that a living creature is the opposite of a dead animal. By the way, love is the opposite of evil, and the absence of love is not evil. Love is love, evil is evil, never link up both. (Also, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are more appropriate words to use here.) The absence of ‘goodness’, equals the absence of ‘badness’, too. View it as a spectrum (from good to bad): Best, better, good, neutral, bad, worse, worst. The absence of ‘goodness’ is just the same as the absence of ‘badness’. It’s neutral. In the absence of goodness, a person won’t do anything to help others, but also don’t conduct bad deeds. This is not bad. In contrast, the presence of badness will drive a person to harm others- and that’s bad, different from the absence of goodness. According to theists’ beliefs, God created everything, included evil.(badness) Isn’t that absurd? God is loving isn’t it? Then why he created Satan? (or, ‘the fallen angel’?) Why not he destroy Satan? He’s omnipotent, and he can do whatever he wants!

I’m making a point here:
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is loving.
3. Satan exists.
4. Satan is evil.
5. An omnipotent and loving God will sure, obliterate Satan.
6. But He didn’t.
7. Thus, isn’t it suspecting for an existing/loving God?

Thirdly, theists completely rely upon faith for God’s existence- regardless of the fact that we couldn’t perceive God. (therefore reducing the possibility that there is a God) Faith, in other word, is “blind-belief”, or a “belief without credibility”.

The definition of ‘faith’ by Oxford dictionary is:
1) Trust; strong belief; unquestioning confidence in something.
2) Strong belief, without proof, in God or in an established religion.

The meaning of “faith” form Answers.com,
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
5) The body of dogma of a religion.

Using your rational mind, does it seems to make sense in believing something without evidence or proof, or something of a minute possibility?

Fourthly, the student does not seem to understand the evolution of humans at all. Evolution theory only states that humans, apes, chimpanzees, and monkeys shared common ancestors. Creationists often use this rationalization to dispute the evolution theory: “Evolution is just a theory, not fact,” or, “no one has ever seen the process of evolution.” (Absolutely wrong, as humans already seen microorganisms evolved into antibiotic-resistant killers or more complex subspecies.) Moreover, A theory is not a mere hypothesis, (in fact, even a hypothesis should be based on rational mind, thus I consider the existence of God NOT as a hypothesis but just a wild guess) I quote Chang Yang for this:

In science, a theory being a theory doesn’t mean that it’s just a wild guess,
a hypothesis or a preliminary model. The word “theory” in science comes
with a great weight. It is very different from the meaning when I say
“I have a theory that explains Eric’s behaviour”. In this example, the word
“theory” simply means “an educated guess”.

However, in biology, I can’t simply guess why dragonflies have four wings,
and name it “the theory of dragonfly wings” and put it up in Wikipedia. Without
substantiation (agreement of other people), evidence (empirical proof),
rationale (the “logic”), successful application (being able to predict future
events with the theory) and so on, a guess is not a theory in science.

It is true that evolution cannot be fully proved. However, many people don’t
know that it is never meant to be fully proved. You can’t prove
any scientific theory. Nobody can name a scientific theory that has been
“proved”. A theory, is an explanation of how things work, is based on thousands,
if not millions of validation, and is always falsifiable. While
a theory is the current best human explanation of an event, it is always open to
falsification, if you can find a counter-proof. However, just because a theory
cannot be proved, doesn’t mean that everyone should take it with a pinch of
salt. The cell theory, theory of gravitation, kinetic theory of gas etc are all
theories, but nobody has ever said “hey, don’t take them seriously, they are
only theories”.

All theories have been used in practice, have been shown to work, have yet to
fail, and have predicted events perfectly. But we can never say “the theory of
gravitation” has been proved. How do we know whether it’s true that every mass
always comes with a gravitation force which attracts every other mass in this
universe with a force according to the product of the mass and the inverse
square of their distance? It can also be due to other reasons… For example, it
can also be some invisible super-power who’s pulling every single particle
towards each other in the universe. So we can never prove “the theory of
gravitation” perfectly, because how do we rule out the existence of such a super
power?

Fiftly, I think that the student’s last point is really fatuous. The professor’s brain can be shown by MRI scan, PET scan, CT scan, and many other procedures. (you can imagine a person’s head got crushed during an accident- and you see the person’s brain- although it is really disgusting) His brain exists according to the empirical, testable, and demonstrable protocol. Perhaps the student never learned nor understood science.

It’s very disappointing everytime theists try to distort science in order to establish their beliefs. How arrogant and irrational.

