"Hi, I hate you. How was your weekend?"

There are people who I like and who like me, people I don't like and who don't like me, and people who I'm not sure about.

The third category comprises of people who I just can't make my mind up about. Most of the time, we are friendly, but sometimes, there is a small suspicion that they have a problem with me. Of course, it is doubtful that anybody's personality is flawless, but surely it is better to let someone know about their faults so that they can either reflect and evaluate, or tell you to " go forth and multiply" in strong language, perhaps with violence for added effect.

Remaining silent has its obvious advantages. Most do not like to have their personality analysed and ripped apart, and most do not like to inform other people about their defects. After all, it is better to keep more friends than to make more enemies (or is it - perhaps a subject for discussion in another blog post). It can't be guarenteed that people will always see or consider your point. Consider the following senario:

Person A, "Hi, how was your weekend?"
Person B, "Just go away. You're so nosy. Either that or you're really egotistical and want me to ask about your weekend so you can brag about how fast you drove your new car."
A, "Just trying to be friendly. I won't make that mistake again."

(Pretend for argument's sake that A is egotistical and B doesn't like it)

I would doubt that these two characters (not based on real life people) would ever be friends again,
UNLESS...

A saw that B had a point, understood B, and was less nosy / egotistical in front of B. Likewise, if B thought about what he/she said, they could come to an understanding and be friends again.

But suppose that A and B after this conversation were enemies for the rest of their lives. They would probably avoid talking and would never even try understand the other person's opinion. At least if they were fake and friendly, they might have sustained a longer period of "friendship".

The key is understanding. And how are we to understand if people are fake? We mean well when we do not flaunt our opinions of others to their faces, but suppose any criticisms could be taken constructively and that both sides could learn. Then, they may better understand one another and come to an agreement - to like or to dislike the other person. I, for one, would rather know where I stand with somebody than be content with the fact that they respond politely to smalltalk.

x

Me, myself and I

I just want to clarify that I am in no way "against" Christianity or any sensible religion that teaches good morals. I am against a certain breed of Christians who believe that they are holier than everyone else and who think they have the right to judge the lives of others using their own lives as examples of how to lead the perfect life. This only includes 2 people so far.

Also, I'm not against judging, as long as it is impartial and based on views from both sides. In most of my posts, I display one sided arguments, but I do not "judge" people who hold an alternative view or criticise them for it. If someone a) has an opposing point of view with decent points and b) will try to understand my view, then I want to hear their view too.

To all blog readers - thanks very much for reading this blog, and please take no offence. If you disagree, please leave a comment.

xx

"And on the 6th day, God created man" - an unlikely story

It actually frightens me how creationism is making a comeback, so much that many science teachers are being forced to teach creationism as a real alternative instead of natural selection in school. For me, anti-evolutionaries, on the whole, are people who either do not know what evolution is, or who have very limited knowledge and cannot deal with the overwhelming amount of knowledge in support of evolution and natural selection.

Evolution is the accumulated change of a species until we arrive at a result that is different from the original being. Those who do not believe in evolution therefore do not believe in change. Look around you. Living things change - we can do it by breeding bacteria on a petri dish in the space of a week. Just because a singly human does not live long enough to see it with large animals does not mean it isn't there. Through years of selective breeding, scientists have developed new species of crops, e.g. Brussel sprouts from the bog standard cabbage. If you still think evolution doesn't exist, open your eyes!

However, simply realising that evolution is correct does not immediately refute creationism. Is it possible that God created the first life form and then left life to its own devices? Doubtful. People who do not understand science use the argument that the chance of life as we know it today spontaneously errupting from nothing is about the same as a hurricane passing through a scapyard and leaving behind a fully functional plane. By these odds, they argue that God must have put life on Earth because it is too improbable that life just evolved.

