Category Archives: humanity

You are who you are, but only to certain extent


It doesn’t matter who you really are underneath, but it’s what you do that defines you. You may say your actions does not imply your personality but if that’s the case then why do something that shows otherwise? Something that contradicts yourself? Even if you’re forced to do something beyond your will you should have at least try to escape even if you’re going to lose in the process. Your effort is what matters.

Advertisements

All phonetic characters are also descend…


All phonetic characters are also descended from ideogram characters. They evolved into limited number of characters mainly to simplify writing and to reduce the burden of memorizing the available characters. To cater this phonetic characters have evolved in such a way that two or more of them can be combined, usually with at least one vowel to form a syllable as a simple word, or multiple syllables then can be combined to form more complex words. Because phonetic characters have evolved in this way, it is highly flexible and adaptable by wide selection of languages that it becomes the most used characters in the world, and also because it is highly ‘compatible’ with “phonetic-compliant” languages such as English and other Romanced languages. Actually Japanese language is also phonetic-compliant but due to its close historical ties with Chinese culture and characters, they remain using their own characters (kana and kanji) even after centuries of contacts with the western powers.

MERDEKA!!!


The article below is written in Malay language (Malaysia) which is my mother tongue. It is posted in conjunction with Malaysia National (Independence) Day which is today (Aug 31). It is about history of Malaysia’s independence but I didn’t pay much attention on accuracy of facts so please don’t use this for your history assignment. Also I don’t need you to point out in detail where I was wrong, because I know myself there are indeed mistakes. And I have to stress here this article may appear racist or offensive to certain group of people so if you think you can’t stand it, or if you think you’ll be disagreeing with my points then stop reading right now, because that means this article is not for you.

Aku tak mahu bertanya soalan retorik seperti “merdekakah kita?” atau yang serupa dengannya. Cukup kalau aku sekadar menulis apa yang aku faham tentang penjajahan dan kemerdekaan. Soalan seperti “apakah medeka” sudah terlalu kerap ditanya sehiggga aku pun naik muak dengannya. Daripada kita asyik menanyakan soalan yang sama berulang kali kenapa tidak kita membuat perubahan di kala sambutan merdeka kali ini. Dengan itu kali ini aku ingin bertanya perkara sebaliknya iaitu “apakah penjajahan?” kerana bagi aku adalah penting untuk memahami apa itu penjajahan sebelum kita dapat memahami apa maksud kemerdekaan. Penjajahan, pada pendapat aku boleh dianalogikan dalam situasi berikut. Katakan kita sudah ada rumah sendiri di mana segala-galanya sempurna dan kita tidak bergantung kepada sesiapa pun untuk menguruskannya. Kemudian datang tetamu yang tidak diundang, dan mereka pun memasuki rumah kita sama ada secara paksa atau tidak. Kemudian mereka mula menjadikan kita seperti hamba mereka, juga sama ada secara paksa atau tidak, di mana mereka makan makanan kita, mereka tidur di tempat tidur kita, dan sebagainya, tanpa kita mendapat apa-apa manfaat langsung pun daripada tindakan mereka itu, Memang kita masih dibenarkan makan dan tidur tetapi itupun kena mendapat perkenan mereka sekalipun sebenarnya kita di dalam rumah sendiri. Itulah perumpamaan bagi penjajahan. Dan memahami penjajahan tidak akan sempurna tanpa kita mengenali penjajah kita. Walaupun kita pernah dijajah oleh Portugis dan Belanda, aku cuma kan mengupas sedikit sahaja tentang dua kuasa itu. Sebaliknya aku akan bercerita dengan lebih lanjut tentang penjajah British yang memiliki empayar terbesar dalam dunia moden. Sila teruskan bacaan.

Malaysia melalui sekurang-kurangnya kali penjajahan dan juga lima peringkat kemerdekaan, jika diambilkira dari sejak sejarah negara ini ditulis. Pertama kali kita dijajah ialah semasa negara ini masih lagi merupakan sebahagian daripada empayar Kesultanan Melayu Melaka, iaitu penjajahan oleh orang Portugis. Penjajah Portugis ialah penjajah nombor dua jahat di dalam sejarah negara kita, itupun sekiranya kita memandang kependudukan tentera Imperial Jepun sebagai yang paling jahat. Mana tidaknya, jika dibandingkan dengan penjajah lain dalam sejarah negara kita, hanya Portugis yang mempunyai reputasi memurtadkan orang-orang Islam secara langsung dan juga mengamalkan sistem perhambaan. Memang benar orang melayu sudahpun mengamalkan perhambaan sebelum kedatangan portugis lagi tetapi ia lebih kepada pengaruh Islam yang mengutamakan memerdekakan hamba berbanding menukarkan orang yang merdeka menjadi hamba. Selain itu mereka juga memang sudah dari awal-awal lagi berniat merampas tanah Melaka itu sendiri, jika dibandingkan dengan orang belanda yang lebih kepada niat menguasai berbanding dengan memiliki. Juga, tidak seperti orang Belanda, orang Portugis dengan kurang ajarnya menghalau Sultan Melaka keluar dari negerinya sendiri. Sekurang-kurangnya orang Belanda sanggup bekerjasama dengan pemerintah melayu untuk merampas kembali Melaka. Ya, memang niat Belanda bekerjasama dengan orang tempatan untuk merampas Melaka dari tangan Portugis ada agenda tersembunyi tetapi kerjasama sementara yang wujud di antara mereka ialah sejarah yang tidak dinafikan. Apa boleh buat, orang melayu terpaksa menerima tawaran kerjasama itu walaupun memang wujud perasaan risau dan wasangka yang sekutu Eropah mereka itu mungkin tidak akan lama bersama mereka. Nak harapkan kuasa Kesultanan Turki dengan beranggapan “orang Islam akan membantu sesama saudara seIslamnya”, sampai sudah pun mereka tidak pernah meghulurkan bantuan ketenteraan wlaupun sudah beberapa kali diajukan permintaan itu. Adapun yang sampai cumalah bantuan kecil berupa beberapa buah kapal membawa beberapa buah meriam jarak sederhana, beberapa bilah schimitar tetapi malangnya orang melayu lebih suka bertarung dengan menggunakan keris atas alasan “anak melayu berani bertarung bersemuka” walaupun itu tidakan bodoh bila berdepan dengan senapang matchlock Portugis. Ada juga beberapa pucuk musket diringkan bersama tetapi malangnya tiada pakar yang benar-benar mahir menggunakannya dihantar untuk melatih anak melayu menembak. Sudahnya Melaka jatuh di tangan Portugis dalam masa beberapa hari sahaja. Belum lagi megira aib dikalahkan oleh hanya beberapa buah baki kapal perang Portugis yang kebanyakannya hilang ditelan ribut semasa dalam pelayaran ke sini.