*Let me make myself clear here: The sentence “It’s very disappointing everytime theists try to distort science in order to establish their beliefs.” refers only to those who tried to distort science, but not the others. And also, if you may want to discuss this issue, do it in a more civilized way, maturely, intellectually. By the way, Albert Einstein is NOT a theist for sure.

*This straw man argument(an informal fallacy based on misinterpretation of opponent’s position) was set up by the author, and he continues to disprove it, much like placing the target in the path of an arrow.
*Also, it is impossible for a physics lecturer to fall for the ‘heat and cold’ thing. I quote Shou Farn: “I doubt a professor of physics would fall for that heat and cold thing either. Thats a pitfall for first year undergraduates. (I know, I have been there). The person who first wrote this email just set up a strawman version of science he wants to disprove, then goes on to disprove it. Silliness in digital form,” “Like I said, a strawman version of science and their lecturers are set up. It does not reflect reality at all.”

Typical Extremists

50 years, have they changed their mindsets?

No. They’re still the narrow-minded intolerant radical barbarians.

It got on their nerve when the Bar Council discussed about Islam laws. They were outrageous when the Chief Minister suggested a 10% allocation for non-Malays in the college. They wanted so hard to convert our country into an Islamic state. Now, they even wanted to declare JIHAD towards the ‘outsiders’.

Have you ever wondered why they’d did this? It’s because of their hopeless view that put too much weight on Islam and its rights. Islam is just a religion, a set of beliefs. It should not be interfering with the political system.

The Bar Council is just discussing about the problem for a Muslim to leave Islam. Please, listen, they’re just discussing, not disgracing, challenging, or questioning. And I feel that Islam has seriously violated the very basics of human rights. (that a Muslim may not leave Islam or convert into other religion) Every human should have their rights to choose their own religion. Child born as Muslim may not want to be a Muslim at all, but due to the rediculous Syariah laws of Islam they have no choice. Please note that religion is very different from race- if you were born as a Malay you’re a Malay forever; but religion is just a set of belief that everyone is free to choose! Those extremists are being really insensible in the whole issue.

Then, our CM suggested that UiTM should allow 10% of non-Malays to enroll. Then what happned? The radical group of Malay-ists students gathered and rallied illegally while shouting and holding banners of “DO NOT CHALLENGE MALAY RIGHTS”. Well, I think that 10% is not harming or challenging the Malays at all. In fact, who even wants to enter that college and get discriminated by those extremists inside? Also, why there is no action taken towards those students? According to the law college students that involve themselves in politics are subject to be jailed. This proves a thing- the law does not work. The same question arises here: do you know why this happened? Again, it’s due to their intolerant, radical racial mindset that have caused this.

Just as recently as yesterday, the Muslims in the country had a meeting, (Muktamar) where they were supposed to celebrate PAS’ winnings in the previous election. But as the same old narrow fundamentalist’s mindset came in, it turned into a radical and aggresive meeting. The most significant people are the PAS Youth’s delegates. They’d stressed out many issues, slamming the motion of the Bar Council, assaulted PKR leader and DAP senior members, and insisted for Islam to be implemented or ‘given great importance’ in the country’s ruling system. For God’s sake Islam is just a mere religion! A belief is a belief, it should NOT be implemented in a political system. The PAS Youth’s representatives then barked loudly, viewed non-Muslims as orang asing or ‘outsiders’, and even wanted to declare JIHAD or HOLY WAR. Look, they’re living in the dark ages where holy wars are required to secure themselves.

After these incidents, it’s clearly shown that the typical irrational, intolerant, radical, racial, aggresive, barbaric, fundamental behaviour still exists among them.

Sometimes I feel ashamed to be in the same land with them.

My Atheism Standpoint

Atheist am I.

It’s true that atheists can be branched down into several groups- but their united standpoint remains the same, that is, disagreement towards theological thoughts.

Frankly speaking, I’m not profound in criticizing religions. Although I may occasionally refute certain religions’ baseless nonsense, basically I’m the type that fights for reason based on science and logic. Thus to me, the existence of God is the most vulnerable of all, which I strongly deny its existence. Atheists left one step that can never come true to disprove God- science. Yes, science can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. In science, a negative statement is impossible to prove. And that’s the final barrier.

Back to religion. I just haven’t get it. Why be so hostile towards it? It seems to me that only the minority that misinterpreted their bible did terrible sins that claimed millions of lives. Also, it doesn’t mean that all the Christians or Muslims are bad right? But what I strongly opposes religion is that it often interfere with the advancement of science. If not because of religion, heliocentric model of our solar system would be proposed earlier by few hundred years, and think of how advanced we may be now.

