Christmas Unwrapped - The History of Christmas

I have just watched a very informative documentary about the history of Christmas, and learnt a lot of interesting stuff about the origins of the many traditions in modern Christmas celebrations:

• the spherical ornaments on the Christmas tree is supposed to represent the Apple from the Tree of Knowledge from the Garden of Eden

• Christmas was not celebrated by Protestant Christian Church until the 1800's, and was in fact not even an official holiday in the USA until 1870. 

• The tradition of giving gifts and having a family feast was actually started by Charles Dickens' story "A Christmas Carol" first published in 1843.

• The Christmas tree was introduced into England when Queen Victoria married Prince Albert, who was a German, and the Germans celebrate their Christmases with the Christmas tree. Prior to that, Christmas celebrations in England and USA do not include a Christmas tree.

• Santa Claus was invented by the American bishop Clement Clark Moore in 1823 when he wrote a children's poem called "A Visit from Saint Nicholas", nowadays more famously known as "Twas the night before Christmas", where he first introduced the character of "St Nicholas". This is the poem that starts:
  
  'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house 
  Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
  The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, 
  In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;
  
  The success of the poem made "Saint Nicholas" - soon corrupted to Santa Claus - a Christmas character that is now even bigger than the baby Christ.
  
  Interestingly, if you read the whole poem ( http://poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/19286 ), you will see that in the 8 reindeers, mentioned, the name Rudolf does not come up:
  
  Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen! 
  On, Comet! on, Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!
  
  
  
  

• Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer was a character invented by Robert L May for the Montgomery Ward departmental store in 1939 to be Santa Claus main sidekick. The promotion of this departmental store character is so successful that nowadays, most people only remember the Rudolf reindeer and not the other 8.
  
  Interestingly, the character of Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer is not a public domain character and is subject to copyright, so if you publish a work involving Rudolph, theoretically you need to pay royalties to the company "Character Arts LLC" and "The Rudolph Company LP", which owns the rights to the character.
  

Christmas UnWrapped - The History of Christmas

#1 :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5T5ibb2E9I

#2 :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAZDGKSveD8

#3 :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ3BvK1R6hI

#4 :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvopeBfS89w

#5 :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqjQpu3cctk


Regards,
NJ

***********

P.S. The character of Saint Nicholas/Santa Claus is of course based from the Catholic Christianity's patron saint of children, "Nicholas of Myra" ( http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-nicholas-of-myra/ ).

However, I was quite surprised that the Catholic Church has created an entire catalogue of patron saints for each and every conceivable occupation and activity you can think of. I was absolutely astonished to see this list:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron00.htm

In fact, they even have a patron saint for the Internet (Isidore of Seville) and Roller Skating (Lydwina of Schiedam)!

In Catholic tradition, a person can only be recognised as a saint When at least 2 miracles are verified by the Vatican to have been performed by the person POSTHUMOUSLY (ie. the 2 miracles have to be performed after the person had died).

http://people.howstuffworks.com/question6191.htm

Hell Awaits You!

A humorous article from Yale's University Yale Daily News:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2009/12/04/evangelist-causes-stir/

According to Jesse Morell,  the list of people destined for hell are:

• Fornicators
• Homosexuals
• Liars
• Thieves
• Masturbators
• Obama Voters
  
• Buddhists
• Dirty Dancers
• Hindus
• Gangster Rappers
• Muslims
• Drunkards
• Feminists
• Immodest Women
• Democrats
• Liberals
• Evolutionists
• Atheists
• Potheads
• Sodomites
  

When one sees a placard like this, we can tell immediately that the person carrying it must be an Evangelical Christian of the most devout persuasion. Because only Evangelical Christians, in their zeal to spread their religious faith, will denigrate every one else who do not believe what they believe.

Indeed. And why is "Obama Voters" on his list? Is that a synonym for black people?

I am sure that any rational person seeing this sign will deem the person a fringe element, or a loony. But this is exactly what religious indoctrination does to people.

It would be interesting if other Christian groups who do not share the same views as Jesse Morell start criticising him and his ministry, and debate him on what exactly the bible is teaching. If Morell loses such a debate, would he then add "Christians" to his list?

--------------------------------------------------

The problem with Christianity is that besides extreme cases like Morell, the more moderate ones like Catholicism and Anglicanism are also indoctrinating people into hating people, specifically homosexuals, simply because of bible passages.

Science has already shown that it is biological reasons that determine if a person is born heterosexual, homosexual, male, female, or transgendered. Your genes also determine the colour of your skin, and perhaps the capabilities of your brain. The church does not denigrate people who are born of the wrong colour (why do Christians think that Jesus is a white Caucasian with blue eyes?), or because they were born retarded. And yet, the church continue to vilify homosexuals who are born the way they are, simply because the bible tells them to do so.

It is a fact that the bible encourages the slavery of people. It is a fact that the bible teaches that women are inferior to men, and that women should always be subservient to men. It is a fact that the bible teaches that the Earth is the centre of the universe and that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that humans were created 6000 years ago along with all the other animals. In modern societies which have benefited from the advances of science, and the societal liberation of the enlightenment, all these bible teachings have been examined, studied, questioned, and discarded. And yet, Christianity still clings on to a bigotry on homosexuality when that too should be discarded, along with the teachings on slavery, male superiority, and bad science.

So why does the church not do so? One possibility could be that as more and more parts of the bible are shown to be wrong and are discarded, Christians worry that soon, even their concept of god will be found to be wrong and flawed. An ideological line has been drawn to state that they have ceded much to science and knowledge, and that they will cede no further. Hence, the church will not cede the fact that the bible is wrong in saying that gays are sinners and bad people. Admitting the bible is wrong on this remaining few straws may lead to the slippery slope to admitting that the existence of god is probably wrong too. And hence the resistance.

Society should not let religions determine what is morality. We do not derive our morality from religions. Our morals are innate in us, as it is innate even in animals. Animals do not need to pray to imaginary deities, and yet respond with goodwill when treated with goodwill. Animals do not need religions to show love, or even exhibit altruism, to others of their own kind. Yet, here are religions proclaiming that only believers (and specifically, believers of their own god) are good people, and non-believers (and all other people) are evil people. This is not right, and atheists should stand steadfast against letting religions have their sway on societal matters.

Anglican Church "Mainstream" Values

The following is a Straits Times Forum letter about some comments made by Dr John Chew from the Singapore Anglican Church and that was reported in the Straits Times. In the original ST article, it was reported that John Chew urged Anglicans to unite against single motherhood, homosexuality, and atheism, saying that these were non "mainstream" values. I am very pleased that Harvey Neo responded with such an eloquently written letter:

Respect those outside traditional family

I REFER to yesterday's report, 'Unite against alternative values, Anglicans urged'. Do people actually marry in the belief they will be divorced some years down the road? Who chooses deliberately to be a single mother? Who wants to be a homosexual and be vilified as an enemy of 'mainstream values'?

For many divorcees, ending the marriage is the only way to continue to lead a fulfilling life. In many such cases, love and support from family members and friends are precisely what is needed to get them through difficult times.

A single mother often needs the help of her extended family and friends to raise her children. Love for a child born out of wedlock is no less than that for one born within the 'classical' family structure.

The gay man can be a filial son, a loving uncle, a steadfast friend, a doting godfather and an accommodating colleague.

If there is to be any consensus on 'mainstream values', it must be built on respect, empathy, compassion and tolerance. The family should reflect such values and not be used to draw divisive lines.

Harvey Neo

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_460985.html

Religious leaders have the most obnoxious views when it comes to pre-judging people who are not from their group. People like John Chew frequently denigrates others who do not accept his own superstitious beliefs. What is remarkable is that while some Christian sects reject homosexuality as a sin against god,there are other Christian sects that actually ordains gay priests, and it's supposed to be the same god that they all worship!!! This just goes to show that the Christian religion is entirely based on interpretation of the mythical stories written in the bible, and has got nothing to do with the bible being a sacred or an inerrant book dictating what humans should be.

