Thursday 18 September 2008
Sex, Drugs & Religion
- non-muslim to begin with
: Well, both my parents are religious, but were not super strict zealots. I was brought up in a Muslim community. I went through the six-year compulsory Ugama education that most Bruneian muslims went through.
He must've skipped the lessons and gone smoking in the girls' toilet, while doing syabu. (I was actually a good boy. Attended all my classes, and never took to drugs.)
- a Brunei ethnic minority
I'm Malay. I go to over-the-top weddings and eat Ambuyat, which I actually like. I have a slightly Kedayan accent, which narrows the list down for you people wanting to hunt me down. C'mon.
An atheist that likes Ambuyat?!! That's got to be fucking impossible! This guy hates Brunei (I don't hate Brunei by the way) and he's fucking eating our favourite food!?
- secretly gay
I wish. Hahaha. I'm a guy, who has a girlfriend, and I think the sex is very hetero. I have thought about that. If I was indeed gay. But I still enjoy normal, full-frontal sex. So I doubt I'm gay. But hey, I may just be bi. Who knows. Safe sex for everyone.
SEX??? Jason Biggs is talking about sex??!!! Noooo. Taboo! Bad JB.
- with the ego the size of Australia
I have an ego. I don't doubt that at all. Though Australia is an exaggeration. Maybe a small nation, like the Vatican City. Thought that'd be ironic, wouldn't it? Maybe just the size of Jong Batu. That would fit it, in a twisted sort of way.
Fucking right you are, you traitor!!
And funnily enough, I was thinking of doing a facial. Everyone's going metrosexual now. Anyone know a good place to do a facial for men?
---------------
Enough of my self-indulgent, self-deprecating answers to Bantal's deductions. And no, the red commentary isn't aimed at Bantal. It's just merely for my pleasure.
I've noticed that Blabness and Md have been talking about animal rights, and coincidentally it's a topic I feel quite strongly about.
I'll discuss this soon.
Wednesday 17 September 2008
Reason: I'm Back
As I said, I was taking a break. And it's been about 5 days since I last posted.
There's a thing called Pascal's Wager. Basically this is the argument. It's better to be a believer than an atheist because if you're a believer and you're right, you go to heaven. If you're wrong, you don't lose anything. If you're an atheist and you're right, when you die you don't get anything. However if you're wrong, you're going to hell. Seems convincing, but this argument has some major flaws.
This argument assumes that the God you believe in, and the religion you adhere to is the right one out of the hundreds of religions out there. When you realise how many 'gods' and religions are out there being worshipped, then you see how improbable it is for your religion to be the correct one.
The other argument assumes that God (or Goddess), if you've somehow managed to choose the right one, be it Yahweh, Allah, Jesus Christ, The Mighty Eagle Ukhtar, Gaia, Ganesh, Buddha, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Nkosi Yezulu, Shangdi, Brahman, Ahura Mazda, Deus, Zeus, Ra, Thor or Nike, prefers blind faith to reason. I don't think a God that puts reason, intellect and curiosity into humanity would then make these features irrelevant and force humankind to blindly believe in him without any reasoning.
If there was a God that was intelligent, understanding and reasonable, then I would think He/She would prefer a reasoning mankind. So I don't think a reasoning God would punish His/Her creations for doubting His/Her own existence. I mean, why would an omnipotent, omniscient being be pissed about some insignificant person not believing in its existence? Self-esteem problems, maybe?
If God was to exist, I think he would prefer the reasoning intellect of an atheist than the blind faith of some blithering idiot (this is an extreme. I'm not saying all religious people are blithering idiots) who never question anything and follows every single command to its exact wording.
So if your God is the type to damn people to hell forever for not believing in him, it wouldn't be much different to a dictator who sends people to prison for not agreeing with his views.
By the way, on Md's point about reason. I have something I want to say about that. And yes, it concerns God. So all you sensitive religious types, you might wanna just fix your gaze at this photo and count to ten, and then go away:
Okay, about reason.
Okay, about reason.There's a thing called Pascal's Wager. Basically this is the argument. It's better to be a believer than an atheist because if you're a believer and you're right, you go to heaven. If you're wrong, you don't lose anything. If you're an atheist and you're right, when you die you don't get anything. However if you're wrong, you're going to hell. Seems convincing, but this argument has some major flaws.
This argument assumes that the God you believe in, and the religion you adhere to is the right one out of the hundreds of religions out there. When you realise how many 'gods' and religions are out there being worshipped, then you see how improbable it is for your religion to be the correct one.
The other argument assumes that God (or Goddess), if you've somehow managed to choose the right one, be it Yahweh, Allah, Jesus Christ, The Mighty Eagle Ukhtar, Gaia, Ganesh, Buddha, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Nkosi Yezulu, Shangdi, Brahman, Ahura Mazda, Deus, Zeus, Ra, Thor or Nike, prefers blind faith to reason. I don't think a God that puts reason, intellect and curiosity into humanity would then make these features irrelevant and force humankind to blindly believe in him without any reasoning.
If there was a God that was intelligent, understanding and reasonable, then I would think He/She would prefer a reasoning mankind. So I don't think a reasoning God would punish His/Her creations for doubting His/Her own existence. I mean, why would an omnipotent, omniscient being be pissed about some insignificant person not believing in its existence? Self-esteem problems, maybe?
If God was to exist, I think he would prefer the reasoning intellect of an atheist than the blind faith of some blithering idiot (this is an extreme. I'm not saying all religious people are blithering idiots) who never question anything and follows every single command to its exact wording.
So if your God is the type to damn people to hell forever for not believing in him, it wouldn't be much different to a dictator who sends people to prison for not agreeing with his views.
Saturday 13 September 2008
Taking A Break
I'll be taking a break for a few days, I think. Things have come up, and I'll be extremely busy. If I have time to update, I will. But I doubt it.
After I've started this blog, the reaction so far, has been somewhat predictable. But I didn't realise it would spread like wildfire. It's got so much attention from other bloggers. I think I've managed to make people talk and think. And I'm proud of that.
There's a few things that still leaves a bad taste in the mouth though.
A friend of mine remarked on the mediocrity of arguments made by some of the readers. Or rather the absence of any actual valid points in their arguments. I also was aggrieved that some people didn't bother to read my blog properly before deciding what kind of person I am or how they should approach my arguments.
But then as time went on, those mediocre, pointless, inept threat-makers disappeared slowly (though there are still a minority) and the type of Bruneians that I hoped is the majority, slowly came forth. These are the people who aren't afraid to argue their points articulately. These are people who know where I was coming from, even though they didn't necessarily agree with me. These are the people who can think for themselves, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
I'll be back, fairly soon.
I've just realised I've got a life to live.
After I've started this blog, the reaction so far, has been somewhat predictable. But I didn't realise it would spread like wildfire. It's got so much attention from other bloggers. I think I've managed to make people talk and think. And I'm proud of that.
There's a few things that still leaves a bad taste in the mouth though.
A friend of mine remarked on the mediocrity of arguments made by some of the readers. Or rather the absence of any actual valid points in their arguments. I also was aggrieved that some people didn't bother to read my blog properly before deciding what kind of person I am or how they should approach my arguments.
But then as time went on, those mediocre, pointless, inept threat-makers disappeared slowly (though there are still a minority) and the type of Bruneians that I hoped is the majority, slowly came forth. These are the people who aren't afraid to argue their points articulately. These are people who know where I was coming from, even though they didn't necessarily agree with me. These are the people who can think for themselves, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
I'll be back, fairly soon.
I've just realised I've got a life to live.
Thursday 11 September 2008
Racism II
bantalburuk, it's not the point that no offence was intended. The point is, the term is offensive in itself. Try calling a black man "orang hitam." See what reaction you get. Calling a white man white has never been offensive. Try calling a black man "nigger," and try to argue that you didn't intend for it to be offensive. I bet if you say that in Harlem or Hackney, you'd get into a lot of unwanted trouble.
Trial, here I've only listed racial problems concerning derogatory terms and prejudice. I haven't even begun to explore systematic racial discrimination. I didn't say Bruneians have an agenda to degrade non-Malays. What I'm saying is that in some people the racism is more deep-rooted, and sometimes even subsconscious. It may be not as bad as Malaysia, whose government system favours Malays much more than the other ethnicities.
And if you only hear people even use the word 'kedai kaling,' then I guess I must know more racist people than you, sadly. Even the term 'kedai kaling' is still offensive. Yes, 'a little racism is still racism.'
Yes, most of the racism in Brunei is verbal. But then that shows that racism is indeed a trait in some. If we let it be and don't do anything about it, then this racism will evolve into something worse. Physical, systematical abuse even. It'd be extreme to say we'll have a Malay KKK. I don't think it'll come to that. But it can come to the point where someone can be - say - overlooked for a promotion because he's not Malay. I know, it's not as bad as some countries. But it's still bad.
And the difference is in UK, even though a minority do that, it's a shocking thing for them. When they hear someone is being abused racially, there's a national outcry. People condemn it publicly. It's unacceptable. A few years back in the news, someone said the word 'nigger' on live television in the UK. It caused nationwide condemnation. A teacher says racist things to a student, and it will get on the news.
