"Thou shalt not kill" is bullshit

Murder has always been a taboo subject since it is the act of taking the life of another human being. Truly, it is a bad thing, but there are times when the act of murder is the most moral thing to do in certain situations. Humans have realized this and act accordingly but the moral stencil brought by the god of Moses known as the Ten Commandments (ironically) prevents us from making these moral decisions based on our own judgment.

Euthanasia is justifiable. Comfort is always preferrable to pain and for extreme pain and suffering, one will need extreme comfort, even if it means death. The only real decision to make is whether the sufferer is past his/her suffering threshold that euthanasia would be the only escape. Take Terri Schiavo for example. In that situation, the only two choices are more suffering for her and her loved ones... or euthanasia.

Revenge is a bit tricky but it still can be justifiable. Some revenge murderers have been set free while others were punished. It all depends on the gravity of the situation. In revenge, the murderer actually prevents further atrocities by killing the perpetrator.

Survival is justifiable. Self-defense is the most common example of this. But there are also life-or-death choices when limited resources are at stake; the death of some will ensure the survival of the rest and inversely, choosing for everyone to live will make everyone suffer or (ironically) die.

Laws are the foundation of society but there will be situations where one should decide for himself. With a critical and compassionate mind, humans can make the right decision when faced with this predicament.

After the Rapture

The rapture may have failed but one can't say that there are no victims in this "tragedy". Yes. The rapture indeed claimed lives and livelihoods though not for the non-believers.

Some christians have actually sold off their possessions and discarded their futures, thinking that there will be no tomorrow after May 21 of 2011. The concept of the rapture itself may be laughing matter but the effects aren't. I have no pity for the believers but I do pity those who have been dragged into this mess.

Still nothing wrong in believing?

_____

It's a good thing that most christians didn't believe what the crackpot Harold Camping had foretold. They are open-minded enough to doubt the claims of a mere man though not open enough to doubt the roots of their faith. It's somewhat a good thing, in my opinion but if these christians have the courage to doubt more than just the rapture prohpecies, that'd be even better.

It's somewhat similar to fanfiction. Camping, being a fan, merely coupled his own fantasies with pre-existing fantasies that had been established by most people as canon. But even the canon itself is mere fiction. The holy texts themselves are mere fanfictions of a story called Reality, as the writers wrote out how they wanted the world to be.

One more step.

Indulging in Materialistic Pleasures

I don't understand why some hardcore conservative Christians (or conservatives of any other religion) refuse to give in to their materialistic desires. I do understand that indulging too much in material pleasures isn't a good thing but to willingly discard even the slightest thoughts of it... that I do not understand.

They claim that their god had created and fine-tuned this world for all humans to enjoy. If they shun the material world, they're spitting on the face of the one who provided the world for them. If they argue that shunning the material world will cleanse their souls for the path to heaven, then what is the sense of god having to create and "fine-tune" a world in the first place?

What I don't like about conservatives is that they impose their boring lifestyle upon others who are having reasonable fun. In other words, killjoy.

I don't believe in gods or heaven. I believe that humans are a part of nature, not rising above from it. Partaking what the world has to offer is human instinct.

Why a Massacre is Needed

Children in some countries in Africa are growing malnourished with some even starving to death. Some of the more powerful nations reach out to the impoverished and provide them with their necessities which will only satiate them for a small amount of time. Once their supplies run out, those nations will have to provide for them again.

With the worldwide human population growing along with the scarcity of food, at this rate, everyone will starve to death, not only those in Africa, but the whole world. We will have to pick a post-apocalyptic ending for ourselves, the most likely one being "Soylent Green".

Killing these impoverished people off not only reduces the demand for food, but it will also ease their suffering. So-called "moral" people will think that the act of killing is immoral but why is it immoral? Must we wait for everyone to starve before we take action? Isn't killing off suffering people an act of mercy rather than barbarism?

Faith versus Faith

I find it annoying sometimes when some theists state that "it takes faith to be an atheist". But then I realized that the statement can either be right or wrong depending on the definition of the word "faith".

What is faith? There are a few definitions in my version of Webster's dictionary:

1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
2. unquestioning belief in god, religious tenets, etc.
3. a religion or a system of religious beliefs
4. anything believed
5. complete trust, confidence, or reliance
6. allegiance to some person or thing; loyalty

Among these, definitions #1 to #3 define the religious faith the theists have. Devout theists follow their religion without question and it is a well-known fact that they don't bother searching for real evidence other than the contradictory statements of their sacred books.