Memang sudah malang nasib orang melayu pada ketika itu, kerjasama dengan orang Belanda tidak seperti yang diharapkan. Belanda, apabila sudah berjaya menghalau Portugis dari Melaka, mereka mengkhianati kerjasama dengan orang melayu. Mereka tidak berkongsi Melaka dengan orang melayu, sebaliknya menguasainya sepenuhnya, hampir tiada beza dengan orang portugis yang mendudukinya sebelum itu. Ya, sememangnya orang Belanda tiada niat ikhlas untuk berkongsi Melaka dengan orang melayu kerana tindakan mereka itu hanyalah didorong oleh peperangan mereka dengan kerajaan Belanda. Mujurlah beberapa dekad kemudian datang penjajah British/Inggeris. Kerana perang dengan kerajaan Belanda, kedatangan British juga bertindak mengusir Belanda dari tanah jajahan mereka yakni Melaka. Penjajah Inggeris ini, dari kebanyakan segi adalah lebih bertamadun berbanding dua bangsa penjajah sebelum ini. Mereka tidak menggalakkan perhambaan walaupun tidak menghalangnya secara langsung atau tiba-tiba, dan mereka lebih menghormati penduduk, pemerintah dan budaya tempatan. Yang kebanyakannya menjadi masalah ialah orang Inggeris memperkenalkan ‘sistem’ ke dalam kehidupan kita, di mana sebahagian daripada ‘sistem’ ini tidak serasi dengan apa yang telahpun diamalkan sekian lama di sini. Contohnya pengenalan sistem cukai berpusat. Sebelum ini cukai cuma dikutip oleh pembesar (lebih kepada warlord sebenarnya), tuan tanah, penghulu dan beberapa pihak tertentu yang berkuasa ke atas segolongan rakyat. Cukai yang dikutip oleh mereka ini adalah sebahagian daripada corak sistem feudal tempatan di mana hasilnya cuma dinikmati oleh pengutipnya dan bukannya oleh umum. Bagi pihak British yang sememangnya lebih bertamadun, sistem ini adalah tidak adil kerana mereka berpendapat cukai adalah kewajipan semua yang layak membayarnya untuk tujuan umum. Pembesar pun tidak terlepas. Oleh itu pihak British memperkenalkan sistem cukai yang mengumpul semua bayarannya untuk dimasukkan ke dalam perbendaharaan sebelum diagihkan untuk kepentingan awam. Bukan itu sahaja, pihak British berpendapat kuasa raja tidak perlu terlalu mutlak kerana ini sudahpun lama diamalkan di England. Mana taknya orang Inggeris tidak bersifat demikian, mereka sudah entah berapa kali dikhianati raja-raja mereka, sehingga mereka akhirnya memperkenalkan parlimen untuk mengehadkan kuasa raja-raja. Antara yang terkenal teruk dan zalimnya ialah King Henry yang mencipta mazhab Kristian sendiri demi semata-mata untuk membolehkannya memiliki ramai isteri. Itu belum lagi mengambil kira King George, si raja gila yang menindas penduduk Amerika sehingga memaksa mereka menuntut kemerdekaan. Walaubagaimanapun orang British masih ada rasa hormat ke atas raja dan tidak berniat untuk memansuhkan sistem it. Mungkin kerana mereka berasa sedikit terhutang budi bila mengenangkan kemakmuran yang dibawa oleh raja-raja perempuan sebelum ini seperti Queen Elizabeth yang membawa Zaman Keemasan kepada kerajaan England dan juga Queen Victoria yang membantu mencetuskan Revolusi Perindustrian di England.