In Brunei, such things don't even get a mention. If someone in a group is being racist, the most typical reaction will be to dismiss it as funny or intended to be inoffensive. Any racism is in nature offensive.
CORRECTION FOR GHAZ:
After a bit of researching, I found the word ghaz in the time of the Quran was written did not refer to gas. Ghaz was derived from the word gas. It was an arabicised word. The word gas itself came from a Dutch (?) scientist.
I am sensible enough to point out when one fact is wrong.
Don't celebrate yet though. I've still got the other ones right:
[1] the fact that earth and smoke (or heavens) was never together at the beginning, since Earth existed only millions of years after the Big Bang. Even earth to mean soil is inaccurate, because there were no rocks, no ground. Not even matter.
[2] the abundant use of that imagery even before the Quran was written. The Quran could've gotten this imagery from a variety of sources
[3] the wrong assumption that there are only two entities, the earth and the universe
Trial, here I've only listed racial problems concerning derogatory terms and prejudice. I haven't even begun to explore systematic racial discrimination. I didn't say Bruneians have an agenda to degrade non-Malays. What I'm saying is that in some people the racism is more deep-rooted, and sometimes even subsconscious. It may be not as bad as Malaysia, whose government system favours Malays much more than the other ethnicities.
And if you only hear people even use the word 'kedai kaling,' then I guess I must know more racist people than you, sadly. Even the term 'kedai kaling' is still offensive. Yes, 'a little racism is still racism.'
Yes, most of the racism in Brunei is verbal. But then that shows that racism is indeed a trait in some. If we let it be and don't do anything about it, then this racism will evolve into something worse. Physical, systematical abuse even. It'd be extreme to say we'll have a Malay KKK. I don't think it'll come to that. But it can come to the point where someone can be - say - overlooked for a promotion because he's not Malay. I know, it's not as bad as some countries. But it's still bad.
And the difference is in UK, even though a minority do that, it's a shocking thing for them. When they hear someone is being abused racially, there's a national outcry. People condemn it publicly. It's unacceptable. A few years back in the news, someone said the word 'nigger' on live television in the UK. It caused nationwide condemnation. A teacher says racist things to a student, and it will get on the news.
In Brunei, such things don't even get a mention. If someone in a group is being racist, the most typical reaction will be to dismiss it as funny or intended to be inoffensive. Any racism is in nature offensive.
CORRECTION FOR GHAZ:
After a bit of researching, I found the word ghaz in the time of the Quran was written did not refer to gas. Ghaz was derived from the word gas. It was an arabicised word. The word gas itself came from a Dutch (?) scientist.
I am sensible enough to point out when one fact is wrong.
Don't celebrate yet though. I've still got the other ones right:
[1] the fact that earth and smoke (or heavens) was never together at the beginning, since Earth existed only millions of years after the Big Bang. Even earth to mean soil is inaccurate, because there were no rocks, no ground. Not even matter.
[2] the abundant use of that imagery even before the Quran was written. The Quran could've gotten this imagery from a variety of sources
[3] the wrong assumption that there are only two entities, the earth and the universe
Double Topic: Discussion & Racism
Okay. myreligiousislam thinks by going to MORA officers will give me the answer I'm looking for. The truth is, in fact, I have talked to them. I didn't go directly to the MORA, but I know some of them personally. And I did talk to them for quite a bit. I mentioned that in the cBox.
And for the most part, I found it to be quite unsatisfying. Many of the arguments I've read and discussed before. A few even cursed at me. No one's actually come up with anything new. myreligionislam and guest1 (there are so many guests. Haha. I think all the guests should find pseudonyms so it's less confusing) argues I should find better informed officers.
So when is this cycle going to end? I didn't find the answer because I didn't try hard enough? It's a very convenient thing to say. It's like me saying that you didn't become an atheist because you didn't try hard enough at talking with the atheists who really know their stuff. Compared to them, I'm merely just trying to catch up. But then even so, I still argue my points, and I believe I've argued very well.
I don't blindly put my faith in the reasoning in scientists blindly thinking that because they know the answer, I don't need to know the answer. It's not like that. I'm not blinded by faith. I need to find out for myself. I need to understand for myself.
I constantly read about religion, the different religions, their histories, their claims for truth, their discrepancies, and the effect they have on the people believing these religions. I'm bothered to actually research what I'm talking about. I also read about other topics that interests me even in the slightest bit, be it economics, linguistics, psychology, physics, chemistry, existentialism or sociology. I don't claim to be an expert in any of these things. But that's the point. That's why I'm reading up on them. That's why I discuss things.
Md is right. I'm here to discuss things. To debate. To have an intellectual discussion.
Oh, by the way, the experiment some of you are talking about. Incidentally the experiment is starting today, or more correctly, yesterday 9th September. It's the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, being conducted by CERN. It's an attempt to understand the universe by attempting to recreate the Big Bang.
And I don't agree with people who want to stop anything that is said to recreate 'God's supposed ways.' To me, this basically reads like "Don't do it, because we're afraid it will prove even people are capable of doing what we believe God did." So this outcry for the people at CERN to stop what they're doing is basically an attempt to oppress doubt and questioning, rather than anything else.
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC: RACISM
Yes, some people have requested I talk about this. And I have, to an extent.
Some time in the last couple of months, there was news of a Malay teacher being sued for making racially insulting comments to Indian students. This was in Malaysia. The Malay teacher blamed Indians for stealing jobs, and for the decline of the importance of Malays in the economic sector, and horribly called the students "black monkeys".
Here is an article on it:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/indian-students-sue-malaysian-teacher/n20080814040309990017
Now the sensible thing to do was to fire the teacher, so that it is made clear that racial intolerance is not tolerable within society. But what do they do?
The Ministry transferred the teacher to a smart school, located closer to her home. So for being racist she actually got a better job. Which is not as ludicrous as the government's explanation for the transfer. They stated that it was for security concerns on behalf of the teacher, not because she committed an offence. No further disciplinary actions were taken.
Mahathir was known to be very anti-Semitic. And it is obvious the economic and social laws in Malaysia favoured Bumiputras, who in definition are the Malaysian Malays.
Why am I talking about Malaysia instead of Brunei? Because it's close to home.
A lot of Bruneian Malays have very racist views on anything not Malay.
For instance, the word 'kaling.' This is a very disgustingly derogatory term to describe Indians. It is similar to when a white guy describes a black person as a 'nigger.' It is simply unacceptable. The fact that its etymological history shows it to be not an offensive word by meaning, when it is used to describe an entire race or nationality, it becomes a very offensive word.
Let me refer back to the word 'nigger.' This originally came from the word 'negro' - which sadly some Bruneians still use to describe a black person - which was a Spanish/Portuguese word for 'black.' Now the word is not offensive on its own. But after it has been used as a collective word for black people, the word carries on a negative, racist tone.
This is similar to 'kaling.' The word 'kaling,' a variation of 'keling' frequently used in Malaysia and Singapore, originated from the word 'Kalinga,' referring to the Kalinga kingdom. In those days, it was not used in a derogatory tone. But just like the word 'nigger,' the word 'kaling' obtained a racist tone to it as time went on.
Most people argue that they don't know about it, that's why they use it. The thing is, ignorance is not an excuse. Especially not these days. Most Bruneians know its racial connotations anyway. But they then argue it's all in the intentions, and they feel they don't intend for it to be racist. This is really just being severely insensitive. For an Indian person to hear the word 'kaling,' it's very offending to him, no matter how pure the intentions.
Bruneians also view Indians as low-lifes. The ones who do the dirty work. The ones who clean the toilets and serve the murtabak. For a Bruneian, to be called an Indian feels like an insult. In a football game I attended in the national stadium several years back, one of the linesmen was an Indian. A Sikh to be exact. Now whenever the audience felt they were being wronged (the Bruneians are famed for their feeling of being persecuted in football), they shouted racially horrific things. These are some of the more milder ones:
"balik semula jual murtabak tah ko eh"
"oh kaling. buta kah? Buka tah serban ah. Bebau kari kah rambut atu?"
Now racism in Brunei isn't just limited to Indians. Malays also direct their racism towards the Chinese. The phrases 'cinababi' and 'cinabota' are sadly some of the derogatory terms being used by Malays behind their backs (or even in front) to describe the Chinese.
Racism is even pointed between Malays themselves. I'm talking of course about the Indonesians. Bruneians consistently regard the Indonesians as thieving, deceptive, low-lifes deserving only to clean dishes and drive their cars. If there is something missing in the house, the first suspect will be the Indonesian maid. This is partly fuelled by the Bruneians' regarding Indonesia as a supernatural haven, after watching so many of those Indonesian horror films. They accuse maids of putting curses on them. Cheating husbands conveniently use this excuse as an escape clause, saying that the maids used voodoo to seduce them.
Radio DJs and TV personalities often mock Indonesians and Indians by putting on fake Indonesian and Indian accents to evoke laughter. That's really just in bad taste and further racial degradation.
A lot of this comes also from an insecurity, a fear of loss of one's racial identity and religion. They are insecure and afraid that if they accept the Chinese, Indians and other foreigners with open arms, then they will lose what makes them Malay. The truth is, racial identity is an evolving concept. Things will change, inevitably. Some parts of our racial identity will be lost, regardless of whether other races integrate themselves into the Bruneian society or not. But the core of it will not.