It would be great if more Christians read the actual bible on their own, and not get their bible education from bigots like John Chew. Many people who left Christianity are actually ex-Christians who finally read the bible for themselves, and realised that the god that is actually described in the bible is actually a cruel and evil character, and is really not worthy of worship. I was really surprised that many of my more devout Christian friends do not know many of the horrible, cruel, and sexually audacious stories that is written in their own bible. It was very obvious to me that my devout Christian friends have been shielded by their church from knowing about the non-"mainstream" stories that is written down in their holy book.

Black-Eyed Virgins

Last week, the newspapers were filled with daily reports of suicide bombings by Islamic terrorists in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the more severe attacks were:

• 02 Nov - Pakistan - Twin suicide attacks resulting in 25 people injured in Lahore, 36 killed in Rawalpindi
• 28 Oct - Pakistan - 117 people killed, mostly women and children, at a market
• 25 Oct - Baghdad - 160 people killed, including 30 children in a day care centre

Of course, one is curious why the Muslim terrorists are also targeting innocent Muslims. Well, according to some Egyptian Muslim clerics in TV programs broadcast in Egypt earlier this year, it is good for a Muslim to die as a martyr, even if innocents are killed.

First, dying as a martyr, according to the Koran, guarantees that one will go to Paradise (despite how sinfully the person may have led his life before then). Besides, true Muslims do not fear death. They only fear being burnt in Hellfire for Eternity.

And so what if innocent boys are among the victims who are blown up? Innocent boys will be sent to Paradise immediately. So it is good for more innocent boys to be sent to Paradise to be with Allah. (As girls are not specifically mentioned, I guess girls who are blown up might not be going to Paradise.)

Also, the blood of the Muslims that are killed have the power to "clean and purify" the area of its sins. So the more blood that is spilled, the "cleaner" the place will be. One of the clerics even says he monitors the number of people sent to Paradise this way, and revels with happiness when he sees high numbers.

And there is this perennial fixation with the 72 virgins to satisfy the sexual hunger of the Muslim martyr. And we are not talking about any normal run-of-the-mill virgin, but "black-eyed virgins", man! These "black-eyed virgins" will embrace the suicide bomber and utter words like "I have never seen anyone as perfect and handsome as you" to him. Everything in this Islamic Paradise seems to be designed for men and men only. No wonder women are treated like chattel and 2nd class people in fundamentalist Islamic countries.

And yes, children must be educated to HATE anyone who is not a Muslim. "The Koran tells us to hate them, not to love them." "We must teach our children that death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty goal."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uK7k4KBta0

A most interesting video.

P.S.

Obviously, any rational person would immediately asked the imam, "Well, if becoming a martyr can give you such rewards as a place in Paradise and black-eyed virgins, why aren't you yourself taking up Allah's glorious offer?"

But then these imams would offer the lame excuse: "The glory is not for me, but for you, brother!"

And of course, only suckers will accept it.

Upgrading to Windows 7

I have installed Windows 7 Ultimate on my Dell Inspiron 6400 notebook on Saturday (24 October). I was previously using Windows XP Professional on the notebook.

If your Windows XP computer is working fine, there is truly no compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 7. In reality, most of us use applications, and these applications will run fine on Windows XP. There isn't really any Windows 7 specific application out there either, so there is really no pressing need to use Windows 7 in place of Windows XP.

And indeed, if you are using Windows XP, Microsoft does not provide any way to upgrade from it to Windows 7. The only way I could install Windows 7 is through a clean install, and to then migrate all my data files to the new operating system. You would think that since Microsoft has priced their operating system so expensively (Windows 7 Ultimate upgrade price = S$379, Retail price = S$549), an upgrade option would be offered. But NO!

So why did I bothered? Well, there were a few reasons:

• My Windows XP operating system was corrupted. There were several applications that I cannot click to execute, but have to right-click and execute using "Run As Administrator". And despite repairing the system files via re-installing Windows XP, the corruption could not be repaired. To permanently fix this required installing a fresh copy of Windows XP, and if I needed to do that, I might as well do a fresh install of Windows 7.
• I was running the 32-bit version of Windows XP. However, a 32-bit operating system can only address a maximum of 4 GB of RAM memory. Nowadays, RAM memory is extremely cheap. Some PC motherboards can easily accommodate up to 12 GB of RAM (6 pieces of 2GB RAM modules). In the near future, most PCs would come with 8 GB of RAM as standard, and such systems would need a 64-bit operating system.
  I thus installed the 64-bit version of Windows 7 to future-proof my installation.
  However, a lot of hardware drivers are not available in 64-bit versions. Thus, when one switches to a 64-bit operating system, a lot of legacy hardware may be rendered useless if the manufacture did not provide an appropriate 64-bit driver.
  Windows XP is actually available in a 64-bit version too. However, 64-bit Windows XP is plagued with the same lack of drivers problem, in fact, even more so than 64-bit Windows 7, because most hardware vendors are simply writing new 64-bit drivers for Windows 7 and not for Windows XP.
  And Microsoft has reduce the pain somewhat of missing 64-bit drivers because in Windows 7, they have provided a feature called "XP Mode", which is a virtual machine running Windows XP 32-bit. Programs that could not run in the 64-bit Windows 7 host system can always be run in the 32-bit XP virtual machine.
  In fact, I was pleasantly surprised that even my 10 year old USB TV tuner that had just XP 32-bit drivers, and thus could not be installed on the 64-bit Windows 7 host, could actually be installed in the XP virtual machine and run fine within the virtual machine environment. That was quite remarkable.
• I have been using Windows XP since 2001, and I was getting tired of the Windows XP interface.
  Windows Vista was disappointing because of software compatibility issues, and high resource requirements (Vista was just plain slow), which was why I reverted back to XP after a few weeks with Vista. (I actually installed Vista back in 2007 in "dual boot" mode. I found that there were so many software compatibility issues I always had to use the XP operating system. After a while, I wiped out the Vista "dual boot" partition to free up more disk space for Windows XP.) Thus, I didn't really get to use the Windows Vista user interface much.
  The Windows 7 user interface, being similar to Vista, is not really that fantastic to justify its exorbitant price (it would have been excellent if Windows 7 wasn't so expensive). However, at least Windows 7 is not as slow as Vista, and the compatibility issue has been deftly handled with "XP Mode" in Windows 7.

So, using the Windows 7 interface was refreshing. It sort of made computing fun again.

In fact, there are some nice things about the Windows 7 interface:

• The new Taskbar, which allows you to preview and choose which window to bring to the top (if you have many programs running), is well done. This feature is called Aero Peek.
• The system tray is more organised.
• There are some window actions that are pretty useful (eg. smart-resize when pulling the title bar from full screen, flipping a window to the left or right of the screen)
• There are of course some good Vista features (directory crumbs, integrated search box in the Start menu) that are now available instead of having to use 3rd party tools to accomplish them.

My opinion is that if you are buying a new PC or a new notebook, you should get it with Windows 7. There is no point buying a new PC and tag it with the ancient Windows XP interface.

However, don't bother spending S$379 (upgrade) or $549 (retail) for Windows 7 to upgrade your existing copy of Windows XP. That money is simply too expensive for an operating system. Microsoft can charge this kind of money because they are a monopoly. There is really no point making Microsoft richer than they already are.

nciku Chinese English Dictionary

I accidentally stumbled upon a new Online Chinese English Dictionary application today. This is by far the best online Chinese English dictionary for people like myself, where we learnt Chinese as a 2nd language.

www.nciku.com

So what is so special about this dictionary as compared to the others? These are 2 reasons:

*****

1. In other dictionaries, you have to "switch modes" if you want to:

• Translate English to Chinese
• Translate Chinese to English
• Pinyin input
• Chinese character input

In the nciku application, you can enter anything in the textbox: Chinese characters, Pinyin characters, or the English word if you want to translate English to Chinese instead. This is extremely valuable because many a time, I know the English word but don't know the Chinese equivalent. For example, I know the English term "instant messaging", but don't know what its equivalent is called in Chinese (it is "即时通讯").