Pada mulanya orang melayu memang berasa hairan apabila memikirkan kenapa orang Inggeris ini terlalu banyak sistem yang pelik-pelik pada pandangan mereka. Jadi kenapa orang British bersifat begitu? Kita lihat sejarah mereka. Memeang benar semasa orang inggeris menjajah kita, mereka lebih bertamadun, tetapi sebenarnya kita lebih dulu hidup bertamadun berbanding mereka. Dua ribu tahun lalu, ketika rata-rata orang British masih tinggal di dalam pondok ringkas dan hidup dalam puak-puak masing-masing, kita di sini sudahpun ada rumah yang lebih baik. Kita sudah mampu berlayar sejauh Madagascar dan ke pulau-pulau di tengah Pasifik. Dan jangan dingat hanya kita sahaja yang dijajah atau jangan fikir orang Eropah sendiri tidak pernah dijajah. Orang British sendiri pernah dijajah oleh orang Rom, kira-kira 1,700 tahun sebelum mereka menjajah kita. Mungkin ramai di antara kita yang tidak mengenali pejuang kemerdekaan pertama dalam sejarah Britain iaitu seorang pahlawan wanita bernama Boudica. Orang British juga pernah diserang oleh orang Viking, puak-puak dari Jerman, kaum Anglo-Saxon, orang Normandy dan sebangainya. Dengan kata lain sepanjang beberapa ribu tahun sejarah mereka, orang British sudah kerapkali berdepan dengan kuasa asing, sehingga menjadikan mereka berpengalaman dan kuat serta tahu bagaimana menanganinya. Bukan sahaja Boudica, ancaman asing menjadikan pemerintah-pemerintah wanita England seperti Queen Elizabeth dan Queen Victoria orang yang tahan lasak, berkaliber dan mampu membawa kemakmuran dan kesejahteraan walaupun terpaksa memerintah secara tunggal tanpa ada suami di sisi. Mereka mampu menewaskan angkatan perang Sepanyol dengan jumlah tentera yang jauh lebih sedikit. Mereka beberapa kali menundukkan kerajaan Perancis dalam perebutan hakmilik tanah (land dispute). Malah salah seorang raja mereka, Richard ialah seorang yang amat dihormati oleh jaguh sepanjang masa dalam dunia Islam iaitu Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi kerana keberanian dan kehandalan baginda.

Empayar British bukannya tidak pernah kehilangan koloni mereka. Amerika Syarikat bolehlah dikatakan tanah jajahan yang pertama hilang dari cengkaman British. Dengan kata lain, Amerika ialah negara yang pertama merdeka dari jajahan British, dan seterusnya menjadi kuasa penjajah seperti bekas penjajah mereka juga. Tetapi tahukan anda kemerdekaan Amerika boleh dikatakan sebagai “brainchild” kepada kerajaan British? Kerajaan British sangat maju dari segi pemikiran di mana mereka sudah berfikir mendahului zaman mereka, sekaligus mewujudkan pelbagai jenis fahaman politik moden yang menegaskan hak kemanusian, hak individu, hak masyarakat dan sebagainya. Atas pemahaman ke atas hak-hak inilah Amerika terdorong untuk medapatkan kemerdekaan. Pada mulanya usaha ke arah itu cuba dilakukan melalui diplomasi tetapi dengan George si raja gila sebagai pemerintah, cara tersebut tidak berhasil seterusnya menyebabkan orang Amerika memilih untuk menggunakan kuasa ketenteraan, lantas tertubuhnya tentera Continental untuk melawan tentera Red Coat di pihak British. Sememangnya ini tindakan berani tetapi kelebihan ini tidak mungkin tercapai jika bukan kerana orang Amerika juga adalah dari Eropah di mana mereka ada akses kepada senjata api dan kemahiran menggunakannya. Di hujungnya, Amerika bukan sahaja merdeka malah memegang reputasi sebagai satu-satunya negara yang merdeka dari kerajaan British melalui tindakan ketenteraan.

Jadi apa yang kerajaan British lakukan setelah kehilangan Amerika? Mereka memang sudah lama menjajah sebahagian dari Asia tetapi selepas itu mereka semakin memberikan tumpuan di rantau ini. Walaupun sebagai penjajah, British cuba mendapatkan kerjasama penduduk tempatan dengan memperkenalkan sistem persekolahan moden, mewujudkan hospital, jabatan polis, mengukur tanah dan mengeluarkan geran ke atasnya, dan banyak lagi. Terbuktilah penjajahan dari perspektif tersebut bukanlah teruk sangat jika ia membawa kemodenan kepada negara kita. Malah British masih mengiktiraf kepentingan agama Islam di kalangan orang melayu dengan memastikan raja-raja melayu masih terus berkuasa dalah hal-hal berkaitan agama Islam dan adat istiadat melayu, walaupun akibatnya sistem tulisan tempatan iaitu tulisan Jawi mula terhapus sedikit demi sedikit. Walaubagaimanapun bagi aku ini bukanlah sesuatu yang negatif di mana penggunaan tulisan Rumi membolehkan orang melayu menggunakan mesin taip yang menyebabkan perkembangan bidang tatabahasa di dalam bahasa melayu. Antara kesan-kesan langsung lain yang dapat dilihat ialah pengenalan sistem pengangkutan moden seperti jalanraya berturap, kereta, keretapi dan landasannya, perlombongan dan penggunaan petroleum, serta perkembangan perindustrian. Di sini pula mula kelihatan ‘kejahatan’ pihak British di mana mereka mengamalkan dasar “pecah dan perintah” untuk mengelakkan perpaduan kukuh dan mengurangkan kemungkinan berlakunya penentangan terhadap pemerintahan dan dasar-dasar British. Ada kalanya penentangan didiamkan dengan cara yang agak kasar tetapi kita boleh dikatakan masih bernasib baik kerana penjajah British tidak sekejam penjajah Belanda di Indonesia, tidak sekejam penjajah Sepanyol di Filipina dan tidak sekejam penjajah Perancis di Indochina. Seperti yang pernah dilakukan beberapa abad sebelumnya, terdapat juga usaha untuk meminta bantuan dan seterusnya bernaung di bawah empayar Turki Uthmaniyyah tetapi segera diketahu dan dipatahkan oleh pihak British sebelum ia dimulakan lagi. Maka akibat semua ini Tanah Melayu tidak lagi menjadi “Tanah Melayu” pada dasarnya tetapi sebaliknya cuma pada nama. Dasar-dasar ekonomi, perdagangan dan perindustrian yang diamalkan oleh British menggalakkan kemasukan buruh-buruh dan usahawan dari China dan India sehingga menyebabkan bilangan mereka ini semakin lama semakin ketara ramainya dan mampu memberikan impak sekiranya sesuatu berlaku. Memang pelik dan ironik, pada asalnya orang yang dijajah oleh British ialah orang melayu, kemudian kaum Cina dan India juga menjadi subjek jajahan mereka akibat dasar-dasar di atas.