Another reason is that the Malays fear that the other races are better in many respects. They stereotype the Chinese as amazing at business or mathematics, and being insecure of their own abilities, they subconsciously - some even willingly - hate the Chinese for being better. Malays are also so used to seeing Indians in restaurants serving murtabak and on the streets cutting grass, that when they see the potential - some of this potential has already been realised - of Bruneian Indians to flourish, they want to limit the Indians' opportunities, and dismiss them as nothing other than cooks and grasscutters. They are afraid the status quo will change. This also applies to Indonesians, Filipinos and other nationalities, especially those from Southeast Asian countries.
Any of you sociologists or anthropologists care to either correct me, add any information, please do so. I'm not totally familiar with any racial discrimination in the government itself. I don't want to make assumptions. I will dig up, read up and discuss this in the near future.
If you've got any personal experiences with racism in Brunei that you'd like to share, please feel free to comment.
And for the most part, I found it to be quite unsatisfying. Many of the arguments I've read and discussed before. A few even cursed at me. No one's actually come up with anything new. myreligionislam and guest1 (there are so many guests. Haha. I think all the guests should find pseudonyms so it's less confusing) argues I should find better informed officers.
So when is this cycle going to end? I didn't find the answer because I didn't try hard enough? It's a very convenient thing to say. It's like me saying that you didn't become an atheist because you didn't try hard enough at talking with the atheists who really know their stuff. Compared to them, I'm merely just trying to catch up. But then even so, I still argue my points, and I believe I've argued very well.
I don't blindly put my faith in the reasoning in scientists blindly thinking that because they know the answer, I don't need to know the answer. It's not like that. I'm not blinded by faith. I need to find out for myself. I need to understand for myself.
I constantly read about religion, the different religions, their histories, their claims for truth, their discrepancies, and the effect they have on the people believing these religions. I'm bothered to actually research what I'm talking about. I also read about other topics that interests me even in the slightest bit, be it economics, linguistics, psychology, physics, chemistry, existentialism or sociology. I don't claim to be an expert in any of these things. But that's the point. That's why I'm reading up on them. That's why I discuss things.
Md is right. I'm here to discuss things. To debate. To have an intellectual discussion.
Oh, by the way, the experiment some of you are talking about. Incidentally the experiment is starting today, or more correctly, yesterday 9th September. It's the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, being conducted by CERN. It's an attempt to understand the universe by attempting to recreate the Big Bang.
And I don't agree with people who want to stop anything that is said to recreate 'God's supposed ways.' To me, this basically reads like "Don't do it, because we're afraid it will prove even people are capable of doing what we believe God did." So this outcry for the people at CERN to stop what they're doing is basically an attempt to oppress doubt and questioning, rather than anything else.
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC: RACISM
Yes, some people have requested I talk about this. And I have, to an extent.
Some time in the last couple of months, there was news of a Malay teacher being sued for making racially insulting comments to Indian students. This was in Malaysia. The Malay teacher blamed Indians for stealing jobs, and for the decline of the importance of Malays in the economic sector, and horribly called the students "black monkeys".
Here is an article on it:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/indian-students-sue-malaysian-teacher/n20080814040309990017
Now the sensible thing to do was to fire the teacher, so that it is made clear that racial intolerance is not tolerable within society. But what do they do?
The Ministry transferred the teacher to a smart school, located closer to her home. So for being racist she actually got a better job. Which is not as ludicrous as the government's explanation for the transfer. They stated that it was for security concerns on behalf of the teacher, not because she committed an offence. No further disciplinary actions were taken.
Mahathir was known to be very anti-Semitic. And it is obvious the economic and social laws in Malaysia favoured Bumiputras, who in definition are the Malaysian Malays.
Why am I talking about Malaysia instead of Brunei? Because it's close to home.
A lot of Bruneian Malays have very racist views on anything not Malay.
For instance, the word 'kaling.' This is a very disgustingly derogatory term to describe Indians. It is similar to when a white guy describes a black person as a 'nigger.' It is simply unacceptable. The fact that its etymological history shows it to be not an offensive word by meaning, when it is used to describe an entire race or nationality, it becomes a very offensive word.
Let me refer back to the word 'nigger.' This originally came from the word 'negro' - which sadly some Bruneians still use to describe a black person - which was a Spanish/Portuguese word for 'black.' Now the word is not offensive on its own. But after it has been used as a collective word for black people, the word carries on a negative, racist tone.
This is similar to 'kaling.' The word 'kaling,' a variation of 'keling' frequently used in Malaysia and Singapore, originated from the word 'Kalinga,' referring to the Kalinga kingdom. In those days, it was not used in a derogatory tone. But just like the word 'nigger,' the word 'kaling' obtained a racist tone to it as time went on.
Most people argue that they don't know about it, that's why they use it. The thing is, ignorance is not an excuse. Especially not these days. Most Bruneians know its racial connotations anyway. But they then argue it's all in the intentions, and they feel they don't intend for it to be racist. This is really just being severely insensitive. For an Indian person to hear the word 'kaling,' it's very offending to him, no matter how pure the intentions.
Bruneians also view Indians as low-lifes. The ones who do the dirty work. The ones who clean the toilets and serve the murtabak. For a Bruneian, to be called an Indian feels like an insult. In a football game I attended in the national stadium several years back, one of the linesmen was an Indian. A Sikh to be exact. Now whenever the audience felt they were being wronged (the Bruneians are famed for their feeling of being persecuted in football), they shouted racially horrific things. These are some of the more milder ones:
"balik semula jual murtabak tah ko eh"
"oh kaling. buta kah? Buka tah serban ah. Bebau kari kah rambut atu?"
Now racism in Brunei isn't just limited to Indians. Malays also direct their racism towards the Chinese. The phrases 'cinababi' and 'cinabota' are sadly some of the derogatory terms being used by Malays behind their backs (or even in front) to describe the Chinese.
Racism is even pointed between Malays themselves. I'm talking of course about the Indonesians. Bruneians consistently regard the Indonesians as thieving, deceptive, low-lifes deserving only to clean dishes and drive their cars. If there is something missing in the house, the first suspect will be the Indonesian maid. This is partly fuelled by the Bruneians' regarding Indonesia as a supernatural haven, after watching so many of those Indonesian horror films. They accuse maids of putting curses on them. Cheating husbands conveniently use this excuse as an escape clause, saying that the maids used voodoo to seduce them.
Radio DJs and TV personalities often mock Indonesians and Indians by putting on fake Indonesian and Indian accents to evoke laughter. That's really just in bad taste and further racial degradation.
A lot of this comes also from an insecurity, a fear of loss of one's racial identity and religion. They are insecure and afraid that if they accept the Chinese, Indians and other foreigners with open arms, then they will lose what makes them Malay. The truth is, racial identity is an evolving concept. Things will change, inevitably. Some parts of our racial identity will be lost, regardless of whether other races integrate themselves into the Bruneian society or not. But the core of it will not.
Another reason is that the Malays fear that the other races are better in many respects. They stereotype the Chinese as amazing at business or mathematics, and being insecure of their own abilities, they subconsciously - some even willingly - hate the Chinese for being better. Malays are also so used to seeing Indians in restaurants serving murtabak and on the streets cutting grass, that when they see the potential - some of this potential has already been realised - of Bruneian Indians to flourish, they want to limit the Indians' opportunities, and dismiss them as nothing other than cooks and grasscutters. They are afraid the status quo will change. This also applies to Indonesians, Filipinos and other nationalities, especially those from Southeast Asian countries.
Any of you sociologists or anthropologists care to either correct me, add any information, please do so. I'm not totally familiar with any racial discrimination in the government itself. I don't want to make assumptions. I will dig up, read up and discuss this in the near future.
If you've got any personal experiences with racism in Brunei that you'd like to share, please feel free to comment.
Wednesday 10 September 2008
I'm Going To Hell, And I'm Taking My TV With Me
Do you really think saying that I'll go to hell would change my mind? Do you think that's gonna affect my reasoning? I don't even believe in hell to begin with. I mean, try and listen to a Christian evangelist telling you you're all going to hell because you don't love Jesus. Would you change your mind and convert to Christianity at that very moment? I doubt it. Because just by threatening me with your visions of hell, you sound much like the Christian evangelist.
And you say I'm not fully informed about the Quran? I studied the Quran. In fact, because of my skepticism, I studied it and tried to understand it more than actual Muslims. And I gave the translation on thet entry word for word, using the translator's own words (who is a devout Muslim). Heck, I even know a little Arabic, though not enough to actually translate it by myself. Admittedly, I'm not a Quran scholar, but I'm certain the one who presented the verse on the cBox certainly wasn't either.
And I'm not twisting it. I'm revealing the actual Muslims themselves who twisted the meaning of the Quran so they could claim the Big Bang Theory was in the Quran. Tell me exactly what I've twisted, and what relevant information have I left out.
I don't really see what I could've possibly twisted. In fact, I didn't even portray the Quran negatively (though I would've liked to). All I was saying is that it's not the Big Bang Theory that's in the Quran. Just simply that. The Quran didn't even make that claim. A Muslim with no real knowledge of physics, astronomy and the Big Bang theory attempted to.