Thus, anyone, you may share your religious viewpoint with me, it’s some thoughts to be thought about.

Threatening Message

This is what I saw on my desk today after recess:

BURN THIS BOOK OR WATCH OUT

And I replied:

SATAN IS WITH ME, FUCKING JESUITS!

The religious fanatics are behaving wild. This is the first time I received such threatening message, and their insistment is clearly shown.

So, what are you going to do if I don’t destroy the book? Kill me? Burn me at stake? Stone me to death? Or fly an airplane into my house? You think I’m scared? Your own viewpoint on your highly respected God does not imply on me- and ass off if you don’t like it. I’m not interfering with you so shut up. Never try to touch me or you shall receive retribution.

I really can’t imagine that there is people around me that behaved in such a way. Maybe it’s one of those prefects on duty. But who cares? It’s just a hopeless lame freak that does not worth my time finding out.

Analogy of Religion and Human Society

I was staring at my bookshelf, and suddenly thought of an idea regarding the relationship between religion and human society.

Here I illustrate the analogy with these photos:

Imagine this as our Earth(empty shelf) when humans haven’t exist. There was no civilization at all.

Then, when humans appear on the surface of Earth, civilizations(books) occurs and different societies were born at different parts of the world.

The human civilization grows robustly, spreading around the world- but it is unstable and fragile, because it is not hold together by any unified ideology or concept.

Without any mental support for the society, it is very easy for a civilization to collapse and comes to an end.

With the idea of religion(book-holder), the entire society and civilization can be hold together firmly as everyone in it shares a similarity. This may even strenghtens a society.

Then, civilizations continue to grow and expand, making them nearer to each other.

Slowly, civilizations meet with each other and connects each other. They start to rely mutually and achieve a stable state.

Finally, in this society, religion is considered as useless and can be get rid of- because the human civilizations are stable enough to live without religion.

Ricky Gervais- My Argument With God

Ricky Gervais

How I went from Jesus-loving Christian to fun-loving infidel…in one afternoon

I loved Jesus. He was my hero. More than pop stars. More than footballers. More than God. God was by definition omnipotent and perfect. Jesus was a man. He had to work at it. He had temptation but defeated sin. He had integrity and courage. But He was my hero because He was kind. And He was kind to everyone. He didn’t bow to peer pressure or tyranny or cruelty. He didn’t care who you were. He loved you. What a guy. I wanted to be just like Him.

One day when I was about 8 years old, I was drawing the crucifixion as part of my Bible-studies homework. I loved art too. And nature. I loved how God made all the animals. They were also perfect. Unconditionally beautiful. It was an amazing world.

I lived in a very poor, working-class estate in an urban sprawl called Reading, about 40 miles west of London. My father was a laborer and my mother was a housewife. I was never ashamed of poverty. It was almost noble. Also, everyone I knew was in the same situation, and I had everything I needed. School was free. My clothes were cheap and always clean and ironed. And Mum was always cooking. She was cooking the day I was drawing Jesus on the cross.

I was sitting at the kitchen table when my brother came home. He was 11 years older than me, so he would have been 19. He was as smart as anyone I knew, but he was too cheeky. He would answer back and get into trouble. I was a good boy. I went to church and believed in God—what a relief for a working-class mother. You see, growing up where I did, mums didn’t hope as high as their kids growing up to be doctors; they just hoped their kids didn’t go to jail. So bring them up believing in God and they’ll be good and law-abiding. It’s a perfect system. Well, nearly. Seventy-five percent of Americans are God-fearing Christians; 75 percent of prisoners are God-fearing Christians. Ten percent of Americans are atheists; 0.2 percent of prisoners are atheists.

But anyway, there I was, happily drawing my hero when my big brother Bob asked, “Why do you believe in God?” Just a simple question. But my mum panicked. “Bob,” she said, in a tone that I knew meant “shut up.” Why was that a bad thing to ask? If there was a God and my faith was strong, it didn’t matter what people said.

Oh…hang on. There is no God. He knows it, and she knows it deep down. It was as simple as that. I started thinking about it and asking more questions, and within an hour, I was an atheist.

Wow. No God. If Mum had lied to me about God, had she also lied to me about Santa? Yes, of course, but who cares? The gifts kept coming. And so did the gifts of my newfound atheism. The gifts of truth, science, nature. The real beauty of this world. Not a world by design, but one by chance. I learned of evolution—a theory so simple and obvious that only England’s greatest genius could have come up with it. Evolution of plants, animals, and us—with imagination, free will, love, and humor. I no longer needed a reason for my existence, just a reason to live. And imagination, free will, love, humor, fun, music, sports, beer, and pizza are all good enough reasons for living.