Ya, negara ini sememangnya milik orang melayu pada asalnya. Jika anda tidak percaya, sila kembali kepada sejarah, walaupun ada niat pihak-pihak tertentu untuk cuba menafikan kesahihan bangsa melayu. Ketika negara ini dijajah, bangsa apakah yang dijajah pada ketika itu? Sudah tentulah bangsa melayu, bukannya bangsa cina atau india. Malah kedatangan orang cina dan india ke sini adalah didorong oleh penjajah. Memang benar orang india dan cina sudah beribu tahun berdagang di sini tetapi sebelum ini mereka cuma datang sebagai pedagang dan bukannya sebagai penduduk. Ketika negara ini di ambang kemerdekaan, pihak raja-raja melayu berasa serba salah dengan kedudukan imigran-imgiran ini. Raja-raja melayu juga manusia dan mereka punya peri kemanusiaan. Boleh saja raja-raja melayu menggunakan kuasa mereka supaya imigran-imigran ini kembali ke tanah asal mereka tetapi atas budi bicara raja-raja melayu, para imigran ini mendapat perkenan untuk diiktiraf sebagai “penduduk tempatan”. Lagipun raja-raja melayu juga berasa terhutang budi kerana para imigran inilah antara orang yang memakmurkan negara ini. Perlu diingatkan, ini ialah perkenan diraja maka para imigran ini serta keturunan mereka seharusnya berasa terhutang budi dengan ketuanan melayu dan bukannya menidakkannya dengan alasan “ia sudah lama berlalu”. Ketuanan melayu ini adalah selamanya dan tiada tarikh luput kerana ketuanan melayulah yang memungkinkan adanya perkenan tersebut. Lagipun jika keturunan imigran ini berpendapat mereka layak mendapat perkenan tersebut semata-mata kerana mereka ada sumbangan besar ke atas negara ini, mereka silap. Pekerja buruh dari Filipina, Indonesia, Thailand dan Bangladesh juga mempunyai sumbangan yang tidak kurang besarnya, jadi jika kita menggunakan lasan yang sama, adalah patut mereka ini mendapat perkenan juga tetapi patutkah mereka? Jika keturunan imigran cina-india ada alasan yang kukuh untuk membuktikan imigran moden ini patut mendapat perkenan sedemikian juga, mungkin kita boleh memikirkan semula kewajarannya, tetapi aku rasa tidak da orang yang akan mampu memberikan alasan yang seperti itu. Orang melayu jpula tidak sepatutnya menjadikan ketuanan mereka sebagai alasan untuk membuli keturunan bukan melayu. Perlu diingatkan orang melayu sendiri adalah agak lemah kerana jika tidak masakan mereka dapat dijajah oleh kuasa asing. Dengan kata lain, kewujudan negara Malaysia moden adalah mustahil tanpa bantuan kaum-kaum bukan melayu, Sedangkan raja-raja melayu pun ada rasa terhutang budi dengan kaum bukan melayu, kenapa pula orang melayu yang terkenal dengan reputasi setia kepada sultan tidak menurut tindakan sultan? Kita sudah ada ketuanan dan kita patut bersyukur. Jangan pula meminta lebih-lebih dan bersifat tamak. Jangan memaksa kaum bukan melayu meninggalkan budaya dan bahasa mereka. Sudahlah mereka berada jauh dari tanah asal nenek moyang mereka, kenapa pula kita patut menukar mereka menjadi melayu juga. Sudah cukuplah mereka boleh bertutur bahasa kita, mengenali, memahami dan menghormati budaya kita.

God: To Believe or Not To Believe?