And yes, Md is right. For god's sake (literally), defend yourself. Don't stumble and stutter stuff like "oooh, stop criticising us. Stop talking about our beliefs. It's not right. You're going to hell." If you think I'm wrong, tell me why you think I'm fucking wrong. Don't just tell me and not give me a proper reason. So far it's a bit like this.
"I think Islam is like this because of this"
"You're wrong."
"Why am I wrong?"
"Well, you just are. And you're going to hell."
"Can you at least tell me why I'm wrong?"
"Urm... You shouldn't question things. That's how they are. You are wrong. And you're going to hell."
"You said that before."
"You're wrong."
"Oh, okay. Whatever you say. I'm totally convinced by your argument. I will now perform the five prayers, and fast this month. Thank you for the enlightenment."
You hear the sarcasm there? You see how unlikely a non-believer would change his mind just because you told him he was wrong without actually telling him why?
Defend yourself. I'm giving you a chance here. Take it.
And besides, why can't I talk satirically? It's a critical device. It's pointing out what's wrong, in a more entertaining way. At least to me. And I'm sure some others, even believers, would be too.
Guset, I'm saying everything should be discussed. Religion, law of the country. And I haven't even talked about the law of the country yet. I guess if you think the two are mutual, I guess you're partly right. In fact, law of the country should be discussed more. I've just thought of that. Any lawyers or would-be-lawyers interested to take the challenge?
And you think I only follow my animal instincts? That's the most laughable statement I've heard all that. Well, right behind when you said I'm going to hell.
I'm actually reasoning here. I'm justifying why I don't believe in religion. I'm making my point, why I don't believe in Islam, why I say what I say. I'm actually being rational. The complete opposite of acting on pure animal instinct.
You, Guset, on the other hand, has immediately accused me of deception and personally threatening me with hell. You've acted on your instinct to damn any person who doesn't agree with your beliefs and try to dissect them accordingly.
There's a few who gets what I'm trying to say. I'm criticising religion, and I still believe in what I believe (or rather, I still don't believe in what I don't believe) but at the same time, I want to see Bruneians standing up for what they believe in. I want them to intellectually converse in a civilised manner (yes, satire is most welcome, but not meaningless insults), and make their point articulately.
Blabness is right. If you only resort to 'puny threats and lame arguments,' it's really quite hard to for people to take you seriously.
And you say I'm not fully informed about the Quran? I studied the Quran. In fact, because of my skepticism, I studied it and tried to understand it more than actual Muslims. And I gave the translation on thet entry word for word, using the translator's own words (who is a devout Muslim). Heck, I even know a little Arabic, though not enough to actually translate it by myself. Admittedly, I'm not a Quran scholar, but I'm certain the one who presented the verse on the cBox certainly wasn't either.
And I'm not twisting it. I'm revealing the actual Muslims themselves who twisted the meaning of the Quran so they could claim the Big Bang Theory was in the Quran. Tell me exactly what I've twisted, and what relevant information have I left out.
I don't really see what I could've possibly twisted. In fact, I didn't even portray the Quran negatively (though I would've liked to). All I was saying is that it's not the Big Bang Theory that's in the Quran. Just simply that. The Quran didn't even make that claim. A Muslim with no real knowledge of physics, astronomy and the Big Bang theory attempted to.
And yes, Md is right. For god's sake (literally), defend yourself. Don't stumble and stutter stuff like "oooh, stop criticising us. Stop talking about our beliefs. It's not right. You're going to hell." If you think I'm wrong, tell me why you think I'm fucking wrong. Don't just tell me and not give me a proper reason. So far it's a bit like this.
"I think Islam is like this because of this"
"You're wrong."
"Why am I wrong?"
"Well, you just are. And you're going to hell."
"Can you at least tell me why I'm wrong?"
"Urm... You shouldn't question things. That's how they are. You are wrong. And you're going to hell."
"You said that before."
"You're wrong."
"Oh, okay. Whatever you say. I'm totally convinced by your argument. I will now perform the five prayers, and fast this month. Thank you for the enlightenment."
You hear the sarcasm there? You see how unlikely a non-believer would change his mind just because you told him he was wrong without actually telling him why?
Defend yourself. I'm giving you a chance here. Take it.
And besides, why can't I talk satirically? It's a critical device. It's pointing out what's wrong, in a more entertaining way. At least to me. And I'm sure some others, even believers, would be too.
Guset, I'm saying everything should be discussed. Religion, law of the country. And I haven't even talked about the law of the country yet. I guess if you think the two are mutual, I guess you're partly right. In fact, law of the country should be discussed more. I've just thought of that. Any lawyers or would-be-lawyers interested to take the challenge?
And you think I only follow my animal instincts? That's the most laughable statement I've heard all that. Well, right behind when you said I'm going to hell.
I'm actually reasoning here. I'm justifying why I don't believe in religion. I'm making my point, why I don't believe in Islam, why I say what I say. I'm actually being rational. The complete opposite of acting on pure animal instinct.
You, Guset, on the other hand, has immediately accused me of deception and personally threatening me with hell. You've acted on your instinct to damn any person who doesn't agree with your beliefs and try to dissect them accordingly.
There's a few who gets what I'm trying to say. I'm criticising religion, and I still believe in what I believe (or rather, I still don't believe in what I don't believe) but at the same time, I want to see Bruneians standing up for what they believe in. I want them to intellectually converse in a civilised manner (yes, satire is most welcome, but not meaningless insults), and make their point articulately.
Blabness is right. If you only resort to 'puny threats and lame arguments,' it's really quite hard to for people to take you seriously.
Power Of Suggestion
------------
Guest1214: surah Al-Anbiya,ayat 21..big bang is already mentioned in the Al-Quran 1400 years ago
------------
Okay, let's look at this for a moment. Let's actually analyse this statement. And then analyse the Ayat this was taken from:
Here is the actual verse, from Surah Al-Anbiya, Ayat 31. By the way the Quran I'm using is translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, if you're interested, by Saba Islamic Media. So I'm taking this translation from an Islamic scholar, not from another atheist, or biased source. This is what the translation says.
Oh, and Guest1214, check your sources. It's Ayat 31, not Ayat 21. Ayat 21 says "Or have they taken (for worship) gods from the earth who can raise (the dead)?" I seriously doubt that raising anyone from the dead has anything to do with the Big Bang Theory, so I'm assuming you meant Ayat 31.
To make it easier, I'll put the translation here for you:
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
And just to be nice, I'll stick another Ayat (Surah Fussilat, Ayat 11) concerning creation:
Here's the translation:
"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky as it has been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
There's a lot of problems with this attempt to link the Quran with the Big Bang Theory.
Heavens in one unit with the Earth? That's simply not the Big Bang Theory. To imply that Earth, or even earth (i.e. soil) existed combined with the heavens (which Muslims interpret as gases), is untrue because in the beginning there is no soil, simply because there are no matter in the beginning. And Earth is only one small part of the Universe. This verse is implying that there is only Earth, and the Heavens, hence disregarding the future existence of other stars and planets.
Earth was never one part with the heavens or the universe. It came millions of years after the creation of the universe.
And making every living thing from water? This contradicts with the Quran's claim that man are made out of clay (or mud, or soil, whichever verse you choose to read).
To suggest that smoke, of all things, was the foundation of all things, is wrong. Smoke is itself matter, made up of particles and atoms. And the use of the word 'dukhan' (meaning smoke) is a very inaccurate way of describing gas. To the casual reader or muslim, smoke is indiscernible from gas, but really, smoke is the suspension of solid particles propelled by hot air, and therefore not gas at all. If the Quran were to be really accurate, it would use the more accurate word, 'ghaz.' Smoke implies the presence of carbon, yet the founding particles were hydrogen and helium.
And besides, to discuss the thing more carefully, the imagery of one single unit being separated to create a universe is so common, it's really unoriginal for the Quran to be using that imagery.
Sumerians believed the two founding gods, An and Ki, symbolised heaven and earth.
The Egyptians believed that Heaven and Earth, or Nut (the Sky goddess) and Geb (the Earth god), was forced to be separated by the sun god, Ra.
These two civilisations existed thousands of years before Islam.
The thing about life coming from water is also unoriginal. Water has been the source of life for people since, well, the beginning. So it is reasonable to think that people would appreciate water as an ingredient for life. The Greeks especially thought life came from water. Aristotle and Anaximander thought so. Well, I think not really Aristotle, but he remarked that it was the popular belief at the time.
And there's the power of suggestion. People see what they want to see, and over-enthusiastic Muslims eager to associate themselves with Science, and hence overall acknowledgment of their religion, see the Big Bang Theory in what on closer inspection is really just vague, unoriginal accounts of what happened.
Guest1214: surah Al-Anbiya,ayat 21..big bang is already mentioned in the Al-Quran 1400 years ago
------------
Okay, let's look at this for a moment. Let's actually analyse this statement. And then analyse the Ayat this was taken from:
Here is the actual verse, from Surah Al-Anbiya, Ayat 31. By the way the Quran I'm using is translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, if you're interested, by Saba Islamic Media. So I'm taking this translation from an Islamic scholar, not from another atheist, or biased source. This is what the translation says.