The all-encompassing search box in nciku behaves like Google. You just type the word in any format (Chinese characters, pinyin, or the English term) into the nciku textbox, and the nciku application will "magically" return the dictionary definition for you.

And when the dictionary definitions are returned, you can hover the mouse pointer over each definition in the results list to see the pinyin characters of the entire definition/explanatory text. This is tremendously helpful for reading and learning how to pronounce new words that I encounter in the definition.

*****

2. However, the most unique feature in the nciku dictionary is the search by "Handwrite Characters" button to the right of the search box.

Many a time, when I come across a Chinese character in a signboard, a newspaper, or in a book, I am unable to look up the character using other online dictionaries because I don't know how to pinyinise the unknown Chinese character. This is an innate problem with the Chinese language. The Chinese character's pictogram doesn't tell you how to pronounce the word, and as such, you cannot use an online dictionary to lookup the word if the online dictionary requires you to input Chinese characters via pinyin (a catch-22 situation).

The powerful search by "Handwrite Characters" allow me to draw the Chinese character inside a special "paint" box. As I flesh out each stroke in the "paint" box, nciku automatically "guesses" 12 Chinese characters that could fit what you have "drawn" so far, and displays the possible words in a 4x3 grid. Once you see the word you are looking up in the 4x3 grid, you can just click the appropriate cell to immediately retrieve its definition.

This is a damn powerful feature! None of the other Chinese English online dictionaries I have previously been using provide this capability!

*****

And amazingly, nciku is free!!!

nciku is the product of a South Korean company called NHN, which is the biggest search engine company in South Korea (i.e. the Korean equivalent of Google). If you are interested to know more about them, there is a Forbes magazine article about the NHN company and the nciku application here:

http://www.forbes.com/global/2008/1027/062a.html

LEFT BRAIN-RIGHT BRAIN Optical Illusion

Recently, Channel News Asia ran an in-house advertisement showing a woman in silhouette spinning. The advertisement voice-over says that if you see the woman spinning clockwise, then you are a RIGHT-BRAIN person. However, if you see the woman spinning counter-clockwise, then you are a LEFT-BRAIN person.

Every time I saw the advertisement, I could only see the woman spinning clockwise (which meant I was a RIGHT-BRAIN person). I found it hard to accept that some people will see the woman spinning counter-clockwise. I tried to focus my mind to "see" the woman spin in the counter-clockwise direction, but as the CNA advertisement ran for only a short 30 seconds each time it was played on the TV, there was never enough time for me to accomplish this.

Today, I found the spinning woman optical illusion on this web site:

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22492511-5005375,00.html

Now that I have more time to look at the optical illusion, I found that indeed, if I focus on the image in a special way, I can see the woman spinning in the other direction.

By default, I always see the woman spinning in the clockwise direction. To trick my brain to see her spin in the counter-clockwise direction, I have to turn my head 90 degrees to the right of the picture, and then do a side-glance on the image (which is now on my left), using periphery vision from my right eye to see the picture. When I glimpse at the picture through this sideways glance, I can make my mind see the woman spinning counter-clockwise. Once my brain has locked on to the counter-clockwise spinning image, I can then turn my head to gaze directly at the picture while holding on to the counter-clockwise spinning image.

Interestingly, if I lose my concentration for a while, I will immediately see the woman spinning in the clockwise direction. The transition is quite startling. As I just cannot force my mind to see her spinning in the counter-clockwise direction if I am staring at the picture directly, I have to repeat the above exercise to see her spin in the opposite counter-clockwise direction again. I did this a few times to experience the "transition", and I am really rapt at the strange effect on my brain whenever the "transition" occurs.

I am sure some people have the ability to "switch" between the clockwise and counter-clockwise view while gazing directly at the picture. But I am not one of them.

According to the news article, a RIGHT-BRAIN person like me "uses feeling", is "big-picture oriented" among other traits, whereas a LEFT-BRAIN person would "use logic" and is "details oriented" etc. This is pseudo science, and is in the same group as other rubbish like horoscopes, palm reading, biorhythms to determine a person's character. There is absolutely no scientific foundation.

The Vatican

A Penn and Teller's Bullshit! episode about the Vatican, criticising the Pope for the Catholic Church's stance on issues such as condom use, protection of paedophile priests, homosexuality is now a target by the fundamentalist Christians in the US, who want to shut down the TV program.

I am against the stance of the Catholic Church's because the Catholic Church positions on these issues are not based on rational or ethical thinking, but on their desire to protect their personal interests, and on unreasoned acceptance of religious dogma.

1. Condom use

The Catholic Church condemns the use of condoms, and actively prevents countries in Africa which are hard hit by HIV/AIDS to allow people to get access to condoms. This means that a HIV infected husband cannot wear a condom to prevent infecting his wife. Also, this also prevents the world from introducing yet another unwanted child.

The reason the Catholic Church is against the use of condoms is because they BELIEVE that every sexual act should be done for procreation. That is fine if you are a believer. But they should not use their immense wealth to prevent others who are non-believers from getting access to condoms.

The Catholic Church believes that condoms prevent the transmission of life. In reality, for AIDS infected Africans, condoms actually prevents the transmission of death (from the infected husband to the wife). And the Catholic Church claims that it is Pro-Life!

2. Paedophile Priests

Recent news articles in the past few years has revealed that the Catholic Church has a secret history of child molestations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases). However, the Catholic Church has been found to cover up almost all of these cases - basically protecting the priests instead of the children victims. In fact, the Catholic Church created a secret document back in 1962 that more or less said that in the reported cases, both the priest and his victim must keep this secret. If not, both parties will be subjected to ex-communication!

According to the Wikipedia article, almost 11000 cases of child sex abuse was reported against the Catholic priests. And in 81% of the cases, the victims were boys.

This statistic confirms a widely held truism that the Catholic Church has a large number of latent homosexuals.

3. Homosexuality

The Catholic Church, like most other religious organisations, are against homosexuality simply because of religious dogma. They keep claiming that homosexuality is against nature simply because it is condemned in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the Old Testament. However, modern science has shown that homosexuality is not only natural, but scientists have documented homosexual behaviour in more than 1500 species of animals. And humans are animals too.

The Catholic Church is even intruding into politics in many countries to try to prevent the overturning of laws that homosexuals are criminals simply by virtue of their sexuality. Ironically, outsiders have estimated that about 20% to as high as 50% of the Vatican parishioners can be closeted homosexuals. And yet, the church goes about actively promoting the view that homosexuals are criminals, and want to have homosexuals treated as second class citizens.

Here is a link to the Penn and Teller program. It is definitely worth a look:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=af6_1251568394

Caning Punishment

Recently, Malaysia sentenced a Muslim woman to 6 lashes of the cane for the offence of drinking alcohol (after already giving her a fine of 5000 ringgit - which is approximately S$2050). Today, I learnt that good sense had prevailed, and the higher authorities had rescinded the caning punishment.

New York Times article about woman being freed from her caning sentence:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/08/23/world/international-uk-malaysia-caning.html

The Independent article about the original caning charge:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/if-youre-going-to-cane-me-then-do-it-in-public-1775806.html

Caning Kartika just for drinking beer puts the Progressive Islam that former Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi was championing in a very bad light. She has already been fined RM5000. Subjecting her also to capital punishment is truly excessive.

And Kartika is actually a mother of 2 children. It just perpetuates the bad image that Islam already has, that it is misogynistic, barbaric, and backwards. And it is not as if she was being caned for an offence like manslaughter, drug peddling, inflicting violence on others, harming children etc. Her offence is that she was caught drinking beer! She was to have been flogged for an offence that did not harm any other person other than herself.

It just appalls me that the Malaysian Shariah courts wanted to cane this mother of 2 just to make her a "showcase" for Islam. The initial judgement to cane her simply shows that religious fundamentalism is making Malaysia slip back into the Middle Ages, instead of helping Malaysia progress with the rest of the world into the 21st century.