Below is the footage of a debate between my friends, DJTmetz and Kei_Angels, which was ongoing in twitter. I was a little late to witness the debate from the beginning or else I might got involved too. By the way I’m highly interested in this kind of subject. Since I believe this debate needs more public opinion about it so I decided to publish the footage here, unedited (including profanity, asterisk-masked characters and even typos – if any, except that I discarded #hashtags since they have no use here, and I joined two or more consequential tweets if they come from the same person, and I can never be too sure if they’re chronologically correct because I tried to place them based on replies but even that also may not in order as well due to the nature of twitter itself. I might also missed one or two things so please excuse me. I did my best already >_<). It may be started with political and racism but I think what matters is what subject it is mostly about, which in this case it’s mostly about God and religion. I got permission from both of them to publish it here and if you the readers have anything to say about it don’t hesitate to put your comments here.

Kei_Angels: Looks like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are holding a big Tea Party rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Haters gonna hate. I say we rename the GOP as the “Hater Party,” and call the Tea Party “Tinfoil Party” instead. Thy might as well have accurate names.

DJTmetz: Yep, because honoring what MLK Jr. stood for is totally raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist. 😛

Kei_Angels: Did you see that “avoid the black parts of DC” map the tea partier made?

DJTmetz: Again, the POINT of the tea parties has nothing to do with race; the restoring honor was about troops & religion.

Kei_Angels: And yet, the vast majority of the demonstrators were white. And then there’s this fiasco: http://ritsu.me/aHGw1c. America is better than Glenn Beck. For all of his celebrity, Mr. Beck is an ignorant, divisive, pathetic figure. http://j.mp/bCbHvc

DJTmetz: C’mon, you and I both know that’s utterly ridiculous.

Kei_Angels: Dr. Laura is fired for repeatedly calling one of her black callers a “n*gg*r.” Palin’s advice to her? “Don’t retreat — reload.” The evidence is there. You’ve seen the racist protest signs, anti-Mexican convention speeches, blatant abuse of the n-word… Threats to shoot the president, explicit and otherwise, as seen on various blogs and Newsvine. The burden of proof is overwhelming. I even met a TPer a few weeks back who was yelling at a Mexican store clerk. “I’m calling Arpaio to arrest you, fucking wetback!”

DJTmetz: Again, the Dr. Laura thing you can hardly call racist, from the article you linked me anyway. Stupid? yes. Racist? no. And again, there are crazies in every party and group — they hardly represent what the groups stand for.

Kei_Angels: The crazies are in control of the Tea Party. The keynote speech at the TP convention was an anti-mexican rant.

DJTmetz: If that’s the one you showed me before (where Tancredo was the speaker I thinkg?) then no, it wasn’t racist.

Kei_Angels: You are just refusing to acknowledge the evidence. You don’t WANT to believe that the Tea Party is racist, so you selectively ignore anything that conflicts with that viewpoint. It’s the same logic used to justify Creationism.

DJTmetz: Either way, the message of the Restoring Honor rally was entirely unobjectionable, to the point that even most lefties are lauding it, even if somewhat reluctantly (jealousy over the ability to attract that size of crowd, I’d wager).

Kei_Angels: It WAS objectionable. Haven’t we moved past all this God bullshit? I hate having it shoved down my throat. The last thing this country needs is a relapse into superstition. We’ve outgrown religion, and it’s just hurting us now.

DJTmetz: Couldn’t I justifiably ask you the same question? And suggest that it is you who are refusing to address actual issues?

Kei_Angels: Sorry, but when your side is hurling around the n-word, it’s your turn to be on the defensive.

DJTmetz: Excuse me? Shoved down your throat? He can’t MAKE you listen to his speech; that’d be why we separate religion from gov’t. Hey wait, I thought I was supposed to be the anti-religious one here. I am Christian, you know.

Kei_Angels: Really? Is that why Beck’s religion (Mormonism) helped pass a law in California that took away MY rights, and those of my peers? All because they wanted to legislate their morality? Force others to obey THEIR definition of marriage?

DJTmetz: That’s what people DO in a democratic gov’t. Everyone pushes for their beliefs about the way things should be; what makes us exceptional is that we can do it in a nonviolent way. They have as much a right to push a marriage amendment as the left has to repeal anti-sodomy laws.

Kei_Angels: It’s alright for you to infringe on MY rights, as long as it passes a popular vote? Glad to know you Christians are out to get me. What are you going to outlaw next, masturbation? God HATES that one. How about extramarital sex? Scientology? Better get going! Nice to know the nanny theocracy is choosing MY morality! It’s so nice to let God do all the thinking! I just obey his divine will!

DJTmetz: Riddle me this: you’re an atheist, right? How do you have “rights” that mustn’t be stepped on? *whew* You’re really getting yourself into a frantic raving loony mess here; I didn’t even state my opinion on such laws.

Kei_Angels: Simple. It’s called enlightened self interest. Humans are social animals. The happier individual humans are, the happier society is.

DJTmetz: …rather I pointed out that such laws were around and struck down, and the putting up or striking down of such things is completely arbitrary…and I’m thinking you’re gonna tell me to use twitlonger in a minute here huh? XD

Kei_Angels: It’s in everybody’s best interest to treat others with kindness and respect. It makes the individual happier, and society better. That’s because we evolved as social animals. We HAVE to help each other to survive. That’s how we’re coded.

DJTmetz: But even that’s arbitrary. You decided that happiness is great. That itself is a moral judgment Under your stipulations of nonuniversal morals, somebody else could just as easily decide that everyone should just die (nihilism), and you can’t really argue that your ideas are any better than theirs because it’s all arbitrary in the end.