Oh, and Guest1214, check your sources. It's Ayat 31, not Ayat 21. Ayat 21 says "Or have they taken (for worship) gods from the earth who can raise (the dead)?" I seriously doubt that raising anyone from the dead has anything to do with the Big Bang Theory, so I'm assuming you meant Ayat 31.To make it easier, I'll put the translation here for you:
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
And just to be nice, I'll stick another Ayat (Surah Fussilat, Ayat 11) concerning creation:
Here's the translation:
"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky as it has been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
There's a lot of problems with this attempt to link the Quran with the Big Bang Theory.
Heavens in one unit with the Earth? That's simply not the Big Bang Theory. To imply that Earth, or even earth (i.e. soil) existed combined with the heavens (which Muslims interpret as gases), is untrue because in the beginning there is no soil, simply because there are no matter in the beginning. And Earth is only one small part of the Universe. This verse is implying that there is only Earth, and the Heavens, hence disregarding the future existence of other stars and planets.
Earth was never one part with the heavens or the universe. It came millions of years after the creation of the universe.
And making every living thing from water? This contradicts with the Quran's claim that man are made out of clay (or mud, or soil, whichever verse you choose to read).
To suggest that smoke, of all things, was the foundation of all things, is wrong. Smoke is itself matter, made up of particles and atoms. And the use of the word 'dukhan' (meaning smoke) is a very inaccurate way of describing gas. To the casual reader or muslim, smoke is indiscernible from gas, but really, smoke is the suspension of solid particles propelled by hot air, and therefore not gas at all. If the Quran were to be really accurate, it would use the more accurate word, 'ghaz.' Smoke implies the presence of carbon, yet the founding particles were hydrogen and helium.
And besides, to discuss the thing more carefully, the imagery of one single unit being separated to create a universe is so common, it's really unoriginal for the Quran to be using that imagery.
Sumerians believed the two founding gods, An and Ki, symbolised heaven and earth.
The Egyptians believed that Heaven and Earth, or Nut (the Sky goddess) and Geb (the Earth god), was forced to be separated by the sun god, Ra.
These two civilisations existed thousands of years before Islam.
The thing about life coming from water is also unoriginal. Water has been the source of life for people since, well, the beginning. So it is reasonable to think that people would appreciate water as an ingredient for life. The Greeks especially thought life came from water. Aristotle and Anaximander thought so. Well, I think not really Aristotle, but he remarked that it was the popular belief at the time.
And there's the power of suggestion. People see what they want to see, and over-enthusiastic Muslims eager to associate themselves with Science, and hence overall acknowledgment of their religion, see the Big Bang Theory in what on closer inspection is really just vague, unoriginal accounts of what happened.
Tuesday 9 September 2008
Wait A Minute
Why do people think criticising Islam and being an atheist are two mutually exclusive things? I don't get it at all. I'm criticising Islam because I'm an atheist. Isn't that so fucking obvious? Okay, not all atheists criticise religion. But a lot of them do. And stop generalising atheists. They only share one major trait, they don't believe in God. And yes, I have to keep repeating this again and again, because some ignorant people just can't seem to or don't want to get it.
Leen, there's a difference between being apathetic and atheist. You can be both, but they're not the same thing. People who don't care about religion is being apathetic towards it. They don't think about it, they are indifferent towards it. Atheists don't believe in it, but this in no way means they don't care about it. You can be an apathetic atheist, which is what Leen is implying I should be. But I'm not. I'm an outspoken atheist.
Your notion of atheism is severely naive and misguided. Again, you know why atheists in Brunei don't bash religion publicly? I think you can work that out by yourself. It's because of the possibility of being ostracised and outcast. Outside Brunei there'a lot of atheists who bash religion publicly, because they can, even though they're still getting death-threats and criticism from the religious people. Or X, are you trying to threaten me? Because I don't actually feel threatened. I knew the risks before I started this.
And yes, I do want people to talk. And I'm talking back. If I'm so against you talking back, I wouldn't have been trying to fucking reply to almost every single question or criticism, and some of them are bordering on insult. I could even just delete the cBox if I didn't want anyone to talk back.
Z, to be honest, what I'm offended by is the stupidity and ignorance of people who think they're engaging in a discussion, but are actually churning out meaningless insults. There's a difference between criticism, satirical commentary, and insult.
I'm against Islam, and I'm an atheist. Happy? That's what I've been saying all this time. I'm against the opression of doubt, ideas and freedom. I'm against the punitive nature and damning restrictions put on by religion. I'm against the racial discrimination and sectarian violence justified so often by religion.
So far no one's actually put a point defending what they believe in. The only thing they're doing is questioning my agenda (which I've explained several times) and ask me to stop writing. So yes, so far this discussion isn't really working. But not through lack of effort from my part.
Really, I would appreciate if someone started defending Islam with more integrity, intelligence and coherence than some of the ignorant, incoherent and condescending threats and insults I've been getting. Trust me, I would respect any Muslim who can genuinely discuss and fight for what he believes in. And I know a few who can. But so far, no one in the cBox has.
Leen, there's a difference between being apathetic and atheist. You can be both, but they're not the same thing. People who don't care about religion is being apathetic towards it. They don't think about it, they are indifferent towards it. Atheists don't believe in it, but this in no way means they don't care about it. You can be an apathetic atheist, which is what Leen is implying I should be. But I'm not. I'm an outspoken atheist.
Your notion of atheism is severely naive and misguided. Again, you know why atheists in Brunei don't bash religion publicly? I think you can work that out by yourself. It's because of the possibility of being ostracised and outcast. Outside Brunei there'a lot of atheists who bash religion publicly, because they can, even though they're still getting death-threats and criticism from the religious people. Or X, are you trying to threaten me? Because I don't actually feel threatened. I knew the risks before I started this.
And yes, I do want people to talk. And I'm talking back. If I'm so against you talking back, I wouldn't have been trying to fucking reply to almost every single question or criticism, and some of them are bordering on insult. I could even just delete the cBox if I didn't want anyone to talk back.
Z, to be honest, what I'm offended by is the stupidity and ignorance of people who think they're engaging in a discussion, but are actually churning out meaningless insults. There's a difference between criticism, satirical commentary, and insult.
I'm against Islam, and I'm an atheist. Happy? That's what I've been saying all this time. I'm against the opression of doubt, ideas and freedom. I'm against the punitive nature and damning restrictions put on by religion. I'm against the racial discrimination and sectarian violence justified so often by religion.
So far no one's actually put a point defending what they believe in. The only thing they're doing is questioning my agenda (which I've explained several times) and ask me to stop writing. So yes, so far this discussion isn't really working. But not through lack of effort from my part.
Really, I would appreciate if someone started defending Islam with more integrity, intelligence and coherence than some of the ignorant, incoherent and condescending threats and insults I've been getting. Trust me, I would respect any Muslim who can genuinely discuss and fight for what he believes in. And I know a few who can. But so far, no one in the cBox has.
Attention-Seeker
Heh.
People flame me for trying to get people's attention.
Well, isn't that the whole point of a blog? I mean, if nobody is reading your blog, it'll just be a diary, isn't it? I mean, a blog is nothing without its readers. If you're that offended, then just don't read my blog. It's that fucking simple. When you keep reading my blog and giving me attention (doesn't matter if it is bloody fucking bad attention), then like you said, you're just giving me what I want.
So what if I 'promote' my blog? I want people to discuss this. If they get offended in the process, I've warned them. And besides, it's an issue we will have to talk about sooner or later. I'm just talking about it sooner.
But hey, attention is too simplistic a word. What I'm after is the courage to speak up. To not cower under your momma's skirt at the mention of sex or blasphemy. And here I feel the need to repeat this point, because I'm sure someone dumbass enough to pick me up on this (and not realise I've said this before a million times), I speak up in anonymity because of the messenger-killing thing.
The thing is, if you're attentive enough to criticise me, you should be attentive enough to read the rest of my blog. I've explained my atheism. I've explained that atheism isn't a lifestyle, it's a belief. It's like being a muslim. Some people talk about it, some people don't. Even just being a human being, some people talk about it, some people don't. Some people talk about atheism, some people don't. I do.
I mean, why the fuck do you think atheists don't speak up in Brunei. Damn god fucking think. Do you see a Brunei Atheistic Association anywhere? Do you see atheistic conventions being held at ICC? You bloody moron. They don't speak up because they don't have an outlet. They'll get fucking ostracised the minute they admit publicly they're an atheist. I mean, there's no way the Ministry of Internal Affairs would even let anything remotely atheistic to be held. Heck, even other religions don't get a say, much less atheists.
And if you're thinking outside of Brunei, then you're so damn god wrong. People talk about this all the time. They talk about it everywhere. Do you ever read newspapers, books, magazines, blogs or watch TV? There's a lot of this stuff out there. You just have to look for it.
People flame me for trying to get people's attention.
Well, isn't that the whole point of a blog? I mean, if nobody is reading your blog, it'll just be a diary, isn't it? I mean, a blog is nothing without its readers. If you're that offended, then just don't read my blog. It's that fucking simple. When you keep reading my blog and giving me attention (doesn't matter if it is bloody fucking bad attention), then like you said, you're just giving me what I want.
So what if I 'promote' my blog? I want people to discuss this. If they get offended in the process, I've warned them. And besides, it's an issue we will have to talk about sooner or later. I'm just talking about it sooner.