*****************************************

While trying to find what other offences by women are punishable by caning in Malaysia's Shariah Court, I accidentally stumbled upon a video showing in absolutely horrific detail how a Judicial Caning in Malaysia is like.

Judicial Canings are meted out by the Federal Court, and can be served on both Muslim and non-Muslim males for over 40 kinds of offences (e.g. rape, illegal immigrants, drugs, violence etc).

Singapore also practise the same kind of Judicial Caning, except that the sentences are harsher in Singapore. The minimum stroke in Malaysia is 1 stroke. In Singapore, it is 3 strokes. In Singapore, caning can also be meted out for traffic offences as well as homosexuality.

In the following video, you can see a prisoner being given 20 strokes of the cane by the Malaysian police.

Warning: The following video is very brutal, and is not for the faint hearted. You have been warned!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ab_1172940415

If you are interested, you can read about the kind of offences that result in Judicial Canings from the following site:

http://www.corpun.com/singfeat.htm

It is interesting to see that in the year 2007, Singapore meted out 6404 caning sentences. That is 120 canings per week!

*****************************************

Personally, I am not against the use of caning as a deterrent to prevent crimes. (Although I did find the caning video extremely unsettling. It is not without reason that many Westerners find the caning sentences "barbaric".) However, I feel that the punishment must fit the crime. "Drinking alcohol" is a non-violent act, and harms no one (other than one self - and for that, you have to drink a lot). Inflicting caning for this "offence", especially to a mother of 2, just seems a bit excessive in this modern age. It is as bad as other Shariah punishments like the chopping of limbs for crimes like stealing. The practice of chopping of limbs as a punishment is downright barbaric.

Some one once said that since this is the law of Malaysia, then you must simply obey it and not question it.

Although this sounds logical, the truth is that laws are man made, and many laws are ill-conceived, vague, oppressive, and/or immoral. Consider the race laws passed in Germany after Hitler assumed power, in which people of "un-pure bloodlines" like Jews were sentenced to death. These were "the laws of the land". Yet who would defend such racialist laws today?

We are not sheep. We are capable of passing moral judgements. The whole progress of human liberty depends on courageous people who question and challenge immoral "laws". The chief impediment to human progress is the notion that one must not question anything.

Unfortunately, Islam is a religion whose holy book dictates that none of its contents can be questioned. Any Muslim who challenges the doctrines of Islam is branded an "infidel", in which the official punishment is death. It is precisely that Islam does not allow itself to be questioned that fundamentalist Islam has been permitted to thrive and grow. Moderate Muslims just dare not question the actions of Muslim terrorists such as suicide bombers and murderers who kill non-Muslim civilians, or the practices of other Muslim countries which deny women the same rights as men, because speaking up against their Muslim brethren is deemed "un-Islamic". However, by not standing up for reason and rationality, moderate Muslims allow the worst excesses of their religion to become mainstream and acceptable practices. And this simply leads to their religion becoming more and more out-of-step with modern progressive societies.

Bill Bryson's - A Short History of Nearly Everything

I have just finished reading Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything".

This book is EXCELLENT! Bill Bryson's book is very informative, very easy to read, and surprisingly, very funny! I chortled at many of his narratives about eccentric scientists. The human stories in the book made the story of science lively and engaging, something which a lesser writer would have killed or rendered dry as dust (think school science text books).

Highly recommended!

What if all atheists were to leave America?

One of the fervent exhortations by American fundamentalist Christians is to ask atheists to leave America. An example is the following letter to the editor:

Well, a YouTube video answers this question:

Source: The Reason Project

Proselytisation

While chit chatting with a friend last week, he told me that his 2 children (the son in Secondary 1, the daughter in Primary 5) have recently expressed enthusiasm for picking up Christianity as their religion. As my friend is a Buddhist, he is a bit concerned by this. He believes that his children have been influenced by their friends in school. It is not hard to imagine this happening in Singapore, as our schools are teaching in English, and Christianity is the dominant faith among English/Western societies. Children like to read English story books, and there are many Christian story books out there in the market promoting the religion. And children can be easily persuaded.

Personally, I do not have any problem with people taking up any religion of their choosing. If you like the tenets of a particular religion, and decide to commit to it, that's fine with me. However, I do draw a line if you then go about hounding other people into converting to your religion or into joining your religious group. I hate aggressive in-your-face proselytising, which is something that only the Christians practise.

For instance, in Buddhism, the Buddhist practitioners will simply give you the precepts and teachings of Buddhism, and let you read and study about the religion on your own time. You must choose to accept Buddhist teachings yourself (as Buddhism is all about personal effort. There is no deity who will grant you your wishes or forgive you for your sins). You do not see Buddhists accosting people on the road and haranguing them to convert them to Buddhism.

But this is completely different with Christianity. It is one of the tenets of Evangelical Christianity that to be a good Christian, you must spread the religion to non-Christians and convert them to the Christian faith. That is why the "proselytisation brigade" is almost exclusively comprised of Evangelical Christians. And by employing good marketing techniques, they are also very successful.

If you study the doctrines of Christianity, you will probably have no quibbles with the ethical aspects of the religion to do good and to do no evil. Philosophically speaking, the ethics and moral aspects of all religions, Christianity included, are simply elaborations of the golden rule:

Do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you.

If everyone follows the golden rule, we will all be living in a society filled with peace and harmony, despite our differences in race, language, or religion.

It is the superstitious aspects of Christianity that I have trouble with. And boy, are there lots of myths and superstitious beliefs in Christianity. Unfortunately, fundamentalist Christians are very aggressive in promoting their myths and superstitions as SCIENTIFIC and HISTORICAL FACTS. In fact, any criticism of the Christian Bible is treated by believers as a denigration and attack on their personal well being. The problem is that these believers do not feel the same way when they denigrate and attack the religion/belief systems of the non-Christians during their conversion exercises! What hypocrisy!

Examples of Christian mythology treated as SCIENTIFIC/HISTORICAL FACTS:

- That some deity created ADAM and EVE to lord it over the animals (reality: humans are animals too. Humans are really evolved apes).

- The concept of ORIGINAL SIN by humans eating from the Tree of Knowledge (reality: everything in Genesis is a fable and not history)

- The concept of JESUS being born of a virgin (reality: there is no such thing as a virgin birth in humans. Although parthenogenesis is technically possible, the offspring would be a female, and will never be a male. This is because a woman only possesses the X-chromosome. A man is required to supply the Y-chromosome for the X-Y chromosome pair to make baby boys. Thus, female virgins - should they exist - would only be able to give birth to daughters and never to sons. The reality is that Mary was never a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus).

- The concept that a loving deity must have someone DIE for the SINS of humans so that humans can be SAVED. What sins can a baby have? Besides, human parents usually exhibit unconditional love for their children - and will forgive their children transgressions when their children do wrong. Why can't this deity be like human parents and just forgive without exacting the penalty of DEATH by crucifixion for Jesus, or subject non-believers to everlasting burning in Hell?

- The concept that only believers will be saved, and non-believers will be doomed to eternal and everlasting punishment by burning in Hell forever and ever. (Reality: there are about 2 billion Christians, and more than 4 billion non-Christians, in the world. If the Christian theology is correct, then the majority of humans have been doomed by this deity to burn in Hell forever because they did not accept Jesus Christ as their saviour. What kind of deity is this that will submit the majority of humans to eternal punishment, and only allow a select group to be saved?)

- The concept that the god of the bible is an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god. (Reality: if you read the bible, the god described in it is anything but omnipotent, omniscient, or benevolent!)

Indeed, the philosopher Epicurus said it best:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is not benevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

The existence of suffering (also referred as the problem of evil) is the best evidence on why there is no such thing as gods - at least not the type which answer our prayers or interfere with our lives to fulfil some divine plan.

-----------------------------------------------------

Science has helped us to learn more about ourselves and the universe, and has helped demote many such religious beliefs into the realms of superstitions and myths. However, when children are not taught the facts, or are not nurtured from young to do critical thinking, they can fall prey to treating such myths as facts.