Kei_Angels: People are free to be nihilistic as long as they don’t harm others. The good of society ALWAYS comes first. Base human instinct is survival. Our best hope for survival comes from supporting the social order that keeps us alive and healthy. A society that encourages free secular thought is more conducive to further scientific advancement, which helps humanity’s survival in the long run.

DJTmetz: But what is the “good” of society? Under your belief, happiness; under someone else’s, death. So you say, but history says science (and reason in general, really) is the child of Christian theology. In other words, there’s no reason to ask scientific questions or assume a reasonable world with regular physical laws w/o God.

Kei_Angels: Society should encourage humans to better themselves and those around them. Monetary gain and religion are distractions. Humans used religion to justify their deep-held instincts to preserve human life and exercise curiosity. Both curiosity and respect for life were around long before organized religion. That’s fact. Simply because scientific curiosity and respect for life contributed to our survival. That’s why we’re Earth’s apex predator.

DJTmetz: Yes, but science requires something more distinct — IE the understanding that there are universal laws of nature. But again, you’re not basing that on anything but your own opinion, which is purely arbitrary.

Kei_Angels: It’s not arbitrary. We know how evolution works. Natural selection chose humanity because of those traits. The ability to grasp abstract and philosophical concepts is an evolutionary adaptation that has served us well.

DJTmetz: Your opinion about what is “good” IS arbitrary…as are ALL morals, in your religion, anyway.

Kei_Angels: It’s not a religion. It’s based on hard evidence and the scientific process, not blind faith. I’m a naturalist. I always demand PROOF. Hard, repeatable, peer-reviewed evidence obtained via the scientific method. That is not faith. It’s fact.

DJTmetz: It still doesn’t make “to survive” anything more than an arbitrary moral value. Ah but the scientific method doesn’t work unless you’ve already accepted that there is a Nature to things…which isn’t rational unless you accept the idea of a designer.

Kei_Angels: Just because science hasn’t found an explanation doesn’t mean you can assume a supernatural cause. The sun isn’t a divine chariot. Nor must we accept a designer because we don’t fully understand the universe. The universe does not bow to our human conceits. We used God as a crutch to explain away the unexplainable. We don’t need that crutch anymore.

DJTmetz: I’m just saying it’s not reasonable to think there’s an Order to things without an Orderer.

Kei_Angels: Why? You’re assuming the universe obeys the laws of philosophy… that it must conform to your worldview of how things work. Order and Chaos are human conceits. They’re terms we created so we can begin to understand that which is beyond our understanding. Another product of our evolved sense of curiosity, to be sure. We’re always looking for an explanation.

DJTmetz: I’m just saying, the way science is now, God is pretty much an accepted axiom. If you don’t believe in God, there’s no reason to believe in science or the scientific method as a credible method of reasoning.

Kei_Angels: Sure there is. I don’t believe in God, and I believe science is credible. That’s because science has proven itself. God has not. Science gives repeatable results. God does not. Science is observable and falsifiable. God is not. I’ll bet you’ve done the same thing in your life. Taken a seemingly unexplainable event, some good fortune, and said “God did it.”

DJTmetz: But there’s no reason to believe that repeated results prove something indefinitely, if you haven’t already postulated that natural physical laws exist; There’s no reason to conduct such experiments in the first place, since the answer might as well be whimsical.

Kei_Angels: You have no PROOF that God did it, of course. It’s just nice to think he did. Makes life nice and orderly. You’re defining science by your own limited worldview. If it doesn’t make sense to you, it can’t make sense to anybody else either.

DJTmetz: Well then, even reason is capricious and relative, eh? I’m glad _I_ don’t believe that.

Kei_Angels: But people like me don’t NEED God to justify these things. We’re perfectly capable of justifying our morality and lives without him.

DJTmetz: It’s true that I count my blessings from the bottom up; and thank God for things like being able to go to College despite being the 5th child in my family…but I hardly see how that’s within the relevance of our conversation.

Kei_Angels: It’s relevant because of magical thinking. Something unexplained happens, you jump to God. That’s the fallacy in your reasoning. Admit it. You NEED God to justify yourself. He’s a mental crutch to explain away the inconveniences of reality.

DJTmetz: I didn’t ever jump to God in our earlier conversation to explain something I found inexplicable. Rather, I was trying to explain the axioms Science has and why it has them.

Kei_Angels: You can’t deal with the fact that reality is arbitrary. You jump straight to God to comfort yourself with the illusion of meaning.

DJTmetz: There, you said exactly what I’ve been trying to get across the whole time; under your belief system YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! In other words, nothing’s sacred, and under a democratic system, whichever laws get the most votes should go, and you should stop complaining as if anybody’s rights mattered.

Kei_Angels: I don’t believe in democracy. I think humans are too stupid for it. I believe in providing the ILLUSION of democracy like we do now.

DJTmetz: And if you want a proof of God, since God is an axiom of science and science works, well, it seems reasonable to believe.

Kei_Angels: But you’re still defining my views by your own limited understanding. Just because you can’t justify my morals doesn’t mean I can’t.

DJTmetz: Ah, again with reason being relative and arbitrary. So if a = b and b = c, in your world it is reasonable to conclude a != c.

