R³

Pure love breeds pure hate,
For hate is reserved for that which destroys our love.
Even God hated Sin for destroying the people He loves!
Hate however can spawn no possible loves,
But perhaps that of the love of hate itself.

This is one of those cheesy emails that actually changed my life trajectory. I believe it calls for a suitable response. I quit my beloved kayaking team and devoted the rest of my time to serve God after reading this. I’ve never looked back since.

You don’t actually have to take the quiz. Just read the email straight through, and you’ll get the point that it is trying to make!

Take this quiz:

1. Name the five wealthiest people in the world.
2. Name the last five Heisman trophy winners.
3. Name the last five winners of the Miss America contest.
4. Name ten people who have won the Nobel or Pulitzer prize.
5. Name the last half dozen Academy Award winners for best actor and actress.
6. Name the last decade’s worth of World Series winners.

How did you do?

The point is, none of us remember the headliners of yesterday. These are no second-rate achievers. They are the best in their fields. But the applause dies. Awards tarnish. Achievements are forgotten. Accolades and certificates are buried with their owners.

Here’s another quiz. See how you do on this one:

1. List a few teachers who aided your journey through school.
2. Name three friends who have helped you through a difficult time.
3. Name five people who have taught you something worthwhile.
4. Think of a few people who have made you feel appreciated and special.
5. Think of five people you enjoy spending time with.

6. Name half a dozen heroes whose stories have inspired you.

Easier?

The lesson:
The people who make a difference in your life are not the ones with the most credentials, the most money, or the most awards. They are the ones that care.

Don’t worry about the world coming to an end today.
It’s already tomorrow in Australia.
- Charles Schultz

Back from a short hiatus. Meanwhile, some of you may have been aware that my blog post have been put up at an atheist website (click here); talk about making an impact eh?

Well, I’ve been thinking of what to do about it. After all, its not every other day that you get a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance to personally respond your post. I thought this was quite a privilege, so its only courteous of me to return the favor.

It seems like all the points which was brought up by them was most hinged on the definitions. This goes to highlight the importance of definitions doesn’t it? The definition is the fundamental plateau which the discussion is build upon. Flawed definitions give births to flawed thought process which give rise to flawed conclusions.

Bottom line #1: Definitions must be clear.

Austin Cline ended off by saying:

“Once again we can see just how important it is to be absolutely clear about the meanings of the key terms in our arguments. When we aren’t clear on what words means, we become susceptible to all sorts of rudimentary errors that just shouldn’t be committed. If we’re going to construct clear, well-reasoned, and logical arguments, then good, reliable definitions have to be our starting point. If we ignore this, we might as well not bother trying because we’re unlikely to get very far.”

After reading his entire rebuttal, all I have to say is:

“Once again we can see just how important it is to be absolutely clear about the meanings of the key terms in our arguments. When we aren’t clear on what words means, we become susceptible to all sorts of rudimentary errors that just shouldn’t be committed. If we’re going to construct clear, well-reasoned, and logical arguments, then good, reliable definitions have to be our starting point. If we ignore this, we might as well not bother trying because we’re unlikely to get very far.”

We obviously have a problem here.

A mere wordgame. Yes I know. He thinks his clear about his meanings of his key terms and assumes that I need to readjust mine. Then again, from my perspective, I would suppose that my definitions are precise and accurate and his would need to be adjusted. So who would (or should I say can) be the judge? This means that if we were to engage in discussions or arguments, we would need to fight on their ground with their definitions to prove them wrong, lest we end up firing missiles with wrong coordinates. Gives a whole new dimension to putting yourselves in their shoes yea?

Bottom line #2: Unless we are coming from the same plateau that they are standing at, it is highly unlike they will get what we are saying, and vice versa.

Last but not least, they insisted that my definition was that of the strong atheism, not that of weak atheism, hence it would not stand against the majority atheistic movement. Though I still have my reservations in that, let’s just say that they are right; I failed to disprove weak atheism with the definition of atheism. After all, I just advocated discussions on their plateau; an environment that seems to have constantly changing definitions to suit their argument. Nevertheless, at least seed of doubts have been casting with regards about strong atheism since no one seem to bothered saying anything in defense. Perhaps they are right after all; it is the minority.

Well, strong atheism checked. Weak atheism left. What irony that the “weak” relative seemed to be stronger then the former. Unless of course, the strength of weak atheism is in its weak definitions; it is harder to break a flexible straw then a firm stick.

Punch a relativist. They have already given us their consent; as long as you have a majority vote.

To put it across crudely, relativism is just moral democracy. We select a panel of fickle judges to decide what is permissible, and treat it as a law. It is funny how our laws keep changing when law is defined as “a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions”.*

Well, I’m already aware of the (possible, if there is one) weakness of the above definition. The conditions have changed… that is what they always claim. It is true. You have got to give it to them. Living conditions have changed, technology has changed, but the human condition has not. Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy & pride existed in the early centuries and they still do. We have merely become more innovative in our methods of committing them; pride is confidence, lust is abstract art, so on and so forth.

In future, just go ahead and punch a relativist. All the theists will say “Aye!”

*Dictionary.com

Here’s a petition for the committed atheist out there to speak out for what they believe in.

Been having another interesting conversation between several theists and an atheist (See Case against Atheism – Atheist Scientists), and it seems to distill to a single point – what exactly is atheism?