Let's actually apply some logical reasoning to the situation. Life, according to natural selection and evolution, did not just spontaneously appear in all its full glory as we know it today. Life's progression took many smaller steps, each of which, though still unlikely, makes the whole thing far more probable than life just appearing from nothing (as it suggests in Genesis). Furthermore, if life is so complex and improbable, doesn't that make an omniscient, omnipotent god far more improbable? In which case, who or what created God? And who or what created the creator of God? Then, who or what created the creator of the creator of God? To me, that doesn't make any sense. The only way out of it is to say that God is outside of time - and that he is a power that we cannot comprehend. If this is true, what makes ardent creationists so sure that God created life if they cannot understand him? How can they follow or belive in somehting they do not understand? At least those of us who are more logical actually understand the concept that we believe is correct.

Ah, but the answer is, of course, faith. Or rather, irrational belief in something for which you know there is little evidence to support. Don't get me wrong, faith is sometimes a good thing, but when the alternative is logical and comprehensive, but rely on pure faith. Because God says so? But remember that you don't understand him, so how do you know he wants you to have faith? Ah, i see, the answer, yet again, is faith. How silly.

Once again, I might appear to be "anti-Christian" but i do respect the views of other people if they have been thought through. What I do not respect is blind faith - belief in something without even thinking about it. If you can think logically and arrive at a different, but still valid conclusion, then ok, I'm waiting to hear your side of the argument. If you cannot think for yourself and need to rely on faith, then at least trust those with brains. After all, God gave us brains, if that's what you believe.

xx

Free as a bird?

Are we really free in today's world? Ok, some say that we have freedom to do what we want, as long as nothing too harmful comes out of it. Yet we are bound by so many rules and regulations that "freedom" needs to be redefined.

In British society today, we are told that we are free. But free to do what exactly? To buy a newspaper? To talk to other people about my opinions? To choose what clothes I wear?
Beyond that, i'm not really sure how free I am, I'm putting this down to labels. Suppose that I smoke, wear a hoddie with trousers that go round my knees, swear a lot and use "street" language, then people would label me a chav and I would belong to a group of people who are all labelled chavs. But then suppose I would start listening to Classic FM instead of KISS (for example), I would be no longer labelled a chav, both by chav friends and others. So in im own interests of staying within a group, I would not listen to Classic FM. In other words, I do not have the freedom to do what I want. (I am not saying that all chavs smoke, swear, and dress badly. If you are reading this and consider yourself a chav is reading this, don't be offended - its simply what the rest of the world thinks of you and you are free to make up your own mind about yourself).

Suppose now that I wanted a bit of everything and did everything according to my tastes and not what society / my cliques expects of me. Then I would not be part of any group, and would find it difficult to fit in and make connections based on the fact that I don't belong. So in this respect, we are not free to do what we choose, and everyone must hide their true personality or project a false one in order to "belong." (After all belonging to a group has secured our evolutionary survival thus far, but that is a topic for a another post...)

Is this a bad thing? I vote no. Staying in a group has its obvious advantages, and if you don't like being fake, then there are plenty of other groups to join. In my experience, most cliques are simply formed of people who share a common interest. And even if staying in a group means projecting a persona that is not how you view yourself, it is better than the alternative of being alone. After all, since when are we completely free to live and think?- our thoughts and actions are shaped by those around us. Why should be look for complete social freedom when we know it comes at too high a cost?

X

Here I am- deliver me! ................................... or not.

Why do some "hardcore" christians feel the need to pray in public, deliver "you're going to hell" speeches and shove unwanted flyers into hands of those innocently passsing by?

As an atheist, perhaps I am unable to understand the subtleties of religion, but I shall do by best. Through my understanding of the Christian religion, God is able to talk to eveyone and values everyone equally. God knows everything, including when you're praying and what you're praying about.

Yet some Christians believe that they have the right to judge the actions of others simply because they go round praying in public and trying to force their judgements those around them (evangelise their friends). Yet how would a Christian be able to judge others without being free of sin, as it states in the Bible? Of course, it is because they are holier than everyone else and because they believe they are like Christ. Maybe I would be wrong in calling this blasphemy, perhaps, "aspiring to be like a role model" is a better phrase...

Perhaps it is time for those Christians to take a leaf from the books of their supposedly less holy Christian peers and realise that they are not God, and that God, and the rest of the world, does not appreciate them trying to be God.

X