Richard Dawkins wrote a very good essay in his book The Devil's Chaplain titled Good and Bad Reasons For Believing. If your children are thinking of converting to any religion, it might be helpful to ask them to read Richard Dawkins essay, which can be found here:

http://www.siliconglen.com/news/2009/01/richard-dawkins-letter-to-his-ten-year.html

Children should also be told that it is perfectly fine to not believe in the concept of god or gods. In fact, most rational people, after examining all the available evidence, always come to the conclusion that there is probably no such thing as gods, and do not need to believe in such things. Indeed, humans are already good without god. There is no need to postulate the hypothesis that gods exist to explain the goodness in people.

The list of atheists include some very famous and renowned people. I am proud to associate with and consider myself part of this group:

Let's celebrate reason!

Codex Sinaiticus

There was an article in Tuesday's (07 Jul 2009) Straits Times about the official launch of a web site featuring the world's oldest copy of the Christian Bible:

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Tech%2Band%2BScience/Story/STIStory_400035.html

The web site itself is at:

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/

The web site allows users to browse through digitised images of every page of this bible, which is completely handwritten in Greek, as well as displaying its English translation simultaneously. The was very interesting for me because of something I learnt while reading about the history of the bible, which I could now view with my own eyes.

*****

Although I am not a Christian, I read many of the bible's stories when I was young, and one of the most memorable stories about Jesus is the tale about how the Pharisees, the sworn enemies of Jesus, brought a woman "caught in the very act of adultery" before Jesus. The Pharisees told Jesus that according to the Law of Moses, an adulterer should be stoned to death, but they want to know what Jesus had to say about the matter. Should they stone her or show her mercy? Of course, the Pharisees were laying a trap for Jesus. If Jesus says to let the woman go, he will be accused of violating God's Law. But if he tells them to stone her, he will be accused of dismissing his own teachings of love, mercy, and forgiveness.

Jesus reply was: "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone."

Of course, none of the Pharisees were free of sin. So one by one, they left, finally leaving just Jesus and the woman. Jesus, looking up and noticing that all the men were gone, asked the woman: "Woman, where are your accusers? Is there no one who condemns you?" The woman replied, "No one, my Lord." To which Jesus responds, "And neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

(New Testament: The Gospel According to John - Chapter 8 - Verse 1 to 11)

This was a captivating story, which cleverly illustrates the compassion and the brilliance of Jesus. I loved this story when I first read it as a child, as it appealed to me in how Jesus ingeniously outsmarted his enemies.

But a few years ago, I learnt that this beautiful story was actually a forgery.

****

Before the printing press was invented by Gutenberg in the 15th century, any book that you want to make a copy of has to be copied "by hand". Thus, when someone wants to make a copy of the bible, he can only do so by copying it manually. In fact, all copies of the bibles produced before the 15th century were handwritten ones painstakingly written out in longhand by scribes.

And interestingly, among all the earliest copies of the Gospel of John, there is not a single mention about the story of Jesus and the adulteress. In fact, this endearing story of Jesus and the adulteress is not mentioned at all in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, either. Indeed, the story does not appear in any other place in the New Testament at all.

According to historians, the story of Jesus and the adulteress did not even appear in any manuscript of John before the 9th century. And then suddenly, from the 9th century onwards, copies of the bible started to appear with this story INSERTED into chapter 8 of the Gospel of John. And it was one of this "tainted" bibles that was translated into English in the 16th century as the "King James Version". And the fabricated story has been carried forward into all subsequent editions of the bible from then onwards.

****

Now that the Codex Sinaiticus is available online, I immediately went to the site to look at the section bearing John 7:53 to 8:11. And indeed, as has been described by historians, the entire passage does not appear in the Codex Sinaiticus.

Of course, the Jesus and the adulteress story is not the only fabrication that has been inserted by forgers into the New Testament. In the earliest copies of the Gospel According to Mark, the book ends very abruptly in chapter 16 verse 8. The Mark gospel actually ends when the 3 women (Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome *) are told to inform the disciples that Jesus will be meeting the disciples in Galilee. However, the women flee the tomb and said nothing to anyone, "for they were afraid."

And as with the story of Jesus and the adulteress, scribes copying the Mark gospel felt that this ending was too abrupt for a gospel. So, somewhere down the line, one scribe decided to add 12 verses to chapter 16 (verse 9 to verse 20) so that the gospel concludes with a "happy ending". And the "happy ending" Mark gospel is the one that got translated into English in the "King James Version", and which is propagated to all subsequent editions.

As before, the true ending of Mark (Mark 16:8) can now be seen from the Codex Sinaiticus web site.

* Note: The 3 women in the Mark Gospel directly contradicts the Matthew Gospel, which states that only 2 women, Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary", went to Jesus' tomb (Matthew 28:1).

"How We Decide" by Jonah Lehrer

The most interesting idea that I took away from the book "How We Decide" by Jonah Lehrer is that when patients suffered head injuries that affected their brains, causing them to lose their emotional faculties but retaining their reasoning ones, these patients end up being unable to make any decision, no matter how trivial the subject.

Without emotional faculties, the patients ended up rationalising everything they are doing. They could not make up their minds on what clothes to wear, what food to buy etc, as their brains constantly seek to evaluate all conceivable choices that could be made, no matter how irrelevant many of the choices would have been. Apparently, humans use their emotional faculties to discard choices. After we have discarded all other alternatives leaving our sole choice, our brains will then use these same emotional faculties to "rationalise" the choice we kept, regardless of how good or bad the choice actually was. Without emotions, the human brain cannot discard even the most remotest of choices, so the person becomes embroiled in a state of "analysis-paralysis".

This was very fascinating because I was not aware of the great impact our emotions had on our rationality. Most of us probably think that the less emotional person will make the more rational decision. Apparently, this is not really the case. In fact, people with strong emotions tend to be more rational in their decision making. It is just that these more rational people tend to also have better control of their emotions. When faced with a crisis, they can usually see both sides of a subjective situation, and maintain great discipline to not yield to the first instinctive emotional response.

Sam Harris - Reconciling science and Christianity

In an exchange between Sam Harris and Philip Ball (both are atheists by the way) about whether scientists should patronise religionists, and acknowledge religion as a worldview that is as robustly supported as that of the scientific one, Harris made a very humorous description of Christianity that I just have to repeat here:

For instance, a reconciliation between science and Christianity (the explicit goal of The BioLogos Foundation) would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions.

In its most generic and well-subscribed form, Christianity amounts to the following claims:

Jesus Christ, a carpenter by trade, was born of a virgin, ritually murdered as a scapegoat for the collective sins of his species, and then resurrected from death after an interval of three days. He promptly ascended, bodily, to “heaven”—where, for two millennia, he has eavesdropped upon (and, on occasion, even answered) the simultaneous prayers of billions of beleaguered human beings. Not content to maintain this numinous arrangement indefinitely, this invisible carpenter will one day return to earth to judge humanity for its sexual indiscretions and sceptical doubts, at which time he will grant immortality to anyone who has had the good fortune to be convinced, on Mother’s knee, that this baffling litany of miracles is the most important series of truth-claims ever revealed about the cosmos. Every other member of our species, past and present, from Cleopatra to Einstein, no matter what his or her terrestrial accomplishments, will (probably) be consigned to a fiery hell for all eternity.

http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/

Great quote, Sam!

Introduction to Christianity

A very funny Dave Allen sketch about his introduction to the church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpVjBBDMOoA

It is absurd that Christians always proclaim themselves to be morally superior to atheists just because atheists do not subscribe to the superstitious beliefs of Christianity. Christians go around proselytising to all and sundry, claiming that the godless and the non-Christians among us need help to be saved from eternal damnation. To respond to these Christian soldiers, nothing beats this quip from Dan Barker, an evangelical preacher who ultimately became an atheist:

You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?