Kei_Angels: My worldview makes perfect logical sense, without the need for magical sky beings. It’s based on simple observations about humans.

DJTmetz: Uh huh. So far your perfect logical sense amounts to “shut up, you’re an idiot; it is because it is”.

Kei_Angels: Nope, you just like ignoring arguments you can’t deal with. That’s why you won’t admit the Tea Party is racist, among other things. Religion and conservatism in the modern age are both products of cognitive dissonance. Those beliefs don’t hold up to scrutiny.

DJTmetz: Maybe I’m alone in this, but it seems like the best way to describe “morals” is as a sense, like sight, sound, taste, etc. Of course…that idea rather assumes that morals are universal, or rather that there is a right and a wrong.

Kei_Angels: In the world of conservatism, calling a black person a n*gg*r is not racist

DJTmetz: Actually it is; but that’s not what the article you linked to me said Dr. Laura had done.

Kei_Angels: In the world of religion, believing in invisible beings is logical. They’re both based on self-deception.

DJTmetz: Well if you understand logic, (and I think you do, but you’re evading), you have to start somewhere, which means axioms. And I accept “there is a God” as an axiom to begin reasoning from.

Kei_Angels: But anyway… I’ve got a podcast to prepare for. Thanks for the rousing discussion!

DJTmetz: Alrighty, have fun; though I hate to have basically repeated the points I made in my blogpost 😛 And God Bless!

Kei_Angels: Oh, and while I’m gone, read this. It explains what I was trying to say far better than I can. http://ritsu.me/aqwPUw

The discussion ended there. I must say it is a healthy discussion and kudos to both person for being professional in handling it, ie. not getting carried away and not taking things too personally although it may be in contrast to what they believe, and most importantly they did not calling names on each other just because they’re disagreeing, and they remain being friends, which is a good example for all of us.

As for me, I’m siding with believing in God and religion. I may be biased because I’m a believer but believe me I don’t place my support by default merely because I believe in God, but rather because I still see God and religion “makes sense” to me, and I don’t see religion as restrictive as many atheists may think, and not as prohibitive as it may seem. My opinion is from what I’ve seen, atheists and anti-religion people are just those who are afraid or lacking the will to acknowledge the existence of God, mainly because of personal reputation, not because they have solid proof that God does not exist.

Most atheists (or humanists or whatever they call themselves) I’ve encountered so far always told me God does not exist simply because there is no scientific proof that he does exist. And they may continue believing it that way as long as they have enough words to defend themselves, although things may not necessarily true. However as far as I know the absence of proof is not the proof of absence and that’s what science taught me, as for why people continue believing the existence of intelligent life out there despite the lack of real evidence. The worst I’ve seen is many atheists put the blame on religion for the lack of freedom for things that may have nothing to do with them such as gay marriage, transsexual, etc., claiming themselves as the victim of religious oppression. I don’t understand why must they care and being particular about marriage when marriage is a religion thing to begin with. Yeah I may be wrong but what we believe is a personal thing to begin with so I’ll just let you readers to decide.

And as personally requested by both DJTmetz and Kei_Angels themselves, here are the links they’d like to voluntarily share with readers:

http://metzmeanderings.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-morals-axiomatic-or-can-we-reach.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_Atheism_FAQ_for_the_Newly_Deconverted

And you may also want to follow them on twitter too:

https://twitter.com/Kei_Angels

https://twitter.com/DJTmetz

Also sorry if my limited English is too hard for you to understand. Do tell me if there is stuff need to be fixed. Your help is very much appreciated.

How shallow-minded


I just can’t understand certain group of people. They openly expressed their opinions on things (either in positive or negative manner) but when I do the same thing too that happen to be in contrast to their personal interests, they ended up calling me names, as if disagreeing with them is a crime. Those people always claimed themselves as being “able to accept criticisms well” yet in reality they can’t afford to face counterclaims from me. Perhaps they see my disagreement as a personal attack against them that makes them reacted like that? Who knows? Or maybe those kind of reactions are just the proof that they see me as a friend that they don’t mind about showing negative sides of them to me but how can I call those people as “friends” in return when all they expected is for me to agree with them all the way? For them the only valid opinions are the ones they approve of. That’s what I call injustice. And some even hypocritically telling me to ignore things if I don’t like it but they did not choose to ignore me themselves. How shallow-minded.

Actually I always started it in a healthy way by avoiding the use of harsh words and rude statements, without pointing out personal displeasing against one’s preferences, tried hard to make it as healthy and friendly as I could but then they become bitter and started to call me names like “drama king”, “elitist”, “butthurt”, “hater”, “emo”, etc. Not to mention how they are being the first to use terms like “troll”, “pretentious”, “serious business”, “desperate”, and a million variations of the word “fag” against me, as well as using various 4chan-only-trendy memes as attempts to insult me and in hope to demoralize me, even go as far as making noise about it everywhere as if it’s a big deal (and should I include “trying to take revenge on me” too, by stalking/spying on me whenever they get the chance?), treating me as an enemy or too bad of a person, successfully makes me wonder who are actually trolling in that case, and what’s wrong about me counterclaiming them? Well, even if I DID use harsh words and rude statements before, chances are those are mostly directed towards the subject of discussion/debate instead of one’s personality. How shallow-minded.