But living an honest life—for that you need the truth. That’s the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, in the end leads to liberation and dignity.

I hope I haven’t offended anyone with this article. Okay, that’s a lie.

Ricky Gervais created the award-winning TV shows The Office and Extras . This fall, he stars in the romantic comedy Ghost Town opposite Téa Leoni.

IT’S JUST A FRACKIN’ CRACKER! - PZ Myers

By PZ Myers:

There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion.

Here’s a story that will destroy your hopes for a reasonable humanity.

Webster Cook says he smuggled a Eucharist, a small bread wafer that to Catholics symbolic of the Body of Christ after a priest blesses it, out of mass, didn’t eat it as he was supposed to do, but instead walked with it.

This isn’t the stupid part yet. He walked off with a cracker that was put in his mouth, and people in the church fought with him to get it back. It is just a cracker!

Catholics worldwide became furious.

Would you believe this isn’t hyperbole? People around the world are actually extremely angry about this — Webster Cook has been sent death threats over his cracker. Those are just kooks, you might say, but here is the considered, measured response of the local diocese:

“We don’t know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was,” said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. “However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it.”

We just expect the University to take this seriously,” she added “To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated.”

Wait, what? Holding a cracker hostage is now a hate crime? The murder of Matthew Shephard was a hate crime. The murder of James Byrd Jr. was a hate crime. This is a goddamned cracker. Can you possibly diminish the abuse of real human beings any further?

Well, you could have a priest compare this event to a kidnapping.

“It is hurtful,” said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. “Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family.”

Gonzalez said the Diocese is willing to meet with Cook and help him understand the importance of the Eucharist in hopes of him returning it. The Diocese is dispatching a nun to UCF’s campus to oversee the next mass, protect the Eucharist and in hopes Cook will return it.

I like the idea of sending a scary nun to guard the ceremony at the next mass. But even better…let’s send Webster Cook to hell!

Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible. If it’s not returned, the community of faith will have to ask for forgiveness.

“We have to make acts of reparation,” Gonzalez said. “The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We’ll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well.”

Get some perspective, man. IT’S A CRACKER.

And of course, Bill Donohue is outraged (I know, Donohue is going to die of apoplexy someday when a gnat violates his oatmeal, so this isn’t saying much).

For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage–regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance–is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion.

Oh, beyond hate speech. Where does this fit on the Shoah scale, Bill? It shouldn’t even register, but here is Wild-Eyed Bill the Offended calling for the expulsion of a student…for not swallowing a cracker.

Would you believe that the mealy-mouthed president of the university, John Hitt, is avoiding defending his student is instead playing up the importance of the Catholic church to the university? Of course you would. That’s what university presidents do. Bugger the students, keep the donors and the state reps happy.

Unfortunately, Webster Cook has now returned the cracker. Why?

Webster just wants all of this to go away. Especially now that he feels his life is in danger.

That’s right. Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane. These people are demented fuckwits. And Cook is not out of the fire yet — that Fox News story ends with an open incitement to cause him further misery.

University officials said, that as for right now, Webster Cook is not in trouble. If anyone or any group wants to file a formal complaint with the University through the student judicial system, they can. If that happens, Webster will go through a hearing either in front of an administrative panel or a panel of his peers.

Got that? If you don’t like what Webster Cook did, all you have to do is complain to the university, and they will do the dirty work for you of making his college experience miserable. And don’t assume the university would support Cook; the college is now having armed university police officers standing guard during mass.

I find this all utterly unbelievable. It’s like Dark Age superstition and malice, all thriving with the endorsement of secular institutions here in 21st century America. It is a culture of deluded lunatics calling the shots and making human beings dance to their mythical bunkum.

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I’ll send you my home address.

Just wait. Now there’ll be a team of Jesuits assigned to rifle through my mail every day.

Science V.S Faith

This shows the significant difference between science & faith!

The Language of God, Chapter 1

I would like to invite all fellow atheists to read this book written by renown theist, genetic biologist, head of the Human Genome Project Francis Collins, The Language of God.

Interesting as it may be, the first chapter he described how he changed from an atheist into a theist. From my point of view, all points and reasons for him to convert are so vulnerable and illogical, just as all theists’ claim about God. He shows his logic as this (briefly):

1. If God exists in the natural world, then he is supernatural.
2. Because he is supernatural, thus he is not composed of physical matters.
3. Therefore science will not be a pathway to seek for God.
4. Science and reason is not the path for God, and the other way is faith.
5. etc.

So if God does not exist in reality, then the whole rationalization will break down on itself.