But hey, attention is too simplistic a word. What I'm after is the courage to speak up. To not cower under your momma's skirt at the mention of sex or blasphemy. And here I feel the need to repeat this point, because I'm sure someone dumbass enough to pick me up on this (and not realise I've said this before a million times), I speak up in anonymity because of the messenger-killing thing.
The thing is, if you're attentive enough to criticise me, you should be attentive enough to read the rest of my blog. I've explained my atheism. I've explained that atheism isn't a lifestyle, it's a belief. It's like being a muslim. Some people talk about it, some people don't. Even just being a human being, some people talk about it, some people don't. Some people talk about atheism, some people don't. I do.
I mean, why the fuck do you think atheists don't speak up in Brunei. Damn god fucking think. Do you see a Brunei Atheistic Association anywhere? Do you see atheistic conventions being held at ICC? You bloody moron. They don't speak up because they don't have an outlet. They'll get fucking ostracised the minute they admit publicly they're an atheist. I mean, there's no way the Ministry of Internal Affairs would even let anything remotely atheistic to be held. Heck, even other religions don't get a say, much less atheists.
And if you're thinking outside of Brunei, then you're so damn god wrong. People talk about this all the time. They talk about it everywhere. Do you ever read newspapers, books, magazines, blogs or watch TV? There's a lot of this stuff out there. You just have to look for it.
Bastard Of A Deranged Dog
Can you please read the whole fucking blog before you fucking ask any questions?
It's like talking to kids, patiently answering every single bloody question, most of them repeated a million times, in slightly differing forms.
"What's this for?"
"Why is it there?"
"What's it made for?"
"Can I play with it?"
"Why can't I play with it?"
"Can you fucking answer me, you fucking bastard of a deranged dog?!"
I know the risks when I put this blog out. Which is why I took some precautions. But hey, as with the internet, as we all know and is pointed out by x, we can never be fully anonymous. But we can bloody fucking try. I mean, that 16/f/bru girl you talked to yesterday on mirc (do people still use this thing? Haha), how do you know it isn't some 40-year-old horny paedophile wanting a piece of your teenage ass? You can't really know, can you now? I'm pretty sure the girl who sent you that hot picture a couple of days ago has a penis hidden somewhere under that cute mini-skirt.
And read the details. I don't want to repeat anything I've said.
What I realise is, that people read only what they want to see, and that's the offensive stuff. It's like watching Titanic and only ranting about the sex scenes. Granted, it's three stupidly long hours, and even the sex scenes aren't worth it, and Kate Winslet isn't that hot anyway, but you get my drift. What I mean here is that once they see one offensive statement, everything else fades away into sheer irrelevance.
And you know what?
I don't have to fucking justify myself to you. I can choose to, but it's not my fucking obligation.
I was spending hours yesterday trying to reply repeated questions and repeated criticisms, and the minute I took a break, people say I was a coward. Oh fuck-a-doodle-do. I have better things to do in my life than spend half my day justifying my blog to people who don't really read it anyway.
The thing is, when they see Islam, fuck and stupid in the same sentence, then they don't bother to read anything else. They start bringing out giant pitchforks and try to throw rocks at my humble abode of piss.
If you have a question you want answered directly, e-mail me. It's on my bloody fucking blogger profile. I'll answer it on a FAQ I'll do in the near future.
It's like talking to kids, patiently answering every single bloody question, most of them repeated a million times, in slightly differing forms.
"What's this for?"
"Why is it there?"
"What's it made for?"
"Can I play with it?"
"Why can't I play with it?"
"Can you fucking answer me, you fucking bastard of a deranged dog?!"
I know the risks when I put this blog out. Which is why I took some precautions. But hey, as with the internet, as we all know and is pointed out by x, we can never be fully anonymous. But we can bloody fucking try. I mean, that 16/f/bru girl you talked to yesterday on mirc (do people still use this thing? Haha), how do you know it isn't some 40-year-old horny paedophile wanting a piece of your teenage ass? You can't really know, can you now? I'm pretty sure the girl who sent you that hot picture a couple of days ago has a penis hidden somewhere under that cute mini-skirt.
And read the details. I don't want to repeat anything I've said.
What I realise is, that people read only what they want to see, and that's the offensive stuff. It's like watching Titanic and only ranting about the sex scenes. Granted, it's three stupidly long hours, and even the sex scenes aren't worth it, and Kate Winslet isn't that hot anyway, but you get my drift. What I mean here is that once they see one offensive statement, everything else fades away into sheer irrelevance.
And you know what?
I don't have to fucking justify myself to you. I can choose to, but it's not my fucking obligation.
I was spending hours yesterday trying to reply repeated questions and repeated criticisms, and the minute I took a break, people say I was a coward. Oh fuck-a-doodle-do. I have better things to do in my life than spend half my day justifying my blog to people who don't really read it anyway.
The thing is, when they see Islam, fuck and stupid in the same sentence, then they don't bother to read anything else. They start bringing out giant pitchforks and try to throw rocks at my humble abode of piss.
If you have a question you want answered directly, e-mail me. It's on my bloody fucking blogger profile. I'll answer it on a FAQ I'll do in the near future.
Monday 8 September 2008
Here's That One
I think it's cowardly to flame someone after that someone has left.
Anyways, on my atheism.
Here we go then.
My atheism is really a culmination of ideas that started with the doubt I had about the proof given to me by my Ugama teacher when I was 7-years-old. I was confused by the proof, unable to process how it would make sense. And then as I got older, I started reading books on religion. I was at first trying to understand religion. At first I though positively about it. It's claims for peace. It's looking after the poor. It's claim for eternal happiness.
But as I read more and talked with people who had the same doubts, then I started to realise the nonsense of religion. The fact is. every single argument I've read for religion, I managed to rebutt by myself. The arguments for religion were often inconsistent, illogical and contrived. The Aquinas Proofs were empty and meaningless. The morality argument was extremely flawed. The Intelligent Design argument was contrived. The ontological argument is unbelievably stupid. The Beauty Argument is again, contrived.
To dissect one by one these proofs would take a lot more space than intended. So I will discuss that sooner or later.
Contradictions in religion itself was to me a main reason. There are so many unexplained, unaddressed issues in religion that one begins to wonder why people believed it in the first place.
Atheism simply, means this: To believe in the non-existence of God.
Agnosticism on the other hand, is something different: doubting the existence of God, yet not fully believing in its non-existence.
Contrary to what people might say, atheism is not a religion, for this one major reason: it stands on reason, not on faith.
Religion on the other hand, depends so much on faith. Even in the face of contradictory evidence or doubt, one will still choose to believe in religion. Yet with atheism, if there was a conclusive proof for the existence of God, atheists will embrace it. But the belief is based on reason, that non-biased, scientific, reasonable evidence so far points to the non-existence of God.
For most parts, atheists probably only share one major trait: The rational belief in the non-existence of God.
That's where the similarity ends. I for one, am a humanist. I believe in the importance of individual relationships more than I do in world-changing ideas. But that doesn't mean I don't wanna change anything in this world.
I don't believe in the concept of fixed morality. Hence another reason why I don't believe in religion. The concept of morality has changed over the course of humanity that one wonders whether in the future religion will one day be considered as immoral as say, witch-hunting. The truth is, thousands of years ago, it was not considered immoral to maybe marry a 12-year-old, or kill someone for cheating. But times have changed. Our notion of morality has evolved.
The problem with religion is it sticks with medieval or ancient notions of morality. And even the believers subconsciously know that. How do you otherwise explain the abandonment of stoning rituals, beheadings and corporal punishment? We don't execute people who don't believe in Islam anymore, because we know it's immoral. We don't stone people in Shari'a courts, because we know the horrific nature of such an act.
Admittedly this still happens in countries like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. But then we know we wouldn't wanna live in such countries, where muta'ween (religious police) patrol the streets and anyone not wearing a beard is looked at with suspicion.
The Quran is very much regarded as a proof for the existence of God because of its beauty and sheer size. I think this is unreasonable. Now John Milton wrote his beautifully epic Paradise Lost while he was blind, and managed to write 10 books - each about 1,000 lines - of it, allegedly under a 'celestial muse.' Now this is a more epic effort, in my opinion. I can appreciate the poetry in both Paradise Lost and the Quran, but it doesn't mean I will worship either.
And why am I targetting Islam? Because I know this religion best, better than Christianity, Buddha, Judaism, etc. My whole life my mind has been wrestling with the illogicality of religion.
And people keep saying I shouldn't target Brunei? Why? I live here. I've lived here my whole life. And I know there are people who have similar thoughts, but might think they're alone in thinking so, as there're no proper outlets. And it's my right to talk about it. Why can't I talk about Brunei?
And why should I discuss this only with like-minded people? It wouldn't be much of a discussion if people kept agreeing on views. A good conversation, maybe. But not a proper argumentative discussion.
To leave out Brunei and Islam, would starve this blog of its original intentions, that is to discuss, to rant about the lifestyle of an atheist in a religious country, forced and pressured to act in certain ways out of a distorted sense of social obligation and personal responsibility.