- Dan Barker (from Losing Faith in Faith)

Blogging The Bible

It took me several days to finish David Plotz's very funny blog, "The Complete Blogging The Bible":

http://www.slate.com/id/2150150

Plotz's posts summarises the stories from the Jewish Bible (i.e. the Old Testament of the Christian Bible) for modern readers. By reading his posts, you get a pretty good précis of many of the bible's stories without having to trudge through them yourselves. The bible stories are written in an archaic and tedious style that most modern readers do not have the patience with. That is the reason why many so-called Christians do not actually read the bible themselves, but are contend with what their preachers tell them every Sunday during church service - if they attend church service. But this is a problem. The preachers only tell the "good" parts of the bible to their congregation, and never the "bad' parts. It is when people start reading the bible stories for themselves that they realised that they've been hoodwinked. The merciful and benevolent god that answers all their prayers is actually nowhere to be found in many parts of the bible. Instead, one often finds an angry, jealous, vindictive god that is so cruel that you might as well believe and pray to satan, if they both exist.

I was previously uninterested in the goings-on of the religious. My philosophy of life is that if you want to believe and pray to your god, it is fine with me as long as you don't force me to believe and pray to your god too. However, 9/11 change all that. Suddenly, I saw that religion KILLS. And it is not with Islam. A more serious reading of history, such as the Christian Crusades, the Burning of Witches, the persecution of Galileo shows that Christianity was just as bad as Islam, except that the barbarism of Christianity has been tempered with the benevolence of the Enlightenment. It takes knowledge and reason in science to clear the superstition and ignorance of religion.

But the bible is a very interesting book of history and literature. It is important for both religious and non-religious folks to read it, especially in light of modern day fundamentalist Christians who seek to overturn the fruits that the Enlightenment has brought to society, and who want to bring society back to a barbaric world where rules of morality are determined in books written by misogynistic and ignorant shepherd folks from 2500 years ago. It is important that Christians read the bible in its entirety, so that they know exactly why non-Christians do not like the morals written in that holy book. It is important that non-Christians read the bible, so that they will know why it is so important that we cannot allow our society to be ruled by religious fanatics who seem to believe in fairy tales like talking snakes and virgin births.

David Plotz's series reminded me of Isaac Asimov's "Guide to the Bible" which I have also read recently. However, Asimov's tome covered both the Old and New Testaments, whereas Plotz's blog posts only covers the Old Testament (the Jewish bible). Also, Asimov covers the bible from a historical context, whereas Plotz's posts are like Cliff Notes summaries. Most people would prefer Plotz's treatment, and to his new book, the "Good Book", which is a fun and light treatment on the same subject which he compiled from the material he garnered while doing "The Complete Blogging The Bible" posts.

In the promotion of his new book, Plotz made the following blog entry, "What I learned from reading the entire bible", which is also an interesting read:

http://www.slate.com/id/2212616/pagenum/all

If you find this post interesting, you should at least glance through "The Complete Blogging The Bible". Many of the entries are informative, and very very funny.

Waraku Restaurant - Update

Desmond has forwarded the Waraku bill. I have snapped it below for posterity (notice the spelling error of the word "Dining" on the bill) :-)

So what we had were:

Annie : Dream Ramen

Desmond : Gindara Yaki (broiled black cod fish), Rice, and Mango Short Cake

Freddy : Tempura Yamakake (tempura with grated potato)

Kar Yen : Kaisen Nabe (seafood and vegetables in claypot) and Green Tea Tiramisu Short Cake

Myself : Mix Fry Wazen

The Hot Ocha is the Japanese Green Tea which we all had.

As I had mentioned in my earlier post, you can view these food items from the Waraku menu online:

http://www.waraku.com.sg/docs/menu/casual/lnk/index.html

*******************************************************

Corrections :

Desmond has indicated that his IT Security course is held at Nanyang Polytechnic, and not at Nanyang University.

Waraku Restaurant (7 May 2009)

Annie sent an email a few weeks back (23 April) about arranging a dinner meet up. Although we have kept in touch via email, the last time I saw Annie in person was on 6 February 2000 (second day of Chinese New Year), when she invited a few friends including myself to her home at Stratford Court, and that is like almost 9 years ago!

Annie arranged the dinner gathering at the Waraku Japanese Restaurant at Marina Square on 7 May (7 pm). Besides myself, Desmond, Freddy, and Kar Yen also attended. Kee Hai could not make it because he had to look after his children, while Koon Chee is still in Hong Kong.

The word Waraku is transliterated into Japanese characters that look like the Chinese words for 和乐 (or Harmony):

I have not stepped into a Japanese restaurant for many years (although I did try the Japanese Egg Omelette at a Japanese foodcourt called the Ishi Mura in the new Northpoint annex a few weeks back - but that's another story). I normally patronise Chinese and Western restaurants. So I was also looking forward to trying the food in the Waraku. It did not disappoint.

I arrived at the restaurant at exactly 7 pm on Thursday evening. I met Desmond just outside the restaurant, who had himself also just arrived (we were the earliest).

I was quite impressed with the posh surroundings as we were led to our "private" room:

I was quite enamoured when we were shown to our "private" room. This is actually the first time I have ever been inside such a room - characterised by the low table with a distinctive gap under it for putting our legs. When I dined in other Japanese restaurants previously (back in the Conner and IDTECH years), the private rooms we had were like any normal dining room with waist level chairs and tables). The unique furniture arrangement piqued me - having only seen such things in movies and television:

About 1 minute after Desmond and I settled down, Annie and Freddy arrived. Kar Yen joined us about 20 minutes later, and our party was complete.

Annie had asked for a "private" room so that we will we have a quiet surrounding to chit chat. What a joke! There was a doorway sized gap in the partition wall that leads to a passage leading to several other "private" rooms (you can see the gap in the above photo). However, one of these "private" rooms were occupied by a motley group of young ladies celebrating the birthday of one of their lot. These gregarious ladies were squealing with laughter at decibel high ranges, and were drowning out whatever quietness and tranquillity that was promised by a "private" room. They were so loud and deafening at one point that I got up, went to their room, and asked them to please tone down their excitement level. Although they did quieted down a bit, the noise level gradually returned to the highs as the night wore on. You just can't keep a good woman's voice down :-)

*******************************************************

I can't recall exactly the names (my Japanese is pretty bad) of the food we ordered. However, Desmond ordered some kind of steamed fish, and I think Annie, Freddy, and Kar Yen ordered noodles (soba?). As for me, I ordered some kind of Tempura "Wazen". "Wazen" means "Set Meal" in Japanese. Here, you can browse through the Waraku Restaurant's menu from this URL:

http://www.waraku.com.sg/docs/menu/casual/lnk/index.html

The "Wazen" menu is shown on page 12/13 in the above link. However, it does not feature the item I ordered, which comprised of:

- fried prawn fritters (tempura ebi)

- fried calamari (squid - tempura calamari)

- baked potato

- assorted vegetables (carrots and Brussels sprouts - my favourite)

- soba soup ramen (noodle)

- egg custard with pork slices (chawanmushi)

- rice

My Tempura Wazen meal cost $18.80, plus the hot green tea at $1.00, set me back $19.80, which I felt was pretty reasonable. My Wazen meal was absolutely delicious (tempura is always a favourite), and was pretty filling. I give my Tempura Wazen a rating of A+.

*******************************************************

During dinner, conversation revolved around the old standard questions: Where is Goh Kim Siew now? What have we been doing? How is the economy? Etc etc.

Where is Goh Kim Siew now?

Actually, no one knew. It was said that Kim Siew and his wife had divorced a few years back, but other than that, no one really knows where he is at the moment.

However, during dinner, Annie mentioned that she had a Facebook page, while Kar Yen mentioned that Siok Kee also had a very nice one. I commented that I don't personally like Facebook, because I find its default settings to be too invasive of privacy. Things that you might not want to publish can be inadvertently open to the public if you did not set up your Facebook settings appropriately.

Anyway, as I was writing this, I thought that perhaps Kim Siew may have a Facebook page. I did a quick Google search, and found the following link:

http://kimsiew.com

Looks like Kim Siew is doing very well.