Not to mention there were also times when they expressed something and I show my disagreement, they’d accuse me of flaming and resorting to force/threaten/blackmail me to “get along” or “follow the flow” only according to their own way. How can we tell it as “getting along” if it is something that is being forced on us and it is solely based on their own consideration and judgment? It is ironic and hypocritical when you asked people to “get along” but you can’t accept it yourself when there are people disagree with you, as if only your opinions/views are valid while others are just garbage You asked people to have better terms with each other while you force them to abandon their unfinished business, although your decision may appear favoring only those who always siding with you. And usually those people are always in the same group and keep buttkissing each other by approving each other’s opinions. For them that’s what they call “getting along with each other”, acting like they’re sharing the same ideals, although what they’re doing is just not being true to themselves where each of them might actually have their own opinions too (which may have a high possibility of being different or in opposite to what they agreed as a collective) but they are too coward or can’t afford to oppose each other for the sake of the so-called “getting along”. How shallow-minded.

Alright, those probably are things that happened in the past so now I no longer care. If those people can do that sort of thing then I’ll do it too starting from now for a fair play, and from now on don’t blame me if you’re butthurted for being the victim of character defamation, endless belittling and excessive mockery as a result of disagreed with me because I already stated it clearly in my Disclaimer. It’s been there for a long time and I even made it sticky so blame yourself if you failed to notice it. And if you think the only valid opinions are the ones you approve of then I’m applying the same mechanics to this place too that by replying to my words here, you accept my views and opinions as being right regardless of anything. In other words, by disagreeing with me in this blog of mine, you’re actually ‘breaching’ my disclaimer which in return it’s okay for me or anyone else to slander and/or libel you on this or any other web site, in public, at your place of employment, or anywhere else in this or any other universe and/or dimension. You’ve been warned.

Well because of I seemingly have the tendency to disagree with those people (which is actually coincidental), whatever I do will always be so wrong in their eyes (but they’re OK with people within their group doing it?). Anyways I guess I’ll just let those people do what they want to do. Maybe it’s a sign that they consider me as better than them…to make themselves look better they HAVE to tear others down (though I think it’s pointless to bring me down to my knees because it won’t change anything and nobody cares about my reputation on the net either; really it doesn’t matter). Maybe I could take that as some sort of ‘compliment’ too and take it easy.

How I Feel About Swear Words, Goshdarnit


Some people love to swear. For others it makes them cringe. So where do I stand, and why?

When only swearing will do

I like to categorize swearing into two categories; acceptable swearing and unacceptable swearing, depending on the level of harshness and vulgarity of the swearing words. For the acceptable ones, they are the less vulgar words such as 'damn' and "holy crap", which I'm fine with and don't really mind if people using them. In fact I also may use it sometimes. The unacceptable ones are of course the vulgar words including the overused 'f***' word, 'bull sh1t' and a few others (including hand signal as depicted in the picture above) that I can't afford to use here (even I have to mask them with asterisks and l33t in order to use them here).

So you think swearing is cool? I never think so, in fact swearing to the point that it becomes the daily occurrence in someone's life makes him/her look bad, if not being bad him/herself. I just don't understand why people, especially the Americans like to swear so much. I believe everybody was taught by their parents to "mind our language" when we were kids but why change as we grow older? Doesn't that means we're 'betraying' our parents?

People should stop making swearing (I mean the use of vulgar words) as an acceptable act, and never adopt it as a modern culture. What kind of culture that approves badmouthing? And have any of you ever think why swearing is called 'badmouthing' in the first place? Because, yes, it's bad. Some of you may think there's nothing bad about swearing but didn't your parents told you so when you were kids? And would you say it's not a bad thing to your kids? If you can't say swearing is a GOOD thing to begin with, then stop being hypocritical about it and stop swearing (again, the use of vulgar words) right away, right now.

(6/13 people who think their life sucks swearing at each other and think doing so will make their life better)

Powered by Plinky

The Best Advice I Ever Received


Just like quotes, I rarely (almost never) abide to people’s advices. It’s not that I’m selfish or what but I take them as a mere suggestions, which means in the end things will always depend on myself, and luck, and even God’s intervention (if you atheist people out there are laughing at me because I believe in God, then you are wrong). And more often than enough, people thought they’re giving advice to me although they were just shoving their ideals upon me.

Advice

Anyways, this is one of the best advices I ever received, “A good relationship must based on mutual give and take”. This advice can be viewed from both positive and negative side. For example, we may think a relationship like that is insincere or hypocritical because a payback is expected, but on a positive note, a payback is always necessary in order to make the relationship healthy a.k.a. symbiotic instead of parasitic. Isn’t it better if both parties win, right?

Like I said earlier, advice is more of a suggestion, because it’s always based on one’s past experiences. However one thing people should note is, if it works on you it doesn’t mean it will work on others too. Also if you think you might have better solution to certain problems than other people, think again. I’m not against giving advice but before doing so, we should do enough assessment about it and not ending up forcing others to follow our ways.

Now what if I put a little twist to the ‘advice’ I received above? “Give and take advice to and from each other”. That would be better because advice won’t work if it only goes one way. And even if we think we really need to give advice, please remember this; try to do so in good intention for the sake of everybody, also do it with patience because it’s normal if people don’t listen to you on the first time. And here comes another good advice, “Never give up”.

(12/53 people gave up giving me advice after infinite try)

Powered by Plinky