And the talk about not knowing where I came from. You're not understanding the whole point here. I'm talking about Brunei because in all the cynicism and skepticism, I'm hopeful for the better. I could've just run off to another country and be living a free lifestyle, but no, I didn't. I'm not about to run away from these problems. I'm in a process of thinking of ways to address this. And one way of addressing it is to discuss it. In public. But sadly, I can only discuss it in anonymity, for reasons given in my 'Q&A' entry.
Do you know how many people just want to get out of Brunei? Do you not wonder why I didn't leave in the first place. And you dare say I don't 'kenang budi?'
There's a difference between criticism and utter disrespect. Okay, the way I phrase things might be offensive, I give you that. But then the underlying point is that Brunei can be open-minded. It can be nonjudgmental. But right now it isn't.
Religion was once a creature of convenience. It gave people happiness, even though it is illusory and false. Think about it. A drunk man is happy. A religious man is happy. And both delude themselves into this state of happiness.
People who think morality is THE argument for religion, I suggest you read 'Moral Tissues,' one of my previous entries.
And to be honest, I could not have foreseen how many close-minded people would read my blog. On a happy note, there are believers and non-believers that are willing to give a decent discussion.
And no, I'm not shoving anything down other people's throats here. You chose to read this. This isn't a pamphlet thrusted into your face for you to read. This isn't a compulsory lesson in your high school. And no, this isn't your parent forcing you to listen while you're in the car. You had a choice. And you made that choice, to go on reading. Sure, I publicised it. But I did say you might get offended. I did warn you.
If you're just here to bash me with incoherent and ignorant bullshit, you can leave.
If you're willing to open up your mind and bear the profanities (I'm sorry, it's a habit), then you'll know where I'm coming from.
And to be honest, I wasn't gonna make my atheism The main topic of the blog. It was really just meant to be an attack on some of the absurd cultural and social norms in Brunei, and the people shoving religion down my throats. But people focused on that, so by popular demand, here it is.
I'm off, for now. If you could, if you wanna reply to this specific entry, comment on this one. Not on the cBox. It's confusing.
I'll be back fairly soon. Count on it.
Anyways, on my atheism.
Here we go then.
My atheism is really a culmination of ideas that started with the doubt I had about the proof given to me by my Ugama teacher when I was 7-years-old. I was confused by the proof, unable to process how it would make sense. And then as I got older, I started reading books on religion. I was at first trying to understand religion. At first I though positively about it. It's claims for peace. It's looking after the poor. It's claim for eternal happiness.
But as I read more and talked with people who had the same doubts, then I started to realise the nonsense of religion. The fact is. every single argument I've read for religion, I managed to rebutt by myself. The arguments for religion were often inconsistent, illogical and contrived. The Aquinas Proofs were empty and meaningless. The morality argument was extremely flawed. The Intelligent Design argument was contrived. The ontological argument is unbelievably stupid. The Beauty Argument is again, contrived.
To dissect one by one these proofs would take a lot more space than intended. So I will discuss that sooner or later.
Contradictions in religion itself was to me a main reason. There are so many unexplained, unaddressed issues in religion that one begins to wonder why people believed it in the first place.
Atheism simply, means this: To believe in the non-existence of God.
Agnosticism on the other hand, is something different: doubting the existence of God, yet not fully believing in its non-existence.
Contrary to what people might say, atheism is not a religion, for this one major reason: it stands on reason, not on faith.
Religion on the other hand, depends so much on faith. Even in the face of contradictory evidence or doubt, one will still choose to believe in religion. Yet with atheism, if there was a conclusive proof for the existence of God, atheists will embrace it. But the belief is based on reason, that non-biased, scientific, reasonable evidence so far points to the non-existence of God.
For most parts, atheists probably only share one major trait: The rational belief in the non-existence of God.
That's where the similarity ends. I for one, am a humanist. I believe in the importance of individual relationships more than I do in world-changing ideas. But that doesn't mean I don't wanna change anything in this world.
I don't believe in the concept of fixed morality. Hence another reason why I don't believe in religion. The concept of morality has changed over the course of humanity that one wonders whether in the future religion will one day be considered as immoral as say, witch-hunting. The truth is, thousands of years ago, it was not considered immoral to maybe marry a 12-year-old, or kill someone for cheating. But times have changed. Our notion of morality has evolved.
The problem with religion is it sticks with medieval or ancient notions of morality. And even the believers subconsciously know that. How do you otherwise explain the abandonment of stoning rituals, beheadings and corporal punishment? We don't execute people who don't believe in Islam anymore, because we know it's immoral. We don't stone people in Shari'a courts, because we know the horrific nature of such an act.
Admittedly this still happens in countries like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. But then we know we wouldn't wanna live in such countries, where muta'ween (religious police) patrol the streets and anyone not wearing a beard is looked at with suspicion.
The Quran is very much regarded as a proof for the existence of God because of its beauty and sheer size. I think this is unreasonable. Now John Milton wrote his beautifully epic Paradise Lost while he was blind, and managed to write 10 books - each about 1,000 lines - of it, allegedly under a 'celestial muse.' Now this is a more epic effort, in my opinion. I can appreciate the poetry in both Paradise Lost and the Quran, but it doesn't mean I will worship either.
And why am I targetting Islam? Because I know this religion best, better than Christianity, Buddha, Judaism, etc. My whole life my mind has been wrestling with the illogicality of religion.
And people keep saying I shouldn't target Brunei? Why? I live here. I've lived here my whole life. And I know there are people who have similar thoughts, but might think they're alone in thinking so, as there're no proper outlets. And it's my right to talk about it. Why can't I talk about Brunei?
And why should I discuss this only with like-minded people? It wouldn't be much of a discussion if people kept agreeing on views. A good conversation, maybe. But not a proper argumentative discussion.
To leave out Brunei and Islam, would starve this blog of its original intentions, that is to discuss, to rant about the lifestyle of an atheist in a religious country, forced and pressured to act in certain ways out of a distorted sense of social obligation and personal responsibility.
And the talk about not knowing where I came from. You're not understanding the whole point here. I'm talking about Brunei because in all the cynicism and skepticism, I'm hopeful for the better. I could've just run off to another country and be living a free lifestyle, but no, I didn't. I'm not about to run away from these problems. I'm in a process of thinking of ways to address this. And one way of addressing it is to discuss it. In public. But sadly, I can only discuss it in anonymity, for reasons given in my 'Q&A' entry.
Do you know how many people just want to get out of Brunei? Do you not wonder why I didn't leave in the first place. And you dare say I don't 'kenang budi?'
There's a difference between criticism and utter disrespect. Okay, the way I phrase things might be offensive, I give you that. But then the underlying point is that Brunei can be open-minded. It can be nonjudgmental. But right now it isn't.
Religion was once a creature of convenience. It gave people happiness, even though it is illusory and false. Think about it. A drunk man is happy. A religious man is happy. And both delude themselves into this state of happiness.
People who think morality is THE argument for religion, I suggest you read 'Moral Tissues,' one of my previous entries.
And to be honest, I could not have foreseen how many close-minded people would read my blog. On a happy note, there are believers and non-believers that are willing to give a decent discussion.
And no, I'm not shoving anything down other people's throats here. You chose to read this. This isn't a pamphlet thrusted into your face for you to read. This isn't a compulsory lesson in your high school. And no, this isn't your parent forcing you to listen while you're in the car. You had a choice. And you made that choice, to go on reading. Sure, I publicised it. But I did say you might get offended. I did warn you.
If you're just here to bash me with incoherent and ignorant bullshit, you can leave.
If you're willing to open up your mind and bear the profanities (I'm sorry, it's a habit), then you'll know where I'm coming from.
And to be honest, I wasn't gonna make my atheism The main topic of the blog. It was really just meant to be an attack on some of the absurd cultural and social norms in Brunei, and the people shoving religion down my throats. But people focused on that, so by popular demand, here it is.
I'm off, for now. If you could, if you wanna reply to this specific entry, comment on this one. Not on the cBox. It's confusing.
I'll be back fairly soon. Count on it.
Correction
Can I print a correction? Hahaha
MIB means 'Melayu Islam Beraja,' which was pointed out by a Guest. Thanks so much.
I guess, like I said, I don't believe in it so much, I forgot what it meant.
MIB means 'Melayu Islam Beraja,' which was pointed out by a Guest. Thanks so much.
I guess, like I said, I don't believe in it so much, I forgot what it meant.
Question & Answer
Thanks for Guest1 (or 2 or 3) for being the first to comment on my cBox. And trying to point out a few things:
[1] What am I aiming for?
[2] Why am I staying anonymous?
[3] Do I think I'm good enough to start offending people?
So here we go.
[1] My aim
I think that's easy enough. To point out things that can be fixed. And besides, I've said this a few times, this blog is a RANT. Millions of people rant everyday. This blog isn't aimed to change the world. It's aimed to point out the things I see that's wrong in my eyes. It's constructive criticism disguised in skepticism, cynicism, sarcasm and f-words. I'm trying to make a subtle point by being very brash and harsh.
People rant about shoes, boyfriends and public transport. I just happen to rant about race, religion and sex.
[2] Why am I staying anonymous?