What are we doing now?

I am still with a software company (CRISTAL Solutions Pte Ltd) working on logistics software (Warehouse Management Systems). I have been doing the WMS software since 2001.

Annie is currently between jobs. She quit her job with an Air Show company some months ago to look after her dad when he fell seriously ill. Her dad had passed away recently.

Desmond is still with Seagate. He is now working at the "Endpoint Security" department, and is also taking a part-time course on IT Security at Nanyang University.

Freddy is still with UBS. Because of the worldwide financial crisis, banking sector jobs are also perilous in these times. No one really knows what is going to happen next.

Kar Yen is currently working at Yongnam Holdings Limited. She said that she has to make a long commute every day from her home to Tuas.

Physical Appearances

Everyone commented on how much weight Kar Yen has put on. The rest of us didn't seem to have changed much, although I must admit that I now weigh 82 KG (I used to weigh only 75 KG).

Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous

I do not follow fashion news, so I was aghast when I learnt that the handbags that Annie carried (a gift) and that Kar Yen bought (at staff price discount) were so expensive. Annie's bag (COACH) retails at $600+, while Kar Yen's bag (GUCCI) retails at $900+. I commented that the satchel that I carried cost only $25.

You can have a glimpse of the bags from these thumbnails:

Annie's Bag

Kar Yen's Bag (partially clipped)

My bag is propped at the corner behind Desmond

I made the usual joke that many years ago when Koon Chee told me that he bought a pair of branded shoes (Dr Martens?) for $250, I told him that the cost of my shirt, pants, and shoes total to less than $100, which is less than the cost of 1 of his shoe ($125)! Anyway, as I said before, and as my friends know me, I am not really into branded clothes. I usually spend my money on computer stuff and books. I recently spent over $500 on books about science and philosophy. I have also spent equally much on computer gadgets and accessories.

*******************************************************

We decided to call it a night at 10 pm, because many of us have to work the next day (Friday). Originally, Annie wanted to arrange the meet up on either a Friday or Saturday, but Desmond had classes on Friday evenings, and Kee Hai is not free on Saturdays. This was why the meet up was scheduled on a Thursday. It is ironic that the person whom Annie accommodated for this could not make it.

This reminded me of the time back in 1995 when Annie, Desmond, Koon Chee and myself were supposed to go to Hong Kong on a holiday trip. Koon Chee had promised to show us the sights if we went together. We queried Koon Chee whether he really could make it, and he said something to the effect that "even if he was sick, he will drag himself out of bed to join us on our Hong Kong trip". And as it turned out, Koon Chee could not join us on that HK trip :-)

*******************************************************

There was some hoo-hah over the bill because according to our server, customers who paid with a HSBC credit card is entitled to a 10% discount. However, it turns out that the HSBC credit card was associated with two promotions:

a) one-for-one free dessert

b) 10% discount

Because Kar Yen and Desmond both ordered cakes for dessert (the rest of us skipped dessert), the cashier had automatically extended the one-for-one free dessert promotion on the second cake to Desmond's HSBC card. Only when we were calculating the amounts each of us had to pay for dinner was the missing "10% discount" uncovered. We told our server that it is ridiculous to give the "one-for-one free dessert" because that was only worth $2.80, whereas the "10% discount" would cut our bill by at least $10! We asked the server to void the previous bill (which Desmond had already signed), and to issue a new one with the corrected amount. Hopefully, there is no cock-up when the credit card statements are received by Desmond later in the month.

I look forward to the next gathering.

NJ

Links

Photo album: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/njwong88/DinnerAtWarakuRestaurant

Waraku Website: http://www.waraku.com.sg

12 May 2009 : See updates and corrections in the following post.

AWARE

The AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research) leadership seems to have been usurped by fundamentalist Christians who seek to replace AWARE's liberal stance which was pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality with one that is more congruent to the fundamentalist Christian stance of the new leaders which is strictly anti-abortion and anti-gay.

I happen to know Dr Alan Chin, the husband of Josie Lau (the new AWARE chief), who was my camp's Medical Officer during my National Service days. I am so surprised that he has become such a religious bigot. As Christopher Hitchens rightly noted, religion poisons everything, including one's mind.

Fundamentalist Christians like Alan Chin always tout the same ridiculous arguments about abortion and homosexuality. They always say:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, and is a human sin.

Well, if that is so, why are there so many animals that are also homosexual? Obviously if there are homosexual animals, then homosexuality is a natural behaviour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE

Homosexuality is not a sin. In fact, since fundamentalist Christians believe that god is the maker, then according to this logic, homosexuals must have been created by the same god. And since god made these humans homosexual, surely god must love homosexuals too and not condemn them as sinners who are doomed to eternity in the fires of hell?

Famous Christian homosexuals:

- Ray Boltz http://christianmusic.about.com/od/editorial1/a/rayboltzcomesou.htm

- Marsha Stevens http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/CCM/marsha_stevens.htm

- Ted Haggard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

2. The presence of gay people will encourage straight people to become gay.

If that is so, surely the overwhelming presence of straight people will encourage gay people to become straight. Indeed, as only about 5% of the world's population is gay, all gay people should have become straight by now due to the huge number of straight people in the population.

3. Gay couples are unnatural because they cannot produce children.

If this is so, then infertile couples and old people past child bearing age shouldn't be allowed to marry since such pairs cannot produce children either. Besides, what the world needs is MORE people.

4. Children of gay parents will not succeed because a home is only complete if there is both a male and female role model at home.

If that is the case, then society should not allow single parents to raise children either. All children of single parents (whether through divorce or being widowed) should be fostered out to homes where there is both a male and female parent.

5. The presence of gay people will change the foundation of society. Society could never adapt to new social norms.

Well, in the biblical age, women were treated like chattel and slavery was condoned. I think human society have adapted very well to the new social norm in treating women as equals; and abolishing slavery outright.

6. Life begins at conception.

If every conception is allowed to develop to full term, I can tell you that the world will have more than the 6.5 billion people that it has now. In 1900, the world was only populated by 1 billion people. The world's population has grown 6.5 times in a span of 110 years. There is just too many people in the world as it is, and family planning - including legal abortion - is a rational way to resolve this over-population problem.

7. Abortion is killing. Abortion should be illegal.

If abortion is illegal, and a woman is caught having one, what should her penalty be? Should she be sentenced to jail? Since abortion is killing, should the woman be executed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

8. Life begins at conception.

This is ridiculous because it defines a fertilised egg to have the same rights as that of a new born baby.

What if a woman was raped and is now pregnant? She will be emotional conflicted with a foetus that she does not want. If she is a wife, how will the husband take to the baby? If she is an unmarried girl, will she be able to find a husband if she has a bastard child in tow? It is because of society, and religion in particular, that we have this problem of ostracism of illegitimate children, and which is why many women seek to abort unwanted children. Will unwanted children that is brought into this world be able to lead a happy "life" in families that do not love them?

----------------------------------------------

All the ridiculous arguments against homosexuality and abortion made by fundamentalist Christians are not made because of concern about people's well being, but because of some arcane writings in the bible. In the bible, the Leviticus chapter states that male homosexuality is an abomination. Fundamentalist Christians always tout that this religious ruling must be followed (since everything in the bible is god's word). However, Leviticus also states that humans should not eat clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp, as these are also "abominations", and that disabled people should not approach the altar of god as the disabled people would defile it. Why do fundamentalist Christians not followed such rules too?

In fact, fundamentalist Christians pick and choose. They don't follow many of the rules laid out in the bible. They ignore many of the rules (such as the non-eating of crabs and lobsters) even though this rule is also "god's word", and just keep harping on the homosexual and sanctity-of-life bits. And they demand that the whole society, including people who are not of the Christian faith, to follow the rules against homosexuality and abortion.