Some claim that it is the lack of belief in a god; some say it is the staunch belief in no God. Others go to say that atheism have various degrees, in which “weak atheism holds the former stand while “strong” atheism holds the latter stand.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I always thought that someone who lacks belief in a god is a freethinker? Another thing that strongly disturbs me is the flexible definition placed in the different degrees of atheism. A lack of belief and a belief in no God may sound similar on the surface but have a world of differences between them. How is it that by varying the degrees of atheism, it allows for changes done to its fundamental core beliefs? Just like if we were to vary the tone of red, we an only get a lighter red or a darker red. Pink would be out of the question. A flexible core belief belongs to an inconsistent religion, best suited for an illogical race; choose for yourselves a stand which you think is worth defending.

Is the discussion the misrepresentation of views from an erroneous atheist, uninformed theist or atheism does indeed have various different core beliefs? Perhaps then we have just witnessed the birth of the atheistic denominations.

The unique thing about experience is that it is a rather personal thing. Someone else’s experience can never have the same impact on you as it did on him. His bite of the Apple does not make your tongue tingle with sweetness. In the same way, experiences are hardly transferable. We can speak about it, act about it, write about it, but it will merely be a shadow of the actual thing. As we all know, the gap between the shadow and the reality is a big one.

However, experiences can be over-hyped at times. Seeing is believing – that is what the world believes. Yet is there a solid case for us to take this stand: Since we cannot experience God, He does not exist? Do take note that atheism is not even the lack of belief in a god, but the belief of NO god. It is the reinforcement of the negative absolute statement. Hence there is a world of difference between an atheist and a freethinker.

How can a human with finite intellect confidently presume information that might be beyond their logic? It is like a man who is colourblind declaring that the world consist on of the colours black, grey and white. Even statistics would not give this stand a solid backing. If a strange gene disease were to affect the majority of human population with colourblindness, it still would not discredit the remaining minority’s claim of colour.

Clearly, not experiencing a god does not equate to the absence of one.

They say atheism is the only reason is the only reasonable religion for a logical scientist. However that seems to go against the fundamental principles of being a scientist. No self respectable scientist would dare to declare that he has discovered every species of animal on earth, and neither would he be so quick as to dismiss the possible discovery of new species. Hence how is it possible that they are inconsistent with their work ethic when dealing with religious matters; jumping to the conclusion of there being no god? Surely a scientist cannot be despicable enough to tamper results to suit his personal opinions; does that not make him more of a scientific liar then a seeker of truth?

Thus the core belief of atheism of there being no god at best can only be considered as a hypothesis. Somewhere along the way, some misled soul took it for a truth and created a religion based on it.

First and foremost, I would like to express my thanks to the prompt and enthusiastic reply of KSR. (A commenter on the post of Faith, forgiveness & love by Kierkegaard)

Few people would have bothered typing out a 2.5 paged comments, so dedicating a post solely to respond to you would be the least I could do. =)

I cannot claim to have read finish Camus’s book due to the short amount of time I have to respond to this, but from the looks of your basic introduction, the book promises to be rather interesting. I guess there’s something for me to forward to during my next visit to the bookstores.

Camus seems to make sound and logical arguments regarding how the theory of the absurd is a more practical approach as compared to the leap of faith. Yet according to what you have said, that theory is largely based on the presumption that there is no god. Thus he had to use a faith of some other kind, namely that of faith in the human intellect. Well, I thought was rather similar to stabbing his own foot, was it not? As we all know, all theory are based on certain presumptions. However strong the hypothesis is, if the fundamental presumption is wrong, the whole stand would be a badly flawed perspective. Hence first and foremost, what interests me most about this guy is exactly how did he come to the conclusion of the absent of a god in this universe?

Regarding his worldview on life, in which is life worth living? If we were to be tortured in eternity for a act we did on this side of the world, I would agree with you, that it is more logical for man to end life and defy the possible punishment - for more time spent on earth would mean high possibility of committing the condemnable act. Camus was coming from an angle which the life on earth is a chance for mistakes to be made, hence inviting eternal punishment. Yet would you allow me to pose the alternative scenario across to you? Instead of viewing life as a chance for us to be dropped into the hell hole, what if we are already in the hell hole and life is a chance for us to crawl out of it?

You said that the tragedy of human life is that it is mostly spent planning for the future. On this issue, I beg to differ. What you have described as planning for the future is what I consider as placing hope in what is yet to come. Auspicium Melioris Aevi - the Hope of a Better Age. Without the hope of a better future and with the disappointment in the current world, humankind has nothing to live for. That is why we look forward to eternity. It is the ultimate definition of a better future.

It is true that the future is inconceivable. No one would know where he will be in five years time. Yet, I do not see that as a curse. I view it to be a gift; the gift of mystery. Precisely not knowing where we would be in five years time is the reason why the next five years are worth living for. If you have ever watched a movie remade from a book, you would understand what I mean; you already know the twists and the endings. However I would like to point out that not knowing about the future does not mean our choices do not affect the future. Just like how we may not know which company we may end up in, but yet the choices we make now would still have certain influence on our future trajectory, such as whether to study or to quit and start working now. Similarly, we may not know exactly everything about eternity, but we have a choice of which eternity we want. Hence to say we have not freedom over the choice of eternity would be erroneous. We need to choose heaven to go there, if not, for a man that chooses hell, even the Pearly Gates would seem like an entrance to Hades, for man does not like to do something against his own will.

The absurd takes away all meaning, denies any such purpose in life. Although his idea of absurd may affirm those that continue to live life until now, instead of choosing the choice of obvious suicide, but I believe by choosing to live by the absurd, we have already committed suicide of another kind - mental suicide.