This is obvious. In Brunei, if they don't take well to the message, they kill the messenger. Take for instance, the UBD girl. We all know what happened. Jog your memory. And besides, in real life, I'm a pleasant, friendly person who gets along with people. This is my alter-ego. This is my alternate being, my split-identity. That's the point of making this blog. To let this part of myself loose.
If I start to reveal who I am, I won't be offending people for too long. People will force me to close this blog down. And until there's freedom of speech in Brunei, I will keep myself anonymous.
A lot of the time, people who want offensive, anonymous writers to come clean with their identity, want that to happen because they wanna report them or see them be banned or whatever.
Thanks, Guest1, for pointing this out. Because sometimes we all value real identities.
[3] Do I try to offend people because I think I'm good enough?
My side-objective is to offend people. Well, not really. I started out just trying to be honest, but then I realised that by trying to be brutally honest, I WILL offend people. So I'm embracing it.
And no, I don't offend people because I think I'm good enough.
And if you even have enough common sense you'll know you don't have to be good enough to offend people. Is there a bar you must reach to be able to offend people? Because as so far as I know, the people who offend me are so unbelievably stupid, it's their stupidity that usually offends me the most.
And again, good enough in what sense? Heck, if I'm able to articulate what I want to say, voice out my views and spell 'articulate,' then I think I'm good enough to offend people. Millions of people are articulate enough to be good enough to voice out offending views.
What offends me the most though, is when people who aren't articulate enough, or copy and paste their views from books (this includes the Quran), try and voice out their views. Okay, the fact that they're talking isn't what offends me. It's the fact that they don't think for themselves.
[1] What am I aiming for?
[2] Why am I staying anonymous?
[3] Do I think I'm good enough to start offending people?
So here we go.
[1] My aim
I think that's easy enough. To point out things that can be fixed. And besides, I've said this a few times, this blog is a RANT. Millions of people rant everyday. This blog isn't aimed to change the world. It's aimed to point out the things I see that's wrong in my eyes. It's constructive criticism disguised in skepticism, cynicism, sarcasm and f-words. I'm trying to make a subtle point by being very brash and harsh.
People rant about shoes, boyfriends and public transport. I just happen to rant about race, religion and sex.
[2] Why am I staying anonymous?
This is obvious. In Brunei, if they don't take well to the message, they kill the messenger. Take for instance, the UBD girl. We all know what happened. Jog your memory. And besides, in real life, I'm a pleasant, friendly person who gets along with people. This is my alter-ego. This is my alternate being, my split-identity. That's the point of making this blog. To let this part of myself loose.
If I start to reveal who I am, I won't be offending people for too long. People will force me to close this blog down. And until there's freedom of speech in Brunei, I will keep myself anonymous.
A lot of the time, people who want offensive, anonymous writers to come clean with their identity, want that to happen because they wanna report them or see them be banned or whatever.
Thanks, Guest1, for pointing this out. Because sometimes we all value real identities.
[3] Do I try to offend people because I think I'm good enough?
My side-objective is to offend people. Well, not really. I started out just trying to be honest, but then I realised that by trying to be brutally honest, I WILL offend people. So I'm embracing it.
And no, I don't offend people because I think I'm good enough.
And if you even have enough common sense you'll know you don't have to be good enough to offend people. Is there a bar you must reach to be able to offend people? Because as so far as I know, the people who offend me are so unbelievably stupid, it's their stupidity that usually offends me the most.
And again, good enough in what sense? Heck, if I'm able to articulate what I want to say, voice out my views and spell 'articulate,' then I think I'm good enough to offend people. Millions of people are articulate enough to be good enough to voice out offending views.
What offends me the most though, is when people who aren't articulate enough, or copy and paste their views from books (this includes the Quran), try and voice out their views. Okay, the fact that they're talking isn't what offends me. It's the fact that they don't think for themselves.
Saturday 6 September 2008
Medieval Fuckers
In Brunei, racism is so natural it's sickening.
Most people still can't stop using the K-word. Even when they already fucking know what it means.
Shut the fuck up, you motherfucking racist. What gives you the fucking right to feel all superior to another race just because of their dark skin colour? Bruneians are in denial. We still say our skin is 'kuning langsat.' The fact is, this is because Malays are descended partly from the Chinese and the Indians. Malay is not even a fucking race on its own.
You think you're better than them? Fucking prove it.
Even MIB is racist. Melayu Islam Brunei. Race, Religion, Nationalism. Three separating factors that are poisonous to obsessive minds. Why should Brunei be exclusively Malay? We're turning multi-ethnic. Face it. Soon it'll be MICBITCHB. Melayu India China Buddha Islam Thailand Christianity Hindu Brunei. Of course that isn't as complete as I would want it, but you get the point.
They say we have freedom of religion in this country. Well, maybe, as long as that religion is Islam. I mean Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism don't even have a say in Brunei. Not at all. Okay, I may be an atheist, but opressions of ideas is something unbelievably medieval, even for the ideas I don't like.
I like ranting. Especially when I'm right.
Most people still can't stop using the K-word. Even when they already fucking know what it means.
Shut the fuck up, you motherfucking racist. What gives you the fucking right to feel all superior to another race just because of their dark skin colour? Bruneians are in denial. We still say our skin is 'kuning langsat.' The fact is, this is because Malays are descended partly from the Chinese and the Indians. Malay is not even a fucking race on its own.
You think you're better than them? Fucking prove it.
Even MIB is racist. Melayu Islam Brunei. Race, Religion, Nationalism. Three separating factors that are poisonous to obsessive minds. Why should Brunei be exclusively Malay? We're turning multi-ethnic. Face it. Soon it'll be MICBITCHB. Melayu India China Buddha Islam Thailand Christianity Hindu Brunei. Of course that isn't as complete as I would want it, but you get the point.
They say we have freedom of religion in this country. Well, maybe, as long as that religion is Islam. I mean Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism don't even have a say in Brunei. Not at all. Okay, I may be an atheist, but opressions of ideas is something unbelievably medieval, even for the ideas I don't like.
I like ranting. Especially when I'm right.
Monday 1 September 2008
Moral Tissues
I did say I was gonna discuss the issue on morality, if it is interlinked with religion or not.
Well, let me say this.
If you think the only thing keeping you from raping, sodomising and killing the person beside you is religion, then I think you need to see a psychiatrist really soon. If you think the only thing keeping you from stealing a Pajero and running over school kids and the elderly is because you pray five times a day, you're seriously in need of a strap jacket and some pills.
Fuck you if you think just because I don't believe in God, I'm more prone to being a criminal than you are. R. E. L. I. G. I. O. N. It spells a whole lotta trouble.
Religion justifies so many violent acts, it's unbelievable. Wars. Stoning (no, not with a bong, you idiot). Beheading. You do know, don't you, that someone caught stealing in actual Shari'a law, that his hands should be cut off and then dipped in boiling oil? That cheating wives should be stoned to death? That gays should be impaled? Does that sound morally correct to you? Is that your picture of morality? Of deserved punishment?
Or, or. I think this is priceless. For women, one exposed hair (yes, just one) means you're going to hell for thousands of years.
So they say God is merciful.
I'm not sure if this one is true, but I won't be surprised. The Prophet loved cats so much, that when he found this 'alim' guy forgot to feed his cat, he said he was gonna be sent to hell. Wow. I think The Prophet should join PETA. They would get along merrily. Of course explaining that you married a 9-year-old girl would be an awkward situation for anyone, even overzealous animal-rights activists.
Hahaha.
I think 90% of you would've stopped reading by now.
Then a further 9% would be busy writing hate-mail or death-threats to me.
To the 1% who finished reading it with still an open mind, thanks for reading my post, Jason Biggs.
Well, let me say this.
If you think the only thing keeping you from raping, sodomising and killing the person beside you is religion, then I think you need to see a psychiatrist really soon. If you think the only thing keeping you from stealing a Pajero and running over school kids and the elderly is because you pray five times a day, you're seriously in need of a strap jacket and some pills.
Fuck you if you think just because I don't believe in God, I'm more prone to being a criminal than you are. R. E. L. I. G. I. O. N. It spells a whole lotta trouble.
Religion justifies so many violent acts, it's unbelievable. Wars. Stoning (no, not with a bong, you idiot). Beheading. You do know, don't you, that someone caught stealing in actual Shari'a law, that his hands should be cut off and then dipped in boiling oil? That cheating wives should be stoned to death? That gays should be impaled? Does that sound morally correct to you? Is that your picture of morality? Of deserved punishment?
Or, or. I think this is priceless. For women, one exposed hair (yes, just one) means you're going to hell for thousands of years.
So they say God is merciful.
I'm not sure if this one is true, but I won't be surprised. The Prophet loved cats so much, that when he found this 'alim' guy forgot to feed his cat, he said he was gonna be sent to hell. Wow. I think The Prophet should join PETA. They would get along merrily. Of course explaining that you married a 9-year-old girl would be an awkward situation for anyone, even overzealous animal-rights activists.
Hahaha.
I think 90% of you would've stopped reading by now.
Then a further 9% would be busy writing hate-mail or death-threats to me.
To the 1% who finished reading it with still an open mind, thanks for reading my post, Jason Biggs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My guess is you're
- non-muslim to begin with
- a Brunei ethnic minority
- secretly gay
- with ego the size of Australia
interesting combination.
Yeah take a break, go get a facial.