The bible is one of the most racist, intolerant, misogynistic, violent and cruel book ever written. We should treat people with understanding, with compassion, with empathy, using reason and science, and not because of some writing in this horrific book concocted by ancient people for a society and a way of life that no longer exists today. It is sad that intelligent people like Alan Chin - and the new leaders of AWARE - are so warped by their religious indoctrination that they fail to see just how harmful and heartless their religious thinking can be to people who don't subscribe to their religion.

What Would Jesus NOT Do?

Christians believe that Jesus is an amazing god, as described by the stories in the bible: making the blind see, turning water to wine, walking on water etc. However, if Jesus was god, and came here to forgive humans for their sins, why did he not end suffering? In my book, the fact of the existence of suffering in this world proves resolutely that a god does not exist, and it is truly a waste of time praying to an imaginary being. Indeed, if god really existed, then the existence of suffering proves that this god is not a benevolent god, but a malevolent one, and why should humans pray to such a nasty being?

The following is a nice video cleverly illustrating why it is so irrational to use the bible to prove that god exists, and that god "loves" us and wants to "save" us from our "sins".

The bible is just a work of fiction, written by bronze age people more than 2000 years ago to explain about the mysteries of life in the tiny corner of the Earth that they occupied. Lacking the scientific knowledge of the 21st century, they had to invent a mythical creature called "god" to explain all this "mysteries". It is time rational human beings junk these superstitions of the bronze age. We should live our lives using rational thinking, based on the pillars of reason and science.

From Taoism To Infidel - Richard Carrier

I just read a very interesting narrative by Richard Carrier about his journey into atheism.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/carrier.html

I have always found Chinese philosophy (Confucianism, Taoism, as well as Buddhism) to be more intellectually satisfying than the theistic religions. As Richard Carrier mentioned, the Eastern philosophies says much about how to conduct oneself in society and living in tune with nature. Theistic religions, particularly Christianity, seems to be about "believe or be damned". This has always irked me. The precepts of Christianity is particularly nasty as it seems to imply that ethically and morally good people should be punished (not rewarded by going to heaven) simply because they do not believe that Jesus Christ is god, while evil doers (murderers, robbers and thieves, bullies) will be rewarded as long as the evil doer accepts Christ. Naivity and gullibility in believing in fairy tales is rewarded instead of honest effort and critical questioning about understanding life and how to live it propitiously.

Truly, the intellectual contrast is staggering. That is why it astounds me how smart theists do not question themselves more honestly and more critically about why they believe what they believe, especially when what they believe is in direct contradiction with reality. It simply amazes me that superstition still has such a strong stranglehold instead of reason and rationality in our current age, where we have the tools of science to acquire new knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

The Holy Trinity

I read a very amusing post in RichardDawkins.NET today about the Christian belief in the Holy Trinity (link).

A theist has mentioned that he accepts the belief that God, his son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are each 3 individual entities, but are also just 1 entity (God itself). To this Christian, "God is three and God is one". Everything is consistent.

Shuggy responded that this is a false proposition. And a false proposition implies ANY proposition. With such a proposition, the Trinity can be made to be consistent with ANYTHING.

Shuggy then proceeded to use an amusing mathematical proof to illustrate this.

So, first, we have 3 = 1 .... eqn (a)

Minus 1 from both sides, we get:

2 = 0 .... eqn (b)

Now, if we add 1 to both sides of eqn (a), we get:

4 = 2 .... eqn (c)

But since 2 = 0 from eqn (b), we can substitute this into eqn (c) to get :

4 = 0 .... eqn (d)

If we divide both sides of eqn (c) by 2, we get :

2 = 1 .... eqn (e)

But since 1 = 3 from eqn (a), we can substitute this into eqn (e) and get:

2 = 3 .... eqn (f)

Looking at all the equations we have derived, we see that we have proven:

0 = 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 and so on.

Thus, if you can believe in the Trinity, it logically follows that you can believe literally everything, regardless of whether it is true or not.

Presentation Zen

Presentation Zen by Garr Reynold is a book about creating presentations with software like Microsoft PowerPoint or OpenOffice Impress. How it differs from other books on the subject is that it asks you to reject the templates that comes with these software, and to instead think "less is more".

The ideas in this book emphasize that the visual aspect of a presentation can be ruined by using too many graphical objects on each chart. This is often the case with casual users who become enamoured by the capabilities of the presentation software they are using, and then proceed to make the mistake of including as many widgets as they can on each chart. Reynold gives many refreshing ideas on how a good presentation should look like, and refers to slideshows by Steve Jobs as well as those on TED as examples of how a good presentation should be done.

Reynold has a web site at  www.presentationzen.com that expands on the ideas in his book.

Belief in Belief

Daniel Dennett wrote a nice summary in a commentary about Jerry Coyne's book review/article "Seeing and Believing".

Dennett's reply can be found here.

Because Dennett's summary points are so well written, I just have to include them in my blog:

DANIEL C. DENNETT

Belief in Belief

Jerry Coyne nicely dissects the urge of many people to persuade themselves that their religion can coexist peacefully with science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. And he shows just how hopeless this quest is. The question remains: why is this urge so strong, even in some people who have devoted their careers to science? I can discern more than half a dozen plausible reasons for belief in belief in God, and in some people these reasons are no doubt additive, not exclusive. I list them more or less in order, ranging from abject through feckless to noble-if-misguided:

(1) The fallacy of sunk costs: "I've already invested fifty years of my life in this position, and it would be excruciatingly embarrassing to acknowledge my error. In fairness to myself, I was entrapped in this view when I was too young to know better, and I've never been able to find a face-saving exit strategy."

(2) Err on the side of prudence: "I can conjure up enough uncertainty about these issues to excuse myself from drawing the invited conclusions, which might be mistaken, after all, and could, I suppose, do some harm to somebody. Where it doesn't itch, don't scratch!"

(3) Religion for art's sake: "The only cost-effective way to preserve the great music, literature, and art of the world's religions is to encourage all people to support these magnificent living museums with their weekly offerings."

(4) What would my mother think? "People whom I hold dear, and who depend on me emotionally, would be heartbroken to learn of my defection. I'm going to carry this white lie to the grave, or at least until my parents are safely in their graves and my children and loved ones give me clear signs of being able to take such a confession with equanimity."

(5) Credal calisthenics: "It keeps me modest, and fosters a desirable habit of moral reflection that helps me do the right thing 'without even thinking'. It's a method of self-purification that keeps me morally fit."

(6) We must fend off moral chaos: "I myself don't need God to tell me how to live, but some people really do. Religious belief puts the fear of God into some who would otherwise behave reprehensibly."

(7) Don't make waves: "I have more than enough substantive controversies that I would rather spend my energies on. Why discard alliances, make enemies, lose the affection of powerful friends and associates by raining on their parade?"

(8) Dumbo's magic feather: "Religious belief is a moral prosthesis: it strengthens the resolve and courage of many who want to be good but don't have the true grit they need. If I recant, I contribute to the dissolution of an aspect of the world that they truly depend on. I have no right to take away their crutch."

The combination of any two or three of these is enough, apparently, to induce some very smart people to defend some very lame arguments. They would never tolerate such fuzzy and illogical thinking in their science–or, in the case of philosophers, in their analytic work in ethics or epistemology or metaphysics. They manage not to notice how they have transformed the object of their worship from the original Celestial Bio-engineer into a Divine Nudger of Randomness into an Omniscient Lawgiver into the (impersonal, but still somehow benign) Ground of All Being. Not only don't they notice this comical retreat; they applaud the deep sophistication of the theologians who have conducted it. (I haven't any idea what the Ground of All Being is, so I guess I don't have to be an atheist about that. Maybe the process of evolution by natural selection just is God! Now there's a way of reconciling evolution with religion! )

Each reason for belief in belief in Gd is defensible up to a point, but we need to weigh the indirect side effects of going along with tradition. First, there's the systematic hypocrisy that poisons discourse, and even more important, our vulnerability to those who abuse the "reverence" with which we are supposed to respond to their indulgences. We can continue to respect the good intentions of those who persist in professing belief in God, but we'll be doing them a favor if we stop pretending that we respect the arguments they use to sustain these fantasies.