Atheist faith, or my faith at least, however, falls under the fifth definition. I, as a human being, will have to trust another in order to get by in life. Of course, atheist faith isn't anything like in the first definition as trust is normally gained through evidence and time. Though, this deal about faith and trust might not be the case for unreasonably paranoid skeptics who go as far as to not believe that the floor they're standing on is solid.

As an atheist, I do have faith and by faith, I mean trust, confidence, and reliance on other humans. There are times that I trust others and there are times that I don't. I'd rather put my faith on beings that I can see, hear, and touch rather than an invisible being whose existence I don't even have proof of.

"Irreducible Complexity"

"Irreducible Complexity" is a concept mainly used by the advocates of Intelligent Design aka Creationism. It states that something complex, like a bacterial flagellum (which is the advocates' favorite example), can't function the same way if some parts are removed from the whole, thus it can only be created through design, thus disproving evolution.

Take a significant part from the whole and the system ceases to function. Take the wheels out of a car; it wouldn't work the way it is intended. Take the engine out, it still wouldn't work. The car will only work if all the pieces are in place. The car is irreducibly complex.

I don't subscribe to this belief. Why?

The concept of irreducible complexity is an insult to amputees, the mentally challenged, the disabled, and anyone lacking fully functional organs or appendages that would deem you complete. More often than not, these individuals with disabilities can perform just as well or even better than people who have no disabilities. Artists without hands, athletes without feet, idiot savants... we all heard of these. They don't consider their disabilities as hindrances.

Furthermore, Irreducible Complexity opposes the concept of "Multiple Intelligence" wherein humans are classified according to their talents and abilities, which obviously differs from each human. Someone may be good at music and be bad at math. That doesn't make them less of a human being than someone bad at music and good at math. From what standard do we get the "control sample" of the "normal" intelligence and talents of a human being?

From this, I can say that Irreducible Complexity is definitely incorrect. The existence of disabled humans doing well with what they do is the hard evidence against it.

What if humans can see into the future?

Humans, some of them at least, have dreamed to be able to see into the future. History tells us that humans in the ancient times had been fixated in knowing the future: oracles of Delphi, the Norns, the prophets in the Abrahamic religions, and even until today. These so-called fortune-tellers and soothsayers dedicate their time (or maybe even their lives) to impart amongst the common humans the knowledge of the future. This act is regarded by the modern age as a lie or a mere hobby, but what if humans can actually see into the future?

Adherents of the horoscope hobby merely match up any events to the vague prophecy if hearing the prophecy comes later. Since horoscopes are made to be vague, there is a large enough chance that some event in the person's day is coincidentally similar to the prophecy. However, if the hearing the prophecy comes first, it might as well become a self-fulfilling prophecy when the adherent uses it as a guide to his life.

But what if humans can actually see into the future? If there is only a fixed future (a prophecy wherein foreseen events cannot be changed), then they will have to act accordingly and whatever action they do to act against this destiny will still coincide with the prophecy, like the story of Oedipus Rex. If the visions granted are those of possible futures, the adherent will just pick the one that is most desirable and follow the steps that leads to that outcome.

In this world where humans can see into the fixed future, the concepts of risk, accident, prevention, precaution, choice, chance, luck, et cetera will be abolished. They will be thrown into complacency and helplessness since decision-making will also be discarded. Any emergencies that will occur won't. They will literally have no choice but to follow their unchangeable destinies.

But if that had been since the beginning, life in that world would be linear and monotonous. "Development" and "progress" will also be illusions since they're predetermined. In that world, games and adventures don't exist; their fun must be derived somewhere inconceivable in this world.

However, in the scenario of humans being able to see possible futures, they will have to live in a meta-life instead of the actual life. Instead of deciding what choices to make in a real life situation, decision will be escalated into choosing what possible future will be more desirable. Life itself would be meaningless since the focus is shifted to religiously choosing futures; since humans will be fixated in the future, they will forget to live in the present.

In all honesty, I can't see why humans are fixated in knowing future events supernaturally when living life is more fun when you are fixated in the present and oblivious to an extent to what will happen to the future. A subjective view, yes, but I'm talking from the side of beings that live in a world where premonition is impossible. Aren't we all?

Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.